What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4778253?

The tribunal order states: The application by Auckland City Mission Housing Limited for possession of the

How much money was awarded in case 4778253?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4778253?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4778253?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9904809-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4778253?

The tribunal order states: The application by Auckland City Mission Housing Limited for possession of the

How much money was awarded in case 4778253?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4778253?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4778253?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9904809-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 7, 56 Ferndale Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4778253 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Only representatives of the landlord attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for possession of the premises following purported termination of the tenancy by 90 day notice on grounds that the premises are to be put on the market by the owner within 90 days after the termination date on 7 January 2024 for the purposes of sale or other disposition.

Pursuant to section 51(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’) a landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving at least 90 days’ notice if— a) the premises are to be put on the market by the owner within 90 days after the termination date for the purposes of sale or other disposition.

The landlord’s notice dated 10 October 2023 was served on the same day by hand to the tenant; the notice stipulates 7 January 2024 as the last date of the tenancy.

The landlord concedes that the period between 10 October 2023 to 7 January 2024 is merely 88 days and consequently, 90 days’ notice has not been given to the tenant.

The landlord however says that the actual and intended expiry date of the 90 day notice on 9 January 2024 has now passed, as at the date of today’s hearing.

The issue before me is whether the tenancy has been terminated under section 51(2) RTA. I consider that it has not.

The requirements of section 51(2) is mandatory in that at least 90 days’ notice must be given; the tenant has simply not been given 90 days’ notice in this instance.

There is some leeway provided in section 51(7) which states: Where a party has given a notice to terminate the tenancy and subsequently realises that, because of— a) some error in the way in which the period of the notice or the date of the expiry of that period is expressed in the notice... the period of notice given is less than the minimum prescribed by subsection (1) or (as the case may require) subsection (2) or (2B), that party may, with the agreement of the other party or (failing such agreement) with the consent of the Tribunal, give to the other party a further notice varying the first notice so as to bring the period of notice given up to or above that minimum so required.

The jurisdiction of the Tribunal to give its consent under section 51(7) is couched upon the landlord having issued a further notice varying the first notice.

However, the landlord has never issued any further notice between the date of the issuance of the first notice on 10 October 2023 to date of termination of the notice on 7 January 2024 “so as to bring the period of notice given up to or above that minimum so required”.

That being the case, I am unable to abridge the mandatory requirement of 90 days’ notice stipulated under section 51(2).

In the upshot, the requirements of section 51 and 64(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 have not been satisfied.

Consequently, this application for possession of the premises must fail.

Reasons