Tenant's Name Suppressed - Landlord's Termination Claim Dismissed
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed the landlord's application to terminate the tenancy because the landlord did not follow the correct procedure under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The Tribunal noted that the rent was not in arrears for at least 5 working days when the notices were issued.
⚖️ Legal holding
A landlord cannot terminate a tenancy under section 55(1)(aa) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 if the rent is not at least 5 working days in arrear at the time of issuing each notice.
📖 What the law says
This section explains when a landlord can ask the Tenancy Tribunal to end a tenancy. One reason is if the rent is at least 21 days overdue when the landlord files their application.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal dismissed the landlord's application to terminate the tenancy due to non-compliance with the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed the landlord's application to terminate the tenancy due to non-compliance with section 55(1)(aa) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The Tribunal found that the rent was not at least 5 working days in arrear at the time of issuing each notice.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5072468 1
[2025] NZTT 5072468
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT [Event location suppressed]
APPLICANT: [redacted] Agent For [COMPANY]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
2. The application is dismissed.
Reasons:
1. Both parties attended the hearing.
2. The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond.
Should the tenancy be terminated?
3. Pursuant to the applicable section 55(1)(aa) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’) the Tribunal shall terminate a tenancy where:
a. on 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period the rent has been at least 5 working days in arrear; and
b. on each occasion the landlord gave the tenant written notice advising the tenant of the arrear, the dates for which rent was overdue, the amount or amounts of overdue rent, and the tenant’s right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notice; and
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5072468 2
c. each notice stated how many other notices (if any) the landlord had given the tenant under this paragraph in relation to the same tenancy and 90-day period; and
d. the landlord’s application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days after the landlord gave the third notice.
4. I note from the onset that section 55(1)(aa) RTA was recently amended and those amendments came info effect from 30 January 2025. The amended version of section 55(1)(aa)(i) RTA reads “on 3 separate occasions within a 90- day period an amount of rent has been owing for at least 5 working days after the date on which it was due under the tenancy agreement.”
5. The operative words of the amended section, “an amount of rent has been owing for at least 5 working days after the date on which it was due”, is different from the operative words of the previous (and applicable) section which reads “the rent has been at least 5 working days in arrear”.
6. In this case before me, the applicable section requires the rent to be at least 5 working days in arrear on the landlord’s issuance of each notice.
7. Here, none of the 3 notices relied upon by the landlord complies with the applicable 55(1)(aa) RTA.
8. On the date of issuance of the first notice on 15 November 2024, the rent was not at least 5 working days in arrear. The weekly rent is $555.00. As at that date ie., 15 November 2024, the rent was not in arrears at all, taking into account the payments by the tenant of $265.00 and $200.00 on 13 November 2024. Rent payable in advance cannot be part of the calculation of arrears.
9. Even when viewing the weekly rent calculated to 19 November 2024, the rent arrears were only $248.00 as at 19 November 2024 which rent was not at least 5 working days in arrear as required by section 55(1)(aa) RTA.
10. At no point between 6 November to 17 December 2024 was the rent at least 5 working days in arrear.
11. The landlord’s notices issued purportedly pursuant to section 55(1)(aa) RTA on 15 November, 22 November and 12 December 2024 were therefore defective and cannot be accepted because the rent was not at least 5 working days in arrears at the material times.
12. In this case I find the landlord has failed to served notices on the tenant as required in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and the application to the Tribunal for termination of the tenancy must fail.
13. For the sake of completeness, the rent was no longer in arrears from 18 December 2024 onwards; the rent has actually been in credit from 23 December 2024 to present date. The rent to 25 February 2025 is in credit of $100.00 with the current rent for 26 February to 4 March 2025 due today which
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5072468 3
the tenant is expected to pay tonight and which payment is expected show up in the landlord’s bank statement/account tomorrow. It is not appropriate to calculate today’s weekly rent because as at the hearing at 3.45pm today (26 February), the tenant is still allowed to and entitled to pay the rent by the end of today.
14. The grounds for termination have therefore not been established and the landlord’s application must be dismissed.
15. The tenant, being successful in the defence of this claim, is entitled to an order for their names to be suppressed.
[NAME] 26 February 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5072468 4
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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5072468 5
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 rent was not at least 5 working days in arrear at the time of issuing each notice.
- The landlord failed to serve notices as required by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- The grounds for termination were not established because the rent was not sufficiently in arrears.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The first notice was issued when the rent was not in arrear at all.
- The landlord's application to terminate the tenancy was made without meeting the statutory requirements.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed the landlord's application to terminate the tenancy.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the landlord could terminate the tenancy due to rent arrears.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to dismiss the landlord's application because the landlord did not follow the correct procedure under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Section 55(1)(aa) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The most important argument was that the rent was not in arrears for at least 5 working days when the notices were issued.
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 means that they need to ensure they follow the correct procedure under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 when terminating a tenancy due to rent arrears.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence that mattered was the dates and amounts of rent payments and the timing of the notices issued by the landlord.