What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4631875 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the name of the tenant only.

How much money was awarded in case 4631875?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4631875?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4631875?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9452001-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4631875 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the name of the tenant only.

How much money was awarded in case 4631875?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4631875?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4631875?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9452001-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

105 Norrish Road, Ohaupo, RD 1, Ohaupo 3881 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4631875 — Healthy homes

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the name of the tenant only.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy commenced on 01 July 2022. Initially, the tenancy was for a fixed term, after which it became periodic. The rent is presently $800.00 per week. The landlord has served notice to increase the rent to $830.00 affective from 01 November 2023. There is no issue raised concerning the validity of the notice under section 24 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“The “Act”). However, the tenant is of the view that the effect of the increase will be a rent beyond the market rent by a substantial amount, and on 17 July 2023, made an application to the Tribunal under section 25(1) of the Act, seeking a determination that the increased rent exceeded the market rent by a substantial amount. Law
In the case of Frisk and Associate Limited [2003] NZDC 17698, the Court confirmed when dealing with applications under section 25, the Tribunal must first determine what the market rent is, then decide if the rent charged substantially exceeds the market rent.
Sections 25(1) and (3) of the Act provide: (1) On an application made to it at any time by the tenant, the Tribunal may, in accordance with the succeeding provisions of this section, on being satisfied that the rent payable or to become payable for the tenancy exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount, make an order reducing the rent to an amount, to be specified in the order, that is in line with the market rent. (3) For the purposes of this Act, the market rent for any tenancy shall be the rent that, without regard to the personal circumstances of the landlord or the tenant, a willing landlord might reasonably expect to receive and a willing tenant might reasonably expect to pay for the tenancy, taking into consideration the general level of rents (other than income-related rents within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Public and Community Housing Management Act 1992) for comparable tenancies of comparable premises in the locality or in similar localities and such other matters as the Tribunal considers relevant.
The tenant must prove on the balance of probabilities, which is more likely than not the rent exceeds the market rent by a “substantial amount.”
The test for market rent is the amount “a willing landlord might reasonably expect to receive, and a willing tenant might reasonably expect to pay for the tenancy.”
The concept of the 'market' is constrained by the requirement that both parties be 'willing', and that the rent meets their 'reasonable' expectations. These terms are not defined by the Act. The Oxford English dictionary defines willing as: "having a ready will; disposed to consent or comply; ready to do (what is specified or implied) without reluctance"; and reasonable as "having sound judgement; sensible ... not asking for too much ... not extravagant or excessive; moderate".
The factors the Tribunal may have regard to are “the general level of rents ... for comparable tenancies of comparable premises in the locality or in similar localities and such other matters as the Tribunal considers relevant.” The evidence for comparable rents is usually based on advertisements for similar premises in the locality. However, this evidence does have limitations. Although advertisements usually list the essential features of the property advertised, there is often limited qualitative information available for comparison. Also, advertisements only cover houses currently on the market and do not necessarily reflect the overall level of rents charged for existing similar tenancies in the area.
It is therefore common for parties to also refer to the 'market rent' statistics published by Tenancy Services. These statistics cover the rents charged for tenancies where bonds have been lodged over the preceding 6 months. The statistics include median rent as well as upper and lower quartile.
Section 25(3) of the Act states the Tribunal may also take into account, “such other matters as [it] considers relevant” to market rent. In Housing New Zealand v Hobman (DC Lower Hutt, TT89/97, 27 November 1997) the Court said the other factors to be considered must be of the same kind as the preceding specified factors. It is arguable however that the term ‘other matters’ is broad enough to cover anything relevant to the ‘reasonable’ expectations of a ‘willing’ landlord or tenant.
In Frisk and Associate Limited, the Court referred to another form of evidence that may assist, such as that from independent real estate agents or other property managers, although accepted that this evidence may be difficult for a tenant to obtain. Analysis
The property is 2 – 3 km from the township of Ohaupo, which is in the South Waikato – Waipa region, and approximately 10 – 15 minutes from Hamilton city. The house is approximately 35 – 40 years old, of brick construction with a steel roof. The house is on one level, has two living areas, an open plan kitchen / dining / lounge area, 3 bedrooms and a study (or 4 bedrooms if the study is used as a bedroom. The tenant states however, that at 2m x 2.4m the study is too small to be used as a bedroom). The property has an ensuite to the main bedroom, a full bathroom, and a boot room containing a toilet and shower. The property also has a sleep out with ensuite, a double garage, and carport. The house is surrounded by farmland and sits on well-established grounds of just under half a hectare, which also include a small orchard, and two storage sheds. The tenancy agreement allows the tenant to keep dogs.
There are no rent statistics published by Tenancy Services for South Waikato - Waipa, the area in which the property is located. While there is some rent data for the nearby settlement of Ohaupo, it is of no practical use in this case.
The tenant has produced rental advertisements for properties they state are comparable in size and setting. One is described as 2 or 3 years old with 4 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, two living areas, a study, and a double garage, and is advertised for $760.00 per week, the other, in the same subdivision, is a new build with 5 bedrooms and three bathrooms on just over half a hectare. No pets are allowed. The property is advertised for $895.00 per week reduced from $915.00. Both are within a new lifestyle subdivision closer to the Ohaupo township. Neither enjoy the same type of rural isolation as the tenant’s property.
The tenant has also produced rental advertisements for other properties in the South Waikato region, either closer to Hamilton or Cambridge, which they submit are comparable in size and setting. The closest similar rural property is in Kapaki – Waipa about 4 – 5 km away from the tenant’s property, and further away from the township of Ohaupo. The property is a brick and tile new build, with two living areas, 4 bedrooms, 2.5 bathrooms, and a double garage for $800.00 per week. The advertisement states that pets are allowed. The property is described as in a rural farm setting, although there is no indication as to the size of the section.
The landlord has produced advertisements for a selection of rural and suburban properties of a similar house size within a 10km radius of the property which include some of those referred to by the tenant. One of those referred to in discussions has been an older style recently renovated 5-bedroom, two- bathroom property with pool in Tamahere, on a 3.29-hectare section, listed for rent in June 2023 for $895.00 per week. The tenant submits that this is similar sized dwelling on a larger section closer to town and in a more desirable location, with a rent just $35.00 per week more than that proposed by the landlord.
Other properties provided by the tenant for comparison purposes include a new build 6-bedroom, 3.5-bathroom, 2 kitchen property within walking distance of Lake Karapiro, reduced from $1,350.00 to $1,250.00 per week. The property is described as set on a large country section, although there is no mention of its size. Another property is described as a 5-bedroom two-bathroom property with gourmet kitchen, near Cambridge on 5 hectares, with a pool, and horse stables for $2,200 per week.
Both the tenant and landlord have also referred to a 4-bedroom 3-bathroom property in Tamahere on half a hectare for $900.00 per week.
The tenant has also produced advertisements for similar sized houses with smaller sections in suburban areas. However, the suburban properties referred to, because of their locations, are not sufficiently comparable, and I put them to one side.
Concerning other matters, the Tribunal may consider relevant. The tenant states that the property is not in a reasonable condition, to the extent where the rent presently charged of $800.00 per week, although they accepted it at the commencement of the tenancy, is unjustified and may, of itself, be substantially more than the market rent. The tenant acknowledged that the owner had completed maintenance work. While the property meets the Healthy Homes Standards, the tenant stated that the house was cold and difficult to heat.
The landlord disagrees that the property is in a poor condition but acknowledges that the wooden floor is showing signs of fair wear and tear commensurate with its age, which is why the tenant is allowed to keep dogs inside. After viewing the photographs of the property and hearing from both parties I am satisfied that the property is in a reasonable condition commensurate with its age and character.
The tenant cites the present cost of living crisis as relevant. The landlord points out the proposed rent increase from $800.00 to $830.00 per week is an increase of 3.75% and below the present inflation rate of around 6%, and that in their experience the property could realise a rent of around $850.00 per week. Decision
After considering the material produced by the tenant and hearing from both parties, I have reached the conclusion that there is insufficient evidence on which to accurately assess the market rent for the property.
The lack of rental statistics collated by Tenancy Services for comparable properties in the locality, and the limited number of properly comparable rural properties for rent in the area, or similar areas, poses a challenge. This is evident from the material provided by the tenant in support of their application.
The property in Kapaki, for $800.00 per week, has the most comparable location, although it does not have the sleepout with ensuite. There is no mention of garaging, and significantly the size of the section is unknown. For rural lifestyle properties the size of the section is no doubt something of significance when determining desirability and what a willing tenant is reasonably prepared to pay. The only other properties that are most comparable in size and in a similar rural location are those located in Tamahere for $ 895.00 and $900.00.
There is no evidence from any other independent source such as other real estate agents or property managers, who market or manage similar properties in the area, or anyone else suitably qualified to give evidence relevant to the niche lifestyle rural rental property market. Considering the lack of rental statistics collated by Tenancy Services for comparable properties in the locality, and the limited number of comparable rural properties advertised for rent, such evidence would have been useful.
The application is declined. Name suppression
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
Section 95A (4) of the Act allows the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, to order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.
In the case of Erceg v Erceg [2016] NZSC 135 at [2]-[3],[13], and [18], the Supreme Court stated the principle of open justice was fundamental to the common law system of civil and criminal justice. The Court stated that it was well established that there were circumstances in which the interests of justice required departure from the general principle, but only to the extent required to serve the administration of justice. The Court referred to the administration of justice standard as capable of accommodating the particular circumstances of individual cases with consideration given to the broader public interest. The Court went onto endorse the principle in ASB Bank Ltd v AB [2010] 3 NZLR 427 (HC), stating, that there must be specific adverse consequences sufficient to justify an exception to the rule, adding that the threshold was a high one.
Although the landlord has been wholly successful, they do not seek name suppression. The tenant seeks name suppression. While I am satisfied that the public interest in this matter properly extends to the location of the property, I do not consider that this interest necessarily extends to the name of the tenant. On that basis under section 95A(4) of the Act I suppress the name of the tenant only.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4631875 — Healthy homes at 105 Norrish Road, Ohaupo, RD 1, Ohaupo 3881

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4631875 — Healthy homes at 105 Norrish Road, Ohaupo, RD 1, Ohaupo 3881

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions