What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5475271 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5475271?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5475271?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5475271?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13844912-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5475271 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5475271?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5475271?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5475271?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13844912-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 1, 54 Jellicoe Road, Panmure, Auckland 1072 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5475271 — Rent arrears

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via remote video conference.
The landlord lodged an application in respect of rent arrears. The landlord provided an updated rent ledger during the hearing. Background
The tenancy started on 24 December 2024. The tenancy continues as at todays’ date. The weekly rent was $580.00.
The background to this is unfortunate. The original tenancy agreement was signed by the tenants on 22 and 23 December 2024. The landlord counter signed on 24 December 2024. The tenancy was fixed for the period 24 December 2024 to 5 January 2026.
On or about early January 2026 the parties agreed to an extension of the fixed term agreement. The tenants signed an Extension of a Fixed Term Agreement document on 8 and 11 January 2026. The landlord counter signed on 12 January 2026.
Contained within the extension document signed by both parties was a weekly rent of $530.00. The tenants started paying this reduced amount with the belief that the rent had been reduced from $580.00 to $530.00 per week.
The landlord says that this was a clerical error and the amount of $530.00 recorded in the extension agreement was incorrect.
The landlord did not bring this error to the attention of the tenants until 2 February 2026 when a text message was sent to the tenants advising that their rent was overdue. Further text messages were sent to the tenants on 16 February and 23 February 2026 advising that their rent was still overdue.
The tenants emailed the landlord on 10 February 2026 stating that there may be an error in their records. It was not until 25 March 2026 that the landlord emailed the tenants, apologising for the delay and stating that the variation incorrectly lists the rent at $530.00 per week and that this was a clerical error.
The landlord then served a series of 14-day notices on the tenants. The notices were dated 17 March 2026, 25 March 2026, 20 April 2026 and 12 May 2026.
The landlord now comes to the Tribunal seeking termination and payment of the difference in rent outstanding of $1,250.00.
During the hearing the tenants held the belief that their rent had reduced from $580.00 to $530.00 per week. They continued to pay this reduced amount, arguing that the landlord’s records were incorrect and that they do not have any outstanding rent. Their opposition to the landlord’s claim was consistent.
It must also be recorded that prior to this error the tenants always paid their rent on time. I understand that they have not come before the Tribunal previously for a breach of their obligations in respect of this tenancy.
The landlord says that the amount of $580.00 is clearly the correct rent payable given the bond amount of $2,320.00 (being 4 weeks rent). The landlord also suggested during the hearing that the tenants should have queried the amount as to whether it was correct. They also say that the tenants should have checked what they were signing was correct. Relevant law Section 85 RTA provides: 85 Manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised (1)Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. (2)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. Analysis
Based on the evidence filed by the parties, along with the oral evidence received today I accept the tenant’s submissions in response to the landlord’s claim.
In my view the tenant’s argument is credible. They signed an extension of the fixed term lease in early January 2026 with what appears to be an honest belief that the rent had reduced from $580.00 to $530.00 per week. The landlord may very well have had a different intention at the time however it was nearly one month later that that the landlord text the tenants regarding an overdue rent payment.
The tenants hold the view that they have a signed agreement and that they have honoured that agreement by paying the ‘correct’ amount. The difficulty faced by the landlord in my view is that they did not bring this error to the attention of the tenants straight away. Instead, it was not until 25 March that there was a formal email from the property manager to the tenants.
In my view the correct response from the landlord would have been an immediate notification by telephone to the tenants that the amount recorded was incorrect, along with a further amendment correcting the amount payable. The landlord did not do this. Instead, they merely sent text messages which caused genuine confusion, stress and no doubt, anxiety for the tenants.
I find that the tenants have strictly complied with the terms of the extension and see no evidence provided by the landlord which suggests that the tenants were well aware that this was a mistake. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the tenants took advantage of this mistake for their own benefit.
I also find that the landlord’s behaviour in this case is relevant. They initially accepted the lower payments, did not serve a rent increase on the tenants and have still not sought to amend the agreement as at todays’ date. While the sending of text messages alerted the tenants to an issue with their rent payments, these are not equivalent to formally varying the extended tenancy agreement.
Accordingly, I find that the extension document was signed by both parties at the rate of $530.00 per week. The tenants paid exactly what was recorded in the extension document. I also base my findings on my assessment of the evidence provided by the parties, along with the oral evidence received today during the hearing.
I find that terminating the tenancy and ordering payment of rent arrears would be grossly unfair on the tenants as a consequence of an agent’s clerical error.
Accordingly, I find that the Extension of a Fixed Term Agreement document governs this tenancy. The rent is $530.00 until lawfully changed.
The landlord’s claim is dismissed.
The landlord applied for a name suppression order. The landlord is not entitled to name suppression as the application has been unsuccessful – see section 95A RTA.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via remote video conference.
The landlord lodged an application in respect of rent arrears. The landlord provided an updated rent ledger during the hearing. Background
The tenancy started on 24 December 2024. The tenancy continues as at todays’ date. The weekly rent was $580.00.
The background to this is unfortunate. The original tenancy agreement was signed by the tenants on 22 and 23 December 2024. The landlord counter signed on 24 December 2024. The tenancy was fixed for the period 24 December 2024 to 5 January 2026.
On or about early January 2026 the parties agreed to an extension of the fixed term agreement. The tenants signed an Extension of a Fixed Term Agreement document on 8 and 11 January 2026. The landlord counter signed on 12 January 2026.
Contained within the extension document signed by both parties was a weekly rent of $530.00. The tenants started paying this reduced amount with the belief that the rent had been reduced from $580.00 to $530.00 per week.
The landlord says that this was a clerical error and the amount of $530.00 recorded in the extension agreement was incorrect.
The landlord did not bring this error to the attention of the tenants until 2 February 2026 when a text message was sent to the tenants advising that their rent was overdue. Further text messages were sent to the tenants on 16 February and 23 February 2026 advising that their rent was still overdue.
The tenants emailed the landlord on 10 February 2026 stating that there may be an error in their records. It was not until 25 March 2026 that the landlord emailed the tenants, apologising for the delay and stating that the variation incorrectly lists the rent at $530.00 per week and that this was a clerical error.
The landlord then served a series of 14-day notices on the tenants. The notices were dated 17 March 2026, 25 March 2026, 20 April 2026 and 12 May 2026.
The landlord now comes to the Tribunal seeking termination and payment of the difference in rent outstanding of $1,250.00.
During the hearing the tenants held the belief that their rent had reduced from $580.00 to $530.00 per week. They continued to pay this reduced amount, arguing that the landlord’s records were incorrect and that they do not have any outstanding rent. Their opposition to the landlord’s claim was consistent.
It must also be recorded that prior to this error the tenants always paid their rent on time. I understand that they have not come before the Tribunal previously for a breach of their obligations in respect of this tenancy.
The landlord says that the amount of $580.00 is clearly the correct rent payable given the bond amount of $2,320.00 (being 4 weeks rent). The landlord also suggested during the hearing that the tenants should have queried the amount as to whether it was correct. They also say that the tenants should have checked what they were signing was correct. Relevant law Section 85 RTA provides: 85 Manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised (1)Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. (2)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. Analysis
Based on the evidence filed by the parties, along with the oral evidence received today I accept the tenant’s submissions in response to the landlord’s claim.
In my view the tenant’s argument is credible. They signed an extension of the fixed term lease in early January 2026 with what appears to be an honest belief that the rent had reduced from $580.00 to $530.00 per week. The landlord may very well have had a different intention at the time however it was nearly one month later that that the landlord text the tenants regarding an overdue rent payment.
The tenants hold the view that they have a signed agreement and that they have honoured that agreement by paying the ‘correct’ amount. The difficulty faced by the landlord in my view is that they did not bring this error to the attention of the tenants straight away. Instead, it was not until 25 March that there was a formal email from the property manager to the tenants.
In my view the correct response from the landlord would have been an immediate notification by telephone to the tenants that the amount recorded was incorrect, along with a further amendment correcting the amount payable. The landlord did not do this. Instead, they merely sent text messages which caused genuine confusion, stress and no doubt, anxiety for the tenants.
I find that the tenants have strictly complied with the terms of the extension and see no evidence provided by the landlord which suggests that the tenants were well aware that this was a mistake. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the tenants took advantage of this mistake for their own benefit.
I also find that the landlord’s behaviour in this case is relevant. They initially accepted the lower payments, did not serve a rent increase on the tenants and have still not sought to amend the agreement as at todays’ date. While the sending of text messages alerted the tenants to an issue with their rent payments, these are not equivalent to formally varying the extended tenancy agreement.
Accordingly, I find that the extension document was signed by both parties at the rate of $530.00 per week. The tenants paid exactly what was recorded in the extension document. I also base my findings on my assessment of the evidence provided by the parties, along with the oral evidence received today during the hearing.
I find that terminating the tenancy and ordering payment of rent arrears would be grossly unfair on the tenants as a consequence of an agent’s clerical error.
Accordingly, I find that the Extension of a Fixed Term Agreement document governs this tenancy. The rent is $530.00 until lawfully changed.
The landlord’s claim is dismissed.
The landlord applied for a name suppression order. The landlord is not entitled to name suppression as the application has been unsuccessful – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5475271 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 54 Jellicoe Road, Panmure, Auckland 1072

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5475271 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 54 Jellicoe Road, Panmure, Auckland 1072

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions