What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5272465 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] landlord/s] and [The tenant/s] landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] $277.71 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

How much money was awarded in case 5272465?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Overpayment Of Rent – 27 Days: $250.71 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5272465?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5272465?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12615120-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5272465 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] landlord/s] and [The tenant/s] landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] $277.71 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

How much money was awarded in case 5272465?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Overpayment Of Rent – 27 Days: $250.71 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5272465?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5272465?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12615120-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

89A Duck Road, Rotokauri, RD 8, Hamilton 3288 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5272465 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5272465 — net $277.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Overpayment of rent – 27 days	$250.71	Overpayment of rent – 27 days
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$277.71
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$277.71

Order

[The tenant/s] landlord/s] and [The tenant/s] landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] $277.71 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionTenant Overpayment of rent – 27 days $250.71 Filing fee reimbursement $27.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $277.71

Reasons

All parties except [The tenant/s] landlord/s] attended the teleconference hearing. The tenants’ claim
The tenants have claimed a refund of rent on the grounds that the landlord did not give notice in writing of a rent increase 60 days before that date on which the increase would be payable. The tenants have claimed $3,315.00 be refunded to them. This amount is the increased rent of $65.00 for 51 weeks dating from 30 April 2024 to 18 April 2025.
The tenants have based their claim on the requirement set out in section 24 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Ss24(1)(a) RTA requires notice of any increase to be in writing and ss24(1)(c) RTA provides that the day upon which the increased rent shall become payable shall be not less than 60 days after the date on which that notice is given.
The tenants claim that the landlord sent a written notice of the rent increase to each tenant on 4 April 2024. In the email the landlord stated that the weekly rent would increase to $750.00 (from $685) from 30 April 2024.
The tenants paid the increased rent from 1 May 2024 until the tenancy ended on 18 May 2025. They stated that it was not until discussions with WINZ after the tenancy ended that they learned that notice of an increase must be in writing and with 60 days notice before the increase takes place. Was the landlord’s email to the tenants, dated 4 April 2024 a notice of a rent increase?
The tenants claimed that the email to them on 4 April 2024 was the landlord’s notice of a rent increase. The landlord disputed that. The landlord stated that the parties reached agreement about the rent increase and later, the tenants requested an email from him that could be used for assistance from WINZ. The landlord pointed out that the email is addressed to “Dear Sir/Madam”. He stated that he would not refer to Marjorie and Sarah as ‘Sir’. The landlord sent two emails, one to each tenant. A notice of a rent increase would not require two separate emails. The landlord also referred to the content of the emails. The emails state, “Please be advised that after discussions with the tenant Marjorie Cleave (‘[The tenant/s] tenant/s]’ in the second email) that the weekly rent will increase to $750.00 from 30 April 2024.” The emails are referring to the tenants rather than ‘speaking’ to the tenants. This points to the emails being used by the tenants rather than a notice to the tenants.
From the evidence presented I am satisfied that the email dated 4 April 2024 was not a notice of a rent increase.

Does section 24 or section 28 RTA apply in this case?

The landlord’s submission at the hearing was that section 28 RTA applies in this case rather than the section 24 RTA. Section 28(1)(c) provides: ‘The landlord and the tenant may agree to increase the rent if the landlord has, ......with the consent of the tenant, agreed to a variation in the terms of the tenancy that benefits the tenant.’
The tenancy commenced on 20 July 2020. From that date weekly rent payments remained the same until the increase in 2024. The landlord lives in the Invercargill. The tenancy is at a rural property in Hamilton. The landlord travelled to Hamilton and met with the tenants on Saturday 23 March and Sunday 24 March 2024 to discuss the additional land the tenants wanted to rent and a rent increase for the property that was already part of the tenancy. Following discussions at those meetings the tenants agreed to pay $750.00 per week for the tenancy property and $120.00 extra for the additional land. The tenants do not dispute that they had agreed to these amounts at those meetings. However, they believe that the landlord had a responsibility under s.24 RTA to communicate that increase in writing, giving them 60 days before the increase came into effect.
In summary, the parties reached agreement about a rent increase and about a change to the tenancy that included additional land the tenants requested. There was a benefit to the tenants by the variation. The fact that $120.00 was paid for the extra does not change the fact that ‘the landlord, with the consent of the tenant, agreed to a variation in the terms of the tenancy that benefits the tenant’. I am satisfied that section 28 RTA should apply to the parties’ agreement about the variation and rent increase. What is the effect of rent increases under section 28 regarding giving notice of the increase?
Section 28B RTA refers to the effect of rent increases under section 28. Subsection 28B(3) states that: ‘Sections 28 and 28A override sections 24 and 26’. That means that where there is an agreement to which section 28 applies, there is no requirement for a landlord to give a notice of a rent increase. An agreement under section 28 overrides the need to give notice. Therefore, the tenants’ claim for a refund on the grounds of inadequate notice of the increase, must be dismissed. What is the effect of rent increases under section 28 regarding the date when the increase applies?
The tenants’ claim includes that they were not given 60 days notice of the rent increase. The discussions about the rent and additional land took place on 23 and 24 March 2024 and the rent increase applied from 1 May 2024. That was a 33 day period of notice if dated from 24 April. Subsection 28B(1) RTA provides as follows: An increase of rent agreed or ordered under section 28 or 28A does not affect the dates on which the rent may otherwise be reviewed or increased.
This means that section 28 RTA generally overrides section 24 RTA, but not in respect to dates on which rent may be increased. The tenants were still entitled to a period of 60 days before the increase applied. The tenants paid the increased rent 27 days sooner than was required. This amounts to $250.71 overpaid rent.
The landlord must therefore pay the tenants the $250.71 that was overpaid. Filing Fee
Because the tenants have been partly successful with the claim, the filing fee of $27.00 is ordered to be paid by the landlord. Merits and justice.
Having considered the evidence and the law relating to this matter, I am satisfied that the order reflects the merits and justice of the case.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5272465 — net $277.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Overpayment of rent – 27 days	$250.71	Overpayment of rent – 27 days
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$277.71
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$277.71

Order

[The tenant/s] landlord/s] and [The tenant/s] landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] $277.71 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionTenant Overpayment of rent – 27 days $250.71 Filing fee reimbursement $27.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $277.71

Reasons

All parties except [The tenant/s] landlord/s] attended the teleconference hearing. The tenants’ claim
The tenants have claimed a refund of rent on the grounds that the landlord did not give notice in writing of a rent increase 60 days before that date on which the increase would be payable. The tenants have claimed $3,315.00 be refunded to them. This amount is the increased rent of $65.00 for 51 weeks dating from 30 April 2024 to 18 April 2025.
The tenants have based their claim on the requirement set out in section 24 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Ss24(1)(a) RTA requires notice of any increase to be in writing and ss24(1)(c) RTA provides that the day upon which the increased rent shall become payable shall be not less than 60 days after the date on which that notice is given.
The tenants claim that the landlord sent a written notice of the rent increase to each tenant on 4 April 2024. In the email the landlord stated that the weekly rent would increase to $750.00 (from $685) from 30 April 2024.
The tenants paid the increased rent from 1 May 2024 until the tenancy ended on 18 May 2025. They stated that it was not until discussions with WINZ after the tenancy ended that they learned that notice of an increase must be in writing and with 60 days notice before the increase takes place. Was the landlord’s email to the tenants, dated 4 April 2024 a notice of a rent increase?
The tenants claimed that the email to them on 4 April 2024 was the landlord’s notice of a rent increase. The landlord disputed that. The landlord stated that the parties reached agreement about the rent increase and later, the tenants requested an email from him that could be used for assistance from WINZ. The landlord pointed out that the email is addressed to “Dear Sir/Madam”. He stated that he would not refer to Marjorie and Sarah as ‘Sir’. The landlord sent two emails, one to each tenant. A notice of a rent increase would not require two separate emails. The landlord also referred to the content of the emails. The emails state, “Please be advised that after discussions with the tenant Marjorie Cleave (‘[The tenant/s] tenant/s]’ in the second email) that the weekly rent will increase to $750.00 from 30 April 2024.” The emails are referring to the tenants rather than ‘speaking’ to the tenants. This points to the emails being used by the tenants rather than a notice to the tenants.
From the evidence presented I am satisfied that the email dated 4 April 2024 was not a notice of a rent increase.

Does section 24 or section 28 RTA apply in this case?

The landlord’s submission at the hearing was that section 28 RTA applies in this case rather than the section 24 RTA. Section 28(1)(c) provides: ‘The landlord and the tenant may agree to increase the rent if the landlord has, ......with the consent of the tenant, agreed to a variation in the terms of the tenancy that benefits the tenant.’
The tenancy commenced on 20 July 2020. From that date weekly rent payments remained the same until the increase in 2024. The landlord lives in the Invercargill. The tenancy is at a rural property in Hamilton. The landlord travelled to Hamilton and met with the tenants on Saturday 23 March and Sunday 24 March 2024 to discuss the additional land the tenants wanted to rent and a rent increase for the property that was already part of the tenancy. Following discussions at those meetings the tenants agreed to pay $750.00 per week for the tenancy property and $120.00 extra for the additional land. The tenants do not dispute that they had agreed to these amounts at those meetings. However, they believe that the landlord had a responsibility under s.24 RTA to communicate that increase in writing, giving them 60 days before the increase came into effect.
In summary, the parties reached agreement about a rent increase and about a change to the tenancy that included additional land the tenants requested. There was a benefit to the tenants by the variation. The fact that $120.00 was paid for the extra does not change the fact that ‘the landlord, with the consent of the tenant, agreed to a variation in the terms of the tenancy that benefits the tenant’. I am satisfied that section 28 RTA should apply to the parties’ agreement about the variation and rent increase. What is the effect of rent increases under section 28 regarding giving notice of the increase?
Section 28B RTA refers to the effect of rent increases under section 28. Subsection 28B(3) states that: ‘Sections 28 and 28A override sections 24 and 26’. That means that where there is an agreement to which section 28 applies, there is no requirement for a landlord to give a notice of a rent increase. An agreement under section 28 overrides the need to give notice. Therefore, the tenants’ claim for a refund on the grounds of inadequate notice of the increase, must be dismissed. What is the effect of rent increases under section 28 regarding the date when the increase applies?
The tenants’ claim includes that they were not given 60 days notice of the rent increase. The discussions about the rent and additional land took place on 23 and 24 March 2024 and the rent increase applied from 1 May 2024. That was a 33 day period of notice if dated from 24 April. Subsection 28B(1) RTA provides as follows: An increase of rent agreed or ordered under section 28 or 28A does not affect the dates on which the rent may otherwise be reviewed or increased.
This means that section 28 RTA generally overrides section 24 RTA, but not in respect to dates on which rent may be increased. The tenants were still entitled to a period of 60 days before the increase applied. The tenants paid the increased rent 27 days sooner than was required. This amounts to $250.71 overpaid rent.
The landlord must therefore pay the tenants the $250.71 that was overpaid. Filing Fee
Because the tenants have been partly successful with the claim, the filing fee of $27.00 is ordered to be paid by the landlord. Merits and justice.
Having considered the evidence and the law relating to this matter, I am satisfied that the order reflects the merits and justice of the case.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5272465 — Tenancy dispute at 89A Duck Road, Rotokauri, RD 8, Hamilton 3288

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5272465 — Tenancy dispute at 89A Duck Road, Rotokauri, RD 8, Hamilton 3288

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does section 24 or section 28 RTA apply in this case?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does section 24 or section 28 RTA apply in this case?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.