Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5423875 — Rent arrears at 137 Peverel Street, Riccarton, Christchurch 8041
Decided 9 February 2026 · Published 9 February 2026 · Application 5423875
Tenant favoured
- Rent arrears
Order
- Liquan and Amy Wang must pay Shaobo Geng and Huilu Wu $1,135.72 immediately, being the balance of the bond less rent arrears owed by the tenant as set out below:
- The Tribunal declares that the tenancy between the parties was a periodic tenancy.
- The landlord’s application (other than for rent arrears) is dismissed.
- The tenant’s application is dismissed.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing today. Mr Geng represented the tenants. The Tribunal was assisted by 2 interpreters.
- The tenant has applied for a reduction of the term of the fixed term tenancy (to end as of 7 September 2025), a refund of overpaid rent, and the return of his bond.
- The landlord has applied for rent arrears, loss of rent compensation, lock replacement, and compensation for their time finding another tenant. Background
- The tenancy started on 29 August 2025. The tenancy agreement provided that the tenancy was a fixed term tenancy until 28 August 2026.
- The tenant experienced a power outage, promptly repaired by the landlord who changed a circuit breaker, and then further issues with the power tripping when they used multiple appliances.
- The tenant said they did not want to remain in the tenancy because of these issues and vacated the tenancy on 7 September 2025. They have paid rent up to 15 September 2025.
- The parties were unable to resolve the dispute about rent and compensation. The tenants seemed to be prepared to settle for the return of their bond. The landlord wanted rent to the date a new tenancy started (6 October 2025), compensation for reduced rent after that, and compensation for changing the lock and for their time finding a replacement tenant, a total of $4,349.90. Issues
- The issue for the Tribunal to determine are these: •Was the tenancy a fixed term tenancy? If not, what is the landlord entitled to? •Has the tenant proved a claim for a refund of rent? Discussion
- A decision on the claims both parties have made depends on whether the tenancy was a fixed term tenancy or a periodic tenancy. Was the tenancy a fixed term tenancy? If not, what is the landlord entitled to?
- Both parties believe that the tenancy was a fixed term tenancy because the rental agreement (1 page only) refers to the lease term as 29/08/2025 – 28/02/2026.
- However, the agreement contains a clause that states: If tenant infringes any condition as above, lessor can terminate the agreement immediately, and ask tenant move out (with one-week notice), as the case to deduct bond.
- A fixed term tenancy agreement can only be terminated in one of two ways – by agreement between the parties or by order of the Tribunal.
- By including a clause that allowed the landlord to terminate the tenancy, the Tribunal finds that the tenancy should be considered a periodic tenancy.
- The tenancy agreement is also deficient in many ways and is non-compliant with the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). For example, it requires rent to be paid monthly in advance which is a breach of section 23 RTA. And it contains none of the disclosure statements required by sections 13A and 13AB RTA. These inclusions and omissions are serious ones.
- Because the agreement will be considered a periodic tenancy, the tenant’s application to have the term of the tenancy reduced has no legal basis. Nor would it have succeeded. The threshold to reduce a fixed term tenancy is a high one. There must be an unforeseen change in the tenant’s circumstances that causes severe hardship greater than the landlord’s hardship. Those criteria were not met on the facts here.
Has the tenant proved a claim for a refund of rent?
- A periodic tenancy can be terminated on 21 days’ notice by the tenant.
- That the tenancy will be considered a periodic tenancy means that the landlord’s claims for continuing rent and for loss of rent compensation must fail. The tenant’s responsibility was to pay rent for 21 days after they gave notice to the landlord that they were leaving the tenancy. The first formal notice the tenants gave was on 7 September 2025, so they remained liable for rent until 28 September 2025. They paid rent until 15 September; they owe rent between then and 28 September. The amount they owe is $984.28.
- The landlord cannot claim for their time and effort finding a new tenant. Because the tenancy will be considered a periodic tenancy, the tenants had no continuing financial responsibility after the 21-day notice period ended.
- The landlord sought the cost of changing a lock because the tenant did not physically return a key. It went missing after the tenants placed it in an insecure shoe box.
- The lock has not been replaced, yet a new tenancy started on 6 October 2025, some 4 months ago. The landlord gave evidence that they reduced the rent because the premises were insecure, with 1 key missing.
- To claim for lock replacement, the landlord should have replaced the lock at the end of this tenancy and given the new keys to the new tenants. Without an invoice for the cost claimed, given the passage of time, the Tribunal awards no compensation for this breach by the tenant. Result
- The Tribunal declares that the tenancy between the parties was a periodic tenancy.
- The tenant’s application to reduce the term of the tenancy is dismissed.
- The tenant’s application for a refund of rent is dismissed.
- The landlord’s claims are dismissed, other than for rent arrears to 28 September 2025.
- The landlord must pay the tenant $1,135.72 from the bond they hold. The landlord may retain $984.28 from the bond for rent arrears.
- No order is made for reimbursement of the filing fees. Name suppression
- Both parties sought name suppression orders. As neither party has been wholly or mostly successful no name suppression orders are made 1 . 1 See section 95A RTA Comment
- The Tribunal is not an advisory body. However, it encourages the landlord to use the standard form tenancy agreement in future that can be down-loaded free of charge from the Tenancy Services website.
- If the landlord continues to use the rental agreement produced in evidence in this case, they run the risk of facing considerable penalties for breaches of the RTA that amount to unlawful acts.