What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5238791?

The tribunal order states: Angie Godfrey must pay Felicity Karol Stella Maera-Wallace, Bruce Stewart and

How much money was awarded in case 5238791?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5238791?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5238791?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11869972-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5238791?

The tribunal order states: Angie Godfrey must pay Felicity Karol Stella Maera-Wallace, Bruce Stewart and

How much money was awarded in case 5238791?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5238791?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5238791?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11869972-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

136 Holborn Drive, Stokes Valley, Lower Hutt 5019 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5238791 — Rent arrears

Order

Angie Godfrey must pay Felicity Karol Stella Maera-Wallace, Bruce Stewart and Alexandra Margaret Stewart $3,500.00 immediately, being rent arrears as of 20 May 2025.
The application for a possession order is dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlords, seeking a possession order, and an order for rent arrears.
Only the landlord appeared at the hearing. The landlord states that he understands from speaking to a family member, is that the tenant does know of this application. I have no reason to consider that the tenant has not been properly notified of the hearing, and therefore I will proceed to consider the application in her absence.

BACKGROUND

The parties entered into a fixed-term tenancy, commencing on 11 December 2024, ending on 31 March 2025. There were three joint landlords, Felicity Maera-Wallace, Alexandra Carr and Bruce Stewart. The sole tenant was Angie Godfrey.
The landlords advise that it was always their intention that the tenancy be a short-term tenancy, as they intended to have the dwelling relocated in April 2025.
The landlords state that a termination notice was issued to the tenant on 3 April 2025, by placing the notice in the tenant’s letter box. The landlord does not have a copy of that notice.
I note an email from the landlord to the tenant three days later, dated 6 April 2025, under the heading of “Termination of tenancy today 5pm, of 136 Holborn Drive” which states: Bruce and I will be at 136 Holborn Drive at 5pm today as agreed, your tenancy is finished. We expect to take vacant possession, it, it must be empty and clean. If it isn’t eviction will start. You were served written notice on Thursday 3 April from us, as per procedures for ending a fixed term tenancy so we expect you to hand over the keys and leave. It was placed in your letterbox, per Tenancy Services procedures.
Then on 12 April 2025, the landlord (Felicity) again wrote to the tenant stating “you are now 2 weeks over your exit date, as of yesterday”.
I note an email from 15 April 2025 which further discusses steps the landlord would be taking in order to relocate the house, which included disconnection of services on 1 May 2025, with a contract date to remove the house on 26 May 2025.
The landlord states that the tenant ceased paying rent in mid-April 2025, and that the rent arrears as of the day of the hearing (20 May 2025) total $3,500.00. A rent ledger has been provided showing that.

APPLICANTS CASE

The landlord seeks a possession order on the basis that the tenant has failed to comply with the termination notice issued on 3 April 2025. The landlord’s position is that a termination notice was issued to the tenant on 3 April 2025. That was issued by Felicity Maera-Wallace, by placing the notice in the tenancy letterbox. Unfortunately a copy of that notice has not been kept by the landlord.
The landlord’s position is that the notice gave 42 days notice to the tenant, therefore ending the tenancy on 15 May 2025.
The landlord also seeks an order for the payment of the identified rent arrears.
The landlord states that the tenant has not engaged around why she remains in the tenancy, and that communication has ended in April.

RESPONDENTS CASE

There was no appearance by the tenant at the hearing, further no written submissions for the tenant have been filed. I do not know what the tenant’s position is in this matter.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this 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.

ANALYSIS

There are two claims the Tribunal must consider Claim 1 – Possession order
The landlord seeks a possession order on the basis that the tenant has failed to comply with a notice issued on 3 April terminating the tenancy with 42 days notice. Again it is the landlord who must prove to the Tribunal that a possession order should be granted.
There is considerable evidence on file supporting that the landlord is in the process of having the house relocated. That includes evidence from the Lower Hutt City Council and the company that would do that work.
However, I find that the possession order cannot be granted for two reasons.
Firstly I consider it likely the notice is defective. The RTA has strict provisions around terminating tenancies on notice, and those provisions are found in section 51. Section 51 was significantly amended in January 2025, so at the time the claimed termination notice was issued, was as follows: 51Termination by notice (1)A landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy in any case by giving at least 90 days’ notice. (2)A landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving at least 42 days’ notice if— (a)the owner of the premises requires the premises, within 90 days after the termination date, as the principal place of residence for at least 90 days for the owner or a member of the owner’s family; or (b)the owner is required, under an unconditional agreement for the sale of the premises, to give the purchaser vacant possession; or (c)the landlord customarily uses the premises, or has acquired the premises, for occupation by employees of the landlord or by contractors under contracts for services with the landlord, and— (i)that fact is clearly stated in the tenancy agreement; and (ii)the premises are required for that use; or (d)the landlord customarily uses the premises, or has acquired the premises, for occupation by employees of a school board or by contractors under contracts for services with a school board, and— (i)that fact is clearly stated in the tenancy agreement; and (ii)the premises are required for that use; and (iii)the landlord is the Crown.
There is no provision in section 51(2) which allows a landlord to give 42 days notice to end the tenancy on the grounds of significant work or demolition of the premises, the landlord needed to give 90 days notice for that. Therefore if the landlord gave 42 days notice, then that was too short.
The second issue that arises, is that even if I were wrong in my above assessment, I am not sure that the landlord did give 42 days notice. In that regard, I have set out the emails from the landlord (who gave the notice) from 6 and 12 April which is not at all consistent with notice ending the tenancy in May, but they read as if the landlord believed the notice had taken effect already. There is also the email from 15 April which talks about disconnecting services on 1 May, and that would not make sense if the tenancy would not be ending until 15 May.
For those reasons I cannot find that the landlord has given a valid notice terminating the tenancy, the possession order cannot be granted. Claim 2 – Rent arrears
The landlord has claimed rent arrears. The landlord has provided a rent ledger, showing the arrears as of 20 May 2025 total $3,500.00. I find the rent claim has been established and is ordered in full.

Where to now for the landlord?

At the hearing the landlord raised the fact of the rent being some 5 weeks behind. The Tribunal can order termination of the tenancy when the rent is more than 21 days in arrears, as is the case here. However the landlord has not applied for a termination on the basis of rent arrears, and as I said to the landlord today, I could not consider the claim on that basis. If the landlord wishes to pursue an application for a termination because of rent arrears, they can file a new application with the Tribunal on that basis.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The landlord has applied for name suppression, the tenant has not.
The Tribunal can order name suppression if a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding, but as that would not apply here, name suppression cannot be ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5238791 — Rent arrears at 136 Holborn Drive, Stokes Valley, Lower Hutt 5019

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5238791 — Rent arrears at 136 Holborn Drive, Stokes Valley, Lower Hutt 5019

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

APPLICANTS CASE

RESPONDENTS CASE

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

Where to now for the landlord?

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

APPLICANTS CASE

RESPONDENTS CASE

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

Where to now for the landlord?

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions