What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5465841?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5465841?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5465841?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5465841?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13519707-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5465841?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5465841?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5465841?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5465841?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13519707-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 3, 2 Te Hiko Street, Takapuwahia, Porirua Tenancy Tribunal Case 5465841 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 29 April 2026. The landlord was represented by Soozie Trego and Andrea Reweti-Davis. The tenant was represented by Amber Moriarty and Denise Evans.
The tenancy began on 29 March 2022 and is a periodic tenancy. The landlord has sent the tenant a 90-day termination notice. The notice is dated 8 December 2025 and records that the tenancy will end on 6 March 2026. The tenant remains in occupation of the premises. The landlord claims the tenancy has ended and seeks an order for possession.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

Should a possession order be made in favour of the landlord?

The law

Section 64(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states that, on the application of any person entitled to possession of the premises following the termination of the tenancy, the Tribunal must make an order granting possession of the premises to that person.
A landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving the tenant at least 90 days’ notice. No reason for the termination is required. 1
A 90-day termination notice must be given to or served on the tenant in accordance with section 136(1) and (2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). This section states: 136Service of documents (1)Where any notice or other document is required or authorised by this Act to be given to or served on a landlord or a tenant, it shall be sufficient if it is given or served in any of the following ways: (a)it may be given to or served on the landlord or the tenant personally: (b)it may be sent by post addressed to the landlord or the tenant at the address of the Post Office box given by the landlord or the tenant as an address for service in accordance with this Act: (ba)if the landlord is a company, it may be sent by post addressed to the landlord at the address of the landlord’s registered office: (c)it may be delivered to the premises to which any address for service relates, and either placed in the mailbox or attached to the door in a prominent position: (ca)if the landlord is a company, it may be delivered to the landlord’s registered office, and either placed in the mailbox or attached to the door in a prominent position: (d)it may be transmitted to the electronic address given by the landlord or the tenant as an address for service. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 51(1). (2)Without limiting the provisions of subsection (1), any notice or other document required or authorised by this Act to be given to or served upon any tenant may be served on a tenant: (a)at the premises to which the tenancy agreement relates, if the tenant resides at those premises, as follows: (i)by posting it addressed to the tenant at those premises; or (ii)by delivering it to those premises and either placing it in the mailbox or attaching it to the door of those premises in a prominent position; or (iii)by giving it to any person appearing to have attained the age of 16 years and to be residing at those premises; or (b)at any other place of residence of the tenant, by giving it to any person appearing to have attained the age of 16 years and to be residing at those premises and who confirms that the tenant resides at the premises; or (c)at the premises to which any address for service given by the tenant relates, by giving it to any person appearing to have attained the age of 16 years and to be residing at those premises; or (d)by giving it to the person who ordinarily pays the rent under the tenancy agreement; or (e)by giving it to any solicitor or other agent of the tenant duly authorised by the tenant to receive the same.
Sections 136(6), (7) and (8) RTA record the different dates a notice is deemed to have been given to or served on the tenant, depending upon the method of delivery. Relevantly, under section 136(7), a notice is deemed to have been given to or served on the tenant on the second working day after the date on which it is hand delivered to the tenancy address.
Section 136A RTA relates to the calculation of periods. It states: 136ACalculation of periods Where this Act requires notice to be given of any thing and prescribes a following period within which or on the expiry of which, a this is required or permitted to be done, or a change in the parties’ rights, obligations, interests, or status is to take effect, the period – (a)commences on the first day after the notice is given or deemed to be given under section 136; and (b)ends with the close of the last day of the period. Analysis
The first issue I must determine is whether the 90-day termination notice is valid. If it is, then the tenancy has terminated, and a possession order must be made in favour of the landlord. If it is not, then the tenancy has not terminated, and the Tribunal cannot make a possession order.
The tenancy is a periodic tenancy. Therefore, the landlord is entitled to end the tenancy by giving the tenant 90-days’ notice under section 51(1) RTA. Much of the hearing was spent discussing the reasonableness of the landlord’s decision to end the tenancy. For the benefit of the parties, I note that unless a 90-day termination notice is found to be retaliatory under section 54 RTA, the Tribunal cannot set it aside simply because it considers the landlord’s decision to end the tenancy is unreasonable or a disproportionate response to any alleged behaviour by the tenant. The case is different where a landlord applies to the Tribunal to end a tenancy under section 56 RTA. Under this section, the Tribunal must consider whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy however, no such test applies to a 90-day termination notice that is validly issued and is not retaliatory.
The contents of the 90-day termination notice complies with the requirements in section 51(3) RTA however, the notice is invalid because it does not give the tenant 90-days’ notice.
The tenancy agreement does not record an electronic or physical address for service for the tenant. This means that the landlord must give or serve the 90-day termination notice in accordance with one of the methods described in section 136(2) RTA. The landlord gave evidence that the notice was hand delivered to the tenancy address on 8 December 2025. Pursuant to section 136(7) RTA, the notice is deemed to have been given to or served on the tenant 2 working days later, which is 10 December 2025. Under section 136A RTA, the calculation of 90 days begins one day later, on 11 December 2025 and runs up to an including 10 March 2026. By stating that the tenancy will end on 6 March 2026, the landlord has only given the tenant 86 days’ notice to end the tenancy. For this reason, the I find the termination notice is invalid and the tenancy has not terminated.
The landlord also sent a copy of the 90-day termination notice by email to the tenant’s power of attorney, Amber Moriarty. The email was sent on 4 December 2025 however, this does not cure the defect for the following reasons: a. Ms Moriarty’s email is not recorded as an address for service for the tenant in the tenancy agreement. No evidence was submitted of the tenant or Ms Moriarty providing her email as an address for service for the tenant. The fact that Ms Moriarty may have communicated with the landlord on behalf of the tenant using her email previously is insufficient. The Tribunal has held that the RTA makes a clear distinction between a contact address and an address for service. 2 Where a 90-day termination notice is sent to a contact address and not an address for service, the Tribunal will find the notice to be invalid for want of proper service. b. The contents of the email make it clear that the purpose of the email was not to formally issue or serve the 90-day termination notice, but to provide the tenant’s family with a heads up that a termination notice was going to be issued on 8 December 2025. To this end, the email states: ...[P]lease send this to Amber, Johns EPOA today and advise that we will be delivering it to Johns mailbox on Monday 8 Dec (the letter is dated for 8 Dec). After the letter is delivered Ange the RM will call John to advise him that the notice has been delivered to his mailbox. This timeline will give the whānau time to speak with John prior to the notice being issued. ... c. The termination notice is dated 8 December 2025. The 90-day notice period should begin from at least 9 December 2025 at the earliest. 8 March 2026 is the date that is 90 days from 9 December 2025.
The fact that the tenant has remained in the premises and more than 90 days has now passed since 10 December 2025 does not fix the problem. This is because the Tribunal can only make a possession order if the original 90-day termination notice is valid. The validity of the notice is assessed at the time it was given, not at the time of the hearing. The fact that more than 90 days has now passed does not cure the defect in the original notice. 2 See Handcock v Monarch Realty Limited [2021] NZTT Hamilton 4278989, 4293141.
For all of these reasons, I find the 90-day termination notice to be invalid. This means the tenancy has not ended and the Tribunal cannot make an order for possession of the premises in favour of the landlord.
The application is dismissed. Filing fee & name suppression
The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful with their claim. Therefore, I do not order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.
The landlord applied for name suppression on their written application. Because they have not been wholly or substantially successful with their application, I am not required to grant the landlord’s request however, I have a discretion to do so under 95A(4) RTA. I also have a discretion to grant the tenant name suppression under the same section.
Section 95A(4) requires me to consider the interests of the parties and public. In Lewis v Wilson & Horton [2003] 3 NZLR 546 at paragraph 43, The Court of Appeal endorsed the approach taken in the High Court that: ...the principle of open justice dictates that there should be no restriction on publication of information about a case ‘except in very special circumstances.’
The circumstances of this case are not unusual, special or extraordinary. The application is routine and a very common type of application the Tribunal receives. This decision does not discuss any sensitive or personal details relating to the parties. For these reasons, I find the public interest in publication outweighs any interest either party may have in suppression.
I decline to grant either party name suppression.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 29 April 2026. The landlord was represented by Soozie Trego and Andrea Reweti-Davis. The tenant was represented by Amber Moriarty and Denise Evans.

The tenancy began on 29 March 2022 and is a periodic tenancy. The landlord has sent the tenant a 90-day termination notice. The notice is dated 8 December 2025 and records that the tenancy will end on 6 March 2026. The tenant remains in occupation of the premises. The landlord claims the tenancy has ended and seeks an order for possession.

As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

Should a possession order be made in favour of the landlord?

The law

Section 64(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states that, on the application of any person entitled to possession of the premises following the termination of the tenancy, the Tribunal must make an order granting possession of the premises to that person.

A landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving the tenant at least 90 days’ notice. No reason for the termination is required. 1

A 90-day termination notice must be given to or served on the tenant in accordance with section 136(1) and (2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). This section states: 136Service of documents (1)Where any notice or other document is required or authorised by this Act to be given to or served on a landlord or a tenant, it shall be sufficient if it is given or served in any of the following ways: (a)it may be given to or served on the landlord or the tenant personally: (b)it may be sent by post addressed to the landlord or the tenant at the address of the Post Office box given by the landlord or the tenant as an address for service in accordance with this Act: (ba)if the landlord is a company, it may be sent by post addressed to the landlord at the address of the landlord’s registered office: (c)it may be delivered to the premises to which any address for service relates, and either placed in the mailbox or attached to the door in a prominent position: (ca)if the landlord is a company, it may be delivered to the landlord’s registered office, and either placed in the mailbox or attached to the door in a prominent position: (d)it may be transmitted to the electronic address given by the landlord or the tenant as an address for service. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 51(1). (2)Without limiting the provisions of subsection (1), any notice or other document required or authorised by this Act to be given to or served upon any tenant may be served on a tenant: (a)at the premises to which the tenancy agreement relates, if the tenant resides at those premises, as follows: (i)by posting it addressed to the tenant at those premises; or (ii)by delivering it to those premises and either placing it in the mailbox or attaching it to the door of those premises in a prominent position; or (iii)by giving it to any person appearing to have attained the age of 16 years and to be residing at those premises; or (b)at any other place of residence of the tenant, by giving it to any person appearing to have attained the age of 16 years and to be residing at those premises and who confirms that the tenant resides at the premises; or (c)at the premises to which any address for service given by the tenant relates, by giving it to any person appearing to have attained the age of 16 years and to be residing at those premises; or (d)by giving it to the person who ordinarily pays the rent under the tenancy agreement; or (e)by giving it to any solicitor or other agent of the tenant duly authorised by the tenant to receive the same.

Sections 136(6), (7) and (8) RTA record the different dates a notice is deemed to have been given to or served on the tenant, depending upon the method of delivery. Relevantly, under section 136(7), a notice is deemed to have been given to or served on the tenant on the second working day after the date on which it is hand delivered to the tenancy address.

Section 136A RTA relates to the calculation of periods. It states: 136ACalculation of periods Where this Act requires notice to be given of any thing and prescribes a following period within which or on the expiry of which, a this is required or permitted to be done, or a change in the parties’ rights, obligations, interests, or status is to take effect, the period – (a)commences on the first day after the notice is given or deemed to be given under section 136; and (b)ends with the close of the last day of the period. Analysis

The first issue I must determine is whether the 90-day termination notice is valid. If it is, then the tenancy has terminated, and a possession order must be made in favour of the landlord. If it is not, then the tenancy has not terminated, and the Tribunal cannot make a possession order.

The tenancy is a periodic tenancy. Therefore, the landlord is entitled to end the tenancy by giving the tenant 90-days’ notice under section 51(1) RTA. Much of the hearing was spent discussing the reasonableness of the landlord’s decision to end the tenancy. For the benefit of the parties, I note that unless a 90-day termination notice is found to be retaliatory under section 54 RTA, the Tribunal cannot set it aside simply because it considers the landlord’s decision to end the tenancy is unreasonable or a disproportionate response to any alleged behaviour by the tenant. The case is different where a landlord applies to the Tribunal to end a tenancy under section 56 RTA. Under this section, the Tribunal must consider whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy however, no such test applies to a 90-day termination notice that is validly issued and is not retaliatory.

The contents of the 90-day termination notice complies with the requirements in section 51(3) RTA however, the notice is invalid because it does not give the tenant 90-days’ notice.

The tenancy agreement does not record an electronic or physical address for service for the tenant. This means that the landlord must give or serve the 90-day termination notice in accordance with one of the methods described in section 136(2) RTA. The landlord gave evidence that the notice was hand delivered to the tenancy address on 8 December 2025. Pursuant to section 136(7) RTA, the notice is deemed to have been given to or served on the tenant 2 working days later, which is 10 December 2025. Under section 136A RTA, the calculation of 90 days begins one day later, on 11 December 2025 and runs up to an including 10 March 2026. By stating that the tenancy will end on 6 March 2026, the landlord has only given the tenant 86 days’ notice to end the tenancy. For this reason, the I find the termination notice is invalid and the tenancy has not terminated.

The landlord also sent a copy of the 90-day termination notice by email to the tenant’s power of attorney, Amber Moriarty. The email was sent on 4 December 2025 however, this does not cure the defect for the following reasons: a. Ms Moriarty’s email is not recorded as an address for service for the tenant in the tenancy agreement. No evidence was submitted of the tenant or Ms Moriarty providing her email as an address for service for the tenant. The fact that Ms Moriarty may have communicated with the landlord on behalf of the tenant using her email previously is insufficient. The Tribunal has held that the RTA makes a clear distinction between a contact address and an address for service. 2 Where a 90-day termination notice is sent to a contact address and not an address for service, the Tribunal will find the notice to be invalid for want of proper service. b. The contents of the email make it clear that the purpose of the email was not to formally issue or serve the 90-day termination notice, but to provide the tenant’s family with a heads up that a termination notice was going to be issued on 8 December 2025. To this end, the email states: ...[P]lease send this to Amber, Johns EPOA today and advise that we will be delivering it to Johns mailbox on Monday 8 Dec (the letter is dated for 8 Dec). After the letter is delivered Ange the RM will call John to advise him that the notice has been delivered to his mailbox. This timeline will give the whānau time to speak with John prior to the notice being issued. ... c. The termination notice is dated 8 December 2025. The 90-day notice period should begin from at least 9 December 2025 at the earliest. 8 March 2026 is the date that is 90 days from 9 December 2025.

The fact that the tenant has remained in the premises and more than 90 days has now passed since 10 December 2025 does not fix the problem. This is because the Tribunal can only make a possession order if the original 90-day termination notice is valid. The validity of the notice is assessed at the time it was given, not at the time of the hearing. The fact that more than 90 days has now passed does not cure the defect in the original notice. 2 See Handcock v Monarch Realty Limited [2021] NZTT Hamilton 4278989, 4293141.

For all of these reasons, I find the 90-day termination notice to be invalid. This means the tenancy has not ended and the Tribunal cannot make an order for possession of the premises in favour of the landlord.

The application is dismissed. Filing fee & name suppression

The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful with their claim. Therefore, I do not order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

The landlord applied for name suppression on their written application. Because they have not been wholly or substantially successful with their application, I am not required to grant the landlord’s request however, I have a discretion to do so under 95A(4) RTA. I also have a discretion to grant the tenant name suppression under the same section.

Section 95A(4) requires me to consider the interests of the parties and public. In Lewis v Wilson & Horton [2003] 3 NZLR 546 at paragraph 43, The Court of Appeal endorsed the approach taken in the High Court that: ...the principle of open justice dictates that there should be no restriction on publication of information about a case ‘except in very special circumstances.’

The circumstances of this case are not unusual, special or extraordinary. The application is routine and a very common type of application the Tribunal receives. This decision does not discuss any sensitive or personal details relating to the parties. For these reasons, I find the public interest in publication outweighs any interest either party may have in suppression.

I decline to grant either party name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5465841 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Flat 3, 2 Te Hiko Street, Takapuwahia, Porirua

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5465841 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Flat 3, 2 Te Hiko Street, Takapuwahia, Porirua

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should a possession order be made in favour of the landlord?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Should a possession order be made in favour of the landlord?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions