What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5338404 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 5338404?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5338404?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5338404?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12615756-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5338404 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 5338404?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5338404?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5338404?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12615756-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

14 Te Wiata Place, Avondale, Auckland 1026 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5338404 — Rent arrears

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 landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by a representative, Carina Hsieh. The tenant company was represented by its director. Background
The parties entered into a tenancy agreement on 17 November 2023. The tenancy agreement provided that the tenancy was for a fixed term of three years, expiring on 17 November 2026.
The tenant is in business operating as sub-landlord. The tenancy agreement expressly permitted the tenant to sub-let the tenancy on a room-by-room basis.
On 28 July 2025 Auckland Council issued the landlord with a Notice to Fix on the basis that it had carried out an inspection and found that there had been a change of use of the property from a single residential property to a boarding/accommodation house without the necessary consents or approvals.
The Notice to Fix required the landlord to either notify Auckland Council of a change of use, revert the property to previous consented use, or pursue a legal option to achieve compliance (including applying for a Certificate of Acceptance).
On 30 July 2025 the landlord served the tenant with a “notice to terminate the periodic tenancy” by giving 42 days’ notice on the basis that “the owner is required, under an unconditional agreement for sale of the premises, to give the purchaser vacant possession” 1 . The landlord’s claims
On 1 September 2025 the landlord filed this application seeking the following: a. An order terminating the tenancy on the basis that a notice had been served to end the tenancy but the tenant remains in possession; and b. An order for rent arrears in the amount of $1,200.
At the hearing today the landlord said that the tenancy had ended by agreement and so they no longer sought an order for possession.
The landlord said that the tenancy ended on 13 October 2025. They produced a rent summary showing that rent was owing to that date in the amount of $4,662.85.
The tenant said that all rent was up to date. They said that the landlord’s rent summary was incorrect because the landlord: a. Purported to increase the rent from $1,600 per week to $1,680 per week on 23 May 2025 in breach of section 24 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA); and b. The tenancy ended on 3 October 2025.
Section 24 RTA provides that a landlord under a fixed-term tenancy may not increase the rent during the term of the tenancy unless permitted by the provisions of the tenancy agreement to do so.
Ms Hsieh rightly conceded that the tenancy agreement did not permit the landlord to increase the rent during the fixed term.
The rent therefore should have been calculated at a rate of $1,600 per week for the entire duration of the tenancy.
The more difficult issue to determine was the date on which the tenancy ended as there was no clear written agreement between the parties. 1 The notice appears to have been issued pursuant to section 51 RTA, which applies only to periodic tenancies and not fixed term tenancies, but as the tenancy has now ended I do not need to determine whether the notice was effective
The parties submitted copies of emails and screen shots of WhatsApp messages that were exchanged between Ms Gong and the tenant.
The tenant’s employee sent the landlord an email on 3 October at 3.46pm offering to end their tenancy that day on the basis that: a. They would pass on all tenant (occupiers) details to the landlord; b. Any rent paid from 3 October 2025 would be forwarded to the landlord; and c. They would send the bond refunds for the remaining tenants to her for re- lodging with the Bond Centre.
The landlord initially responded by email stating that the tenancy would end on 13 October but then exchanged WhatsApp messages with the tenant’s director later that day, from 6pm, stating: “The notice Daug issued was ended on 05 th , I didn’t get your confirmation of exactly date. It is not fair for me. But to avoid trouble with Council I will take it today and the people who are there need to pay their rents from today is that correct?”
The landlord then immediately sent further messages seeking contact information for the occupants and bonds paid and said “If today I start taking over [the property], I need to meet the people and get the other keys now. Please let them know I will be there by 8.00pm.” The tenant responded stating that they would pass on all information and the keys, and the landlord asked the tenant to let the occupants know that they would be coming over at 8.00pm that day.
The tenant confirmed that they did not receive any rent from the occupants of the property after 3 October 2025.
I am satisfied from the above exchange that the tenancy ended on 3 October 2025. The tenant offered to end the tenancy that day on terms that were then accepted by the landlord 2 .
The tenant produced a rent summary showing that, on the basis that the rent for the tenancy was $1,600 for the entire tenancy, and the tenancy ended on 3 October 2025, no rent was owing. The total payments set out in the tenant’s rent summary accord with the total payments set out in the landlord’s rent summary.
I am satisfied that the tenant does not owe the landlord any rent.
The landlord’s claim is therefore dismissed. 2 At the hearing Ms Hsieh referred me to correspondence regarding the date on which some of the sub-tenancies (being the tenancies of the occupants) were to end but I do not regard these as relevant to the date on which the tenancy between the landlord and the tenant came to an end Filing fee and name suppression
The landlord has not been the successful party and I have therefore not reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenant has been the successful party and is therefore entitled to an order for name suppression pursuant to section 95A RTA.

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 landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by a representative, Carina Hsieh. The tenant company was represented by its director. Background
The parties entered into a tenancy agreement on 17 November 2023. The tenancy agreement provided that the tenancy was for a fixed term of three years, expiring on 17 November 2026.
The tenant is in business operating as sub-landlord. The tenancy agreement expressly permitted the tenant to sub-let the tenancy on a room-by-room basis.
On 28 July 2025 Auckland Council issued the landlord with a Notice to Fix on the basis that it had carried out an inspection and found that there had been a change of use of the property from a single residential property to a boarding/accommodation house without the necessary consents or approvals.
The Notice to Fix required the landlord to either notify Auckland Council of a change of use, revert the property to previous consented use, or pursue a legal option to achieve compliance (including applying for a Certificate of Acceptance).
On 30 July 2025 the landlord served the tenant with a “notice to terminate the periodic tenancy” by giving 42 days’ notice on the basis that “the owner is required, under an unconditional agreement for sale of the premises, to give the purchaser vacant possession” 1 . The landlord’s claims
On 1 September 2025 the landlord filed this application seeking the following: a. An order terminating the tenancy on the basis that a notice had been served to end the tenancy but the tenant remains in possession; and b. An order for rent arrears in the amount of $1,200.
At the hearing today the landlord said that the tenancy had ended by agreement and so they no longer sought an order for possession.
The landlord said that the tenancy ended on 13 October 2025. They produced a rent summary showing that rent was owing to that date in the amount of $4,662.85.
The tenant said that all rent was up to date. They said that the landlord’s rent summary was incorrect because the landlord: a. Purported to increase the rent from $1,600 per week to $1,680 per week on 23 May 2025 in breach of section 24 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA); and b. The tenancy ended on 3 October 2025.
Section 24 RTA provides that a landlord under a fixed-term tenancy may not increase the rent during the term of the tenancy unless permitted by the provisions of the tenancy agreement to do so.
Ms Hsieh rightly conceded that the tenancy agreement did not permit the landlord to increase the rent during the fixed term.
The rent therefore should have been calculated at a rate of $1,600 per week for the entire duration of the tenancy.
The more difficult issue to determine was the date on which the tenancy ended as there was no clear written agreement between the parties. 1 The notice appears to have been issued pursuant to section 51 RTA, which applies only to periodic tenancies and not fixed term tenancies, but as the tenancy has now ended I do not need to determine whether the notice was effective
The parties submitted copies of emails and screen shots of WhatsApp messages that were exchanged between Ms Gong and the tenant.
The tenant’s employee sent the landlord an email on 3 October at 3.46pm offering to end their tenancy that day on the basis that: a. They would pass on all tenant (occupiers) details to the landlord; b. Any rent paid from 3 October 2025 would be forwarded to the landlord; and c. They would send the bond refunds for the remaining tenants to her for re- lodging with the Bond Centre.
The landlord initially responded by email stating that the tenancy would end on 13 October but then exchanged WhatsApp messages with the tenant’s director later that day, from 6pm, stating: “The notice Daug issued was ended on 05 th , I didn’t get your confirmation of exactly date. It is not fair for me. But to avoid trouble with Council I will take it today and the people who are there need to pay their rents from today is that correct?”
The landlord then immediately sent further messages seeking contact information for the occupants and bonds paid and said “If today I start taking over [the property], I need to meet the people and get the other keys now. Please let them know I will be there by 8.00pm.” The tenant responded stating that they would pass on all information and the keys, and the landlord asked the tenant to let the occupants know that they would be coming over at 8.00pm that day.
The tenant confirmed that they did not receive any rent from the occupants of the property after 3 October 2025.
I am satisfied from the above exchange that the tenancy ended on 3 October 2025. The tenant offered to end the tenancy that day on terms that were then accepted by the landlord 2 .
The tenant produced a rent summary showing that, on the basis that the rent for the tenancy was $1,600 for the entire tenancy, and the tenancy ended on 3 October 2025, no rent was owing. The total payments set out in the tenant’s rent summary accord with the total payments set out in the landlord’s rent summary.
I am satisfied that the tenant does not owe the landlord any rent.
The landlord’s claim is therefore dismissed. 2 At the hearing Ms Hsieh referred me to correspondence regarding the date on which some of the sub-tenancies (being the tenancies of the occupants) were to end but I do not regard these as relevant to the date on which the tenancy between the landlord and the tenant came to an end Filing fee and name suppression
The landlord has not been the successful party and I have therefore not reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenant has been the successful party and is therefore entitled to an order for name suppression pursuant to section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5338404 — Rent arrears at 14 Te Wiata Place, Avondale, Auckland 1026

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5338404 — Rent arrears at 14 Te Wiata Place, Avondale, Auckland 1026

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions