What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5125888 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5125888?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5125888?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5125888?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11826640-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5125888 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5125888?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5125888?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5125888?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11826640-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5125888 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5125888 — net $27.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$27.00
Bond	$2,360.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$27.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5125888 — net $27.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$27.00
Bond	$2,360.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$27.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
The landlord is ordered to pay the filing fee of $27.00 to the tenants immediately.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,360.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The Tribunal declares that there was no valid agreement to extend the fixed term tenancy beyond 14 October 2024.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 9 May 2025.
The tenants were assisted by an interpreter, who appeared by way of audio visual link, and a support person.
The landlord attended the hearing by audio visual link.
A number of preliminary issues were raised by the landlord. I wish to address those issues before moving on to the substantive matters before the Tribunal.
The landlord queried why the promise had not been issued at the hearing to the parties. The landlord went on to ask the Tribunal to issue the promise.
Section 97(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) states the Tribunal shall not have the power to administer an oath, but may require the person giving evidence at a hearing to make a statement promising to tell the truth.
Section 96(4) RTA states that the Tribunal may regulate its own procedure in such manner as it thinks fit. The administration of the promise is a matter entirely in the discretion of the Tribunal. The use of the word “may” in s.97(1) RTA makes that clear. The circumstances of this hearing and the background facts were such, that in my opinion, there was no requirement for the promise to be administered.
The tenants are refugees. They have throughout their brief time in New Zealand being supported by Red Cross. The tenants indicated that they wished to have the assistance of a support person. That request was accepted by the Tribunal.
The landlord opposed this appointment, as in his view there was a conflict of interest. I explained the role of a support person at the commencement of the hearing. A support person cannot make submissions to the Tribunal, nor can they give evidence at the hearing. Given the tenants circumstances, in my view, it was entirely appropriate that a support person known to them be present to assist them. It is a matter solely for the tenants to decide upon. The landlord’s application to have the support person removed was dismissed.
The relevant law is found in the RTA.
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
The term balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is more likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
The obligation to show that something is more likely than not is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “ like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” (the emphasis is mine).
At the commencement of the hearing the tenants confirmed that the claims to be considered by the Tribunal were; • Release of the bond. • A declaration as to the validity of the extinction of the term of the tenancy. • Market rent. • Reduction of the fixed term if it is found that the extension to the term was valid. • Reimbursement of the filing fee. Market Rent
The tenancy commenced on 16 October 2023.
The date that the tenancy ended was a matter in dispute between the parties. The tenants say that the tenancy ended on or about 30 October 2024. The landlord says that the tenancy ended on 19 December 2024. The tenants application to the Tribunal was filed on 8 January 2025.
Section 25(4) RTA states that the Tribunal may make an order under the market rent section. That order will take effect on and from a date to be specified in the order, which may be the date of the order or any earlier or later date, but being no earlier than the date of the application for the order and no later than 30 days after the date of the order. In this case, whichever date I accept that the tenancy ended on, it was a date prior to the application being filed with the Tribunal. The application is dismissed as the Tribunal cannot make a market rent order which is earlier than the date of the application for the order. The application was filed with the Tenancy Services after the tenancy had ended, whichever date the Tribunal may accept as being the end date. Release of bond
A bond of $2,360.00 was paid to the landlord. The bond was lodged with the Bond Centre and remains there at the date of this hearing.
The tenant has applied for refund of their bond following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has not filed an application with Tenancy Services.
Section 22B RTA provides: (1) If there is a dispute between the parties as to the payment of a bond, either party may apply to the Tribunal for an order determining to whom the bond, or any part of it, is to be paid. (2) If the tenant applies to the Tribunal and the landlord seeks payment of the bond in whole or in part, the landlord must file an application with the Tribunal that sets out the landlord’s counterclaim (the emphasis is mine).
The requirement for the landlord to file a counterclaim is mandatory. Therefore, because the landlord has not done so, the bond is refunded in full to the tenant. This does not prevent the landlord from filing a claim against the tenant at a later date. It just means that, if the landlord’s claim is successful, there is no bond to put towards any monetary award made.
The Tribunal orders release of the bond to the tenants. Declaration
Section 78(1)(a) RTA provides that the Tribunal may make an order in the nature of a declaration, whether as to the status for the purposes of this Act of any premises, or of any agreement or purported agreement, or as to the rights or obligations of any party.
Whilst there was some uncertainty as to which of two written tenancy agreements formed the basis for this tenancy, it seems clear that the tenancy was a fixed term tenancy to commence on 16 October 2023 and to end on 14 October 2024. The uncertainty as to which of the two tenancy agreements applied was, having reviewed the two agreements of little substance as the two agreements were almost identical.
The tenants’ evidence was that they emailed a letter to the landlord on 2 October 2024 giving the landlord 28 days’ notice to end the tenancy. The letter provides “this letter serves as notice that the fixed term tenancy at the above address will expire on the 14th of October 2024 and not will not be continued past this date. The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 requires this notice to be served at least 28 days before the date on which the tenancy expires. “
Based on the tenants’ evidence, the earliest date on which the tenancy could have ended under this notice (without any landlord’s consent to an earlier date) would have been 30 October 2024.
The landlord provided evidence from the “My Rent” platform used to retain evidence of correspondence and documents between the parties.
The landlord says that on 30 September 2024 an invitation to “review and e- sign tenancy agreement extension” was sent to the tenants. The document, if signed, would have extended the tenancy through until April 2025.
The “My Rent” platform records when a document recipient opens the document. The platform records that the tenant [Tenant 1] opened the document on 30 September 2024.
No documentary evidence was provided by the landlord of the extension document ever having been signed or agreed to by the tenants. Despite there being evidence of the document being opened by one of the tenants, the landlord would have been fully aware that the tenants were unable to read English. I do not accept that the landlord’s proposition that the sending of a documents to a party to “review”, is to be taken as having been agreed to by the tenant, simply opening the document.
The landlord said in evidence that the tenants did not return the keys and as a result remained in possession of the premises and liable for rent. At the end of a tenancy, the tenant must return to the landlord all keys provided by the landlord for the tenants use. A tenant may breach that obligation by failing to return the keys. A failure to return keys does not of itself result in the tenancy remaining on foot until such time as the keys are returned. The tenant remains liable for rent to the date it was agreed to hand back position of the premises, not to the date when keys are returned.
The tenants’ evidence of termination of the tenancy is a written notice to the landlord. The landlord accepts having received that notice. The landlord’s evidence of there having been in extension to the tenancy consists of an unsigned variation document. The tenants’ evidence was that they had never received the extension. On the evidence proffered, I prefer the landlord’s evidence that the extension document was sent to the tenants and that it was opened by one of the tenants.
Given that the tenants are unable to read English and have never signed the extension, I consider it more likely than not that the tenants have never agreed to an extension of the term of the tenancy and that the tenants’ notice to terminate the tenancy dated 2 October 2024, is valid. A declaration is made by the tribunal recording that. As a result of this finding, the Tribunal is not required to consider the issue of a reduction of the tenancy under s.22B RTA.
The tenants have been substantially successful in this matter and the landlord is ordered to reimburse the filing fee.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The tenants have been substantially successful in this matter. Suppression of the tenants’ names and details is ordered. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter. The landlord’s application for name suppression is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5125888 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5125888 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions