What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5101248 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ names and identifying details, including the tenancy address must not be

How much money was awarded in case 5101248?

Overpaid Rent Due To Invalid Rent In…: $4,678.57 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $645.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5101248?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5101248?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11974977-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5101248 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ names and identifying details, including the tenancy address must not be

How much money was awarded in case 5101248?

Overpaid Rent Due To Invalid Rent In…: $4,678.57 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $645.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5101248?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5101248?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11974977-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5101248 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5101248 — net $4,032.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 13/11/24	$645.71		Rent arrears to 13/11/24
Overpaid rent due to invalid rent increase notice		$4,678.57	Overpaid rent due to invalid rent increase notice
Total award	$645.71	$4,678.57
Net award		$4,032.86
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$4,032.86

Order

The parties’ names and identifying details, including the tenancy address must not be published.
The [landlord] must pay [the tenant] $4,032.86 immediately, calculated as set out in the table below.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted remotely on Microsoft Teams.
[The property manager and the landlord’s administrator] attended for the landlord by video link.
The landlord is a property manager and is the principal landlord’s agent.
The tenant attended by telephone.
The tenancy has ended. The parties disagree on what is owed for rent and to whom. The landlord claims the tenant owes a week’s rent because she had to give 28 days’ rather that 21 days’ notice.
The tenant claims that the landlord’s last two rent increases are invalid for failing to comply with the s 24 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. She seeks reimbursement of the rent she paid in reliance upon the validity of the notices.
The main issues are: a. Did the tenant have to give the landlord 28 days’ notice to end the tenancy? b. Are the landlord’s rent increase notices void? Did the tenant have to give the landlord 28 days’ notice to end the tenancy?
The tenant gave the landlord notice 21 days’ notice to end the tenancy on 16 October 2024.
The original tenancy agreement had been for a fixed term, but the fixed term had expired, so the tenancy had become a periodic tenancy governed by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
At the time the tenant gave her notice 51(2B) of the RTA provided: (2B) A tenant may terminate a periodic tenancy in any case by giving at least 28 days’ notice.
That being so, the tenant was required to give the landlord 28 days’ notice. It follows, the tenant must pay the landlord rent to 13 November 2024.
The landlord concedes it applied some rent money incorrectly to the tenant’s water account. The tenant owes a balance of $645.71 for rent to the end of the required notice period. Are the landlord’s rent increase notices void?
The principal landlord’s two most recent rent increase notices miscalculated the required 60-day notice period - short by one day and two days respectively.
The requirements for notices for rent increases are governed by s 24 of the RTA, which relevantly provides: 24 Rent increases (1) The rent payable in respect of any tenancy may be increased by the landlord provided all of the following conditions are complied with: (a) the landlord shall give the tenant notice in writing of the increase; and (b) that notice shall specify the amount of the increased rent and the day upon which the increased rent shall become payable; and (c) the day upon which the increased rent shall become payable shall be not less than 60 days (or, in the case of a boarding house tenancy, not less than 28 days) after the date on which that notice is given; and ... ... (4) Where a landlord has given a notice to increase the rent and subsequently realises that, because of— (a) some error in calculating the day on which the increased rent is to become payable or in the manner in which that day is expressed in the notice; or (b) some delay in serving the notice,— the day fixed in the notice for the increased rent to become payable is in contravention of subsection (1), the landlord may, with the agreement of the tenant or (failing such agreement) with the consent of the Tribunal, give to the tenant a further notice varying the original notice so as to bring the terms of the original notice into accord with the provisions of that subsection. (5) Every notice given under subsection (4) shall be in writing, specifying the amount of the increased rent and the day upon which the increased rent shall become payable. (6) The Tribunal shall not give its consent under subsection (4) unless it is satisfied— (a) that the error or the delay was inadvertent; and (b) that the landlord has sought to correct the matter as soon as practicable; and (c) that it would not be unfair to the tenant to allow the original notice to be varied in the manner proposed. The earlier rent increase notice
The landlord’s previous agent gave the tenant a notice of rent increase on 23 November 2021. It stated that the increase would apply from 21 January 2022. However, that was only 59 days not 60 days.
The tenant emailed the previous agent on 1 March 2021 pointing out the error and asking the agent to amend their records to make the increase begin on 28 January 2022: Thank you for your email. We received notification of a rent increase on Tuesday 23 November before 5pm, so this is the service date. The requirement is for a minimum 60 Days notice. As the notice period starts on the day following receipt (service) of the notice, this being Wednesday 24 November, the 60th day is then Sunday 23 January which means the first increased payment would fall due on the next period commencing Friday 28 January. Please amend your records accordingly. Many Thanks,
The agent responded: Thank you very much for your message. You are correct, I have updated the system and please see a updated tenant ledger for your records. Thank you very much.
The tenant’s response accepted the purported increase but only from a later date beyond the required 60-day period. The agent agreed to the rent increase from the later date.
The tenant made an offer which the agent accepted.
The tenant is correct that the agent’s notice was invalid, but she agreed to pay the desired increased rent and the agent accepted that offer.
I find the emails constitute an agreement that the tenant would pay the increased rent.
If I were wrong in that finding, I would find that the tenant’s email would raise an estoppel, or that under s 85(2) of the RTA, the substantial merits and justice of the case require that the Tribunal does not give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities by strictly applying s 24 to invalidate a notice that is miscalculated by one day where the tenant has explicitly acknowledged the breach and agreed to pay the increased rent. The later rent increase
The current agent gave the tenant notice of a rent increase on 1 December 2022 that the rent would increase by $50.00 per week from 29 January 2023. The notice was two days short of 60 days probably because the agent calculated the period from the date of giving the notice rather than the day after the notice was given and on the final day rather than at the end of the final day as required by s 136A of the RTA.
Again, the tenant emailed the agent. This time she emailed on the same day she received the notice: Thank you for your email. As the 29th of January is the 60th day, the rent increase becomes applicable on the 30th of January. Please amend your records accordingly. Payment of Friday 27 January will be 748.57. Many Thanks,
Again, the notice did not comply with s 24 of the Act and the tenant agreed to pay the purported rent increase from a later date.
However, this time, the landlord’s new agent did not explicitly accept the tenant’s offer. Nor did the agent tacitly accept the offer - the rent summary shows the landlord began charging the tenant the increased rent from the incorrect date stated in its rent increase notice.
The situation is different for this later notice because the agent did not acknowledge its mistake nor accept the tenant’s offer. The landlord could have rescued the notice by applying to the Tribunal or seeking the tenant’s consent under s 24(4) of the RTA, but it did not do that.
No estoppel-type argument arises because the tenant’s email pointed out the landlord’s error, but there is not indication the agent did not rely upon it. The agent rejected it. Estoppel is based in equity. It would not be equitable to find estoppel in the circumstances. Similarly, there are not substantial merits that suggest the Tribunal should ignore s 24’s rules.
It follows, the later rent increase notice is invalid and void.
The Tribunal orders the agent to reimburse the tenant for the rent overpaid based on the defective notice. Non-publication
Both parties seek non-publication of their names and identifying details.
Under s 95A(1) of the RTA, the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Each party has substantially succeeded in the proceedings.
Publication is not in the public interest or justified by the parties’ conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Both parties’ non-publication applications are allowed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5101248 — net $4,032.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 13/11/24	$645.71		Rent arrears to 13/11/24
Overpaid rent due to invalid rent increase notice		$4,678.57	Overpaid rent due to invalid rent increase notice
Total award	$645.71	$4,678.57
Net award		$4,032.86
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$4,032.86

Order

The parties’ names and identifying details, including the tenancy address must not be published.
The [landlord] must pay [the tenant] $4,032.86 immediately, calculated as set out in the table below.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted remotely on Microsoft Teams.
[The property manager and the landlord’s administrator] attended for the landlord by video link.
The landlord is a property manager and is the principal landlord’s agent.
The tenant attended by telephone.
The tenancy has ended. The parties disagree on what is owed for rent and to whom. The landlord claims the tenant owes a week’s rent because she had to give 28 days’ rather that 21 days’ notice.
The tenant claims that the landlord’s last two rent increases are invalid for failing to comply with the s 24 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. She seeks reimbursement of the rent she paid in reliance upon the validity of the notices.
The main issues are: a. Did the tenant have to give the landlord 28 days’ notice to end the tenancy? b. Are the landlord’s rent increase notices void? Did the tenant have to give the landlord 28 days’ notice to end the tenancy?
The tenant gave the landlord notice 21 days’ notice to end the tenancy on 16 October 2024.
The original tenancy agreement had been for a fixed term, but the fixed term had expired, so the tenancy had become a periodic tenancy governed by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
At the time the tenant gave her notice 51(2B) of the RTA provided: (2B) A tenant may terminate a periodic tenancy in any case by giving at least 28 days’ notice.
That being so, the tenant was required to give the landlord 28 days’ notice. It follows, the tenant must pay the landlord rent to 13 November 2024.
The landlord concedes it applied some rent money incorrectly to the tenant’s water account. The tenant owes a balance of $645.71 for rent to the end of the required notice period. Are the landlord’s rent increase notices void?
The principal landlord’s two most recent rent increase notices miscalculated the required 60-day notice period - short by one day and two days respectively.
The requirements for notices for rent increases are governed by s 24 of the RTA, which relevantly provides: 24 Rent increases (1) The rent payable in respect of any tenancy may be increased by the landlord provided all of the following conditions are complied with: (a) the landlord shall give the tenant notice in writing of the increase; and (b) that notice shall specify the amount of the increased rent and the day upon which the increased rent shall become payable; and (c) the day upon which the increased rent shall become payable shall be not less than 60 days (or, in the case of a boarding house tenancy, not less than 28 days) after the date on which that notice is given; and ... ... (4) Where a landlord has given a notice to increase the rent and subsequently realises that, because of— (a) some error in calculating the day on which the increased rent is to become payable or in the manner in which that day is expressed in the notice; or (b) some delay in serving the notice,— the day fixed in the notice for the increased rent to become payable is in contravention of subsection (1), the landlord may, with the agreement of the tenant or (failing such agreement) with the consent of the Tribunal, give to the tenant a further notice varying the original notice so as to bring the terms of the original notice into accord with the provisions of that subsection. (5) Every notice given under subsection (4) shall be in writing, specifying the amount of the increased rent and the day upon which the increased rent shall become payable. (6) The Tribunal shall not give its consent under subsection (4) unless it is satisfied— (a) that the error or the delay was inadvertent; and (b) that the landlord has sought to correct the matter as soon as practicable; and (c) that it would not be unfair to the tenant to allow the original notice to be varied in the manner proposed. The earlier rent increase notice
The landlord’s previous agent gave the tenant a notice of rent increase on 23 November 2021. It stated that the increase would apply from 21 January 2022. However, that was only 59 days not 60 days.
The tenant emailed the previous agent on 1 March 2021 pointing out the error and asking the agent to amend their records to make the increase begin on 28 January 2022: Thank you for your email. We received notification of a rent increase on Tuesday 23 November before 5pm, so this is the service date. The requirement is for a minimum 60 Days notice. As the notice period starts on the day following receipt (service) of the notice, this being Wednesday 24 November, the 60th day is then Sunday 23 January which means the first increased payment would fall due on the next period commencing Friday 28 January. Please amend your records accordingly. Many Thanks,
The agent responded: Thank you very much for your message. You are correct, I have updated the system and please see a updated tenant ledger for your records. Thank you very much.
The tenant’s response accepted the purported increase but only from a later date beyond the required 60-day period. The agent agreed to the rent increase from the later date.
The tenant made an offer which the agent accepted.
The tenant is correct that the agent’s notice was invalid, but she agreed to pay the desired increased rent and the agent accepted that offer.
I find the emails constitute an agreement that the tenant would pay the increased rent.
If I were wrong in that finding, I would find that the tenant’s email would raise an estoppel, or that under s 85(2) of the RTA, the substantial merits and justice of the case require that the Tribunal does not give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities by strictly applying s 24 to invalidate a notice that is miscalculated by one day where the tenant has explicitly acknowledged the breach and agreed to pay the increased rent. The later rent increase
The current agent gave the tenant notice of a rent increase on 1 December 2022 that the rent would increase by $50.00 per week from 29 January 2023. The notice was two days short of 60 days probably because the agent calculated the period from the date of giving the notice rather than the day after the notice was given and on the final day rather than at the end of the final day as required by s 136A of the RTA.
Again, the tenant emailed the agent. This time she emailed on the same day she received the notice: Thank you for your email. As the 29th of January is the 60th day, the rent increase becomes applicable on the 30th of January. Please amend your records accordingly. Payment of Friday 27 January will be 748.57. Many Thanks,
Again, the notice did not comply with s 24 of the Act and the tenant agreed to pay the purported rent increase from a later date.
However, this time, the landlord’s new agent did not explicitly accept the tenant’s offer. Nor did the agent tacitly accept the offer - the rent summary shows the landlord began charging the tenant the increased rent from the incorrect date stated in its rent increase notice.
The situation is different for this later notice because the agent did not acknowledge its mistake nor accept the tenant’s offer. The landlord could have rescued the notice by applying to the Tribunal or seeking the tenant’s consent under s 24(4) of the RTA, but it did not do that.
No estoppel-type argument arises because the tenant’s email pointed out the landlord’s error, but there is not indication the agent did not rely upon it. The agent rejected it. Estoppel is based in equity. It would not be equitable to find estoppel in the circumstances. Similarly, there are not substantial merits that suggest the Tribunal should ignore s 24’s rules.
It follows, the later rent increase notice is invalid and void.
The Tribunal orders the agent to reimburse the tenant for the rent overpaid based on the defective notice. Non-publication
Both parties seek non-publication of their names and identifying details.
Under s 95A(1) of the RTA, the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Each party has substantially succeeded in the proceedings.
Publication is not in the public interest or justified by the parties’ conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Both parties’ non-publication applications are allowed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5101248 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5101248 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions