Rent rise invalid on 12 days’ notice: landlords must refund the extra rent paid (SACAT, 2026)

What happened

The tenant rented a house on a rural property under a short typewritten document headed with the property name and made up of 14 numbered conditions. It set rent at $300 a week, required the yard to be mowed, allowed an inspection by the landlord every three months, and said "Rent to be reviewed 30th June each year". It was dated 3 June 2024 and signed by the tenant. The Tribunal was satisfied this was a residential tenancy agreement under the Residential Tenancies Act 1995 (the Act), and that it was a periodic tenancy, meaning one that runs on without a fixed end date.

Rent stayed at $300 a week from the start of the tenancy. On 5 January 2026 one of the landlords handed the tenant a short note saying rent would rise to $325 a week from Saturday 17 January 2026, and that a house inspection would happen on 18 January. There had been no earlier discussion about a rise and no agreement to one. The tenant paid the higher rent anyway because, he said, he feared being evicted if he did not. He applied to the Tribunal on 7 February 2026.

The property also had a large shed in a separate "shed yard" behind the house yard, reachable only by crossing the house yard. The tenant said the tenancy covered the whole of both yards, including the shed. The landlords said they had a verbal agreement reserving half the shed to themselves. Nothing about the shed was in the written document and there was no supporting evidence either way, so the Tribunal did not decide the point.

The tenant also complained about repeated entries to the property, some on Sundays and some with no notice at all, backed by security camera footage and text messages; about wheel ruts left in the front yard by a backhoe doing tree work; and about there being no working smoke alarm. The landlords accepted they had sometimes given notice only on the day of entry, said they had taken a "relaxed" approach with their tenancies, and said they had not known about the notice rules in the Act. A separate notice the landlords sent on 31 March 2026 demanding $18,600 in "overdue rent" for the shed, at $200 a week for 93 weeks, was no longer pressed by the time of the hearing.

What each side wanted

The tenant asked for ten orders: a declaration that the 5 January 2026 rent notice was invalid, rent back at $300 a week, and a refund of the overpayment; $4,000 compensation for repeated breaches of quiet enjoyment, privacy and intimidation; orders that the landlords comply with the entry-notice rules and communicate only in writing; $4,200 compensation (half the rent for seven months) for failing to level the front yard and failing to install a working smoke alarm; an order voiding the shed rent demand; $2,000 for retaliatory eviction attempts; and $500 for what he called a coercive attempt to charge shed rent. The landlords opposed all of it, saying they had raised the rent in line with the agreement, that their age, health and expenses explained the increase, and that they had not known what the Act required of them. They had also asked in their response for access to the shed and for vacant possession, but the Tribunal said they had made no application of their own, so the hearing dealt only with the tenant's claims.

What the tribunal decided

The Tribunal declared that the landlords' notice dated 5 January 2026, which purported to raise the rent from $300 to $325 a week from 17 January 2026, was ineffective and did not increase the rent. It ordered the landlords to reimburse the tenant all rent paid above $300 a week since that notice was served, by crediting the tenant's rent record immediately.

No dollar figure was set. The Tribunal was not given the landlords' rent records and so could not work out the exact amount, and said that if the parties could not agree on it the tenant could ask for a further hearing. If the landlords failed to comply, the tenant could write to the Tribunal by 31 August 2026 and request an urgent hearing.

Every other part of the application was dismissed: no compensation for quiet enjoyment, no compensation or repair orders for the front yard or the smoke alarm, no compensation for retaliatory conduct or for the shed rent demand, and no orders requiring the landlords to follow the entry rules or to communicate in writing.

Why the tribunal decided it that way

Section 55 of the Act lets a landlord increase rent by written notice, but the date the increase takes effect must be at least 12 months after the agreement or the last increase, and at least 60 days after the notice is given. The notice here gave about 12 days. The earliest the increase could have taken effect was around 6 March 2026. The Tribunal declined to "fix" the notice, because the landlords had not made a slip: 17 January was the date they meant, and inserting a lawful date would have been arbitrary. The Tribunal also rejected the argument that the tenant's payment of $325 showed mutual agreement under s 55(2a), accepting his explanation that he feared eviction and noting he applied to the Tribunal promptly. As a second, independent reason, clause 14 of the agreement ("Rent to be reviewed 30th June each year") limited reviews to on or about 30 June, and any ambiguity in a document drafted by the landlords is read against them under the contra proferentem rule.

On entry, the Tribunal found the landlords had breached s 72, which sets out when a landlord may enter and how much notice is needed: up to four inspections a year on 7 to 28 days' written notice, garden maintenance on 7 to 14 days' notice or by prior arrangement, other repairs on at least 48 hours' notice, and nothing on a Sunday or public holiday. Not knowing the rules was no answer, and nothing in the agreement gave the landlords a right to cross the house yard to reach the shed. But a breach of s 65, the right to quiet enjoyment and to be free of interference with reasonable peace, comfort and privacy, is judged objectively and must be substantial, more than mere inconvenience. Here the tenant was often not home and learned of entries from his cameras, he had notice of the tree work from mid-September 2025, and some entries did not happen on the day flagged. The Tribunal also cannot award compensation for personal injury, including mental or emotional distress, under s 110(2). Importantly, the tenant had framed his compensation claim only under s 65; the Tribunal said it might have awarded a modest sum for the s 72 breaches had he asked for that, but would not do so on its own initiative when the landlords had not had a chance to respond.

On repairs, s 68 makes it a term of every agreement that the landlord keep the premises in a reasonable state of repair, but only once the landlord has notice of a defect and fails to act with reasonable diligence; s 78 also requires a tenant to take reasonable steps to limit their own loss. The photographs showed shallow scoring marks in dry soil, barely distinguishable in an undulating yard, which the Tribunal found were trifling and not defects, and which in any case could have been smoothed over easily. A missing smoke alarm was not a "defect" at all, because a defect is a fault or breakage needing repair, not something absent. The minimum housing standards obligation in s 67A did not apply because this tenancy began before 1 July 2024, and s 34 of the Housing Improvement Act 2016 gave no help because s 34(5) blocks civil claims for breaching it. The landlords said at the hearing they would install alarms if there were none.

On the orders simply repeating the law, the Tribunal said it is unnecessary and inappropriate to order someone to do what the Act already requires, and the landlords had already agreed to communicate in writing. On retaliation, s 90A lets the Tribunal declare a termination notice ineffective or refuse to end a tenancy where a landlord was motivated by the tenant enforcing their rights, and allows a payment of up to $5,000 — but that payment goes to the Residential Tenancies Fund, not the tenant. There is no power to compensate a tenant for retaliatory conduct, so the question did not need deciding. The Tribunal added a general warning that under s 115 any agreement that excludes or restricts the Act is void to that extent, and that doing so to defeat the Act is an offence carrying a maximum penalty of $50,000.

What this means if you are in a similar position

If you are in a similar position, this decision shows how strictly the notice rules for a rent increase are read. The landlord's reasons for needing more rent, and the fact that they did not know the rules, made no difference to whether the notice worked. What mattered was the date on the page: an increase cannot start sooner than 60 days after the notice is given, and 12 months after the agreement or the last rise. It also shows that paying the higher rent while you dispute it does not automatically mean you agreed to it, especially where you challenge it promptly and can explain why you paid.

The decision also shows where a tenant's wider complaints can come apart. A landlord entering without proper notice can breach the entry rules and still fall short of a substantial interference with quiet enjoyment, which is the test for compensation. Distress and anxiety cannot be compensated, because tribunals of this kind cannot award damages for personal injury. And compensation follows the breach you actually claim: the Tribunal said it might have awarded a modest sum for the entry breaches, but the application had only ever asked for compensation for quiet enjoyment. Claims for repairs need a real defect, notice to the landlord, a failure to act and reasonable steps by the tenant to limit their own loss, so small cosmetic marks that could be raked over are unlikely to qualify.

In this kind of dispute most people start with a written objection or notice to the landlord or agent setting out the problem, the clause or section they rely on and what they want done, and keep a copy, before making any application to the tribunal if it is not resolved.

How to apply: our step-by-step guide to a SACAT application. More decisions: SACAT cases and house rentals and bonds.

Source: Paxon v Cuddeford & Anor [2026] SACAT 73 (read the full decision). This summary was prepared from the published decision for general information. It is not legal advice, and the tribunal’s own reasons are the authoritative record.