What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5562550 about?

The tribunal order states: Wolfbrook Property Management Limited is granted possession of the premises

How much money was awarded in case 5562550?

2. The Tenant Is To Pay The Landlord: $29.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5562550?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5562550?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14115211-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5562550 about?

The tribunal order states: Wolfbrook Property Management Limited is granted possession of the premises

How much money was awarded in case 5562550?

2. The Tenant Is To Pay The Landlord: $29.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5562550?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5562550?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14115211-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 3, 11 Hauiti Road, Otahuhu, Auckland 1062 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5562550 — Rent arrears

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5562550. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
2. The tenant is to pay the landlord	$29.00		2. The tenant is to pay the landlord

Both parties attended the remote hearing. Request for adjournment

Five minutes before the hearing was due to start, the tenant had notified the Tribunal that she wished to file a cross-application and wanted to have the hearing adjourned. I advised that she should attend the hearing so that her request for adjournment could be considered.

The tenant has had over three months since the landlord issued its 90-day termination notice (the notice) to file an application and has not done so. The tenant’s claim appeared to be that the notice was retaliatory. As 28-working days have passed since the notice was received, the Tribunal has no power to declare the notice was of no effect. There is therefore no urgency attached to such an application.

The Tribunal is required to deal with the landlord’s application expeditiously. In the absence of cross-application or any supporting evidence, I determined that the hearing would proceed as scheduled. As advised during the hearing, this does not mean that the tenant is not able to file an application against the landlord now.

During the hearing, the tenant promised to pay the outstanding rent arrears and the landlord withdrew its claim for rent arrears. If the rent arrears are not paid then the landlord can file a further application together with any claims which may arise on the landlord taking possession. Possession application

The landlord has applied for possession of the premises following the termination of the tenancy.

The landlord issued the notice on 4 May 2026 under section 51(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) terminating the tenancy and requiring vacant possession on 9 August 2026.

The notice complies with the formal requirements of section 51(3) RTA: it was in writing, identifies the premises to which it relates, specifies the date by which the tenant was to vacate the premises and was signed off by the landlord’s agent.

The notice was sent to the tenant’s email address given as an electronic address for service in the tenancy agreement. The landlord gave further evidence that: a. The email was delivered at 10.17 am on 4 May 2026. b. A copy of the notice was hand delivered to the premises on 4 May 2026. c. The tenant was telephoned and advised that the notice had been emailed and delivered that day. d. A further copy of the notice was delivered that day to the tenant’s letterbox.

The Tribunal is therefore satisfied that the notice was properly served on the tenant. Discussion and decision

The tenant explained that she was upset to have received the termination notice and did not understand why the landlord had decided to end the tenancy.

Section 51(1) RTA permits a landlord to give a tenant 90-days’ notice of termination without providing any reason. I can sympathise with the tenant’s predicament. However, section 64 RTA provides that the Tribunal shall make an order granting possession of the premises on the application of any person entitled to possession of the premises following the termination of a tenancy, unless the termination was made in contravention of the law. As noted, the termination notice was validly given in accordance with the statutory requirements and there is no evidence that it was given in contravention of the law.

The tenancy ended on 9 August 2026 pursuant to the notice which is less than 90 days ago. The requirements of section 64(1) RTA are satisfied and the Tribunal must make the possession order sought. Filing fee

Because Wolfbrook Property Management Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5562550. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
2. The tenant is to pay the landlord	$29.00		2. The tenant is to pay the landlord

Order

Wolfbrook Property Management Limited is granted possession of the premises at Unit/Flat 3, 11 Hauiti Road, Otahuhu, Auckland 1062 immediately.
The tenant is to pay the landlord $29.00 immediately being reimbursement of the filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing. Request for adjournment
Five minutes before the hearing was due to start, the tenant had notified the Tribunal that she wished to file a cross-application and wanted to have the hearing adjourned. I advised that she should attend the hearing so that her request for adjournment could be considered.
The tenant has had over three months since the landlord issued its 90-day termination notice (the notice) to file an application and has not done so. The tenant’s claim appeared to be that the notice was retaliatory. As 28-working days have passed since the notice was received, the Tribunal has no power to declare the notice was of no effect. There is therefore no urgency attached to such an application.
The Tribunal is required to deal with the landlord’s application expeditiously. In the absence of cross-application or any supporting evidence, I determined that the hearing would proceed as scheduled. As advised during the hearing, this does not mean that the tenant is not able to file an application against the landlord now.
During the hearing, the tenant promised to pay the outstanding rent arrears and the landlord withdrew its claim for rent arrears. If the rent arrears are not paid then the landlord can file a further application together with any claims which may arise on the landlord taking possession. Possession application
The landlord has applied for possession of the premises following the termination of the tenancy.
The landlord issued the notice on 4 May 2026 under section 51(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) terminating the tenancy and requiring vacant possession on 9 August 2026.
The notice complies with the formal requirements of section 51(3) RTA: it was in writing, identifies the premises to which it relates, specifies the date by which the tenant was to vacate the premises and was signed off by the landlord’s agent.
The notice was sent to the tenant’s email address given as an electronic address for service in the tenancy agreement. The landlord gave further evidence that: a. The email was delivered at 10.17 am on 4 May 2026. b. A copy of the notice was hand delivered to the premises on 4 May 2026. c. The tenant was telephoned and advised that the notice had been emailed and delivered that day. d. A further copy of the notice was delivered that day to the tenant’s letterbox.
The Tribunal is therefore satisfied that the notice was properly served on the tenant. Discussion and decision
The tenant explained that she was upset to have received the termination notice and did not understand why the landlord had decided to end the tenancy.
Section 51(1) RTA permits a landlord to give a tenant 90-days’ notice of termination without providing any reason. I can sympathise with the tenant’s predicament. However, section 64 RTA provides that the Tribunal shall make an order granting possession of the premises on the application of any person entitled to possession of the premises following the termination of a tenancy, unless the termination was made in contravention of the law. As noted, the termination notice was validly given in accordance with the statutory requirements and there is no evidence that it was given in contravention of the law.
The tenancy ended on 9 August 2026 pursuant to the notice which is less than 90 days ago. The requirements of section 64(1) RTA are satisfied and the Tribunal must make the possession order sought. Filing fee
Because Wolfbrook Property Management Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5562550 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 3, 11 Hauiti Road, Otahuhu, Auckland 1062

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5562550 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 3, 11 Hauiti Road, Otahuhu, Auckland 1062

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.