What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5484709?

The tribunal order states: Land Information New Zealand C/O Colliers New Zealand Limited is granted

How much money was awarded in case 5484709?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5484709?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5484709?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13469699-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5484709?

The tribunal order states: Land Information New Zealand C/O Colliers New Zealand Limited is granted

How much money was awarded in case 5484709?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5484709?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5484709?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13469699-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

2128 Awhitu Road, Pollok, RD 4, Pollok 2684 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5484709 — Tenancy dispute

Order

Land Information New Zealand C/O Colliers New Zealand Limited is granted possession of the premises at 2128 Awhitu Road, Pollok, RD 4, Pollok 2684 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord’s representative appeared by video and Ms Heremaia by phone. Ms Heremaia was assisted by her daughter Te Ariki.
The landlord has applied for possession of the premises following the termination of the tenancy.
The tenancy began on 18 July 2014. As I understand it, the tenancy is on land which may be the subject of a Waitangi settlement discussions. However, for the purpose of this application I note that the tenancy is on land held legally as an estate in fee simple, and that while the landlord is the agent of Government entity, that does not change the legal status of the residential tenancy.
On 21 July 2025, the landlord issued a 90 day notice to terminate the tenancy, and an application (5401652) in which the landlord sought possession. This earlier application was heard by Adjudicator Ryken on 19 December 2025. She found that defects in service meant that the notice was ineffective, and the application was dismissed. Notice had been served via email and then, later, by courier. It was found that the email service did not meet the requirements of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and the courier delivery gave less than 90 days’ notice to the tenant.
On 19 December 2025, the landlord issued another 90-day notice. This was served by post and courier to both the tenancy address, and to an alternative nearby address which was nominated on the tenancy agreement. The notice specified that the tenancy would end on 5 April 2026.
On 7 April 2026, the landlord’s agent attended the site and noted that it was still occupied. The tenancy is that she was, and is, still an occupation, however she has been recently hospitalised with a significant medical event. Issues
To resolve this matter, I must consider: a. Does the tenant have a right, outside of the tenancy agreement, to continue in her occupation of the tenancy? b. Was the notice correctly served? c. Was the notice effective?

A right to continued occupation?

The tenancy is that she has a continuing right to occupy for two reasons: a. the length of time she has been in occupation at the tenancy; and b. that the land on which the tenancy is located is Maori land, under the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993, and so is not within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.
Considering the first of these, this is in effect a claim that the tenant has adverse possession of the land. Adverse position arises when a person occupies land for at least 20 years in a manner which is against the interests of the rightful owner. When this occurs the person may apply for title to the registrar of lands under S155 (1) of the Land Transfer Act 2017. Ms Heremaia made a reference to a 12 year period. However, this is the limitations time limit under the Limitation Act 2010, for the recovery of land held in adverse possession. A problem for this claim is that adverse possession does not occur when the possessor does so under a licence from the registered owner. In this instance the tenancy agreement is a licence to occupy, before adverse position does not arise.
Ms Heremaia said that the tenancy was on Maori land. However, to qualify the land in question must fall within one of the definitions set S129 (2) of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993, this would require the land to either be customary land held in accordance with Tikanga, or to have been accorded Maori Freehold status by the Maori Land Court. There is no evidence that the land is customary land, which would require continuous occupation by Hapu since 1840. Ms Heremaia advised that there has been no Maori Land Court orders relating the land. I acknowledge that the land may well be part of a future Waitangi Settlement, but that does not change the status of the Tenancy in the present. Service
S 136 RTA says: (1) Where any notice or other document is required or authorised by this Act to be given to or served on a landlord or a tenant, it shall be sufficient if it is given or served in any of the following ways: (a) it may be given to or served on the landlord or the tenant personally: (b) it may be sent by post addressed to the landlord or the tenant at the address or the Post Office box given by the landlord or the tenant as an address for service in accordance with this Act: (c) it may be delivered to the premises to which any address for service relates, and either placed in the mailbox or attached to the door in a prominent position:
The notice of termination was hosted and couriered both to the tenancy address. The courier records indicate that it was received at the service address on 23 December 2025, and at the tenancy address on 29 December 2025. The latest that 90 days ran to was 29 March 2026. The notice specifies 5 April 2026 as being the finish date of the tenancy.
I find that the notice was validly served. Was the notice effective
S 51(1) RTA says: “[a] landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy in any case by giving at least 90 days’ notice.”
Having found that the notice was correctly served, I observed that the tenancy ended on 5 April 2026. The landlord made this application on 8 April 2026, which is less than 90 days ago. The requirements of section 64(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 are satisfied. Therefore, I must grant the landlord possession of the tenancy. I acknowledge that in the 12 years that the tenancy has been on foot the tenant has developed a strong connection with the local community, which stands a risk of being severed. However, the Tribunal has little latitude when granting possession.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord’s representative appeared by video and Ms Heremaia by phone. Ms Heremaia was assisted by her daughter Te Ariki.

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

The tenancy began on 18 July 2014. As I understand it, the tenancy is on land which may be the subject of a Waitangi settlement discussions. However, for the purpose of this application I note that the tenancy is on land held legally as an estate in fee simple, and that while the landlord is the agent of Government entity, that does not change the legal status of the residential tenancy.

On 21 July 2025, the landlord issued a 90 day notice to terminate the tenancy, and an application (5401652) in which the landlord sought possession. This earlier application was heard by Adjudicator Ryken on 19 December 2025. She found that defects in service meant that the notice was ineffective, and the application was dismissed. Notice had been served via email and then, later, by courier. It was found that the email service did not meet the requirements of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and the courier delivery gave less than 90 days’ notice to the tenant.

On 19 December 2025, the landlord issued another 90-day notice. This was served by post and courier to both the tenancy address, and to an alternative nearby address which was nominated on the tenancy agreement. The notice specified that the tenancy would end on 5 April 2026.

On 7 April 2026, the landlord’s agent attended the site and noted that it was still occupied. The tenancy is that she was, and is, still an occupation, however she has been recently hospitalised with a significant medical event. Issues

To resolve this matter, I must consider: a. Does the tenant have a right, outside of the tenancy agreement, to continue in her occupation of the tenancy? b. Was the notice correctly served? c. Was the notice effective?

A right to continued occupation?

The tenancy is that she has a continuing right to occupy for two reasons: a. the length of time she has been in occupation at the tenancy; and b. that the land on which the tenancy is located is Maori land, under the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993, and so is not within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.

Considering the first of these, this is in effect a claim that the tenant has adverse possession of the land. Adverse position arises when a person occupies land for at least 20 years in a manner which is against the interests of the rightful owner. When this occurs the person may apply for title to the registrar of lands under S155 (1) of the Land Transfer Act 2017. Ms Heremaia made a reference to a 12 year period. However, this is the limitations time limit under the Limitation Act 2010, for the recovery of land held in adverse possession. A problem for this claim is that adverse possession does not occur when the possessor does so under a licence from the registered owner. In this instance the tenancy agreement is a licence to occupy, before adverse position does not arise.

Ms Heremaia said that the tenancy was on Maori land. However, to qualify the land in question must fall within one of the definitions set S129 (2) of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993, this would require the land to either be customary land held in accordance with Tikanga, or to have been accorded Maori Freehold status by the Maori Land Court. There is no evidence that the land is customary land, which would require continuous occupation by Hapu since 1840. Ms Heremaia advised that there has been no Maori Land Court orders relating the land. I acknowledge that the land may well be part of a future Waitangi Settlement, but that does not change the status of the Tenancy in the present. Service

S 136 RTA says: (1) Where any notice or other document is required or authorised by this Act to be given to or served on a landlord or a tenant, it shall be sufficient if it is given or served in any of the following ways: (a) it may be given to or served on the landlord or the tenant personally: (b) it may be sent by post addressed to the landlord or the tenant at the address or the Post Office box given by the landlord or the tenant as an address for service in accordance with this Act: (c) it may be delivered to the premises to which any address for service relates, and either placed in the mailbox or attached to the door in a prominent position:

The notice of termination was hosted and couriered both to the tenancy address. The courier records indicate that it was received at the service address on 23 December 2025, and at the tenancy address on 29 December 2025. The latest that 90 days ran to was 29 March 2026. The notice specifies 5 April 2026 as being the finish date of the tenancy.

I find that the notice was validly served. Was the notice effective

S 51(1) RTA says: “[a] landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy in any case by giving at least 90 days’ notice.”

Having found that the notice was correctly served, I observed that the tenancy ended on 5 April 2026. The landlord made this application on 8 April 2026, which is less than 90 days ago. The requirements of section 64(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 are satisfied. Therefore, I must grant the landlord possession of the tenancy. I acknowledge that in the 12 years that the tenancy has been on foot the tenant has developed a strong connection with the local community, which stands a risk of being severed. However, the Tribunal has little latitude when granting possession.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5484709 — Tenancy dispute at 2128 Awhitu Road, Pollok, RD 4, Pollok 2684

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5484709 — Tenancy dispute at 2128 Awhitu Road, Pollok, RD 4, Pollok 2684

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

A right to continued occupation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

A right to continued occupation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions