What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5184973?

The tribunal order states: Twin Rivers Real Estate Limited is granted possession of the premises at 16

How much money was awarded in case 5184973?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5184973?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5184973?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11588757-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5184973?

The tribunal order states: Twin Rivers Real Estate Limited is granted possession of the premises at 16

How much money was awarded in case 5184973?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5184973?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5184973?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11588757-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

16 Brownlie Crescent, Huntly, Huntly 3700 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5184973 — Exemplary damages

Order

Twin Rivers Real Estate Limited is granted possession of the premises at 16 Brownlie Crescent, Huntly, Huntly 3700 immediately.
Anthony Kaiser Yandall must pay Twin Rivers Real Estate Limited $27.00 immediately, being reimbursement of the filing fee.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by telephone. Ms Finlay appeared for the landlord. Unsuccessful attempts were made to call the tenant on the number provided in the application. The notice advising of the date, time, and mode of hearing was sent to the parties on 10 March 2025. The matter has proceeded in the tenant’s absence.
The landlord has applied for possession of the premises following the termination of the tenancy, and exemplary damages for the tenant failing to leave the property at the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy commenced on 10 October 2015, and is periodic. On or about 02 August 2023 there was a change of landlord. On 29 November 2024, the landlord served the tenant with a 90 day notice to terminate the tenancy. The notice was issued on the grounds that the landlord intended to undertake extensive alterations or refurbishment during which it would not be practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation. The notice was served by email at 1.08 pm on 29 November 2024. However, the tenancy agreement records the tenant’s address for service as a physical address in Pukekohe, and not the email address used by the landlord.
The notice is valid for form in that it complies with section 51 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”). The issue is whether the notice has been validly served.
Following the change of landlord the new landlord sent an email to the address provided to which the tenant replied. Ms Finlay also states that the tenant was sent change of bank account details, again by email, and that the tenant had changed the automatic payment, suggesting that they had received the email.
Ms Finlay stated that she had taken over as property manager in January 2025. Ms Finlay stated it was common practice to send emails to tenants, and then, if the notice were important, such as this one, it would then be hand delivered to the physical address. Ms Finlay assumes that the property manager at the material time adopted this practice.
Ms Finlay states that on 16 January 2025 she emailed the tenant with a notice advising of an inspection on 22 January 2025. The email has been produced. Ms Finlay states that after sending the email the tenant called the landlord and requested that the inspection be rescheduled, due to illness, which Ms Finlay agreed. Shortly before the rescheduled inspection was about to take place the tenant again sought a deferment, again for illness. The inspection, which would have been the final one for the tenancy, was not completed. Ms Finlay states that during their conversations on both occasions it was clear that the tenant had received the termination notice. Law – service
Section 136 of the Act provides for the service of notices under the Act. Subsection 136(1)(d) provides that notices may be transmitted to an email address given by the landlord or tenant as an address for service.
Section 136(9) states that a notice sent by email after 5pm is deemed to have been served the next working day. Since the notice in this case was served at
08 pm, it is deemed served on 29 November 2024.
Section 136(2) of the Act provides that a notice may be delivered to the property, placed in the mailbox, or in a prominent position. Notices hand delivered to the property are deemed served two working days after they are delivered. If the landlord were to rely solely on hand delivery in this case, the notice would be invalid, as the 90 days would have expired on 03 March 2025, rather than 01 March 2025. Decision
Although the email address is not listed in the tenancy agreement as an address for service , after hearing from Ms Finlay and considering the documentary evidence provided, I am satisfied that the email address has been used for the service of documents, and that the notice terminating the tenancy has been served on and acknowledged by the tenant.
Section 64(1) of the Act states that, subject to subsection (2), on the application of any person entitled to possession following termination of a tenancy, the Tribunal shall make an order granting possession of the premises to that person. Subsection (2) states that no order may be made more than 90 days after termination.
The tenancy ended on 01 March 2025, which is less than 90 days ago. The requirements of section 64(1) are satisfied. The landlord is granted possession immediately. Failing to vacate the property at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord claims the tenant did not vacate the premises on 01 March 2025, the date the tenancy ended.
On Friday 28 February 2025, Ms Finlay visited the property to discuss arrangements for the end of the tenancy. She states that no one was home at the time, but the property appeared to be still occupied by the tenant. Ms Finlay states that she left a calling card, a bond refund form, and a final inspection notice attached to the door.
Ms Finlay states that she returned to the property on Monday 03 March 2025, and that the documents had been removed. The tenant was not home, but the property appeared to still be occupied.
Ms Finlay visited the property again on 05 March 2025. The tenant was present, but the property appeared to still be occupied. Ms Finlay states that another property manager visited last week and has reported that the property still appeared to be occupied. Decision
The onus is on the landlord to establish more likely than not that the tenant failed to vacate on 01 March 2025. The tenant was not present on any of the four occasions Ms Finlay, or her colleague visited the property. The presence of personal belongings does not necessarily indicate that the tenant remains in possession. They may have decided to abandon these items. Neither Ms Finlay nor the other property manager took any photographs of the property when they visited. Without objective evidence, the Tribunal is unable to determine whether the tenant in fact has remained in occupation after 01 March 2025. Based on the evidence produced there is insufficient to be satisfied to the required standard that they have failed to vacate, and the claim is dismissed. Costs
Because Twin Rivers Real Estate Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression.
Although entitled to name suppression, the landlord does not seek it, and no orders are made.

Order

Twin Rivers Real Estate Limited is granted possession of the premises at 16 Brownlie Crescent, Huntly, Huntly 3700 immediately.
Anthony Kaiser Yandall must pay Twin Rivers Real Estate Limited $27.00 immediately, being reimbursement of the filing fee.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by telephone. Ms Finlay appeared for the landlord. Unsuccessful attempts were made to call the tenant on the number provided in the application. The notice advising of the date, time, and mode of hearing was sent to the parties on 10 March 2025. The matter has proceeded in the tenant’s absence.
The landlord has applied for possession of the premises following the termination of the tenancy, and exemplary damages for the tenant failing to leave the property at the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy commenced on 10 October 2015, and is periodic. On or about 02 August 2023 there was a change of landlord. On 29 November 2024, the landlord served the tenant with a 90 day notice to terminate the tenancy. The notice was issued on the grounds that the landlord intended to undertake extensive alterations or refurbishment during which it would not be practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation. The notice was served by email at 1.08 pm on 29 November 2024. However, the tenancy agreement records the tenant’s address for service as a physical address in Pukekohe, and not the email address used by the landlord.
The notice is valid for form in that it complies with section 51 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”). The issue is whether the notice has been validly served.
Following the change of landlord the new landlord sent an email to the address provided to which the tenant replied. Ms Finlay also states that the tenant was sent change of bank account details, again by email, and that the tenant had changed the automatic payment, suggesting that they had received the email.
Ms Finlay stated that she had taken over as property manager in January 2025. Ms Finlay stated it was common practice to send emails to tenants, and then, if the notice were important, such as this one, it would then be hand delivered to the physical address. Ms Finlay assumes that the property manager at the material time adopted this practice.
Ms Finlay states that on 16 January 2025 she emailed the tenant with a notice advising of an inspection on 22 January 2025. The email has been produced. Ms Finlay states that after sending the email the tenant called the landlord and requested that the inspection be rescheduled, due to illness, which Ms Finlay agreed. Shortly before the rescheduled inspection was about to take place the tenant again sought a deferment, again for illness. The inspection, which would have been the final one for the tenancy, was not completed. Ms Finlay states that during their conversations on both occasions it was clear that the tenant had received the termination notice. Law – service
Section 136 of the Act provides for the service of notices under the Act. Subsection 136(1)(d) provides that notices may be transmitted to an email address given by the landlord or tenant as an address for service.
Section 136(9) states that a notice sent by email after 5pm is deemed to have been served the next working day. Since the notice in this case was served at
08 pm, it is deemed served on 29 November 2024.
Section 136(2) of the Act provides that a notice may be delivered to the property, placed in the mailbox, or in a prominent position. Notices hand delivered to the property are deemed served two working days after they are delivered. If the landlord were to rely solely on hand delivery in this case, the notice would be invalid, as the 90 days would have expired on 03 March 2025, rather than 01 March 2025. Decision
Although the email address is not listed in the tenancy agreement as an address for service , after hearing from Ms Finlay and considering the documentary evidence provided, I am satisfied that the email address has been used for the service of documents, and that the notice terminating the tenancy has been served on and acknowledged by the tenant.
Section 64(1) of the Act states that, subject to subsection (2), on the application of any person entitled to possession following termination of a tenancy, the Tribunal shall make an order granting possession of the premises to that person. Subsection (2) states that no order may be made more than 90 days after termination.
The tenancy ended on 01 March 2025, which is less than 90 days ago. The requirements of section 64(1) are satisfied. The landlord is granted possession immediately. Failing to vacate the property at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord claims the tenant did not vacate the premises on 01 March 2025, the date the tenancy ended.
On Friday 28 February 2025, Ms Finlay visited the property to discuss arrangements for the end of the tenancy. She states that no one was home at the time, but the property appeared to be still occupied by the tenant. Ms Finlay states that she left a calling card, a bond refund form, and a final inspection notice attached to the door.
Ms Finlay states that she returned to the property on Monday 03 March 2025, and that the documents had been removed. The tenant was not home, but the property appeared to still be occupied.
Ms Finlay visited the property again on 05 March 2025. The tenant was present, but the property appeared to still be occupied. Ms Finlay states that another property manager visited last week and has reported that the property still appeared to be occupied. Decision
The onus is on the landlord to establish more likely than not that the tenant failed to vacate on 01 March 2025. The tenant was not present on any of the four occasions Ms Finlay, or her colleague visited the property. The presence of personal belongings does not necessarily indicate that the tenant remains in possession. They may have decided to abandon these items. Neither Ms Finlay nor the other property manager took any photographs of the property when they visited. Without objective evidence, the Tribunal is unable to determine whether the tenant in fact has remained in occupation after 01 March 2025. Based on the evidence produced there is insufficient to be satisfied to the required standard that they have failed to vacate, and the claim is dismissed. Costs
Because Twin Rivers Real Estate Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression.
Although entitled to name suppression, the landlord does not seek it, and no orders are made.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5184973 — Exemplary damages at 16 Brownlie Crescent, Huntly, Huntly 3700

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5184973 — Exemplary damages at 16 Brownlie Crescent, Huntly, Huntly 3700

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions