What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5109611?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders apply to the publication of this decision.

How much money was awarded in case 5109611?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5109611?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5109611?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11517403-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5109611?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders apply to the publication of this decision.

How much money was awarded in case 5109611?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5109611?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5109611?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11517403-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

20 Victoria Road, New Plymouth, New Plymouth 4310 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5109611 — Tenancy dispute

Order

No suppression orders apply to the publication of this decision.
The tenant’s application that his rent exceeds the market rent is dismissed.
The notice sent by the landlord dated 27 November 2025 increasing the tenant’s rent is invalid.
Marylin Powell must pay Craig Huffam the filing fee of $27.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended this second hearing to deal with additional submissions and evidence in relation to the tenant’s application relating to an increase of his rent. I allowed the landlord to attend by telephone as she lives out of the area.
On 27 November 2024 the landlord gave the tenant notice that his rent would be increasing from $530 to $625 per week taking effect from 2 February 2025. The tenant says this increase is retaliatory and it exceeds market rent (section 25 Residential Tenancies Act 1986). My prior order dated 18 February 2025 dismissed the tenant’s application that this notice was retaliatory.
In considering the market rent I must first establish however what the rent payable is.
The tenancy agreement between the parties commenced on 2 February 2024 and sets out that the fixed term will end on 2 February 2025. Above that date the landlord has also written “one year”.
Section 24 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that: a landlord under a fixed-term tenancy— (i)may not increase the rent during the term of the tenancy unless permitted by the provisions of the tenancy agreement to do so; and (ii)may do so only in accordance with this section and any such provisions of the tenancy agreement
There are no provisions allowing the landlord to increase the rent within the fixed term period in this tenancy agreement.
Despite the landlord writing “one year” I find that the date upon which a reasonable person would take the fixed term to end in this tenancy is 2 February 2025. This is because this is what the contract expressly states in the space required for the date of the end of the fixed term. This means the fixed term ends at 11.59pm on 2 February 2025.
This means that the rent increase expressed to take effect on 2 February 2025 cannot be valid because the rent was increased within the fixed term.
Alternatively, if the clause is considered to be unclear (when asked the landlord herself could not determine what the drafting meant) the contra proferentem rule is a legal principle that dictates how unclear clauses in a contract should be interpreted. The rule provides that if a clause in a contract is ambiguous or can be interpreted in multiple ways, it should be read in a way that disfavours the party who originally drafted that specific clause. Here it was the landlord that drafted the clause and therefore to the extent that it is ambiguous it should be interpreted in the way it disfavours the landlord.
This means that, even when taking this alternative approach to interpreting the tenancy agreement, the fixed term still ends at 11.59pm on 2 February 2025 and therefore the rent increase notice is invalid.
I have considered if the error should be amended. In the context of notices to terminate which have been incorrectly calculated (rather than notices to increase rent) I note that the District Court has clearly told the Tribunal (Charan v Barfoot & Thompson Limited, DC Manukau, CIV-2010-092-002100, 14 June 2010) that it has no power to reduce the notice period or to vary a notice of termination unless a landlord applies for the Tribunal’s consent under s 51(7) RTA.
Section 51(7) sets out that: Where a party has given a notice to terminate the tenancy and subsequently realises that, because of— (a) some error in the way in which the period of the notice or the date of the expiry of that period is expressed in the notice; or (b) some delay in serving the notice,— the period of notice given is less than the minimum prescribed by subsection (1) or (as the case may require) subsection (2) or (2A), that party may, with the agreement of the other party or (failing such agreement) with the consent of the Tribunal, give to the other party a further notice varying the first notice so as to bring the period of notice given up to or above that minimum so required.
The wording of s 51(7) is echoed almost identically in s 24(7) RTA. Section 24(7) RTA applies in relation to errors made in relation to calculating dates for rent increase notices (rather than termination notices). It provides: Where a landlord has given a notice to increase the rent and subsequently realises that, because of— (a) some error in calculating the day on which the increased rent is to become payable or in the manner in which that day is expressed in the notice; or (b) some delay in serving the notice,— the day fixed in the notice for the increased rent to become payable is in contravention of subsection (1), the landlord may, with the agreement of the tenant or (failing such agreement) with the consent of the Tribunal, give to the tenant a further notice varying the original notice so as to bring the terms of the original notice into accord with the provisions of that subsection.
I have considered this very carefully. I do not consider that s 24(4) applies here. Here the landlord gave notice of a rent increase to take effect on the last day of a fixed-term tenancy. According to s 24(1)(g)(i), a landlord cannot increase rent during a fixed-term tenancy unless the tenancy agreement specifically allows it. Here the tenancy agreement does not allow rent increases during the fixed term so the notice is not valid. I find that these circumstances do not fall under s 24(4) because s 24(4) specifically deals with errors in the notice, not the validity of the rent increase notice itself.
The notice is inherently invalid because it does not meet the conditions required by the law.
Even if this were wrong and section 24(4) RTA applies, I find that the landlord would need to make an application to the Tribunal in such a situation in accordance with Charan v Barfoot & Thompson. No such application has been made here. Even if it were made, and even if the landlord could take advantage of this provision, the Tribunal would need to consider the factors in s 24(6).
The invalid notice to increase the rent means that the rent remains at $530 per week until there is a valid rent increase.
This means I do not need to consider whether the weekly rent of $625 is substantially in excess of the market rate because the tenant’s submission was that it is the increased rent ($625), not the existing rent ($530), which is substantially above market rent. Suppression and filing fee
I award the tenant the filing fee as he has been successful.
The landlord sought name suppression. Under Section 95A(1) RTA a suppression order must be granted on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings.
The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful because the landlord’s notice increasing the tenant’s rent is invalid and the rent of $625 does not apply. The disputes before me are not unusual or other than the ordinary business of the Tribunal and the open justice principle requires the outcome of adjudication to be available to the public. I see no other reason to award suppression. I therefore decline to award the landlord name suppression (s 95A, RTA).
The tenant does not seek suppression so I have not considered this.

Order

No suppression orders apply to the publication of this decision.
The tenant’s application that his rent exceeds the market rent is dismissed.
The notice sent by the landlord dated 27 November 2025 increasing the tenant’s rent is invalid.
Marylin Powell must pay Craig Huffam the filing fee of $27.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended this second hearing to deal with additional submissions and evidence in relation to the tenant’s application relating to an increase of his rent. I allowed the landlord to attend by telephone as she lives out of the area.
On 27 November 2024 the landlord gave the tenant notice that his rent would be increasing from $530 to $625 per week taking effect from 2 February 2025. The tenant says this increase is retaliatory and it exceeds market rent (section 25 Residential Tenancies Act 1986). My prior order dated 18 February 2025 dismissed the tenant’s application that this notice was retaliatory.
In considering the market rent I must first establish however what the rent payable is.
The tenancy agreement between the parties commenced on 2 February 2024 and sets out that the fixed term will end on 2 February 2025. Above that date the landlord has also written “one year”.
Section 24 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that: a landlord under a fixed-term tenancy— (i)may not increase the rent during the term of the tenancy unless permitted by the provisions of the tenancy agreement to do so; and (ii)may do so only in accordance with this section and any such provisions of the tenancy agreement
There are no provisions allowing the landlord to increase the rent within the fixed term period in this tenancy agreement.
Despite the landlord writing “one year” I find that the date upon which a reasonable person would take the fixed term to end in this tenancy is 2 February 2025. This is because this is what the contract expressly states in the space required for the date of the end of the fixed term. This means the fixed term ends at 11.59pm on 2 February 2025.
This means that the rent increase expressed to take effect on 2 February 2025 cannot be valid because the rent was increased within the fixed term.
Alternatively, if the clause is considered to be unclear (when asked the landlord herself could not determine what the drafting meant) the contra proferentem rule is a legal principle that dictates how unclear clauses in a contract should be interpreted. The rule provides that if a clause in a contract is ambiguous or can be interpreted in multiple ways, it should be read in a way that disfavours the party who originally drafted that specific clause. Here it was the landlord that drafted the clause and therefore to the extent that it is ambiguous it should be interpreted in the way it disfavours the landlord.
This means that, even when taking this alternative approach to interpreting the tenancy agreement, the fixed term still ends at 11.59pm on 2 February 2025 and therefore the rent increase notice is invalid.
I have considered if the error should be amended. In the context of notices to terminate which have been incorrectly calculated (rather than notices to increase rent) I note that the District Court has clearly told the Tribunal (Charan v Barfoot & Thompson Limited, DC Manukau, CIV-2010-092-002100, 14 June 2010) that it has no power to reduce the notice period or to vary a notice of termination unless a landlord applies for the Tribunal’s consent under s 51(7) RTA.
Section 51(7) sets out that: Where a party has given a notice to terminate the tenancy and subsequently realises that, because of— (a) some error in the way in which the period of the notice or the date of the expiry of that period is expressed in the notice; or (b) some delay in serving the notice,— the period of notice given is less than the minimum prescribed by subsection (1) or (as the case may require) subsection (2) or (2A), that party may, with the agreement of the other party or (failing such agreement) with the consent of the Tribunal, give to the other party a further notice varying the first notice so as to bring the period of notice given up to or above that minimum so required.
The wording of s 51(7) is echoed almost identically in s 24(7) RTA. Section 24(7) RTA applies in relation to errors made in relation to calculating dates for rent increase notices (rather than termination notices). It provides: Where a landlord has given a notice to increase the rent and subsequently realises that, because of— (a) some error in calculating the day on which the increased rent is to become payable or in the manner in which that day is expressed in the notice; or (b) some delay in serving the notice,— the day fixed in the notice for the increased rent to become payable is in contravention of subsection (1), the landlord may, with the agreement of the tenant or (failing such agreement) with the consent of the Tribunal, give to the tenant a further notice varying the original notice so as to bring the terms of the original notice into accord with the provisions of that subsection.
I have considered this very carefully. I do not consider that s 24(4) applies here. Here the landlord gave notice of a rent increase to take effect on the last day of a fixed-term tenancy. According to s 24(1)(g)(i), a landlord cannot increase rent during a fixed-term tenancy unless the tenancy agreement specifically allows it. Here the tenancy agreement does not allow rent increases during the fixed term so the notice is not valid. I find that these circumstances do not fall under s 24(4) because s 24(4) specifically deals with errors in the notice, not the validity of the rent increase notice itself.
The notice is inherently invalid because it does not meet the conditions required by the law.
Even if this were wrong and section 24(4) RTA applies, I find that the landlord would need to make an application to the Tribunal in such a situation in accordance with Charan v Barfoot & Thompson. No such application has been made here. Even if it were made, and even if the landlord could take advantage of this provision, the Tribunal would need to consider the factors in s 24(6).
The invalid notice to increase the rent means that the rent remains at $530 per week until there is a valid rent increase.
This means I do not need to consider whether the weekly rent of $625 is substantially in excess of the market rate because the tenant’s submission was that it is the increased rent ($625), not the existing rent ($530), which is substantially above market rent. Suppression and filing fee
I award the tenant the filing fee as he has been successful.
The landlord sought name suppression. Under Section 95A(1) RTA a suppression order must be granted on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings.
The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful because the landlord’s notice increasing the tenant’s rent is invalid and the rent of $625 does not apply. The disputes before me are not unusual or other than the ordinary business of the Tribunal and the open justice principle requires the outcome of adjudication to be available to the public. I see no other reason to award suppression. I therefore decline to award the landlord name suppression (s 95A, RTA).
The tenant does not seek suppression so I have not considered this.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5109611 — Tenancy dispute at 20 Victoria Road, New Plymouth, New Plymouth 4310

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5109611 — Tenancy dispute at 20 Victoria Road, New Plymouth, New Plymouth 4310

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions