Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5412135 — Tenancy dispute
Decided 3 Mar 2026 · Published 3 Mar 2026 · Application 5412135
Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Adjudicator
B King
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
- The application is dismissed.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. Claim
- The applicant seeks: a. a declaration that he and the respondent are parties to a residential tenancy agreement; and b. an order that the landlord provide a written agreement recording the agreement and its’ terms.
- An injunction was earlier sought to restrain the landlord from taking possession of the premises. That application was declined and the tenant has vacated, although his possessions remain there.
- The applicant has had the prior tenant’s bond transferred and has continued to pay rent. Background
- There is an extensive background to this dispute, involving litigation between the respondent and a prior tenant in the Tribunal, District Court and High Court.
- The parts of that background that are relevant to this claim can be stated quite briefly: a. there was a tenancy agreement in place between the respondent and the prior tenant; b. the applicant had been occupying the premises for some time during that tenancy, with the respondents’ knowledge and consent; c. the litigation referred to, culminated in an Order made by the Tribunal on [date] 2025 1 , that: i. the prior tenancy had ended on 12 May 2025; and ii. the respondent was granted possession of the premises at 6pm on Friday 5 December 2025.
- The effect of that prior tenancy being terminated, was to end any right of occupation the applicant may have had under that tenancy or as sub-tenant 2 .
- The only basis on which the tenant can have a current right of occupation is if a new tenancy was created between he and the respondent, after that prior tenancy ended.
- The applicant says that is exactly what happened. The Law
- The RTA requires that residential tenancy agreements be recorded in witing 3 . There is no written agreement.
- However, if there is an agreement in place, but it is not recorded it writing, it can nevertheless be enforced 4 .
- Because it is his claim, the onus is on the applicant to provide evidence that proves, on the balance of probabilities, that the parties had agreed the terms of a binding tenancy agreement. 1 [Order number redacted] 2 S.57(1) RTA 3 S.13(1) RTA 4 S.13C RTA The Evidence
- The tenant says that for some time before the possession Order was made, he was in discussion with the respondent about himself taking a tenancy of the premises.
- In his submissions the applicant asserts that: “The landlord’s agent advised the applicant that: • the previous tenancy would end on 5 December 2025, • possession would be obtained at 6.00 pm, and • the applicant could remain in the property under a long-term tenancy.
- He says that “He unequivocally accepted that arrangement: • verbally during phone calls on 3 and 5 December 2025, and • in writing via the text message sent at 6.01 pm on 5 December 2025.
- The applicant places significant reliance on the 5 December txt. It is helpful to set it out in full: “As I have heard nothing I confirm as per our conversations previously and in particular today that we have an agreement that I will sign a long term tenancy for [Tenancy address suppressed]. Please advise the accounts to pay rent to and forward a suitable long term agreement at your convenience.”
- The applicant says that other details of the arrangement were agreed in phone discussions between the parties.
- On 8 December 2025 the respondent rang the applicant to ask for his e-mail address which the applicant sent to him by txt.
- On that date the respondent e-mailed to the applicant a tenancy application form in an e-mail saying, “Please find the application link as below”
- The applicant was unable to complete the form and rang the respondent. He says he was told that the form was only required to “populate the tenancy agreement”.
- On 10 December, the respondent e-mailed the applicant “After conversations with my client, the discussions we have had about the possibility of starting a new lease are unable to progress. I note also that no application was ever submitted.”
- The respondent agrees that there was some discussion about the possibility of the applicant taking a tenancy of the premises but things never progressed beyond that. Analysis
- The question is whether the parties’ communications created a binding and enforceable contract.
- In that respect a residential tenancy agreement is no different than any other form of contract.
- The essential elements for formation of a contract are: a. an intention to create a legal and binding relationship; b. offer and acceptance; c. certainty of key terms; d. consideration.
- Here, the documentary record does not prove an intention to create a legal and binding relationship.
- All the evidence shows the respondent to have done is to send the applicant an application form. The tenant relies on his testimony about conversations with the landlord, creating legally binding terms and obligations but the respondent denies any such intent and the objective evidence does not corroborate the applicant’s interpretation of those conversations. I cannot find that disputed testimony conclusive.
- The 5 December txt is evidence of the tenant’s understanding of what had been agreed. The respondent is unable to give an explanation for its failure to respond. [The respondent’s representative] says he has no recollection of receiving it. I am inclined to accept the applicants evidence that [The respondent’s representative] must have, because he phoned the applicant shortly after.
- Nevertheless, failure to respond to the applicant’s assertions about what he believed had been agreed, does not amount to acceptance.
- Even if I there was a common general understanding as alleged in that txt, there is no record of an agreed rent or agreed term for the tenancy, which would be essential elements of any tenancy agreement.
- The applicant says a one year term was discussed and [The respondent’s representative] knew the intention was for the applicant’s grandson to live with him while studying at [University]. He says there was a discussion about rents in the area not having changed so a continued rent of $630.00 per week was agreed/ assumed. Again though, agreement to those key terms is not recorded. Accepting those discussions took place, that still does not prove an intention on the respondent’s part to be legally bound to a residential tenancy on those terms.
- For those reasons, I do not find it proved on balance that the parties had entered into a binding residential tenancy agreement that the respondent should be held to.
- The application must be declined.
- Because there is no tenancy agreement in place, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to make Orders under the RTA about rent/ bond paid or recovery of the tenant’s possessions.
- It follows though that there is no basis for the respondent to retain any bond or rent paid by the tenant and arrangements should be made for the applicant to promptly remove his belongings without obstruction.