What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5440008 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 5440008?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Reimbursement Of Rent: $260.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5440008?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5440008?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13772553-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5440008 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 5440008?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Reimbursement Of Rent: $260.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5440008?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5440008?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13772553-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5440008 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5440008 — net $288.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Reimbursement of rent	$260.00	Reimbursement of rent
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$288.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$288.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
Janus Zeng must pay [The tenant/s] $288.00 immediately, being:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The owner Ms Zeng and her current property manager attended the hearing.
This tenancy ended after the landlord gave a 90 day notice. The tenants were concerned the notice was given because they had exercised their rights about a rent increase within 10 days of the notice being given. They are also concerned that the owner breached the requirements set out in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) for providing details when there is a change of management during the tenancy. The questions I have to decide are: • Did this tenancy become a periodic tenancy? • Should the landlord reimburse the rent increase? • Was the 90 day notice a retaliatory notice? • Were the tenants given proper notice about the changes of management?

Did this tenancy become a periodic tenancy?

The tenants signed a fixed term tenancy agreement from February 2024 – February 2025. A property management company, who I will call PM1, managed the tenancy. The owner was also named on the tenancy agreement.
At the end of 2024 the owner decided to manage the tenancy herself. There was a series of emails between the owner and the tenants around this time. The owner gave the tenants a new tenancy agreement to sign. The tenants consulted with Tenancy Services and asked for a variation to be signed instead, so the original terms continued to apply to the tenancy. A variation was never signed. At the time both the owner and the tenants believed they had extended the original fixed term for another year.
On 2 December 2025, in the context of the parties agreeing on what would happen for the next year, the tenants emailed the owner. They said they had been talking with Tenancy Services and they thought the tenancy had been periodic since February 2025 because a variation had never been signed. This suited the tenants who did not want to commit to another year at the house. At around the same time the owner engaged another property management company (PM2) who advised the owner that she had a periodic tenancy. PM2 gave the 90 day notice soon after.
I have read all the documents provided. It seems most likely to me there was a periodic tenancy from February 2025. This is because there was no clear written record setting out the conditions of a second fixed term. Also, the legal principle of contra proferentem, which goes against the person who provided the wording in disputes like this, means I would find for the tenants.

Should the landlord reimburse the rent increase?

It is agreed evidence the rent increase did not comply with the RTA. The owner offered to pay the $260 of overpaid rent back to the tenants. I find this payment should be made and have made an order in favour of the tenants.
The tenants have asked for exemplary damages because of the unlawful rent increase. This is not possible because exemplary damages is not available for a breach of section 24 RTA, which is the section that sets out the law for rent increases. This claim is dismissed.

Was the 90 day notice a retaliatory notice?

On 1 December 2025 the tenants emailed the owner and said they did not want a fixed term tenancy from 2026 – 2027. On 9 December 2025 the tenants emailed the owner and said there was a problem with the rent increase. On 19 December 2025 PM2 emailed a 90 day notice to end the tenancy. The tenants claim the notice is retaliatory.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. Where a party has issued a retaliatory notice, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so.
The tenants said they exercised a right when they raised the issue of the improper rent increase and they were given the 90 day notice as a result. They said the timing of the notice, given 10 days after their email, is evidence of intention. The owner said that she asked PM2 to end the tenancy because her circumstances have changed and she needs the certainty of a fixed term going forward.
This is the tenants’ claim to prove. I am more persuaded by the owner’s explanation. The amount of over paid rent, at $5 a week, is a small amount in the context of a two year tenancy. The owner subsequently apologised and offered to repay the increase. The communications between the parties in December also discussed the owner’s preference for a fixed term tenancy. I find the owner was more motivated by the need for a fixed term than by the exercise of rights over the rent increase. The claim there was a retaliatory notice is dismissed.

Were the tenants given proper notice about the changes of management?

The tenants have claimed that they were not given a physical address when there were changes of management during the tenancy. They said this was a breach of the RTA. I can see that PM1 gave the tenants a telephone number and an email address for the owner by email on 19 December 2024.
Sections 15 and 16 RTA both deal with changes during the tenancy. I’m not sure that section 15 applies because the owner was named on the tenancy agreement, so the owner’s interest did not pass to another person during the tenancy. Under section 16 there is a requirement to provide updated information within 10 days of a change of name or address. Both sections require a telephone number and email address to be provided as the new contact address. There is no requirement to provide a physical address.
This is the tenants’ claim to prove. I do not find there was a breach by PM1 or the owner in 2024. I have not been provided with sufficient information to prove there was a breach by the owner and PM2 in December 2025. This claim is dismissed. Other orders
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
There is an application for suppression. Section 95A RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest.
The tenants’ names are suppressed because they are the most successful party. The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest when landlords breach the RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5440008 — net $288.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Reimbursement of rent	$260.00	Reimbursement of rent
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$288.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$288.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
Janus Zeng must pay [The tenant/s] $288.00 immediately, being:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The owner Ms Zeng and her current property manager attended the hearing.
This tenancy ended after the landlord gave a 90 day notice. The tenants were concerned the notice was given because they had exercised their rights about a rent increase within 10 days of the notice being given. They are also concerned that the owner breached the requirements set out in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) for providing details when there is a change of management during the tenancy. The questions I have to decide are: • Did this tenancy become a periodic tenancy? • Should the landlord reimburse the rent increase? • Was the 90 day notice a retaliatory notice? • Were the tenants given proper notice about the changes of management?

Did this tenancy become a periodic tenancy?

The tenants signed a fixed term tenancy agreement from February 2024 – February 2025. A property management company, who I will call PM1, managed the tenancy. The owner was also named on the tenancy agreement.
At the end of 2024 the owner decided to manage the tenancy herself. There was a series of emails between the owner and the tenants around this time. The owner gave the tenants a new tenancy agreement to sign. The tenants consulted with Tenancy Services and asked for a variation to be signed instead, so the original terms continued to apply to the tenancy. A variation was never signed. At the time both the owner and the tenants believed they had extended the original fixed term for another year.
On 2 December 2025, in the context of the parties agreeing on what would happen for the next year, the tenants emailed the owner. They said they had been talking with Tenancy Services and they thought the tenancy had been periodic since February 2025 because a variation had never been signed. This suited the tenants who did not want to commit to another year at the house. At around the same time the owner engaged another property management company (PM2) who advised the owner that she had a periodic tenancy. PM2 gave the 90 day notice soon after.
I have read all the documents provided. It seems most likely to me there was a periodic tenancy from February 2025. This is because there was no clear written record setting out the conditions of a second fixed term. Also, the legal principle of contra proferentem, which goes against the person who provided the wording in disputes like this, means I would find for the tenants.

Should the landlord reimburse the rent increase?

It is agreed evidence the rent increase did not comply with the RTA. The owner offered to pay the $260 of overpaid rent back to the tenants. I find this payment should be made and have made an order in favour of the tenants.
The tenants have asked for exemplary damages because of the unlawful rent increase. This is not possible because exemplary damages is not available for a breach of section 24 RTA, which is the section that sets out the law for rent increases. This claim is dismissed.

Was the 90 day notice a retaliatory notice?

On 1 December 2025 the tenants emailed the owner and said they did not want a fixed term tenancy from 2026 – 2027. On 9 December 2025 the tenants emailed the owner and said there was a problem with the rent increase. On 19 December 2025 PM2 emailed a 90 day notice to end the tenancy. The tenants claim the notice is retaliatory.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. Where a party has issued a retaliatory notice, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so.
The tenants said they exercised a right when they raised the issue of the improper rent increase and they were given the 90 day notice as a result. They said the timing of the notice, given 10 days after their email, is evidence of intention. The owner said that she asked PM2 to end the tenancy because her circumstances have changed and she needs the certainty of a fixed term going forward.
This is the tenants’ claim to prove. I am more persuaded by the owner’s explanation. The amount of over paid rent, at $5 a week, is a small amount in the context of a two year tenancy. The owner subsequently apologised and offered to repay the increase. The communications between the parties in December also discussed the owner’s preference for a fixed term tenancy. I find the owner was more motivated by the need for a fixed term than by the exercise of rights over the rent increase. The claim there was a retaliatory notice is dismissed.

Were the tenants given proper notice about the changes of management?

The tenants have claimed that they were not given a physical address when there were changes of management during the tenancy. They said this was a breach of the RTA. I can see that PM1 gave the tenants a telephone number and an email address for the owner by email on 19 December 2024.
Sections 15 and 16 RTA both deal with changes during the tenancy. I’m not sure that section 15 applies because the owner was named on the tenancy agreement, so the owner’s interest did not pass to another person during the tenancy. Under section 16 there is a requirement to provide updated information within 10 days of a change of name or address. Both sections require a telephone number and email address to be provided as the new contact address. There is no requirement to provide a physical address.
This is the tenants’ claim to prove. I do not find there was a breach by PM1 or the owner in 2024. I have not been provided with sufficient information to prove there was a breach by the owner and PM2 in December 2025. This claim is dismissed. Other orders
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
There is an application for suppression. Section 95A RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest.
The tenants’ names are suppressed because they are the most successful party. The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest when landlords breach the RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5440008 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5440008 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did this tenancy become a periodic tenancy?

Should the landlord reimburse the rent increase?

Was the 90 day notice a retaliatory notice?

Were the tenants given proper notice about the changes of management?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did this tenancy become a periodic tenancy?

Should the landlord reimburse the rent increase?

Was the 90 day notice a retaliatory notice?

Were the tenants given proper notice about the changes of management?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions