What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5479165 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and

How much money was awarded in case 5479165?

5. [The Landlord/S] Must Lodge: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5479165?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5479165?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13851968-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5479165 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and

How much money was awarded in case 5479165?

5. [The Landlord/S] Must Lodge: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5479165?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5479165?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13851968-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5479165 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5479165 — net $1,950.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
5. [The landlord/s] must lodge	$1,000.00	5. [The landlord/s] must lodge
Net award	$1,950.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,950.00

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and identifying details.
The Tribunal declares that the tenancy is a fixed-term tenancy for a period of five years.
The Tribunal declares that any rent increases imposed during the current fixed term tenancy are invalid and of no effect.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,950.00 immediately, being for an overpaid rent refund to 3 July 2026.
[The landlord/s] must lodge $1,000.00 with the bond centre to be held as bond for the tenancy.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord had originally applied for termination for rent arrears, however at the hearing, what was actually sought by both parties were declarations around the nature of the tenancy and rent increases that had occurred during the tenancy.
There was also an agreement that if my determination led to a rent credit, a portion of that rent credit should be paid as bond that was not paid at commencement of the tenancy. Background
On around 25 January 2023 the landlord completed a standard tenancy agreement for the property. The proposed agreement stated that the tenancy would commence on 4 February 2023 however, the type of tenancy and the end date was left blank.
The tenant completed the agreement, signed and returned to the landlord on around 20 February 2023 (after the tenancy had commenced). The tenant completed the agreement to record that the fixed term tenancy would end on 4 February 2028. In other words, that it would be a fixed term tenancy of 5 years.
On around 24 August 2024 the rent was increased from $400.00 a week to $450.00 a week, and the tenant made this change to his payments.
On 18 April 2026 the rent was again increased to $520.00. It was at this stage that the tenant started questioning whether this was valid given the fixed term nature of the tenancy agreement.
When the tenancy agreement was completed in 2023, the property was managed by the owner of the property. A property management company has since taken over the tenancy management.
The landlord did not consider that this was a fixed term tenancy of 5 years and believed that they only intended that this be a periodic tenancy or a shorter fixed term tenancy. Outside the tenancy agreements referred to above, no further documentation or evidence has been provided from the commencement of the tenancy.
The tenant submitted orally that he had a discussion with the owner around the length of the tenancy and that this was understood and agreed by the owner at that time.
Effectively both parties seek declarations around the status of both the fixed term tenancy and the rent increases. They also sought consequential orders around any rent arrears or credit and payment of the bond.

Was this a fixed term tenancy?

The Tribunal is satisfied that the parties entered into a written tenancy agreement which, as completed and signed by both parties, records the tenancy as a fixed-term tenancy for a period of five years. Although the owner left the term section blank when initially signing, the tenant completed this section, signed, and returned the agreement.
The owner and then landlord then allowed the tenancy to proceed on this basis. There is no evidence that the owner objected to the fixed-term provision at the time, nor is there any contemporaneous documentation to support the landlord’s claim that a periodic or shorter fixed-term tenancy was intended.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the parties’ conduct, the lack of contemporaneous correspondence to the contrary, and the signed agreement establish a binding fixed-term tenancy for five years. Validity of Rent Increases During Fixed Term
Section 24(1)(g) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states 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.
In this case, the tenancy agreement does not contain any provision permitting rent increases during the fixed term. Accordingly, any rent increases imposed by the landlord during the fixed term are invalid and of no effect.
The fact that the tenant paid the first rent increase does not, by itself, amount to an agreement to the rent increase.
Section 11 of the RTA provides that any agreement or arrangement that is inconsistent with the RTA is of no effect unless expressly permitted. The Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant’s payment of the increased rent, in the absence of a valid rent increase provision in the tenancy agreement, does not make the increase lawful or binding.
The rent must therefore be recalculated as if the rent increases never occurred. Bond payment and rent credit
The parties agreed that if there was any rent credit after a recalculation, a portion of this credit should be paid by the tenant for bond.
The tenancy agreement directed that the bond payment of $1,000.00 be paid that was not paid by the tenant at the commencement of the tenancy, and so this is ordered. I have ordered the landlord to pay that, since they are effectively holding it.
The landlord has helpfully provided rent summaries for each possible outcome of this decision, and therefore based on this evidence, the tenant is in a rent credit of $2,950.00 through to the rental period ending 3 July 2026.
The landlord is therefore to refund the tenant $1,950.00 (being $2,950.00 less the bond payment of $1,000.00). Obviously if there have been any rental payments or charges since the hearing date, then this figure may have changed and that change should be accommodated. Other concerns raised
During the hearing, concerns were raised around next steps given the difficulty my decision could place on either party.
As briefly discussed, the RTA allows landlords and tenants to mutually agree to vary the terms of the agreement at any time, including during a fixed term tenancy. This can include changes such as rent, duration, or other terms, if both parties agree in writing.
Alternatively, parties can apply to the Tribunal for an order to reduce or end the fixed term tenancy early. 1
I have on my own accord granted name suppression to both parties. There was a mutual need to determine and understand the terms of the tenancy, and any benefit of the decision to the public can be garnered without publication of names. See section 95A of the RTA. R Harvey-Lane 05 July 2026 1 See section 66 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5479165 — net $1,950.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
5. [The landlord/s] must lodge	$1,000.00	5. [The landlord/s] must lodge
Net award	$1,950.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,950.00

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and identifying details.
The Tribunal declares that the tenancy is a fixed-term tenancy for a period of five years.
The Tribunal declares that any rent increases imposed during the current fixed term tenancy are invalid and of no effect.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,950.00 immediately, being for an overpaid rent refund to 3 July 2026.
[The landlord/s] must lodge $1,000.00 with the bond centre to be held as bond for the tenancy.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord had originally applied for termination for rent arrears, however at the hearing, what was actually sought by both parties were declarations around the nature of the tenancy and rent increases that had occurred during the tenancy.
There was also an agreement that if my determination led to a rent credit, a portion of that rent credit should be paid as bond that was not paid at commencement of the tenancy. Background
On around 25 January 2023 the landlord completed a standard tenancy agreement for the property. The proposed agreement stated that the tenancy would commence on 4 February 2023 however, the type of tenancy and the end date was left blank.
The tenant completed the agreement, signed and returned to the landlord on around 20 February 2023 (after the tenancy had commenced). The tenant completed the agreement to record that the fixed term tenancy would end on 4 February 2028. In other words, that it would be a fixed term tenancy of 5 years.
On around 24 August 2024 the rent was increased from $400.00 a week to $450.00 a week, and the tenant made this change to his payments.
On 18 April 2026 the rent was again increased to $520.00. It was at this stage that the tenant started questioning whether this was valid given the fixed term nature of the tenancy agreement.
When the tenancy agreement was completed in 2023, the property was managed by the owner of the property. A property management company has since taken over the tenancy management.
The landlord did not consider that this was a fixed term tenancy of 5 years and believed that they only intended that this be a periodic tenancy or a shorter fixed term tenancy. Outside the tenancy agreements referred to above, no further documentation or evidence has been provided from the commencement of the tenancy.
The tenant submitted orally that he had a discussion with the owner around the length of the tenancy and that this was understood and agreed by the owner at that time.
Effectively both parties seek declarations around the status of both the fixed term tenancy and the rent increases. They also sought consequential orders around any rent arrears or credit and payment of the bond.

Was this a fixed term tenancy?

The Tribunal is satisfied that the parties entered into a written tenancy agreement which, as completed and signed by both parties, records the tenancy as a fixed-term tenancy for a period of five years. Although the owner left the term section blank when initially signing, the tenant completed this section, signed, and returned the agreement.
The owner and then landlord then allowed the tenancy to proceed on this basis. There is no evidence that the owner objected to the fixed-term provision at the time, nor is there any contemporaneous documentation to support the landlord’s claim that a periodic or shorter fixed-term tenancy was intended.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the parties’ conduct, the lack of contemporaneous correspondence to the contrary, and the signed agreement establish a binding fixed-term tenancy for five years. Validity of Rent Increases During Fixed Term
Section 24(1)(g) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states 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.
In this case, the tenancy agreement does not contain any provision permitting rent increases during the fixed term. Accordingly, any rent increases imposed by the landlord during the fixed term are invalid and of no effect.
The fact that the tenant paid the first rent increase does not, by itself, amount to an agreement to the rent increase.
Section 11 of the RTA provides that any agreement or arrangement that is inconsistent with the RTA is of no effect unless expressly permitted. The Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant’s payment of the increased rent, in the absence of a valid rent increase provision in the tenancy agreement, does not make the increase lawful or binding.
The rent must therefore be recalculated as if the rent increases never occurred. Bond payment and rent credit
The parties agreed that if there was any rent credit after a recalculation, a portion of this credit should be paid by the tenant for bond.
The tenancy agreement directed that the bond payment of $1,000.00 be paid that was not paid by the tenant at the commencement of the tenancy, and so this is ordered. I have ordered the landlord to pay that, since they are effectively holding it.
The landlord has helpfully provided rent summaries for each possible outcome of this decision, and therefore based on this evidence, the tenant is in a rent credit of $2,950.00 through to the rental period ending 3 July 2026.
The landlord is therefore to refund the tenant $1,950.00 (being $2,950.00 less the bond payment of $1,000.00). Obviously if there have been any rental payments or charges since the hearing date, then this figure may have changed and that change should be accommodated. Other concerns raised
During the hearing, concerns were raised around next steps given the difficulty my decision could place on either party.
As briefly discussed, the RTA allows landlords and tenants to mutually agree to vary the terms of the agreement at any time, including during a fixed term tenancy. This can include changes such as rent, duration, or other terms, if both parties agree in writing.
Alternatively, parties can apply to the Tribunal for an order to reduce or end the fixed term tenancy early. 1
I have on my own accord granted name suppression to both parties. There was a mutual need to determine and understand the terms of the tenancy, and any benefit of the decision to the public can be garnered without publication of names. See section 95A of the RTA. R Harvey-Lane 05 July 2026 1 See section 66 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5479165 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5479165 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was this a fixed term tenancy?

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was this a fixed term tenancy?

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions