What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5422368 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 5422368?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent In Lieu Of Written Notice (To 3…: $3,277.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5422368?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5422368?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13199042-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5422368 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 5422368?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent In Lieu Of Written Notice (To 3…: $3,277.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5422368?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5422368?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13199042-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5422368 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5422368 — net $825.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent in lieu of written notice (to 31/01/2026	$3,277.14	Rent in lieu of written notice (to 31/01/2026
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$825.14
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$825.14

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $825.14 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,480.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held remotely.
This is a landlord application.
The application was made on 7 January 2026 and sought termination of the tenancy on the grounds of rent arrears. The landlord later amended the application to termination for abandonment of the tenancy and payment of rent owing.
The parties disagree about whether the tenant gave notice to end the tenancy and therefore disagree as to how much rent the tenant is liable for.

What does the law say?

Section 51 of the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) says that:- a. Every notice to terminate a tenancy must be in writing; b. A landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving the tenant at least 90 days’ notice; c. A tenant may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving at least 21 days’ notice.
Sections 55 and 56 RTA set out when the Tribunal must or may terminate a tenancy when rent is in arrears.
Section 61 says the Tribunal may terminate a tenancy when a tenant has abandoned the premises and rent is in arrears.
Abandonment is not defined in the RTA. The Tribunal considers a tenancy is abandoned where the tenant leaves the premises without reasonable excuse, not intending to return or to meet their obligations, and fails to notify the landlord.
Previous Tribunal and District Court decisions have decided that it is not abandonment if a tenant leaves a property after a landlord has applied to the Tribunal to terminate a tenancy because rent is owing. See Wright v Morton DC Dunedin TT363/96, 19 August 1996.
Judge Everitt (in the Wright case) explained that this is because the landlord has got what it wants which is termination of the tenancy and possession of the premises. The landlord cannot then claim ongoing liability for rent by saying the tenant has abandoned the premises. 1 1 “There is much force in the submission by Mr Horder that the landlords can hardly say now that they did not get what they wanted. Mr Horder submitted that the landlords must be estopped by their actions by denying that they wanted the tenancy terminated and that they cannot have the best of both worlds, ie, vacant premises and the ongoing right to the accrual of rent.” Also see the commentary in Westlaw, Land Law, Residential Tenancies Act 1986, RT61.01, 2026 Thomson Reuters which includes references to Van Lier v Edge Christchurch TT 1785/95, 10 October 1995; McDowell Real Estate Ltd v Haraki Rotorua TT 11/1869/RO, 2 December 2011.

Did the tenant abandon the premises?

The landlord says the tenant left the premises without notifying them.
The tenant disagrees. She says she told the landlord that she was giving 21 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy during a phone conversation on 21 December 2025, and that the landlord accepted this.
The landlord agrees there was a phone call that day but says it was about something else entirely. The landlord says she has been a property manager for many years and would always require a tenant to give written notice.
The next communication was when the tenant texted the landlord on 10 January 2026 and said: Hi there, 566b is now empty all has been cleaned and driveway done as off yesterday the 9/01/2026 all keys and garage door remotes are on the kitchen counter have had the cleaners send me pictures off everything done when suits for a hand over and to sort the bond thanks
The landlord inspected the premises on 16 January 2026. She confirmed in the hearing that the premises were empty, and all keys were returned. The landlord advertised the premises for rent that same day.
My decision is that the tenant did not abandon the premises. My reasons are:- a. The landlord had made an application to the Tribunal to terminate the tenancy and had given the tenant a 90-day notice, so the landlord wanted the tenancy to end; b. In this context, the tenant had a reasonable excuse for leaving the premises and finding somewhere else to live; c. The landlord and tenant have different recollections of their phone call, but I accept the tenant’s oral evidence that her memory is that she told the landlord she was giving notice; d. The tenant’s text on 10 January 2026 was 20 days after the phone call. It supports the tenant’s submission that she thought she had given notice in the previous phone call. The text notifies the landlord she has moved out and is returning possession. She did not simply disappear.
The application to terminate the tenancy on the grounds of abandonment is dismissed.

Has the tenancy terminated?

The landlord’s view at the hearing was that the tenancy had not terminated, and that the Tribunal should make a termination order and award rent up to the date of the hearing.
I have already decided that the tenant did not abandon the premises.
The question is whether the tenancy has already terminated or whether the Tribunal must make an order to do so.
In my view, the tenant’s text to the landlord on 10 January 2026 acted as written notice to terminate the tenancy. It was in writing, and it was clear the tenant intended to return possession to the landlord that day because she says the house is empty and she has left all keys and remotes in the premises.
No special form of words is required in a notice to terminate a tenancy as long as it is in writing, the intention to terminate the tenancy on a particular date or expiry of a particular period is clear, and it does not mislead or unfairly affect the landlord. 2
I am satisfied it was clear from the text that the tenant intended to terminate the tenancy that day.
I find the tenancy terminated by the tenant’s text notice on 10 January 2026. There is no need for me to make an order to do so.
The application for an order to terminate the tenancy is dismissed.

How much rent is the tenant liable to pay?

The tenant’s text on 10 January 2026 was written notice to terminate the tenancy.
A tenant must give at least 21 days’ written notice. The notice period starts the day after the notice is given which is 11 January 2026. The notice period therefore ended on 31 January 2026.
The landlord has provided rent records which prove the amount owing for rent and in lieu of notice to 31 January 2026 is $3,277.14. I award this amount to the landlord. Filing fee, bond, suppression of names
The landlord has succeeded in a claim for rent owing, so I award the filing fee.
The bond is refunded to the landlord to reduce the amount owing by the tenant.
I encourage the parties to discuss repayment of the balance to avoid more delay and collection costs.
Both parties have been partly successful in these proceedings.
The Tribunal must suppress the names of parties where they have been wholly or substantially successful unless publication is in the public interest or otherwise justified because of their conduct; s95A RTA. 2 Section 51(3) RTA.
In my view, both parties intended to act lawfully and responsibly but became confused by the legalities of the situation. I suppress both parties’ names on this occasion as I consider their privacy outweighs any public interest in their identities.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5422368 — net $825.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent in lieu of written notice (to 31/01/2026	$3,277.14	Rent in lieu of written notice (to 31/01/2026
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$825.14
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$825.14

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $825.14 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,480.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held remotely.
This is a landlord application.
The application was made on 7 January 2026 and sought termination of the tenancy on the grounds of rent arrears. The landlord later amended the application to termination for abandonment of the tenancy and payment of rent owing.
The parties disagree about whether the tenant gave notice to end the tenancy and therefore disagree as to how much rent the tenant is liable for.

What does the law say?

Section 51 of the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) says that:- a. Every notice to terminate a tenancy must be in writing; b. A landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving the tenant at least 90 days’ notice; c. A tenant may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving at least 21 days’ notice.
Sections 55 and 56 RTA set out when the Tribunal must or may terminate a tenancy when rent is in arrears.
Section 61 says the Tribunal may terminate a tenancy when a tenant has abandoned the premises and rent is in arrears.
Abandonment is not defined in the RTA. The Tribunal considers a tenancy is abandoned where the tenant leaves the premises without reasonable excuse, not intending to return or to meet their obligations, and fails to notify the landlord.
Previous Tribunal and District Court decisions have decided that it is not abandonment if a tenant leaves a property after a landlord has applied to the Tribunal to terminate a tenancy because rent is owing. See Wright v Morton DC Dunedin TT363/96, 19 August 1996.
Judge Everitt (in the Wright case) explained that this is because the landlord has got what it wants which is termination of the tenancy and possession of the premises. The landlord cannot then claim ongoing liability for rent by saying the tenant has abandoned the premises. 1 1 “There is much force in the submission by Mr Horder that the landlords can hardly say now that they did not get what they wanted. Mr Horder submitted that the landlords must be estopped by their actions by denying that they wanted the tenancy terminated and that they cannot have the best of both worlds, ie, vacant premises and the ongoing right to the accrual of rent.” Also see the commentary in Westlaw, Land Law, Residential Tenancies Act 1986, RT61.01, 2026 Thomson Reuters which includes references to Van Lier v Edge Christchurch TT 1785/95, 10 October 1995; McDowell Real Estate Ltd v Haraki Rotorua TT 11/1869/RO, 2 December 2011.

Did the tenant abandon the premises?

The landlord says the tenant left the premises without notifying them.
The tenant disagrees. She says she told the landlord that she was giving 21 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy during a phone conversation on 21 December 2025, and that the landlord accepted this.
The landlord agrees there was a phone call that day but says it was about something else entirely. The landlord says she has been a property manager for many years and would always require a tenant to give written notice.
The next communication was when the tenant texted the landlord on 10 January 2026 and said: Hi there, 566b is now empty all has been cleaned and driveway done as off yesterday the 9/01/2026 all keys and garage door remotes are on the kitchen counter have had the cleaners send me pictures off everything done when suits for a hand over and to sort the bond thanks
The landlord inspected the premises on 16 January 2026. She confirmed in the hearing that the premises were empty, and all keys were returned. The landlord advertised the premises for rent that same day.
My decision is that the tenant did not abandon the premises. My reasons are:- a. The landlord had made an application to the Tribunal to terminate the tenancy and had given the tenant a 90-day notice, so the landlord wanted the tenancy to end; b. In this context, the tenant had a reasonable excuse for leaving the premises and finding somewhere else to live; c. The landlord and tenant have different recollections of their phone call, but I accept the tenant’s oral evidence that her memory is that she told the landlord she was giving notice; d. The tenant’s text on 10 January 2026 was 20 days after the phone call. It supports the tenant’s submission that she thought she had given notice in the previous phone call. The text notifies the landlord she has moved out and is returning possession. She did not simply disappear.
The application to terminate the tenancy on the grounds of abandonment is dismissed.

Has the tenancy terminated?

The landlord’s view at the hearing was that the tenancy had not terminated, and that the Tribunal should make a termination order and award rent up to the date of the hearing.
I have already decided that the tenant did not abandon the premises.
The question is whether the tenancy has already terminated or whether the Tribunal must make an order to do so.
In my view, the tenant’s text to the landlord on 10 January 2026 acted as written notice to terminate the tenancy. It was in writing, and it was clear the tenant intended to return possession to the landlord that day because she says the house is empty and she has left all keys and remotes in the premises.
No special form of words is required in a notice to terminate a tenancy as long as it is in writing, the intention to terminate the tenancy on a particular date or expiry of a particular period is clear, and it does not mislead or unfairly affect the landlord. 2
I am satisfied it was clear from the text that the tenant intended to terminate the tenancy that day.
I find the tenancy terminated by the tenant’s text notice on 10 January 2026. There is no need for me to make an order to do so.
The application for an order to terminate the tenancy is dismissed.

How much rent is the tenant liable to pay?

The tenant’s text on 10 January 2026 was written notice to terminate the tenancy.
A tenant must give at least 21 days’ written notice. The notice period starts the day after the notice is given which is 11 January 2026. The notice period therefore ended on 31 January 2026.
The landlord has provided rent records which prove the amount owing for rent and in lieu of notice to 31 January 2026 is $3,277.14. I award this amount to the landlord. Filing fee, bond, suppression of names
The landlord has succeeded in a claim for rent owing, so I award the filing fee.
The bond is refunded to the landlord to reduce the amount owing by the tenant.
I encourage the parties to discuss repayment of the balance to avoid more delay and collection costs.
Both parties have been partly successful in these proceedings.
The Tribunal must suppress the names of parties where they have been wholly or substantially successful unless publication is in the public interest or otherwise justified because of their conduct; s95A RTA. 2 Section 51(3) RTA.
In my view, both parties intended to act lawfully and responsibly but became confused by the legalities of the situation. I suppress both parties’ names on this occasion as I consider their privacy outweighs any public interest in their identities.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5422368 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5422368 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What does the law say?

Did the tenant abandon the premises?

Has the tenancy terminated?

How much rent is the tenant liable to pay?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What does the law say?

Did the tenant abandon the premises?

Has the tenancy terminated?

How much rent is the tenant liable to pay?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions