Landlord's Application Dismissed Due to Ineffective Service
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed the landlord's application because the landlord did not follow proper service procedures as required by law. The landlord tried to serve the tenant through email and an address in Richmond, Invercargill, but these methods did not meet the legal standards set by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
⚖️ Legal holding
Service requirements under the Residential Tenancies Act must be strictly adhered to.
📖 Technical summary
The landlord's application was dismissed due to ineffective service.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed the landlord's application due to ineffective service. The landlord attempted to serve the tenant via email and an address in Richmond, Invercargill, but failed to meet the statutory requirements for service under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5065248 1
[2025] NZTT 5065248
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT REMOTE LOCATION | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. The landlord’s application is dismissed for want of service.
2. This matter is determined as indicated by the orders above, but [COMPANY] As Agent For [NAME] is granted a period of 28 days within which, if service in accordance with section 91A(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 is made, they can request that the application be brought back to the Tribunal and the matter will be re-opened.
Reasons:
1. The landlord attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. The tenant did not answer either of the calls made to him at the scheduled time on the number provided to the Tribunal.
2. This application to the Tenancy Tribunal has been “served” on the tenant by email and to an address in Richmond, Invercargill.
3. On the tenancy agreement, the tenant has not included an email address as an address for service. Nor has the tenant provided the landlord with a forwarding address. The street address that the landlord has sent the application to, was not provided by the tenant, nor has it been confirmed as a service address by the tenant.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5065248 2
4. Section 91A of the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 sets out service requirements for landlords on tenants. This includes the tenancy address, which is a usual address for service that remains current for 2 months after the tenancy ends.
5. Because more than 2 months has now elapsed since the end of the tenancy, the application must be served either personally on the tenant, on someone over the age of 16 living at address where the tenant now lives, or by post to an address provided by the tenant within two months before the application was made. See section 91A(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
6. The hearing cannot proceed until effective service has taken place.
7. If the landlord cannot locate the tenant, despite making all reasonable efforts to do so, the landlord may apply to the Tribunal for a direction that the application is to be served by some other means likely to bring it to the tenant’s notice. Alternatively, the landlord may apply to the Tribunal for a direction that service be dispensed with. See section 91B Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
C Lamdin
26 March 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5065248 3
Please read carefully: Visit justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals for more information on rehearings and appeals.
Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has happened. For example: • you did not get the letter telling you the date of the hearing, or • the adjudicator improperly admitted or rejected evidence, or • new evidence, relating to the original application, has become available.
You must give reasons and evidence to support your application for a rehearing. A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. You must apply within five working days of the decision using the Application for Rehearing form: justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf
Right of Appeal Both the landlord and the tenant can file an appeal. You should file your appeal at the District Court where the original hearing took place. The cost for an appeal is $260. You must apply within 10 working days after the decision is issued using this Appeal to the District Court form: justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals
Grounds for an appeal You can appeal if you think the decision was wrong, but not because you don’t like the decision. For some cases, there’ll be no right to appeal. For example, you can’t appeal: • against an interim order • a final order for the payment of less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work worth less than $1000.
Enforcement Where the Tribunal made an order about money or property this is called a civil debt. The Ministry of Justice Collections Team can assist with enforcing civil debt. You can contact the collections team on [PHONE] or go to justice.govt.nz/fines/civil-debt for forms and information.
Notice to a party ordered to pay money or vacate premises, etc. Failure to comply with any order may result in substantial additional costs for enforcement. It may also involve being ordered to appear in the District Court for an examination of your means or seizure of your property.
If you require further help or information regarding this matter, visit tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing- decisions or phone Tenancy Services on [PHONE].
Mēna ka hiahia koe ki ētahi atu awhina, kōrero ranei mo tēnei take, haere ki tenei ipurangi tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, waea atu ki Ratonga Takirua ma runga [PHONE] ranei.
https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals/ https://www.justice.govt.nz/fines/about-civil-debt/ https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions http://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5065248 4
A manaomia nisi faamatalaga poo se fesoasoani, e uiga i lau mataupu, asiasi ifo le matou aupega tafailagi: tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, pe fesootai mai le Tenancy Services i le numera [PHONE].
Reasons:
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The application must be served according to strict rules set by the Residential Tenancies Act.
- The landlord must serve the application either personally or by post to an address provided by the tenant within two months before the application was made.
- The hearing cannot proceed without effective service being completed first.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- Serving the application via email and to an address not confirmed by the tenant does not meet the legal requirements for service.
- The landlord's attempt to serve the application through unverified means was not considered effective service by the court.
- The court did not accept alternative methods of service that did not adhere to the specific requirements outlined in the Residential Tenancies Act.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The landlord's application was dismissed for want of service.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the landlord had properly served the tenant with the application.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the application was dismissed because the landlord did not follow the correct service procedures as outlined in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, specifically section 91A, was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the landlord did not provide a valid service address for the tenant as required by law.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the landlord who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
For someone in a similar situation, it is crucial to ensure that service of documents meets the legal requirements to avoid having the application dismissed.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence that mattered was the method used to attempt service, which did not meet the statutory requirements.