What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5300901 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 5300901?

Overpaid Rent: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit: $400.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5300901?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5300901?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12872211-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5300901 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 5300901?

Overpaid Rent: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit: $400.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5300901?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5300901?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12872211-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5300901 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5300901 — net $200.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 8.1.2025	$1,000.00		Rent arrears to 8.1.2025
Overpaid rent		$400.00	Overpaid rent
Rent credit		$400.00	Rent credit
Total award	$1,000.00	$800.00
Net award	$200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$200.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5300901 — net $200.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 8.1.2025	$1,000.00		Rent arrears to 8.1.2025
Overpaid rent		$400.00	Overpaid rent
Rent credit		$400.00	Rent credit
Total award	$1,000.00	$800.00
Net award	$200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$200.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s names and identifying details.
The parties’ claims are calculated as shown in the table below. The result is that [The tenant/s] is to pay [The landlord/s] $200.00 immediately.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [The tenant/s] appeared in person with a support person, and [The landlord/s] attended via teleconference.
The landlord has filed an application seeking rent arrears from the tenant. This is application number 5300901. The tenant has filed a counterclaim, application number 5306441, seeking recovery of overpaid rent. Background
[The landlord/s] is the owner of the premises, which is a two bedroom home. On 1 May 2024 the tenant moved into the premises and occupied one bedroom. She paid the landlord $300.00 per week, which was paid on a fortnightly basis ($600.00 per fortnight). At the time, the landlord lived at the premises. One month later, she moved out.
The landlord sent the tenant two versions of the Tenancy Services standard form residential tenancy agreement. Both agreements recorded rent of $600.00 per week, to be paid on a fortnightly basis, for the entire premises. No bond is recorded. The tenant did not sign either version of the agreement.
The payment records show that, from 14 June 2024, the tenant paid $1,000.00 a fortnight, being rent of $500.00 a week. The tenant later paid $1,100.00 a fortnight, from 30 October 2024. The tenancy came to an end, with the tenant moving out on 3 January 2025. The landlord states the tenancy ended on 8 January 2025. The landlord’s claim
In support of the claim for rent arrears, the landlord has produced a rent summary. The start date is 12 June 2024 and records an amount due of $1,000.00 per fortnight. From 30 October 2024, the amount due is recorded as $1,100.00. The landlord claims a total of $2,100.00 in rent arrears for missed payments on 24 July 2024 and a final payment date of 25 December 2024.
In response, the tenant claims she ought to be paying $300.00 a week from the start of the tenancy. This is because, when she moved into the premises, it was to be on a room by room basis, and the rent covered the use of her room only. The tenant states she would not have moved into the premises had she been aware the landlord wanted her to take over the tenancy and pay rent for the entire premises. She did not sign the tenancy agreement sent by the landlord as she did not agree to the terms.
Furthermore, the tenant submits there was no written notice of the rent increase. In September, the landlord said the rent was to increase to $1,200.00 and then later, it became $1,100.00. The tenant’s claim
The tenant claims that she ought to be paying $300.00 per week ($600.00 per fortnight) from 14 June 2024 to the end of the tenancy, on 3 January 2025. She considers that she is only liable for rent for her bedroom alone, and not the whole premises. She confirmed her last payment was made on 11 December 2024. She felt she had been unfairly treated. She had tried to find a flatmate. On this basis, she considers she has overpaid rent and seeks repayment from the landlord, in the amount of $4,900.00.
In response, the landlord states that the initial agreement was discussed in April 2024. It was changed to $550.00, which the tenant was happy to pay. There was no agreement that it was on a room by room rent. A total of $1,200.00 was to be paid per fortnight. There was discussion that it was $600.00 a week. The landlord states that while she was still living at the premises, the tenant paid her $300.00 a week. This was a verbal agreement. She moved out on 4 June 2024. After she left, it was $600.00 a week. She sent the agreement, and this covered the whole of the premises, not just for the room. There was no written notice at the end of the tenancy. Legal framework
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) applies to every tenancy for residential purposes. There are some exclusions, listed in Section 5 of the Act.
A tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent...
A landlord, in relation to residential premises subject to a tenancy agreement, means the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement. 1
A tenant, in relation to residential premises subject to a tenancy agreement, means the grantee of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement. 2
Section 77 of the RTA provides that the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine (in accordance with the RTA) any dispute that (a) exists between a landlord and a tenant or between a landlord and the guarantor of a tenant; and (b) relates to any tenancy to which this Act applies or to which this Act did apply at any material time. 1 s.2 RTA definition of “landlord” 2 s.2 RTA definition of “tenant”
Therefore, it is clear from the legislation that the Tenancy Tribunal only has jurisdiction to determine disputes between a landlord and tenant. There is no jurisdiction to consider disputes between tenants or flatmates.
Section 5 sets out the circumstances where the RTA does not apply. The RTA does not apply to premises that continue to be used, during the tenancy, principally as a place of residence by the landlord or owner of the premises or by any member of the landlord’s or owner’s family. 3 This exclusion ceases to apply after the landlord moves out of the tenancy premises. Analysis
The initial arrangement between the parties involved a verbal agreement only, not recorded in writing, where the tenant paid $300.00 per week for the room she occupied. The parties do not dispute the amount payable for this period. Furthermore, as the landlord, who is the owner of the premises also lived there, this arrangement may fall outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The Tribunal only has jurisdiction to determine disputes between landlords and tenants, and not between an owner and a boarder/licensee, or between tenants or flatmates.
However, from the time the landlord moved out of the property, on 4 June 2024, the key questions are: • What is the nature of the arrangement? • What is the amount of rent payable by the tenant? Does the rent continue, at the rate of $300.00 per week, or is the tenant liable for the higher amount claimed by the landlord? • Did the landlord validly increase the rent? • When did the tenancy end? • Is any amount payable by either party to the other? In other words, does the tenant owe rent arrears to the landlord or does the landlord owe money to the tenant for overpaid rent?

What is the nature of the arrangement?

After the landlord left the premises, the arrangement between the parties can be regarded as a residential tenancy under the RTA. The written tenancy agreement, which is on the Tenancy Services standard form, records a weekly rent of $600.00, to be paid on a fortnightly basis. No bond is recorded. This agreement 3 s.5(1)(n) covers the whole of the premises, rather than occupation of one of the two bedrooms.
There are two versions of this agreement. The one provided by the tenant with her application records that the tenancy is to commence on 5 June 2024 and is signed by the landlord on 29 April 2024. The one provided by the landlord with her application records that the tenancy commences on 10 June 2024, and is dated 30 May 2024. There is some variation in the “other terms” of the tenancy, recorded in cause 4 of the agreement, with the later version (signed in May 2024) containing an additional clause about rent being inclusive of water but no other utilities.
While both versions of the agreement were signed by the landlord, the tenant did not sign either. However, she remained in occupation of the premises, and continued to pay rent to the landlord. So, while neither of the written tenancy agreements were signed, by virtue of the tenant paying the landlord rent during this period, and remaining in occupation of the premises, there was a residential tenancy in place.

What is the rent for this tenancy?

In terms of what the rent for this tenancy ought to be, the rent recorded in the written agreement, which the tenant did not sign, is $600.00 per week. However, the landlord’s rent summary does not rely on the rent recorded in the agreement, and appears to accept the reduced amount of $500.00 per week as paid. Therefore, at the start of the tenancy, I find the parties accepted a weekly rent of $500.00 for the tenancy of the whole of the premises.
I acknowledge the tenant’s submission that she ought to only be liable for rent based on her arrangement at the beginning, when she moved in and paid for her room at a rate of $300.00 weekly. I also accept that she was not aware, when she first entered into this arrangement, that the landlord was planning to leave soon after she moved in.
I also note her evidence that she initially thought the written agreement recorded the rent as being $600.00 a fortnight, which is understandable, given the fact that she was paying that amount in the beginning. However, based on the whole of the evidence, I find it likely that the tenant was made aware that the rent stated in the agreement was the weekly rate ($600.00), payable on a fortnightly basis. I also accept that paying rent for the whole premises created financial difficulties for her.
From the tenant’s payment records, it may be noted that on 14 June 2024, she made two payments, one for $600.00 and a second payment for $400.00, making a total of $1,000.00, which equates to $500.00 rent per week. Prior to this, she had been paying $600.00 a fortnight i.e.$300.00 per week. These payments continued on a fortnightly basis. The additional amount paid by the tenant indicates her acceptance of liability to pay an increased rent that reflects her occupation of the entire premises. After the landlord left, she had the benefit of the use of the entire premises. Furthermore, she did not give notice that she wished to end the tenancy, once she became aware the landlord was moving out. I accept that, in her circumstances, this would have been difficult to do immediately.

Did the landlord validly increase the rent?

Under section 24 of the Residential Tenancies Act (the RTA), a landlord is required to give 60 days’ notice of an increase in rent. The notice must be in writing, and any increase should not be sooner than 12 months from the start of the tenancy, or since the last increase.
I agree with the tenant that there was no valid notice of the increase of rent from $500.00 per week to $550.00 per week from 30 October 2024. The landlord has not provided evidence of any written notice of such increase. Furthermore, I do not find the tenant freely agreed to this rent increase. Therefore, the increased amount shown in the landlord’s rent summary is not justified, and so the tenant has overpaid $400.00 in rent for the period from 30 October 2024 to her last payment on 11 December 2024. This amount is payable to the tenant and is awarded above.

When did the tenancy end?

The parties do not agree on the end date of the tenancy. The tenant claims it is 3 January 2025, being the date she moved out, while the landlord claims the tenancy ended on 8 January 2025. The uncertainty results from the lack of clarity in the parties’ communication. As the landlord notes, no written notice of the tenancy ending was given by the tenant. Under the RTA, at the relevant time, the tenant would be required to give 28 days’ notice.
However, the parties messaged each other, via texts, so there was some written discussion as to when this tenancy was to end. The parties have also given their oral evidence on this issue. Having considered the whole of the evidence, I find it likely that the tenancy ended on 8 January 2025.

Is any amount payable by either party to the other?

For the reasons noted above, as the tenant has not established that the rent for this tenancy was $300.00 per week for the duration of the tenancy, her claim that she has overpaid rent from the start of the tenancy, and therefore ought to be paid $4,900.00 (earlier claimed to be $5,200.00) is dismissed.
However, I find the tenant ought to have received greater notice of the change in the arrangement. It was unreasonable to expect her to immediately pay rent for the whole of the premises within such a short time-fame, or find suitable flatmates to assist in contributing to the rent. For this reason, I consider that the tenant ought to be compensated, or given a credit, for the additional rent of $400.00 paid on 14 June 2024. This is recorded above.
I also consider that the landlord has not established her claim to the full rent arrears of $2,100.00. There are two separate payments claimed by the landlord. The first is the amount of $1,000.00, being two weeks rent for the period from 24 July to 7 August 2024. The landlord did not raise this missed payment with the tenant at the time. There is also an email, on 23 May 2025, from a person purportedly acting on behalf of the landlord, seeking rent of $1,100.00 for the period from 25 December 2024 to 8 January 2025. This email also does not refer to any other rent being payable. This amount was only claimed in the 14 day notice issued on 23 June 2025, almost one year later. I find that, due to the delay in seeking this amount, the landlord’s duty to mitigate loss, and the other circumstances surrounding this tenancy, the landlord is estopped from claiming the two weeks rent for this period.
However, in terms of the second period claimed, in view of the tenancy ending on 8 January 2025, and the tenant’s last payment being on 11 December 2024, there is a shortfall of two weeks rent. The landlord’s texts to the tenant at the time advised her that the final payment on 25 December 2024 would cover the two weeks to the end of the tenancy on 8 January 2025. The tenant also replied to this text, indicating that she would make this final payment once she started working again, or make part payment if she received the funds.
However, as noted earlier, since the landlord’s rent increase to $550.00 per week was not valid, the rent payable, for the final two weeks is $500.00 per week. So, the total payable by the tenant to the landlord is $1,000.00, which is awarded above. Name suppression and filing fee
Both parties seek name suppression, and each has had some success with their claims. The Tribunal, having had regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s names and identifying details.
As each party has had some success with their application, there is no order for reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5300901 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5300901 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

What is the nature of the arrangement?

What is the rent for this tenancy?

Did the landlord validly increase the rent?

When did the tenancy end?

Is any amount payable by either party to the other?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

What is the nature of the arrangement?

What is the rent for this tenancy?

Did the landlord validly increase the rent?

When did the tenancy end?

Is any amount payable by either party to the other?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions