What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5140629?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application for a possession order for the above tenancy is

How much money was awarded in case 5140629?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5140629?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5140629?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11502854-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5140629?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application for a possession order for the above tenancy is

How much money was awarded in case 5140629?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5140629?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5140629?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11502854-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

15A Carlton Road, Pukekohe, Pukekohe 2120 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5140629 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The landlord’s application for a possession order for the above tenancy is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. Burden of proof
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. One of these standards is that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. That means the party bringing the claim must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the burden of proof. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging the is burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
If the claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed. The landlord’s claim
The landlord has sought to terminate the tenancy under section 51 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 (the “RTA”) as it was at the time this application was filed.
This section was repealed and updated when the new version of the RTA took effect on 30 January 2025. However, the notices were served under the older version of the legislation, and as this application was filed on 21 January 2025, it must be dealt with under the legislation as it then was.
Under section 51(2)(f) of the RTA, a landlord could terminate a periodic tenancy by giving 90 days’ notice if extensive alterations, refurbishment, repairs, or redevelopment of the premises were to be carried out by the landlord or owner, and it would not be reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation while the work was undertaken, and the work was to begin, or material steps towards it were to be taken, within 90 days after the termination date.
Under section 51(2)(f) of the Act, it is necessary to show that the alterations, refurbishment, repairs, or redevelopment of the premises, whichever is applicable, are “extensive”. This question must be considered in the context of whether it is reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation while the work is undertaken. Works that require the tenant to move out are, by their nature, likely to be extensive.
Taking a “material step” means applying for regulatory consent, seeking engineering or other professional advice, or taking any other significant step.
Each case will have to be determined on its particular facts and in light of the nature, extent, and effect of the intended work.
The landlord issued a 90-day notice under section 51(2)(f) in March 2024 and then a second notice under the same section in October 2024, but the tenant has not yet quit the tenancy.
The landlord is seeking a possession order for the property. The first step in getting a possession order is for the landlord to prove that their notice under section 51 of the RTA is a valid one.
The termination notice served by the landlord largely complies with the requirements of section 51(3) of the Act in as much as it is in writing, identifies the premises to which it relates, specifies the date by which the tenant must vacate, and gives the reasons for the termination. There is no signature on the letter given to the tenant.
The landlord (property manager) also produced a letter from the owner of the property instructing property manager to give the tenant notice to terminate the tenancy because they wish to renovate the premises.
Renovating a premises is not grounds under section 51 of the RTA to terminate a tenancy.
The landlord was unable to provide any information on what extensive alterations, refurbishment, repairs, or redevelopment of the premises are intended, such as would make it impractical for the tenant to remain at the property while they are undertaken. Nor was any information produced regarding any material steps that have been undertaken since the first 90-day notice was issued almost one year ago.
Today the landlord sought an adjournment to provide supporting information. However, today is the scheduled hearing date and an applicant is required to file all supporting documentation within five days of the hearing; this has not been done.
In my mind there is clearly a question as to what the landlord’s intention is, with regard to this property.
I consider the landlord has failed on the balance of probabilities to prove their 90-day notice to terminate is a valid notice. On this basis I decline to make a possession order in the landlord’s favour.
I note that in the hearing, the tenant stated she has found a place to move to and has every intention of moving out of her current address. The tenant stated she was unable to give a date when she would be moving out. Currently she is in the process of packing her belongings. The tenant stated she has recently had a car accident and this has hampered her efforts to move. It is possible this issue may be able to be resolved by both the tenant and the landlord engaging meaningfully with each other and possibly offering assistance.

Order

The landlord’s application for a possession order for the above tenancy is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. Burden of proof
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. One of these standards is that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. That means the party bringing the claim must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the burden of proof. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging the is burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
If the claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed. The landlord’s claim
The landlord has sought to terminate the tenancy under section 51 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 (the “RTA”) as it was at the time this application was filed.
This section was repealed and updated when the new version of the RTA took effect on 30 January 2025. However, the notices were served under the older version of the legislation, and as this application was filed on 21 January 2025, it must be dealt with under the legislation as it then was.
Under section 51(2)(f) of the RTA, a landlord could terminate a periodic tenancy by giving 90 days’ notice if extensive alterations, refurbishment, repairs, or redevelopment of the premises were to be carried out by the landlord or owner, and it would not be reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation while the work was undertaken, and the work was to begin, or material steps towards it were to be taken, within 90 days after the termination date.
Under section 51(2)(f) of the Act, it is necessary to show that the alterations, refurbishment, repairs, or redevelopment of the premises, whichever is applicable, are “extensive”. This question must be considered in the context of whether it is reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation while the work is undertaken. Works that require the tenant to move out are, by their nature, likely to be extensive.
Taking a “material step” means applying for regulatory consent, seeking engineering or other professional advice, or taking any other significant step.
Each case will have to be determined on its particular facts and in light of the nature, extent, and effect of the intended work.
The landlord issued a 90-day notice under section 51(2)(f) in March 2024 and then a second notice under the same section in October 2024, but the tenant has not yet quit the tenancy.
The landlord is seeking a possession order for the property. The first step in getting a possession order is for the landlord to prove that their notice under section 51 of the RTA is a valid one.
The termination notice served by the landlord largely complies with the requirements of section 51(3) of the Act in as much as it is in writing, identifies the premises to which it relates, specifies the date by which the tenant must vacate, and gives the reasons for the termination. There is no signature on the letter given to the tenant.
The landlord (property manager) also produced a letter from the owner of the property instructing property manager to give the tenant notice to terminate the tenancy because they wish to renovate the premises.
Renovating a premises is not grounds under section 51 of the RTA to terminate a tenancy.
The landlord was unable to provide any information on what extensive alterations, refurbishment, repairs, or redevelopment of the premises are intended, such as would make it impractical for the tenant to remain at the property while they are undertaken. Nor was any information produced regarding any material steps that have been undertaken since the first 90-day notice was issued almost one year ago.
Today the landlord sought an adjournment to provide supporting information. However, today is the scheduled hearing date and an applicant is required to file all supporting documentation within five days of the hearing; this has not been done.
In my mind there is clearly a question as to what the landlord’s intention is, with regard to this property.
I consider the landlord has failed on the balance of probabilities to prove their 90-day notice to terminate is a valid notice. On this basis I decline to make a possession order in the landlord’s favour.
I note that in the hearing, the tenant stated she has found a place to move to and has every intention of moving out of her current address. The tenant stated she was unable to give a date when she would be moving out. Currently she is in the process of packing her belongings. The tenant stated she has recently had a car accident and this has hampered her efforts to move. It is possible this issue may be able to be resolved by both the tenant and the landlord engaging meaningfully with each other and possibly offering assistance.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5140629 — Tenancy dispute at 15A Carlton Road, Pukekohe, Pukekohe 2120

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5140629 — Tenancy dispute at 15A Carlton Road, Pukekohe, Pukekohe 2120

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions