What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4880361 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders

How much money was awarded in case 4880361?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4880361?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Healthy homes, Harassment, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4880361?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12151195-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4880361 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders

How much money was awarded in case 4880361?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4880361?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Healthy homes, Harassment, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4880361?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12151195-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 5 Cezanne Place, New Lynn, Auckland 0600 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4880361 — Mould & damp

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both the Landlord’s and Tenant’s names and identifying details.
The tenant’s application for a declaration that the rent she was paying was substantially above market rent is dismissed.

Reasons

This application was heard over three hearings. The first in August 2024, and after numerous adjournments, the second was heard on 23 May 2025 and the third on 17 July 2025.
The day before the third and final hearing on 17 July 2025, the tenant advised that she would be unable to attend the hearing. She provided written submissions that she wanted the Tribunal to take into account when making the decision.
At the scheduled hearing time on 17 July 2025 I rang the tenant, as I said I would, just in case she changed her mind and wanted to attend. My call went straight to voicemail and so I proceeded in her absence.
At the hearing the entirety of the tenant’s written submissions was discussed.
This decision should be read in conjunction with the Tribunal’s previous two orders.
The issue to be determined is whether the $650.00 weekly rent charged from 23 March 2024 was substantially above market rent.
The law relevant to this application is s25 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 which provides that: (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. (2) ... (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. (4) An order made under this section shall take effect on and from a date to be specified in the order, which may be the date of the order or any earlier or later date, but being no earlier than the date of the application for the order and no later than 30 days after the date of the order.
The questions to be determined are as follows: (a) What is the market rent for these premises? (b) Is the rent charged substantially above the market rent; and if so (c) What should the rent be?

What is the market rent for these premises?

Market rent is defined as the rent that a willing landlord might reasonably expect to receive and that a willing tenant might reasonably expect to pay for the tenancy, taking into account the general level of rents for comparable tenancies or comparable premises in the locality or similar localities and such other matters that the Tribunal considers relevant.
The premises that are the subject of this claim are broadly described as being built in the 1970’s and is adjoined to the neighbouring property by the garage wall. The premises share a driveway with the neighbour and has three bedrooms (two double and one single), one bathroom with a separate toilet and a single garage. It is fully fenced with a back garden. The tenant’s contentions
The tenant states that the market rent for these premises is less than $600.00 per week.
Her evidence to support this position include: (a) She referenced advertisements for properties that were available for rent which she said were comparable. The rents for these properties range from $570.00 per week to $635.00 per week. The tenant points to positive differences between these premises and the premises that she is renting, including an additional bathroom in some, additional garaging, a spa pool in one, a heat pump in some (which she regards as superior heating to the HRV system that these premises has), and a separate/additional dining room in two of the premises. (b) She stated that the only improvements to the property during the 8 years of her tenancy, were as a result of some kind of emergency maintenance, rather than any desire to improve the property – for example, the hallway and one bedroom was carpeted as a result of a leak and the remaining 2 bedrooms were not carpeted, in spite of the landlord having sufficient carpet to do them. (c) She assessed the premises as being in the lower quartile for rental purposes. To support this assessment she described the premises as having the original 1970’s fittings, wardrobes, internal doors and back door still in place and the original yellow basin in the toilet. She also pointed to a general aesthetic neglect – for example peeling paint on the deck, an unpainted toilet wall, peeling paint on concrete steps, unsightly repairs to the kitchen cabinets and patchy silicone repairs to the shower. The tenant also stated that the premises did not reach the required Healthy Homes Standards because there were gaps around the windows, there was a gap under the garage door which made the house drafty, the HRV system is expensive to run and inefficient and flooding in the garage has meant that the third bedroom is damp. She said that the dampness has been diagnosed by a professional builder and that moisture and mould are coming through external walls as well as there being a lot of condensation on the windows throughout the house in the mornings. There is no alarm system because the landlord refused to put one in. The builders damaged two lightshades in the hall and they have not been replaced. The builders damaged the hallway wall which has not been repaired. The tenant also states that the gate lock often needs repairing. (d) The tenant also stated that rental assessments undertaken by real estate agents are subjective, depending on who is asking and for what purpose. The tenant stated that this makes these assessments unreliable, particularly if the assessor has not physically been to the property. To support this contention the tenant pointed to two assessments completed by Iron Bridge for these premises – one for the landlord and one for the tenant. The rent was assessed for the same date – 27 March 2024. The report received by the landlord put the rent at $650 – $685 per week. The report received by the tenant, which was completed after the tenant had “honestly” described to the appraiser her experience of “actually living at the premises” put the rent at $620 - $660 per week. (e) The tenant also pointed to the fact that the landlord raised the rent each year. She said that this was unfair, largely because there were no significant improvements to the premises to justify the rent increases and that she undertook maintenance issues herself because the landlord failed to do so. (f) She also referred to a Tenancy Tribunal Order dated 4 April 2022 which found that at that time the rent of $650 charged was substantially above market rent and was reduced to $576 per week. Analysis and decision
As the applicant, the tenant’s obligation is to prove her case on the balance of probabilities. In this case that would mean that the tenant is required to show that more likely than not the market rent for these premises is substantially less than the $650.00 weekly rent that she was paying.
I find that the tenant has not been able to prove this to the required standard.
I have outlined the reasons for my decision below.
While the tenant was able to provide evidence of what she says are comparable properties which charge less rent than what she was paying, equally the landlord was able to provide evidence of what he says were comparable listings for rent which are more than what he was charging. All the ‘comparable’ properties had differences and there was no ability to value or put a price against each of the differences. It was therefore difficult to accurately assess how ‘comparable’ each of the listed premises was.
In a situation such as this where one person’s evidence directly contradicts the other’s, the only way of the applicant proving a case to the required standard of ‘on the balance of probabilities’ is for the applicant to provide some kind of objective evidence that supports their claim.
There has been no objective evidence provided to show what the market rent for this property is.
The tenant’s own evidence is that rental appraisals conducted by real estate agents are unreliable and depend on such things as who is asking for one and whether the premises were physically appraised.
Indeed, the appraisals done by various agents put the market rent as anywhere between $620.00 and $700.00 per week.
This means that these appraisals cannot be regarded as providing accurate evidence of market rent.
In my view the only kind of objective evidence available to prove the market rent for this property would be a valuation done by a certified valuer.
I understand the tenant’s objection to obtaining a valuer’s report in that it put too great a financial burden on her, but the wildly varying comparison properties and rental appraisals have not assisted her.
Indeed, one of the appraisals that she had done put the rent at between $620-$660 per week – meaning that the $650 weekly rent that she was paying was within range.
The tenant’s claim that the premises did not reach Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) also suffers from the same shortcoming.
The landlord stated that the premises are HHS compliant. He said he knows this because he went through a checklist provided by Tenancy Services.
In order to show that the home was more likely than not, not HHS compliant, the tenant would need to have provided a Healthy Homes Report which supported this contention.
I note that with regard to the flooding in the garage, the landlord stated that remedial work was done in 2017. Cyclone Gabrielle caused further issues in 2023 and he said that leak was also fixed. He says there were no further leaks until Easter 2025 when the builder, referred to in paragraph 11(c) above, advised him to consult a professional drainage person. He said that person advised him that the water was not coming through the block wall, as the builder attested, but rising up from underneath, through the garage floor, when the water table was high. The drainage specialist advised cutting a narrow channel in the garage floor and another channel around the garage to deflect the water. A quote dated 4 May 2025 was provided evidencing the scope of this work.
The landlord stated that the tenant objected to this work being done and they were unable to find a date, suitable to the tenant while she was living there, for the work to be completed.
I have already noted other claims made by the tenant which she said support her contention that this rental property is in the ‘lower quartile’.
I am not persuaded that such things as not having an alarm, the repairs not matching, peeling paint on the concrete steps and the deck, and a gate that is sometimes not secure, necessarily in and of themselves put this property in the ‘lower quartile’.
Further, even if it was in the lower quartile, the bond data for the February to July 2024 period, which is the period relating to this claim, puts the lower quartile rent for this area at $650.00 per week. That is the exact rent that the tenant was paying.
I also note that while I am not bound to follow the April 2022 Tenancy Tribunal Order, that order indicated that these premises would be in the medium quartile.
With regard to the tenant’s comments relating to the landlord’s raising the rent each year, she is correct that he is legally entitled to do so. The only constriction is that a landlord must not charge substantially more than market rent.

Is the rent charged substantially above the market rent?

Given my findings above, I am satisfied that the rent of $650.00 per week is not substantially above market rent. Suppression of names
Section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that: (1) The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to the proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. (2) An order may be subject to any conditions that the Tribunal considers appropriate. (3) If a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings applies for an order that their name or identifying particulars not be published, the Tribunal must make the order unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest, or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
I am allowing the tenant’s application for suppression of her name pursuant to s95A(1). I accept that she was subjected to some kind of harassment after her name was published in the April 2022 order and I see no public interest whatsoever in having her name published.
On my own initiative I am also suppressing the landlord’s name. Although we did not discuss this at the hearing I have erred on the side of caution and made the assumption that he would also like name suppression. Given that he was fully successful in his defence of the claim, he would be entitled to suppression pursuant to s95A(3). C ter Haar 22 July 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 4880361 — Mould & damp at Unit/Flat 1, 5 Cezanne Place, New Lynn, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4880361 — Mould & damp at Unit/Flat 1, 5 Cezanne Place, New Lynn, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What is the market rent for these premises?

Is the rent charged substantially above the market rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What is the market rent for these premises?

Is the rent charged substantially above the market rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions