Landlord's Application for Rent Arrears Dismissed
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed a landlord's application to terminate a tenancy due to unpaid rent increases. The landlord failed to provide valid notices as required by law, leading to the dismissal of the application.
⚖️ Legal holding
A landlord cannot increase rent without complying with the requirements set forth in section 24 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
📖 What the law says
This rule explains how a landlord can increase the rent for a tenancy. It requires the landlord to give the tenant written notice, stating the new rent amount and when it starts. This notice must be given at least 60 days before the rent increase takes effect, and rent cannot be increased again within 180 days of the last increase.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal dismissed the landlord's application for rent arrears and termination of the tenancy due to invalid rent increase notices.
📜 Headnote Official document
In a recent Tenancy Tribunal case, the application for rent arrears and termination of the tenancy was dismissed due to invalid rent increase notices. The Tribunal found that the landlord failed to provide proper notice as required by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 4781385 1
[2024] NZTT 4781385
TENANCY TRIBUNAL - [Event location suppressed]
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: [Tenancy address suppressed]
ORDER
1. The application for rent arrears and termination of the tenancy is dismissed.
Reasons:
1. Both parties attended the hearing. Interpreters for both parties assisted the Tribunal. The tenant had legal representation.
2. The landlord applied for termination of the tenancy because the rent is more than 21 days in arrears. She said she gave the tenant a notice to increase the rent in February 2022 and the tenant has never paid the increased rent. The tenant said the notice to increase the rent was not a valid notice.
3. Section 24 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states that a landlord can increase the rent provided that:
• the landlord gives the tenant a notice in writing AND
• the notice specifies the amount of the increased rent AND
• the notice states the date when the increased rent payments will start AND
• the landlord gives the tenant at least 60 days notice of the rent increase.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 4781385 2
4. The landlord sent an email to the tenant in February 2022. The email is different from the usual rent increase notices used by landlords. The email does say the landlord wants to increase the rent to $580 a week. The email does not state the date when the increased rent payments will start. This means the notice does not comply with the requirements of section 24(1)(b) RTA. This means it is not a valid notice.
5. The landlord sent a follow up email in May 2022. She asked that the tenant please pay the increased rent. She referred to her email sent in February and asked if the tenant could pay the increased rent “from this week”. This notice does not meet the requirements of section 24(1)(c) RTA because it does not give the tenant the required 60 days notice. This means the second notice is not a valid notice either.
6. I find the landlord did not serve the notices required to increase the rent in 2022. This means the rent is still $510 a week.
7. The tenant has paid $510 every week. The tenant is not in rent arrears and there are no grounds for me to end the tenancy. The landlord’s application is dismissed.
8. The landlord’s application for suppression is not allowed because the landlord is not the most successful party. I have used my discretion and allowed suppression for the tenant because there is no breach of the RTA. See section 95A RTA.
9. I will refer this order to the adjudicator Mr Woodhouse so his order made on 19 January 2024 under applications [redacted] can be finalised.
[NAME] 04 March 2024
__________________________________________________________________________________ 4781385 3
Please read carefully: Visit justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals for more information on rehearings and appeals.
Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has happened. For example: • you did not get the letter telling you the date of the hearing, or • the adjudicator improperly admitted or rejected evidence, or • new evidence, relating to the original application, has become available.
You must give reasons and evidence to support your application for a rehearing. A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. You must apply within five working days of the decision using the Application for Rehearing form: justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf
Right of Appeal Both the landlord and the tenant can file an appeal. You should file your appeal at the District Court where the original hearing took place. The cost for an appeal is $200. You must apply within 10 working days after the decision is issued using this Appeal to the District Court form: justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals
Grounds for an appeal You can appeal if you think the decision was wrong, but not because you don’t like the decision. For some cases, there’ll be no right to appeal. For example, you can’t appeal: • against an interim order • a final order for the payment of less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work worth less than $1000.
Enforcement Where the Tribunal made an order about money or property this is called a civil debt. The Ministry of Justice Collections Team can assist with enforcing civil debt. You can contact the collections team on [PHONE] or go to justice.govt.nz/fines/civil-debt for forms and information.
Notice to a party ordered to pay money or vacate premises, etc. Failure to comply with any order may result in substantial additional costs for enforcement. It may also involve being ordered to appear in the District Court for an examination of your means or seizure of your property.
If you require further help or information regarding this matter, visit tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing- decisions or phone Tenancy Services on [PHONE].
Mēna ka hiahia koe ki ētahi atu awhina, kōrero ranei mo tēnei take, haere ki tenei ipurangi tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, waea atu ki Ratonga Takirua ma runga [PHONE] ranei.
A manaomia nisi faamatalaga poo se fesoasoani, e uiga i lau mataupu, asiasi ifo le matou aupega tafailagi: tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, pe fesootai mai le Tenancy Services i le numera [PHONE].
https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals/ https://www.justice.govt.nz/fines/about-civil-debt/ https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions http://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions/
Reasons:
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The email notice did not specify the date when the increased rent payments would start.
- The follow-up email did not provide the required 60 days notice before the rent increase.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The landlord claimed the rent was more than 21 days in arrears.
- The landlord argued that the tenant had never paid the increased rent since the initial notice.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed the landlord's application for rent arrears and termination of the tenancy.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the landlord followed the correct procedures to increase the rent and terminate the tenancy.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to dismiss the landlord's application because the notices to increase the rent were not valid according to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Section 24 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1-1986 was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the landlord did not provide proper notice to increase the rent as required by law.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the landlord who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
For someone in a similar situation, ensuring compliance with the legal requirements for rent increases and terminations is crucial to avoid having their application dismissed.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The emails sent by the landlord to the tenant regarding the rent increase notices mattered in the decision.