What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5407715 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5407715?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5407715?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5407715?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13108204-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5407715 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5407715?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5407715?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5407715?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13108204-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5407715 — Tenancy dispute

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The tenancy of [The tenant] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to Haumaru Housing Limited Partnership, at 5:00pm on Monday 16 March 2026.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearings on 23 December 2025 and 11 February 2026.

Is the 90-day termination notice valid and enforceable?

On 15 September 2025, the landlord issued the tenant with a 90-day notice terminating her tenancy on 15 December 2025, pursuant to section 51(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Section 51(1) of the RTA confirms that a landlord has the legal right to end a periodic tenancy, without having to provide an explanation, by the giving of 90 days written notice. That written notice must contain the following information, as set out in section 51(3) of the RTA: a. Identification of the premise the termination notice relates to; b. Specification of the date by which the tenant is to vacate the premises; and c. The reason for the termination, only if the landlord gives less than 90 days’ notice; and d. Signed by the party giving the notice, or by that party’s agent.
The 15 September 2025 90-day termination notice meets all these requirements and is therefore a valid and enforceable.
While the landlord has taken the extra step of explaining why and how it came to the decision to end the tenancy as a courtesy, it has done so in accordance with its values, which are Kindness, Respect, Responsiveness and Accountability.
The tenant’s son, and her enduring power of attorney, has challenged the lawfulness of the termination and has challenged the reasons for the termination.
The tenant’s son has provided the assessments carried out on the tenant on 30 July 2025 by a psychiatrist, and the further NASC assessment carried out on 24 November 2025 by a registered nurse from the Mental Health Services for Older People. These assessments confirm the tenant has declining cognition due to her diagnosis of dementia and Alzheimer’s and that she has been assessed at requiring dementia level rest home care. These assessment reports also confirm that the tenant has exhibited conduct that proves she is disorientated in time and place, does not fully understand the extent and nature of her cognitive impairments, or to manipulate relevant information to foresee the consequences of making or failing to make certain decisions.
The landlord has concerns about the tenant’s safety and wellbeing and has provided information in evidence that shows how the tenant’s cognitive decline and the risks created by that cognitive decline is negatively impacting the tenant’s neighbours’ quiet enjoyment of their homes. They have raised concerns about this breach of their landlord’s obligations and expressed significant concern about the tenant’s ability to live safely on her own. These are all factors the landlord took into consideration when making the decision to terminate the tenancy.
The tenant’s son has given evidence that the tenant is resistant to moving out of her home. She has been in this home since 3 December 2005 and she does not want to move into dementia level rest home care, despite that having been recommended by her healthcare professionals. The tenant’s son has been supportive of his mother, and he provides daily care and support to her so that she can stay in her own home and preserve her independence. He is very concerned about the foreseeable negative impacts on the tenant of having to move into dementia care against her wishes.
It is open to the landlord to make a decision to terminate a periodic tenancy, such as this one, by the giving of 90 days’ notice, and it is not for the Tribunal to question the landlord’s reasons for doing so, unless there is evidence that suggests the notice was given in retaliation to the tenant exercising or proposing to exercise her right, power, authority, or any remedy conferred on her by the tenancy agreement or the RTA or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy. There has been no such claim in this case and no evidence to suggest the termination notice was retaliatory.
In this case, the landlord is allowed by law to conclude that the tenant is unsafe in her unit and that it can no longer provide her with the level of safety and support, she requires. Even if that decision is wrong, it is still open to it to make that decision based on all the information it has to hand. It is not open to the Tribunal to question that decision, in all the circumstances.
The parties have agreed that the tenancy will end at 5:00pm on Monday 16 March 2026. The landlord has committed to supporting the tenant and her family to make this challenging transition in whatever way they are able. Name suppression
Neither party have applied for non-publication of their names and identifying details.
The Tribunal may use its discretion to order that a party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, where the Tribunal considers that the public interest in publishing the party’s name and identifying details is outweighed by the potential negative impacts on that party.
I am exercising my discretion to order non-publication of the tenant’s name and contact details, as this Order contains her sensitive and private health information, and I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The tenancy of [The tenant] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to Haumaru Housing Limited Partnership, at 5:00pm on Monday 16 March 2026.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearings on 23 December 2025 and 11 February 2026.

Is the 90-day termination notice valid and enforceable?

On 15 September 2025, the landlord issued the tenant with a 90-day notice terminating her tenancy on 15 December 2025, pursuant to section 51(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Section 51(1) of the RTA confirms that a landlord has the legal right to end a periodic tenancy, without having to provide an explanation, by the giving of 90 days written notice. That written notice must contain the following information, as set out in section 51(3) of the RTA: a. Identification of the premise the termination notice relates to; b. Specification of the date by which the tenant is to vacate the premises; and c. The reason for the termination, only if the landlord gives less than 90 days’ notice; and d. Signed by the party giving the notice, or by that party’s agent.
The 15 September 2025 90-day termination notice meets all these requirements and is therefore a valid and enforceable.
While the landlord has taken the extra step of explaining why and how it came to the decision to end the tenancy as a courtesy, it has done so in accordance with its values, which are Kindness, Respect, Responsiveness and Accountability.
The tenant’s son, and her enduring power of attorney, has challenged the lawfulness of the termination and has challenged the reasons for the termination.
The tenant’s son has provided the assessments carried out on the tenant on 30 July 2025 by a psychiatrist, and the further NASC assessment carried out on 24 November 2025 by a registered nurse from the Mental Health Services for Older People. These assessments confirm the tenant has declining cognition due to her diagnosis of dementia and Alzheimer’s and that she has been assessed at requiring dementia level rest home care. These assessment reports also confirm that the tenant has exhibited conduct that proves she is disorientated in time and place, does not fully understand the extent and nature of her cognitive impairments, or to manipulate relevant information to foresee the consequences of making or failing to make certain decisions.
The landlord has concerns about the tenant’s safety and wellbeing and has provided information in evidence that shows how the tenant’s cognitive decline and the risks created by that cognitive decline is negatively impacting the tenant’s neighbours’ quiet enjoyment of their homes. They have raised concerns about this breach of their landlord’s obligations and expressed significant concern about the tenant’s ability to live safely on her own. These are all factors the landlord took into consideration when making the decision to terminate the tenancy.
The tenant’s son has given evidence that the tenant is resistant to moving out of her home. She has been in this home since 3 December 2005 and she does not want to move into dementia level rest home care, despite that having been recommended by her healthcare professionals. The tenant’s son has been supportive of his mother, and he provides daily care and support to her so that she can stay in her own home and preserve her independence. He is very concerned about the foreseeable negative impacts on the tenant of having to move into dementia care against her wishes.
It is open to the landlord to make a decision to terminate a periodic tenancy, such as this one, by the giving of 90 days’ notice, and it is not for the Tribunal to question the landlord’s reasons for doing so, unless there is evidence that suggests the notice was given in retaliation to the tenant exercising or proposing to exercise her right, power, authority, or any remedy conferred on her by the tenancy agreement or the RTA or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy. There has been no such claim in this case and no evidence to suggest the termination notice was retaliatory.
In this case, the landlord is allowed by law to conclude that the tenant is unsafe in her unit and that it can no longer provide her with the level of safety and support, she requires. Even if that decision is wrong, it is still open to it to make that decision based on all the information it has to hand. It is not open to the Tribunal to question that decision, in all the circumstances.
The parties have agreed that the tenancy will end at 5:00pm on Monday 16 March 2026. The landlord has committed to supporting the tenant and her family to make this challenging transition in whatever way they are able. Name suppression
Neither party have applied for non-publication of their names and identifying details.
The Tribunal may use its discretion to order that a party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, where the Tribunal considers that the public interest in publishing the party’s name and identifying details is outweighed by the potential negative impacts on that party.
I am exercising my discretion to order non-publication of the tenant’s name and contact details, as this Order contains her sensitive and private health information, and I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5407715 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5407715 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the 90-day termination notice valid and enforceable?

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Is the 90-day termination notice valid and enforceable?

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions