What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5431294 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 5431294?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5431294?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5431294?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13433107-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5431294 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 5431294?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5431294?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5431294?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13433107-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

7 Hazelwood Avenue, Karori, Wellington 6012 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5431294 — Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Trio Group NZ Limited T/A Trio Group Rentals $1,102.50 from the bond, being one and a half weeks rent from 24 January 2026.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,940.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Trio Group Rentals: $1,102.50 [The tenant/s]: $1,837.50

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants have applied for their bond in the sum of $2,940 following the end of the tenancy.
The landlords have not made an application, but they seek three weeks rent arrears in the sum of $2,205 from the bond. The outcome of the tenants’ application will determine whether the bond is paid in full to them or is split between the parties. Background
This was a fixed term tenancy to 23 January 2026.
On 15 December 2025 the landlords called one of the tenants. The landlords said that they asked whether the tenants wanted to extend the term of the tenancy. The tenant said that the landlords wanted to know what their plans were. The tenant said that he would need to discuss it with the other tenants.
The tenants were actively looking for other accommodation and they said that by 16 December they had an offer of a tenancy, but they were continuing to look at other rentals.
On 31 December the lead tenant sent a message to the landlord which, relevantly, said “I talked to the rest of the flat, and yeah, we are all interested in moving to a new place”.
The landlords promptly replied with “Ok thanks for letting me know – 21 days notice from first business day”.
The tenants moved out on 23 January believing that they had given a valid notice that they wanted the tenancy to end on 23 January.
The landlords do not accept that it was a valid notice. They say that the tenants did not give a valid notice terminating the tenancy until 23 January and therefore they owe three weeks rent. Law
Section 60A of the residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) states, relevantly, that if, within the effective period, either party gives written notice that they do not intend to continue with the tenancy, the tenancy will not continue as a periodic tenancy. In effect, a notice will terminate the tenancy at the end of the fixed term.
Section 51(4) of the Act, which relates to termination notices, not notices under s60A, provides that a notice will not be invalid because it does not comply strictly with the requirements of such a notice as long as (among other things), the intention to terminate on a particular date or after a particular period is stated clearly in the notice and any non-compliance does not mislead the recipient. Discussion and Decision
As a preliminary point, the Act is clear that a notice of termination can be given on any day and end on any day. There is nothing in the Act that requires a notice under s60A to be given on any specific day or deem that it is not valid until the next business day if it is not given on a business day. The effective period ends 21 days before the end of the fixed term, not 21 working days. Therefore, if the tenant’s email sent on 31 December was a valid notice under s60A, it was served within the effective period.
The tenants’ email does not state clearly that they do not intend to continue with the tenancy. The words “we are all interested in moving to a new place” falls short of expressing, clearly, such an intention. I accept that the tenants intended it to mean that, and I also accept that when the landlord responded stating, “21 days notice from first business day”, they took that to mean that the landlord accepted it as a valid notice albeit, wrongly, that it took effect from the next business day.
The context in which it was sent is relevant. Whether the previous conversation on 15 December was about extending the tenancy or about clarifying the tenants’ plans, it was not expressly about ending the fixed term tenancy at the end of its term and the landlord was not expecting a decision one way or the other on ending the tenancy. That said, it is obvious that the tenants had three options namely, to extend the fixed term, to allow the tenancy to continue as a periodic tenancy or to end the tenancy at the end of the fixed term.
Unclear as the tenant’s email was in expressing the tenants’ intentions, the landlord’s response was also unclear. I can see how the tenants could take the landlord’s response as confirmation that their message was accepted as a valid notice that they intended the tenancy to end on 23 January. It could have said that the tenants must give 21 days notice to end the tenancy, and that would have informed them that their message was not accepted as a valid notice. In that case, I accept that they would have sent a message that clearly stated that they intended the tenancy to end on 23 January.
It was obvious to the landlord that the tenants were not interested in extending the term which left two possibilities. Either allowing the tenancy to become periodic or ending it on 23 January. In my view, it is reasonable to expect the landlords to have sought clarification as to which one the tenants wanted.
The landlords’ representative was on holiday at the time of the emails, and she had previously sent a message to all her tenants giving contact details of another person to contact in an emergency while she was away. She said that she should not have answered the message. It was New Years eve, and she did not expect to be dealing with business. But answer it she did, and in such a way that it is understandable that the tenants took it to mean that their email had been accepted as notice to end the tenancy.
I could justify a decision finding that, despite the uncertainty of the tenant’s email, the landlords’ email gave them a false sense of security that they had given a valid notice. That would result in the bond being paid to the tenants in full. But after considering all the circumstances, I find that both parties have been at fault. The tenants should have been clearer, and the landlords should have sought a clear decision from the tenants.
I therefore invoke s85 of the Act which provides that “The Tribunal shall 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 shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities”.
I find that it accords with the substantial merits and justice of the case to split the disputed amount of the bond equally. Each party will receive $1,102.50. There is no dispute that the tenants are entitled to the remaining $735 and so they will receive $1,837.50.
I make no award of the filing fee.
The tenants have had some success, and I so have granted them name suppression.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Trio Group NZ Limited T/A Trio Group Rentals $1,102.50 from the bond, being one and a half weeks rent from 24 January 2026.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,940.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Trio Group Rentals: $1,102.50 [The tenant/s]: $1,837.50

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants have applied for their bond in the sum of $2,940 following the end of the tenancy.
The landlords have not made an application, but they seek three weeks rent arrears in the sum of $2,205 from the bond. The outcome of the tenants’ application will determine whether the bond is paid in full to them or is split between the parties. Background
This was a fixed term tenancy to 23 January 2026.
On 15 December 2025 the landlords called one of the tenants. The landlords said that they asked whether the tenants wanted to extend the term of the tenancy. The tenant said that the landlords wanted to know what their plans were. The tenant said that he would need to discuss it with the other tenants.
The tenants were actively looking for other accommodation and they said that by 16 December they had an offer of a tenancy, but they were continuing to look at other rentals.
On 31 December the lead tenant sent a message to the landlord which, relevantly, said “I talked to the rest of the flat, and yeah, we are all interested in moving to a new place”.
The landlords promptly replied with “Ok thanks for letting me know – 21 days notice from first business day”.
The tenants moved out on 23 January believing that they had given a valid notice that they wanted the tenancy to end on 23 January.
The landlords do not accept that it was a valid notice. They say that the tenants did not give a valid notice terminating the tenancy until 23 January and therefore they owe three weeks rent. Law
Section 60A of the residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) states, relevantly, that if, within the effective period, either party gives written notice that they do not intend to continue with the tenancy, the tenancy will not continue as a periodic tenancy. In effect, a notice will terminate the tenancy at the end of the fixed term.
Section 51(4) of the Act, which relates to termination notices, not notices under s60A, provides that a notice will not be invalid because it does not comply strictly with the requirements of such a notice as long as (among other things), the intention to terminate on a particular date or after a particular period is stated clearly in the notice and any non-compliance does not mislead the recipient. Discussion and Decision
As a preliminary point, the Act is clear that a notice of termination can be given on any day and end on any day. There is nothing in the Act that requires a notice under s60A to be given on any specific day or deem that it is not valid until the next business day if it is not given on a business day. The effective period ends 21 days before the end of the fixed term, not 21 working days. Therefore, if the tenant’s email sent on 31 December was a valid notice under s60A, it was served within the effective period.
The tenants’ email does not state clearly that they do not intend to continue with the tenancy. The words “we are all interested in moving to a new place” falls short of expressing, clearly, such an intention. I accept that the tenants intended it to mean that, and I also accept that when the landlord responded stating, “21 days notice from first business day”, they took that to mean that the landlord accepted it as a valid notice albeit, wrongly, that it took effect from the next business day.
The context in which it was sent is relevant. Whether the previous conversation on 15 December was about extending the tenancy or about clarifying the tenants’ plans, it was not expressly about ending the fixed term tenancy at the end of its term and the landlord was not expecting a decision one way or the other on ending the tenancy. That said, it is obvious that the tenants had three options namely, to extend the fixed term, to allow the tenancy to continue as a periodic tenancy or to end the tenancy at the end of the fixed term.
Unclear as the tenant’s email was in expressing the tenants’ intentions, the landlord’s response was also unclear. I can see how the tenants could take the landlord’s response as confirmation that their message was accepted as a valid notice that they intended the tenancy to end on 23 January. It could have said that the tenants must give 21 days notice to end the tenancy, and that would have informed them that their message was not accepted as a valid notice. In that case, I accept that they would have sent a message that clearly stated that they intended the tenancy to end on 23 January.
It was obvious to the landlord that the tenants were not interested in extending the term which left two possibilities. Either allowing the tenancy to become periodic or ending it on 23 January. In my view, it is reasonable to expect the landlords to have sought clarification as to which one the tenants wanted.
The landlords’ representative was on holiday at the time of the emails, and she had previously sent a message to all her tenants giving contact details of another person to contact in an emergency while she was away. She said that she should not have answered the message. It was New Years eve, and she did not expect to be dealing with business. But answer it she did, and in such a way that it is understandable that the tenants took it to mean that their email had been accepted as notice to end the tenancy.
I could justify a decision finding that, despite the uncertainty of the tenant’s email, the landlords’ email gave them a false sense of security that they had given a valid notice. That would result in the bond being paid to the tenants in full. But after considering all the circumstances, I find that both parties have been at fault. The tenants should have been clearer, and the landlords should have sought a clear decision from the tenants.
I therefore invoke s85 of the Act which provides that “The Tribunal shall 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 shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities”.
I find that it accords with the substantial merits and justice of the case to split the disputed amount of the bond equally. Each party will receive $1,102.50. There is no dispute that the tenants are entitled to the remaining $735 and so they will receive $1,837.50.
I make no award of the filing fee.
The tenants have had some success, and I so have granted them name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5431294 — Rent arrears at 7 Hazelwood Avenue, Karori, Wellington 6012

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5431294 — Rent arrears at 7 Hazelwood Avenue, Karori, Wellington 6012

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