Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5428133 — Tenancy dispute
Decided 25 Mar 2026 · Published 25 Mar 2026 · Application 5428133
Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.
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 parties’ names and identifying details.
- The landlord’s notice to terminate the tenancy is invalid and is of no effect.
- The premises subject to the tenancy agreement are the top house at 200 O Road.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing remotely.
- The tenant has applied to the Tribunal for an order declaring that the termination notice issued by the landlord is invalid and of no effect and that the tenancy is of the premises at 200 O Road. See section 78(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Background
- The parties entered into a tenancy agreement for the premises described as 180 O Road beginning on 5 January 2026. This property is known as the bottom house.
- The landlord also owns a property at 200 O Road which it also rents out. This property is known as the top house.
- The landlord explained that the top house has been used for the accommodation of an employed doctor and their family, while the bottom house has been occupied by staff who have shared that accommodation.
- Upon receiving the termination notice referring to 180 O Road, the tenant advised the landlord that this was incorrect and that she occupied and rented 200 O Road.
- At the hearing the tenant confirmed that she has occupied the top house at 200 O Road throughout the tenancy. She gave evidence that the landlord never communicated with her that she would be occupying the bottom house or would be living with another staff member. She explained that the landlord knew she was occupying the top house because she telephoned the landlord shortly after moving in to obtain instructions about turning on the water at the top house. She confirmed that the bottom house was occupied by another employee.
- The landlord did not argue at the hearing that the tenant was not occupying or renting the top house.
- The landlord gave the tenant notice to terminate the tenancy by email on 19 January 2026 under section 51(2)(c) RTA which provides that a landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving at least 42 days’ notice if the landlord customarily uses the premises for occupation by employees of the landlord or by contractors under contracts for services with the landlord. Most importantly, section 51(2)(c)(i) requires that the fact that premises are customarily used by employees or contractors is “clearly stated in the tenancy agreement”. Discussion and decision
- To determine whether the landlord’s termination is valid, it is first necessary to determine whether the landlord’s notice complies with the requirements of section 51(3) RTA which provides: “(3) Every notice to terminate a tenancy shall— (a) be in writing; and (b) identify the premises to which it relates; and (c) specify the date by which the tenant is to vacate the premises; and (ca) if the landlord gives less than 90 days’ notice, set out the reasons for the termination; and (d) be signed by the party giving the notice, or by that party’s agent.”
- The Tribunal is satisfied that the notice was in writing and specified the date by which the tenant was to vacate.
- It also stated that 42 days’ notice was being given because “The property is required for occupation by an employee of the landlord”.
- The Tribunal accepts the tenant’s evidence that she entered into the tenancy agreement believing it was for the top house, that she has exclusively occupied the top house and that the landlord was aware that she was occupying it and not the bottom house.
- The email was not “signed” by the landlord but it came from its email address, includes a farewell and, from her response to the notice, the tenant understood that it came from the landlord and was intended to be formal notice of termination.
- The termination notice specifies that the property is at 180 O Road. This reference is incorrect.
- Section 51(4) RTA provides: “(4) In a notice to terminate a tenancy, no special form of words shall be required; and no such notice shall be held invalid for any failure to comply strictly with the requirements of subsection (3) so long as the notice is in writing, the intention to terminate the tenancy on a particular date or on the expiry of a particular period is stated clearly in the notice, and that any non- compliance is not such as to mislead or affect unjustly the interests of the recipient.”
- The Tribunal is satisfied that the notice meets the requirements of section 51(3) RTA despite the inclusion of the incorrect street address and the lack of a signature for the following reasons: a. The notice was in writing and the intention to terminate on a specified date was clear. b. The absence of a signature from an electronic communication is not uncommon and did not detract from the clear notice that the landlord wished to terminate the tenancy. c. As the tenant was renting from the landlord just the house she was occupying, she can have been in no doubt and understood which tenancy was being terminated. d. Her interests have not been adversely affected by these errors.
- It remains to consider whether the landlord was able to terminate the tenancy on 42-days’ notice under section 51(3)(b) RTA. As noted, this provision requires the tenancy agreement to clearly state that the premises are customarily used by employees or contractors under service contracts of the landlord. The tenancy agreement contains no such provision.
- The landlord is therefore unable to issue a termination notice under that section. This means that the landlord’s termination notice was invalid and of no effect.
- As discussed at the hearing, while the Tribunal sympathises with the landlord’s predicament, its role is to apply the provisions of the RTA to the present factual situation without regard to the landlord’s reason for urgently wanting to obtain possession of the top house. The tenant has rights under the tenancy and the RTA which it is the Tribunal’s responsibility to maintain. A reduction of the tenant’s entitlement from 90-days to 42-days is a significant change to the terms of her tenancy. It is for this reason that the RTA requires specific wording in the tenancy agreement so that a tenant is on notice that the period of notice for termination is potentially shorter than the standard 90-days under section 51(1) RTA. Name suppression
- At the hearing, both parties consented to name suppression of the other party.
- Given the relationship of the parties and the nature of the property’s locality, this is an appropriate situation for the Tribunal to exercise the discretion in section 95A(4) RTA and order suppression of the parties’ names as there is no public interest in the specific details of the parties or location of the property.