What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5154691 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 5154691?

Rent Arrears: $442.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5154691?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5154691?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11875986-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5154691 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 5154691?

Rent Arrears: $442.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5154691?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5154691?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11875986-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 614, 147 Nelson Street, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5154691 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5154691. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 2/2/25	$442.86		Rent arrears to 2/2/25

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5154691. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 2/2/25	$442.86		Rent arrears to 2/2/25

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,480.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows and as calculated in the table below: Dependable Property Management Limited As Agent For Alex Van Wel: $442.86 [The tenant/s]: $2,037.14
The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears following the end of the tenancy. The issue in this matter is whether the tenants are liable for rent until 6 March 2025 or 2 February 2025, the date they vacated the tenancy. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, 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 likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden. Landlord’s position
The tenancy commenced on 7 August 2024 and was a fixed term tenancy with a contractual end date of 1 February 2025. The landlord says the tenant’s sought an extension of the fixed term to 1 March 2025. The landlord proposed 6 March 2025 and the landlord says this was agreed.
The relevant email correspondence is as follows. On 2 December 2024 the landlord emailed the tenant: The owner plans to move back into the property early next year which means your fixed term tenancy will not be renewed when it expires on the 1st of February 2025. Please let me know if you have any questions.
On 2 December 2024 the tenant emailed the landlord: I’m sorry to hear about the situation. We’re going to start looking for a new apartment right away. Could you please check with the owner about the possibility of flexibility with the dates? I’d like to return the apartment once we find a new one, but it would be helpful to know if he’s open to a short extension until March 1st, in case we can’t find something by February 1st. This would give us some extra time, especially since my parents-in-law are visiting and will be leaving on February 25th.
On 5 December 2024 the landlord emailed: The owner is fine to extend the end of tenancy period but wants the end date to be the 6th of March. Does that work for you? He will move in on the 7th. Please let me know what your thoughts are.
On 5 December 2024 The tenant replied: Thanks for your email. Yes, 6th of march is fine by me. Did you have a chance to ask him if he is okay take the apartment back earlier if we find a new one before Feb 1st or March 6th?
The tenant then sent a further email: Please let me know when you have his answer as this information will be important for us in our search for a new place.
On 5 December 2024 the landlord replied: The only leniency we can allow around the dates is for you to leave between the 1st and 6the of February if you find something to move in to. The owner has already organised for his daughter to move in one month later after your extension request so having you potentially move out during that newly arranged time frame won't be suitable given the new dates in place.
The tenant replied: Thanks for your email. It is all good, thanks for the information. I was just wondering if the owner wanted the apartment back ASAP. Please thank him for me for agreeing to the extension.
The landlord says the emails of 5 December 2025 are an agreed binding extension of the fixed term until 6 March 2025. On 24 December 2024 the tenant emailed the landlord: We found a new apartment, so we will be moving on 1st February.
Then on 27 December 2024 the tenant emailed:

Can you please confirm you received our notice?

On 27 December 2025 the landlord replied: I am away on leave at the moment and not actively checking email communication. This response is to confirm that yes, I have received your email.
The tenants vacated the tenancy on 1 February 2025.
The landlord says the tenants have misconstrued the agreement and they should have sought further clarification. The landlord says that when the tenants were accepted for a new apartment, the first thing they should have done was ask if the offer to move on 1 February 2025 was still available. At that stage the owner could have made the decision to either agree to the tenancy ending earlier or not.
The landlord says when the tenant’s asked about the possibility of bringing the termination date earlier that the landlord’s response, that there might be leniency, was only available to take up at that time, on 5 December 2024. However at the hearing the landlord also said they were trying to keep things “fluid”. Tenant’s position
The tenant understood the email of 2 December 2024 to be a notice to terminate their tenancy. The tenants say they were clear they would need an extension only if they could not find a new place by 1 February 2025. The tenants say the extension was agreed on a conditional basis and only required if they could not find alternative accommodation by 1 February 2025. They rely on the landlord’s email stating that there would be leniency if they leave between 1-6 February 2025.
The tenants say if they had been advised on 27 December 2024 that the landlord did not agree to the tenancy ending on 1 February 2025 that they would have arranged for their new tenancy to commence on the later date. Analysis
Section 13B of the RTA provides every variation of a tenancy agreement, and every renewal of a tenancy agreement, shall be in writing and signed by both the landlord and the tenant. The landlord then must, before the date on which the variation or renewal of the tenancy is to take effect, provide the tenant with a copy of the variation or renewal.
Section 13C then provides no tenancy agreement, or variation or renewal of a tenancy agreement, shall be unenforceable on the grounds that it is not in writing. Therefore, the lack of a signed agreement to extend the fixed term does not mean any agreement is unenforceable. Estoppel
The RTA allows the Tribunal to make any orders that the High Court or the District Court may make under any enactment or rule relating to contracts. 1 This includes equitable remedies such as estoppel. The underlying principle of equitable estoppel is to prevent the exercise of strict legal rights in circumstances where the exercise of them would be unconscionable. The four elements the tenant must meet to establish estoppel by representations, statements, and conduct in this case are: 2 a. A belief or expectation by the tenants has been created or encouraged by words or conduct by the landlord. b. To the extent an express representation is relied upon, it is clearly and unequivocally expressed. c. The tenant reasonably relied to its detriment on the representation; and d. It would be unconscionable to depart from the belief or expectation.
The principle of estoppel is consistent with the way the Tribunal is required to exercise its jurisdiction being that The Tribunal is to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants and to determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but it is not bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. 3
I consider the landlord’s email of 5 December 2025 stating that “the only leniency we can allow around the dates is for you to leave between the 1st and 6the of February” has created an expectation that the tenancy could end in this time if they found other accommodation, and if not, the tenancy would need to continue until 6 March 2025. The tenants have relied on this statement. The tenants will suffer detriment if the statement is departed from. I consider it would be unconscionable to depart from this expectation.
Accordingly, I consider the principal of estoppel applies. I note that on 24 January 2025 the tenants said they would vacate on 2 February 2025 and I treat this date as the final vacate date. I find that the tenants are responsible 1 See section 78 (1)(h) of the RTA. 2 Wilson Parking New Zealand Ltd v Fanshawe 136 Ltd [2014] NZCA 407 at [44]. 3 Stella & Carey v Bay of Islands Realty Limited & Kirkman [2016] NZTT Kaikohe 4051975 and 4053657 and s 85 of the RTA. for rent arrears to 2 February 2025 and I make an order for rent arrears to this date. Contractual Mistake
In the alternative, I have also considered subpart 2 – contractual mistakes under the Contracts and Commercial Law Act 2017 (‘CCLA’) as applicable to this case.
As referred to above, the RTA provides that the Tribunal may, in respect of any claim within its jurisdiction make orders that the High Court or the District Court may make under any enactment or rule of law relating to contracts and this includes orders by the courts made under subpart 2 of the CCLA.
Section 21(1) of the CCLA provides that the purpose of subpart 2 is to mitigate the arbitrary effects of mistakes on contracts by giving courts appropriate powers to grant relief in the circumstances mentioned in section 24 of the CCLA. Section 23(1) of the CCLA interprets mistake to means a mistake, whether of law or of fact. Section 23(4) of the CCLA states that there is a contract for the purposes of subpart 2 where a contract would have come into existence but for circumstances of the kind described in section 24(1)(a). Section 24(1) of the CCLA states a court may grant relief under section 28 of the CCLA to a party to a contract if,— (a)in entering into the contract, — (i)the party was influenced in the party’s decision to enter into the contract by a mistake that was material to that party, and the existence of the mistake was known to the other party or to 1 or more of the other parties to the contract; or (ii)all the parties to the contract were influenced in their respective decisions to enter into the contract by the same mistake; or (iii)the party and at least 1 other party were each influenced in their respective decisions to enter into the contract by a different mistake about the same matter of fact or of law; and (b)the mistake or mistakes resulted, at the time of the contract, — (i)in a substantially unequal exchange of values; or (ii)in a benefit being conferred, or an obligation being imposed or included, that was, in all the circumstances, a benefit or an obligation substantially disproportionate to the consideration for the benefit or obligation....
I consider that section 24(1)(a)(i) CCLA applies in that the tenants sought an extension on the mistaken belief that the email of 2 December 2024 was a termination notice to end the tenancy. I do not consider it was a termination notice given it did not specify the date by which the tenant is to vacate the premises. 4 The tenant sought an extension on the basis the tenancy would end on 1 February 2025 however this was not the case, and the tenancy would have become periodic until either party gave notice to terminate the tenancy. 5
The landlord’s agent said he was aware the tenancy would become periodic at the end of the fixed term and that the tenant would have been required to give 28 days’ notice at that time which would have seen the tenancy end at the end of March, however I consider the tenants could have given 28 days’ notice within the fixed term. I consider the landlord was aware the tenants were mistaken that the email of 2 December 2025 was a termination notice and sought to extend the fixed term on that mistaken belief. This was evident from the emails.
Having determined that the fixed term was extended pursuant to a mistake under the CCLA, and the mistake has resulted in an obligation being imposed to the tenants that was, in all the circumstances, an obligation substantially disproportionate to the consideration for the obligation, the Tribunal may grant relief in the course of its proceeding. 6 The nature of the relief includes the making of any order that it thinks just, including by way of variation of the contract, and restitution or compensation. 7
Further, where it appears to the Tribunal that an agreement between the parties has been induced by fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake, or that any writing purporting to express the agreement between the parties does not accord with their true agreement the Tribunal may make an order varying, or setting aside, the agreement or the writing, either wholly or in part. 8 In the circumstances I consider the appropriate relief would be to amend the tenancy end date to 2 February 2025. Consequently, the landlord’s claim for rent arrears to 6 March 2025 is dismissed. Filing fee
As the landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful with the claim, I decline to award the filing fee. 4 See section 51(3)(c) of the RTA. 5 See s 60A of the RTA, amended on 30 January 2025. 6 See section 28 (2) of the CCLA. 7 As set out under 28(1) CCLA. 8 See section 78(1)(g) of the RTA. Bond
The landlord had not applied for the Bond. Both parties agreed for me to make an order for release of the Bond in accordance with my findings as to rent arrears. The Bond is to be paid out by the Bond Centre in accordance with the division set out in the order. Suppression
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. 9
The tenants seek name suppression and as they are substantially successful in defending the claim they are granted name suppression.
The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. 10
The landlord applied for name suppression. As the landlord has been unsuccessful in their claim I decline name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5154691 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 614, 147 Nelson Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5154691 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 614, 147 Nelson Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Can you please confirm you received our notice?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Can you please confirm you received our notice?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions