Tenant Successfully Argues Protection Under Residential Tenancies Act
📌 In brief
The claimant successfully argued that she was a tenant under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, making the landlord's eviction notice invalid. The Tenancy Tribunal ruled in favour of the claimant, ensuring she could continue to reside on the site.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to the protections of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 if the parties contracted into the Act.
📖 What the law says
This rule allows a tenant to ask the Tenancy Tribunal to cancel an eviction notice if they believe the landlord gave it because the tenant complained or tried to use their rights under the tenancy agreement or law. The tenant must apply within 14 working days of getting the notice.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant successfully argued that she was a tenant under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, rendering the landlord's eviction notice invalid.
📜 Headnote Official document
The claimant sought declarations that she was a tenant under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and that the landlord's eviction notice was invalid. The Tribunal found that the claimant had a tenancy agreement and was entitled to the protections of the Act, thus declaring the eviction notice invalid.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5154713 1
[2025] NZTT 5154713
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT [Event location suppressed]
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Tenant
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
ORDER
1. The tenant’s name and identifying details are suppressed.
2. It is declared that [the applicant] is a tenant of the sites she occupies at [NAME] [ADDRESS], New Windsor, Auckland and that the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 applies to her situation.
3. It is further declared that the landlord’s eviction notice dated 3 February 2025 is invalid and of no effect.
4. [COMPANY] must pay [the applicant] $27 filing fee immediately.
Reasons:
1. The hearing was conducted by telephone. Both parties attended. [NAME] represented the landlord.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5154713 2
2. The tenant seeks declarations that she has a tenancy subject to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and that the landlord’s eviction notice dated 3 February 2025 is invalid and of no effect.
Background
3. The tenant came to [NAME] ([NAME]) seeking a place for her mobile home and a container used to store her possessions. She had been living in her mobile home on private property, which was sold, and she was required to leave by the new owner. She did not have the protection of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). She was looking for a place to live where she had the security of tenure provided by the Act.
4. When she came to [NAME], she dealt with [NAME] who is the son of one of the owners of [COMPANY] which owns [NAME]. She gave evidence that she discussed her requirements with [NAME] and it was agreed that she would be granted a tenancy of unpowered sites to accommodate her mobile home and container.
5. The only written evidence of the agreement are two letters written by [NAME] dated 26 and 28 February 2024 to [NAME] seeking rent and bond to be paid to [NAME]. Both letters refer to her as “a permanent tenant” at [NAME].
6. She duly moved her mobile home and container onto the sites, and she has been there ever since.
7. From January 2025 there was some unpleasantness between the tenant and others living at [NAME]. Cross accusations were made by those involved and it resulted in the landlord serving a 28-day eviction notice on the tenant.
Jurisdiction
8. There is a preliminary issue whether the Tribunal can hear the claim. Section 77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the Act applies. Section 4 provides that the Act applies to all residential tenancies unless specifically excluded.
Law
9. Section 2(1) RTA defines a landlord as the grantor of a tenancy under a tenancy agreement of residential premises. A tenant is the grantee of the tenancy. The terms ’residential premises’, ‘tenancy’, and ‘tenancy agreement’ are defined as follows.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5154713 3
10. Residential premises means any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence, whether or not the occupation or intended occupation for residential purposes is or would be unlawful.
11. Tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent; and includes any tenancy of residential premises implied or created by any enactment; and, where appropriate, also includes a former tenancy.
12. Tenancy agreement, in relation to any residential premises, means any express or implied agreement under which any person, for rent, grants or agrees to grant to any other person a tenancy of the premises; and, where appropriate, includes a former tenancy agreement and any variation of a tenancy agreement.
Discussion and Decision
13. I find that the tenant did have a tenancy of the bare land for her mobile home. There was an agreement whereby the landlord granted her the right to occupy the land for residential purposes for payment of rent. Land can be premises for the purposes of the Act. Were that not so, there would be no need for the exclusion for bare land that I must now consider.
14. Section 5 of the Act sets out a variety of circumstances where a tenancy is excluded from the Act.
15. Section 5(1)(t) of the Act provides that where the premises comprise bare land (with or without facilities) on which the tenant has the right under the tenancy agreement to place or erect a mobile home, caravan, or other means of shelter the Act will not apply.
16. Plainly, that is the situation here and therefore that exclusion applies.
17. Section 8 of the Act provides that, where the Act is excluded by sections 5 to 7, if the premises are used for residential purposes, the parties can contract back into some or all the provisions of the Act.
18. I am satisfied that the parties did contract into the Act when they made their agreement for the tenant to occupy the bare land and put her mobile home on it for her to live in.
19. The fact, alone, that the landlord wrote to [NAME] stating that the tenant was a “permanent tenant” is enough for me to infer that it was their intention that the tenant would have the protections provided by the Act. The landlord wrote to [NAME] to obtain payment from them of bond and rent. It is reasonable to assume that the use of the words “permanent tenant” was intended to assist in achieving that purpose. It would be repugnant to accept that the landlord did so, and then
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5154713 4
to find that their intention was not to accept her as a tenant with rights under the Act.
20. As well, I accept the tenant’s evidence that she and [NAME] discussed her situation and her wish to have the protection of the Act and that he told her that she would be treated as a tenant. That, in my view, is clear evidence that both parties understood, or should have understood, that the Act would apply to her occupation of the land.
21. I have therefore declared that the Act applies to her situation.
22. It follows that the landlord’s eviction notice is invalid and is of no effect. Landlords cannot give 28 days’ notice to terminate a tenancy that is not a boarding house tenancy. Plainly this is not a boarding house tenancy.
23. The tenant has succeeded and so I have awarded her the filing fee.
[NAME] 27 March 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5154713 5
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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5154713 6
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 tenant discussed with the landlord's representative that she wanted the protection of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- The landlord referred to the tenant as a "permanent tenant" in written communications, indicating an intention to provide her with the Act's protections.
- The tenant and landlord agreed that the tenant would occupy the site for residential purposes in exchange for rent.
- The tenant moved her mobile home and container onto the site based on the agreement with the landlord.
- The landlord served a 28-day eviction notice, which is invalid for a tenancy covered by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The landlord attempted to exclude the tenancy from the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by relying on the bare land exclusion clause.
- The landlord tried to evict the tenant using a standard 28-day notice, which is not applicable to tenancies protected by the Act.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The claimant was declared a tenant under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and the landlord's eviction notice was deemed invalid.
What was the dispute about?
The claimant was seeking to be recognised as a tenant under the Act, while the landlord was attempting to evict her.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided in favour of the claimant, finding that she had a tenancy agreement and was entitled to the protections of the Act.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, particularly section 54, was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The claimant's argument that she was a tenant under the Act and had a valid tenancy agreement was crucial.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the claimant.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation may be able to argue that they are a tenant under the Act and seek protection from eviction.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Letters from the landlord recognising the claimant as a 'permanent tenant' were significant.