What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4537540 about?

The tribunal order states: No order for suppression is made in this case.

How much money was awarded in case 4537540?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4537540?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4537540?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9225920-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4537540 about?

The tribunal order states: No order for suppression is made in this case.

How much money was awarded in case 4537540?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4537540?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4537540?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9225920-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

1 Peppercorn Place, Leamington, Cambridge 3432 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4537540 — Tenancy dispute

Order

No order for suppression is made in this case.
The name of the respondent (landlord) is amended and corrected to that shown above.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on 24 May. The landlord and Mr Worth, representing Mrs Worth, attended the hearing on 26 July 2023.
The tenancy started nearly 10 years ago on 11 October 2013 at which time rent was $390.00 per week. The rent increased a number of times during the tenancy: in July 2014 to $420.00 in May 2017 to $445.00 in April 2019 to $470.00 in April 2021 to $531.00 1 in April 2022 to $550.00
In 2023 the tenants were notified the rent would increase to $600.00 per week commencing on 14 April 2023. The tenants generally have a good relationship 1 an increase in May 2020 not taking affect due to covid with the landlord and accepted the rent would increase above the current rent of $550.00. The tenants told the landlord they thought the increase to $600/week was not fair and reasonable, and proposed a lesser $25.00 a week increase to $575.00. This was not accepted by the landlord, however the landlord did reduce the increase to $590.00/week.
The tenants have applied to the Tribunal for a market rent determination as they consider the increase to $590/week is too more than they should be paying.
The issue for the Tribunal to determine is whether the increase in rent to $590.00/week represents a rent that is substantially more than the market rent for this property. Is the rent increase to $590.00 substantially more than the market rent?
The Tribunal may make an order reducing the rent if it is satisfied that the rent payable exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount (s 25(1), Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA)). “Market rent” is defined in s 25(3) as: “the rent, without regard to the personal circumstances of the landlord or tenant, a willing landlord might reasonably expect to receive and a willing tenant may expect to pay for the tenancy, taking into consideration the general level of rents for comparable tenancies for comparable premises in the locality of similar localities and such other matters as the Tribunal considers relevant.”
If granted, a market rent assessment cannot be backdated beyond the date of the application (s.25(4) of the Act) and continues in force for a maximum period of 6 months (s.26(1)(a) Act).
The premises was new when the tenancy started. It has four bedrooms, a bathroom and an ensuite, a living/dining area and a small double garage 2 . The laundry is in the garage. The total area of the dwelling is 130m² including the garage. It is a semi-detached property and has a shared wall with a two bedroomed unit. The premises shares a driveway with the neighbouring unit; the neighbouring unit’s tenants drive past the tenants’ property to get to their unit and garage. The two properties are on a large residential site 3 and each unit has its own outdoor area.
In support of their claim the tenants say: • The proposed increase of $50.00 per week was the largest weekly increase in rent since the tenancy started • The increase is unjustified as the landlord receives rent of over $1,000.00 a week for their tenancy and the adjoining tenancy whereas if the property was one house the landlord would be receiving around $850.00 in rent 2 The tenants’ view is that the garage is more akin to a one-and-a-half car garage. 3 Homes.co.nz shows the total area for the site is 1190m² • The living area in the property is very small, being a total of around 48m², and is disproportionate to what is usual for a four bedroomed property. • The driveway and parking areas are shared with the adjoining unit, which can mean cars need to be ‘juggled’. • There has been no improvements to the property since a heat pump was installed in 2017. • The increase is unfair given the increases in the cost of living.
The tenants believe the landlord has considered standalone four-bedroom houses in considering and comparing the rent. They consider the rent should be compared to comparable rent for apartments rather than houses or townhouses because of the shared external areas and internal walls. They referred to the Tenancy Services website ’Dwelling type definitions’ in support of their view: ‘House/Townhouse: A self-contained property, usually a building with land Apartment: A property with self contained areas (eg apartments or units) and shared areas (eg lifts or driveways).
The tenants did not provide any comparative rental evidence for any other properties in support of their claim that the rent is too high.
The landlord maintains that the rent of $600.00 is the market rent, albeit that the owner agreed to a reduction to $590.00, and that a range of factors was considered in increasing the rent.
The landlord provided market rent statistics from the Tenancy Services website which it collates six monthly from bonds received. The information is for two different six monthly time periods 4 for both Leamington specifically and for Cambridge generally. The rent statistics for 1 October 2022 to 31 March 2023 is the most appropriate period given the rent increase was effective from 14 April 2023. The evidence shows for that time period: a) For all rentals where bond has been lodged (ie all houses, flats and apartments) the weekly rent statistics are: Leamington: 735 bonds were lodged with weekly rent at the lower quartile of $510.00; the median at $590.00; and the upper quartile $650.00 Cambridge generally: 1110 bonds were lodged with weekly rent at the lower quartile of $489.00; the median at $600.00; and the upper quartile $700.00 b) For 3 bedroomed houses: 4 The time periods being the six months from 1 August 2022 to 31 January 2023 and 1 October 2022 to 31 March 2023 Leamington: 360 bonds were lodged with weekly rent at the lower quartile of $573.00; the median at $595.00; and for the upper quartile $625.00 Cambridge generally: 339 bonds were lodged with weekly rent at the lower quartile of $600.00; the median at $640.00; and for the upper quartile $700.00 c) For 4 bedroomed houses: Leamington: 156 bonds were lodged with weekly rent at the lower quartile of $630.00; the median at $695.00; and for the upper quartile $743.00 Cambridge generally: 240 bonds were lodged with weekly rent at the lower quartile of $676.00; the median at $700.00; and for the upper quartile $750.00.
For apartments, the Tenancy Services website only has rent statistics recorded for 2 bedroomed apartments in Cambridge generally and no statistics for apartments in Leamington.
The landlord also presented a number of advertisements for properties for rent in Leamington, in other parts of Cambridge (mainly Cambridge central), and in Waipa (mainly Te Awamutu). Some of the advertisements included reasonable detail of the property for rent but for some information was scant.
Having assessed all of the evidence presented I find the tenant has not persuaded me that the rent increase to $590.00 exceeds the market rent for this particular rental property by a substantial amount.
In making this finding I have considered a number of factors including: a)The increased rent is the same as the median rent established by the Tenancy Services market rent statistics for all rentals in Leamington and below the median for Cambridge. The increased rent is in the lower quartile for 3 and 4 bedroomed rentals in Leamington and Cambridge generally; b)this property has differences to all of the properties the landlord provided advertisements for, particularly as it is a semi-detached property and its living area is relatively small given that it has four bedrooms. Some of the advertised properties have more desirable features than the tenancy premises, such as larger sections, larger houses and rooms, and larger garaging. But equally some of these properties have less desirable features such as older houses, wooden joinery and single glazing, less privacy from neighbouring properties including that the driveways of neighbouring properties are very close, and in lower quality suburbs. c)the area this property is in is a more upmarket suburb than most of the other properties in the advertisements presented for the Leamington area. This property is newer than most of the advertised properties. d)there are insufficient photographs for most of the advertised properties for me to be able to see the quality and condition of, for example, appliances, fixtures and fittings and decoration. e)This property is not a standard four bedroomed property in Leamington or Cambridge generally. A true comparison to other such properties is difficult as a result. f)The RTA provisions required an assessment based on comparable premises in the locality or similar locations. I am not persuaded that rural properties or properties in other localities in Waipa (such as Te Awamutu) are sufficiently comparable. g)The total rent achieved by the landlord for the two properties on the site has little relevance as I need to consider the rent charged for the property the tenants are renting.
As the claim is not proven it is dismissed. The tenant is liable to pay the increased rent of $590.00 from the date it was increased under the landlord’s notice. Suppression
The tenants seek name suppression. Section 95A(1) RTA states that the Tribunal must grant name suppression if a party has “wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings”. Section 95A(4) RTA gives the Tribunal a discretionary power to grant name suppression “having regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest”.
The landlord has been successful in its defence of the claim, but does not seek suppression.
The tenants have not wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings. I find the tenants have not satisfied me that there are persuasive reasons, having regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest, why name suppression should be granted in this instance. Therefore name suppression is not granted.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on 24 May. The landlord and Mr Worth, representing Mrs Worth, attended the hearing on 26 July 2023.

The tenancy started nearly 10 years ago on 11 October 2013 at which time rent was $390.00 per week. The rent increased a number of times during the tenancy: in July 2014 to $420.00 in May 2017 to $445.00 in April 2019 to $470.00 in April 2021 to $531.00 1 in April 2022 to $550.00

In 2023 the tenants were notified the rent would increase to $600.00 per week commencing on 14 April 2023. The tenants generally have a good relationship 1 an increase in May 2020 not taking affect due to covid with the landlord and accepted the rent would increase above the current rent of $550.00. The tenants told the landlord they thought the increase to $600/week was not fair and reasonable, and proposed a lesser $25.00 a week increase to $575.00. This was not accepted by the landlord, however the landlord did reduce the increase to $590.00/week.

The tenants have applied to the Tribunal for a market rent determination as they consider the increase to $590/week is too more than they should be paying.

The issue for the Tribunal to determine is whether the increase in rent to $590.00/week represents a rent that is substantially more than the market rent for this property. Is the rent increase to $590.00 substantially more than the market rent?

The Tribunal may make an order reducing the rent if it is satisfied that the rent payable exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount (s 25(1), Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA)). “Market rent” is defined in s 25(3) as: “the rent, without regard to the personal circumstances of the landlord or tenant, a willing landlord might reasonably expect to receive and a willing tenant may expect to pay for the tenancy, taking into consideration the general level of rents for comparable tenancies for comparable premises in the locality of similar localities and such other matters as the Tribunal considers relevant.”

If granted, a market rent assessment cannot be backdated beyond the date of the application (s.25(4) of the Act) and continues in force for a maximum period of 6 months (s.26(1)(a) Act).

The premises was new when the tenancy started. It has four bedrooms, a bathroom and an ensuite, a living/dining area and a small double garage 2 . The laundry is in the garage. The total area of the dwelling is 130m² including the garage. It is a semi-detached property and has a shared wall with a two bedroomed unit. The premises shares a driveway with the neighbouring unit; the neighbouring unit’s tenants drive past the tenants’ property to get to their unit and garage. The two properties are on a large residential site 3 and each unit has its own outdoor area.

In support of their claim the tenants say: • The proposed increase of $50.00 per week was the largest weekly increase in rent since the tenancy started • The increase is unjustified as the landlord receives rent of over $1,000.00 a week for their tenancy and the adjoining tenancy whereas if the property was one house the landlord would be receiving around $850.00 in rent 2 The tenants’ view is that the garage is more akin to a one-and-a-half car garage. 3 Homes.co.nz shows the total area for the site is 1190m² • The living area in the property is very small, being a total of around 48m², and is disproportionate to what is usual for a four bedroomed property. • The driveway and parking areas are shared with the adjoining unit, which can mean cars need to be ‘juggled’. • There has been no improvements to the property since a heat pump was installed in 2017. • The increase is unfair given the increases in the cost of living.

The tenants believe the landlord has considered standalone four-bedroom houses in considering and comparing the rent. They consider the rent should be compared to comparable rent for apartments rather than houses or townhouses because of the shared external areas and internal walls. They referred to the Tenancy Services website ’Dwelling type definitions’ in support of their view: ‘House/Townhouse: A self-contained property, usually a building with land Apartment: A property with self contained areas (eg apartments or units) and shared areas (eg lifts or driveways).

The tenants did not provide any comparative rental evidence for any other properties in support of their claim that the rent is too high.

The landlord maintains that the rent of $600.00 is the market rent, albeit that the owner agreed to a reduction to $590.00, and that a range of factors was considered in increasing the rent.

The landlord provided market rent statistics from the Tenancy Services website which it collates six monthly from bonds received. The information is for two different six monthly time periods 4 for both Leamington specifically and for Cambridge generally. The rent statistics for 1 October 2022 to 31 March 2023 is the most appropriate period given the rent increase was effective from 14 April 2023. The evidence shows for that time period: a) For all rentals where bond has been lodged (ie all houses, flats and apartments) the weekly rent statistics are: Leamington: 735 bonds were lodged with weekly rent at the lower quartile of $510.00; the median at $590.00; and the upper quartile $650.00 Cambridge generally: 1110 bonds were lodged with weekly rent at the lower quartile of $489.00; the median at $600.00; and the upper quartile $700.00 b) For 3 bedroomed houses: 4 The time periods being the six months from 1 August 2022 to 31 January 2023 and 1 October 2022 to 31 March 2023 Leamington: 360 bonds were lodged with weekly rent at the lower quartile of $573.00; the median at $595.00; and for the upper quartile $625.00 Cambridge generally: 339 bonds were lodged with weekly rent at the lower quartile of $600.00; the median at $640.00; and for the upper quartile $700.00 c) For 4 bedroomed houses: Leamington: 156 bonds were lodged with weekly rent at the lower quartile of $630.00; the median at $695.00; and for the upper quartile $743.00 Cambridge generally: 240 bonds were lodged with weekly rent at the lower quartile of $676.00; the median at $700.00; and for the upper quartile $750.00.

For apartments, the Tenancy Services website only has rent statistics recorded for 2 bedroomed apartments in Cambridge generally and no statistics for apartments in Leamington.

The landlord also presented a number of advertisements for properties for rent in Leamington, in other parts of Cambridge (mainly Cambridge central), and in Waipa (mainly Te Awamutu). Some of the advertisements included reasonable detail of the property for rent but for some information was scant.

Having assessed all of the evidence presented I find the tenant has not persuaded me that the rent increase to $590.00 exceeds the market rent for this particular rental property by a substantial amount.

In making this finding I have considered a number of factors including: a)The increased rent is the same as the median rent established by the Tenancy Services market rent statistics for all rentals in Leamington and below the median for Cambridge. The increased rent is in the lower quartile for 3 and 4 bedroomed rentals in Leamington and Cambridge generally; b)this property has differences to all of the properties the landlord provided advertisements for, particularly as it is a semi-detached property and its living area is relatively small given that it has four bedrooms. Some of the advertised properties have more desirable features than the tenancy premises, such as larger sections, larger houses and rooms, and larger garaging. But equally some of these properties have less desirable features such as older houses, wooden joinery and single glazing, less privacy from neighbouring properties including that the driveways of neighbouring properties are very close, and in lower quality suburbs. c)the area this property is in is a more upmarket suburb than most of the other properties in the advertisements presented for the Leamington area. This property is newer than most of the advertised properties. d)there are insufficient photographs for most of the advertised properties for me to be able to see the quality and condition of, for example, appliances, fixtures and fittings and decoration. e)This property is not a standard four bedroomed property in Leamington or Cambridge generally. A true comparison to other such properties is difficult as a result. f)The RTA provisions required an assessment based on comparable premises in the locality or similar locations. I am not persuaded that rural properties or properties in other localities in Waipa (such as Te Awamutu) are sufficiently comparable. g)The total rent achieved by the landlord for the two properties on the site has little relevance as I need to consider the rent charged for the property the tenants are renting.

As the claim is not proven it is dismissed. The tenant is liable to pay the increased rent of $590.00 from the date it was increased under the landlord’s notice. Suppression

The tenants seek name suppression. Section 95A(1) RTA states that the Tribunal must grant name suppression if a party has “wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings”. Section 95A(4) RTA gives the Tribunal a discretionary power to grant name suppression “having regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest”.

The landlord has been successful in its defence of the claim, but does not seek suppression.

The tenants have not wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings. I find the tenants have not satisfied me that there are persuasive reasons, having regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest, why name suppression should be granted in this instance. Therefore name suppression is not granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4537540 — Tenancy dispute at 1 Peppercorn Place, Leamington, Cambridge 3432

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4537540 — Tenancy dispute at 1 Peppercorn Place, Leamington, Cambridge 3432

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions