What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5401652 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5401652?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5401652?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5401652?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12898704-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5401652 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5401652?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5401652?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5401652?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12898704-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

2128 Awhitu Road, Pollok, RD 4, Pollok 2684 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5401652 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 16 December 2025.
The tenancy began on 18 July 2014. On 21 July 2025, the landlord sent the tenant a 90-day termination notice. The termination date recorded in the notice is 21 October 2025. On 17 October 2025, the landlord sent the tenant a second notice, extending the termination date to 21 November 2025. The tenant remains in possession of the premises. The landlord claims the tenancy has terminated and seeks an order for possession.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

Should a possession order be made in favour of the landlord?

The law

On the application of any person entitled to possession of the premises following the termination of a tenancy, the Tribunal shall make an order granting possession of the premises to that person. 1
A landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy in any case by giving at least 90 days’ notice. 2
Section 136 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) relates to service of documents. Subsection 1 relevantly states that, where any notice of other document is required or authorised by the RTA to be given to or served on a tenant, it shall be sufficient if it is given or served in any of the following ways: a. Personally. b. By post addressed to the tenant at the address or PO Box given by them as an address for service in accordance with the RTA. c. Delivered to the premises to which any address for service relates, and either placed in the mailbox or attached to the door in a prominent position. d. Transmitted to the electronic address given by the tenant as an address for service.
Subsection 2 expands upon this and provides further methods of service however, these are not relevant to this case and therefore, I do not list them below.
Where any document is delivered to the premises to which any address for service relates, it is deemed, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, to have been given or served on the second working day after the date on which it was delivered. 3
Where any documents is transmitted to an electronic address for service, it is deemed to have been given or served on the same day it was sent, unless it was sent after 5:00pm, in which case it is treated as having been given or served on the next working day after the date it was sent. 4
Where the RTA requires notice be given of any thing and prescribes a following period within which, or on the expiry of which, a thing is required or permitted to be done, or a change in the parties’ rights, obligations, interests of status is to 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 64(1). 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 51(1). 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 136(7). 4 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 136(8). take effect, the period commences on the first day after the notice is given or deemed to be given and ends with the close of the last day of the period. 5
Section 51(7) RTA states: Where a party has given a notice terminating the tenancy and subsequently realises that, because of: a. some error in the way in which the notice or the date of the expiry of that period is expressed in the notice; or b. because of some delay in serving the notice; the period of notice given is less than the minimum prescribed by [section 51(1)] or (as the case ay require) [section 51(2) or 2A], that party may, with the agreement of the other party or with consent of the Tribunal, give the other party a further notice varying the first notice so as to bring the period of notice up to or above the minimum so required. Analysis
The landlord is only entitled to possession of the premises if the 90-day termination notice is valid. How the notice was served on the tenant is critical to this issue. If effective service was achieved by emailing the termination notice to the tenant, then the tenant was given 90 days’ notice, and the notice is valid. If effective service was achieved by delivering the termination notice to the tenancy address, then the tenant was only given 87 days’ notice, and the notice is invalid.
The termination notice was sent to the tenant by email on 21 July 2025. The tenancy agreement does not record an email address as an address for service for the tenant. The tenant sometimes uses their email address to communicate with the landlord however, no evidence was submitted of the tenant confirming their email as an address for service to the landlord.
In Handcock v Monarch Realty Limited [2021] NZTT Hamilton 4278989, 4293141, the Tribunal held that the RTA makes a clear distinction between a contact address and an address for service. 6 In Handcock, the landlord sent the tenant a 90-day termination notice to an email address the tenant had used to communicate with the landlord but had never confirmed as their address for service. Because the tenant had not confirmed their email address as an address for service, the Tribunal found the 90-day notice had not been given to or served on the tenant in accordance with the RTA and was therefore invalid.
I find this case to be similar to Handcock v Monarch Realty Limited. Although the tenant has communicated with the landlord via email, they have never confirmed 5 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 136A. 6 Handcock v Monarch Realty Limited [2021] NZTT Hamilton 4278989, 4293141 at [49] – [53]. their email as an address for service. The tenant gave evidence that they became aware of the 90 day termination notice when they received it by courier, not by email. The purpose of service is to bring a notice to the recipient’s attention. The termination notice was not brought to the tenant’s attention by email and the tenant has not confirmed their email as an address for service. For these reasons, I find the termination notice was not validly served on the tenant by email in accordance with the RTA.
The tenancy agreement lists the tenancy address as an address for service for the tenant. I find the termination notice was validly served on the tenant in accordance with the RTA when it was delivered to the tenancy address by courier. The landlord gave evidence this occurred on 24 July 2025. The timeframe between 25 July 2025 and 21 October 2025 is 87 days, not 90. Whilst the termination notice was properly served on the tenant, the landlord did not give the tenant 90 days’ notice.
The landlord claims this issue is cured by the fact that they extended the termination date to 21 November 2025 in their email dated 17 October 2025. I disagree for two reasons. First, the notice sent on 17 October 2025 was also sent by email. The landlord encounters the same issue that the notice is invalid because it was not properly served on the tenant. Secondly, section 51(7) RTA allows a party who has given less than the minimum prescribed notice to terminate a tenancy to, with the agreement of the other party, give a further notice varying the first notice so as to bring the period of notice up to the prescribed amount. This requires the party who has given the notice to first have knowledge of the fact that they have given the incorrect notice period, and to disclose this fact to the other party in order to obtain the other party’s informed consent to issue a second notice. In this case, the landlord had no idea that they had given the tenant the incorrect notice period. This fact was not disclosed to the tenant and the tenant cannot be said to have agreed to allow the landlord to issue a second notice varying the terms of the first notice.
For these reasons, I find the termination notice dated 21 July 2025 is invalid and the landlord is not entitled to possession of the premises.
The landlord’s application is dismissed. Filing fee
The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful with their application. Therefore, I do not order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 16 December 2025.
The tenancy began on 18 July 2014. On 21 July 2025, the landlord sent the tenant a 90-day termination notice. The termination date recorded in the notice is 21 October 2025. On 17 October 2025, the landlord sent the tenant a second notice, extending the termination date to 21 November 2025. The tenant remains in possession of the premises. The landlord claims the tenancy has terminated and seeks an order for possession.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

Should a possession order be made in favour of the landlord?

The law

On the application of any person entitled to possession of the premises following the termination of a tenancy, the Tribunal shall make an order granting possession of the premises to that person. 1
A landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy in any case by giving at least 90 days’ notice. 2
Section 136 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) relates to service of documents. Subsection 1 relevantly states that, where any notice of other document is required or authorised by the RTA to be given to or served on a tenant, it shall be sufficient if it is given or served in any of the following ways: a. Personally. b. By post addressed to the tenant at the address or PO Box given by them as an address for service in accordance with the RTA. c. Delivered to the premises to which any address for service relates, and either placed in the mailbox or attached to the door in a prominent position. d. Transmitted to the electronic address given by the tenant as an address for service.
Subsection 2 expands upon this and provides further methods of service however, these are not relevant to this case and therefore, I do not list them below.
Where any document is delivered to the premises to which any address for service relates, it is deemed, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, to have been given or served on the second working day after the date on which it was delivered. 3
Where any documents is transmitted to an electronic address for service, it is deemed to have been given or served on the same day it was sent, unless it was sent after 5:00pm, in which case it is treated as having been given or served on the next working day after the date it was sent. 4
Where the RTA requires notice be given of any thing and prescribes a following period within which, or on the expiry of which, a thing is required or permitted to be done, or a change in the parties’ rights, obligations, interests of status is to 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 64(1). 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 51(1). 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 136(7). 4 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 136(8). take effect, the period commences on the first day after the notice is given or deemed to be given and ends with the close of the last day of the period. 5
Section 51(7) RTA states: Where a party has given a notice terminating the tenancy and subsequently realises that, because of: a. some error in the way in which the notice or the date of the expiry of that period is expressed in the notice; or b. because of some delay in serving the notice; the period of notice given is less than the minimum prescribed by [section 51(1)] or (as the case ay require) [section 51(2) or 2A], that party may, with the agreement of the other party or with consent of the Tribunal, give the other party a further notice varying the first notice so as to bring the period of notice up to or above the minimum so required. Analysis
The landlord is only entitled to possession of the premises if the 90-day termination notice is valid. How the notice was served on the tenant is critical to this issue. If effective service was achieved by emailing the termination notice to the tenant, then the tenant was given 90 days’ notice, and the notice is valid. If effective service was achieved by delivering the termination notice to the tenancy address, then the tenant was only given 87 days’ notice, and the notice is invalid.
The termination notice was sent to the tenant by email on 21 July 2025. The tenancy agreement does not record an email address as an address for service for the tenant. The tenant sometimes uses their email address to communicate with the landlord however, no evidence was submitted of the tenant confirming their email as an address for service to the landlord.
In Handcock v Monarch Realty Limited [2021] NZTT Hamilton 4278989, 4293141, the Tribunal held that the RTA makes a clear distinction between a contact address and an address for service. 6 In Handcock, the landlord sent the tenant a 90-day termination notice to an email address the tenant had used to communicate with the landlord but had never confirmed as their address for service. Because the tenant had not confirmed their email address as an address for service, the Tribunal found the 90-day notice had not been given to or served on the tenant in accordance with the RTA and was therefore invalid.
I find this case to be similar to Handcock v Monarch Realty Limited. Although the tenant has communicated with the landlord via email, they have never confirmed 5 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 136A. 6 Handcock v Monarch Realty Limited [2021] NZTT Hamilton 4278989, 4293141 at [49] – [53]. their email as an address for service. The tenant gave evidence that they became aware of the 90 day termination notice when they received it by courier, not by email. The purpose of service is to bring a notice to the recipient’s attention. The termination notice was not brought to the tenant’s attention by email and the tenant has not confirmed their email as an address for service. For these reasons, I find the termination notice was not validly served on the tenant by email in accordance with the RTA.
The tenancy agreement lists the tenancy address as an address for service for the tenant. I find the termination notice was validly served on the tenant in accordance with the RTA when it was delivered to the tenancy address by courier. The landlord gave evidence this occurred on 24 July 2025. The timeframe between 25 July 2025 and 21 October 2025 is 87 days, not 90. Whilst the termination notice was properly served on the tenant, the landlord did not give the tenant 90 days’ notice.
The landlord claims this issue is cured by the fact that they extended the termination date to 21 November 2025 in their email dated 17 October 2025. I disagree for two reasons. First, the notice sent on 17 October 2025 was also sent by email. The landlord encounters the same issue that the notice is invalid because it was not properly served on the tenant. Secondly, section 51(7) RTA allows a party who has given less than the minimum prescribed notice to terminate a tenancy to, with the agreement of the other party, give a further notice varying the first notice so as to bring the period of notice up to the prescribed amount. This requires the party who has given the notice to first have knowledge of the fact that they have given the incorrect notice period, and to disclose this fact to the other party in order to obtain the other party’s informed consent to issue a second notice. In this case, the landlord had no idea that they had given the tenant the incorrect notice period. This fact was not disclosed to the tenant and the tenant cannot be said to have agreed to allow the landlord to issue a second notice varying the terms of the first notice.
For these reasons, I find the termination notice dated 21 July 2025 is invalid and the landlord is not entitled to possession of the premises.
The landlord’s application is dismissed. Filing fee
The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful with their application. Therefore, I do not order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5401652 — Tenancy dispute at 2128 Awhitu Road, Pollok, RD 4, Pollok 2684

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5401652 — Tenancy dispute at 2128 Awhitu Road, Pollok, RD 4, Pollok 2684

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should a possession order be made in favour of the landlord?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Should a possession order be made in favour of the landlord?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions