Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5414649 — Tenancy dispute
Decided 9 Mar 2026 · Published 9 Mar 2026 · Application 5414649
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
J Setefano
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
- The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
- Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities is granted possession of the premises at [Tenancy address suppressed] at 12pm on Monday 13 April 2026.
Reasons
- The hearing was held on 29 January 2026. Mr Temu attended as the representative for the landlord. [The tenant/s] attended as the tenant along with her representative and support person.
- This matter concerns an application by Kāinga Ora for a possession order under section 64 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”), following the expiry of a 90-day termination notice issued under section 51(1) of the Act.
- [The tenant/s], who is 76 years old and has resided in the property for approximately 19 years, opposes the application. She seeks either withdrawal of the notice or an extension of her tenancy until a suitable alternative home is found. Background
- [The tenant/s] commenced her tenancy at [Tenancy address suppressed] on 7 November 2006. She has lived there continuously since that time. The property was acquired by Kāinga Ora in 1992.
- In July 2025, Kāinga Ora made the decision to divest the property as part of its wider housing strategy. On 13 August 2025, Kāinga Ora served [The tenant/s] with a 90-day notice to terminate the tenancy. The notice expired on 17 November 2025.
- [The tenant/s] has remained in occupation. Kāinga Ora subsequently filed an application for possession within the statutory timeframe permitted under section 64.
- The statutory 90-day period within which the Tribunal may make a possession order under section 64(2) expires on 15 February 2026. Engagement Between the Parties
- Following service of the notice, Kāinga Ora held meetings with [The tenant/s] on multiple occasions, including with regional placement staff, a Regional Director, and a wellbeing advisor. Packing materials were delivered. Removal services were scoped. Alternative properties were offered and viewings arranged.
- [The tenant/s] declined several options. She explained that apartment living is unsuitable due to her medical conditions and that modifications were required to a Totaravale property which were not approved. She had also engaged with Haumaru Housing but declined a one-bedroom option.
- [The tenant/s] has requested either withdrawal of the notice or an extension until a suitable long-term home can be identified. The Tenant’s Position
- [The tenant/s] describes deep emotional, spiritual, and cultural connections to the property. She has longstanding ties to the [Event location suppressed] community, including proximity to medical services, public transport, her church, shops, and the beach.
- She describes significant deterioration in her mental and physical health since receiving the notice, including panic attacks, nightmares, depression, and heightened anxiety. Medical support has been referenced.
- [The tenant/s] emphasises that at her age this would likely be her final move. She seeks a home that accommodates her medical and mobility needs and provides long-term stability. She says the relocation options offered have not met those needs. The Landlord’s Position
- Kāinga Ora relies on section 51(1) of the Act and says the notice was lawfully issued as part of its divestment programme. It states that it has made sustained efforts to support [The tenant/s] with relocation assistance, including multiple property offers and practical assistance. It maintains that the notice is valid and that possession should now be granted.
- Kāinga Ora acknowledges the tenant’s vulnerability but submits that it has met its statutory obligations and has offered reasonable assistance. Legal Framework
- Section 51(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 permits a landlord to terminate a periodic tenancy by giving at least 90 days’ written notice, provided the notice complies with statutory requirements.
- Section 64(1) provides that a landlord may apply to the Tribunal for a possession order if the tenancy has ended and the tenant has not vacated.
- Section 64(2) requires that a possession order must not be made more than 90 days after the termination date.
- The Tribunal’s jurisdiction in a possession application is limited. The Tribunal must be satisfied that the notice was valid, the tenancy has lawfully terminated, and the application was filed in time.
- The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to review Government housing policy decisions, nor does it have power to compel a landlord to provide a particular alternative property. Analysis Validity of the Notice
- I am satisfied that the 90-day notice dated 13 August 2025 complied with the statutory requirements of section 51(1). The notice period expired on 17 November 2025.
- There is no evidence that the notice was defective in form or service.
- The tenancy therefore lawfully terminated on 17 November 2025.
- The landlord’s application for possession was filed within the 90-day window permitted under section 64(1).
- The Tribunal remains within the jurisdictional timeframe under section 64(2), which expires on 15 February 2026.
- Accordingly, the statutory preconditions for making a possession order are met. Relocation Concerns
- It is clear that [The tenant/s] seeks not merely alternative housing but a home that meets her long-term emotional, medical, and community needs. That aspiration is understandable and legitimate. However, the Act does not guarantee a tenant the right to remain in a particular property indefinitely.
- [The tenant/s] has expressed genuine concerns regarding the relocation options offered to her. She has explained why certain properties were unsuitable, particularly in light of her age, medical conditions, and desire for long-term stability.
- I accept that relocation at this stage of life is profoundly difficult. I also accept that the uncertainty surrounding relocation has had a real impact on her wellbeing.
- However, the Tribunal’s role is defined by statute. The Act does not provide a discretion to decline a possession order on compassionate grounds once a tenancy has lawfully terminated. The Tribunal must apply the law as enacted.
- The Tribunal cannot override a valid termination notice simply because the tenant has compelling personal circumstances. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to interfere in the landlord’s relocation process or direct Kāinga Ora to provide a specific type of property.
- While natural justice requires empathy and fairness, it does not permit the Tribunal to exceed its statutory authority. Possession Granted
- I accept that relocation at this stage of life for [The tenant/s] is distressing and destabilising.
- However, once a tenancy has lawfully terminated, the Tribunal must grant possession. Personal hardship does not invalidate a notice that complies with the Act.
- The landlord’s application for possession under section 64 is granted.
- Balancing the landlord’s right to regain possession with the tenant’s significant hardship, I consider it appropriate to defer the possession date to allow [The tenant/s] a further period before possession takes place. Possession is to take effect at 12pm on Monday 13 April 2026. [The tenant/s] may vacate earlier if alternative accommodation is secured before that date.
- I strongly encourage continued engagement between [The tenant/s], her advocate, Kāinga Ora placement services, and relevant support agencies to ensure that the transition to a new home occurs with as much care and stability as possible. Suppression
- I am satisfied that publication of [The tenant/s] identity, given her age, medical vulnerability, and sensitive personal matters discussed in this decision, would cause undue hardship within the meaning of section 95A of the Act.
- There is no public interest requiring publication of her identity. The tenant’s name and identifying details are therefore suppressed.