What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4919175 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4919175?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4919175?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4919175?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12132809-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4919175 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4919175?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4919175?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4919175?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12132809-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4919175 — Exemplary damages

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Hutchison represented the landlord.
The tenants had a tenancy of the premises commencing on 4 January 2024. Rent was agreed at $740.00 per week and a bond of $2,940.00 was paid.
On 18 June 2024, the tenants applied for compensation and exemplary damages for various breaches by the landlord of the tenancy agreement and/or the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
On 14 August 2024, the Tribunal found substantially for the tenants and ordered the landlord to pay the sum of $2,220.44, being compensation of $2,200.00 plus the Tribunal application fee. The Tribunal also declared that the rent payable for the tenancy be reduced to $730.00 per week from 8 August 2024.
The landlord appealed the decision, and on 13 May 2025, the District Court quashed the decision of the Tribunal for payment of compensation of $1,680.00 and the Tribunal application fee (the sum of $520.00, relating to the late installation of heaters, was upheld and remains payable). The Court also quashed the decision of the Tribunal that relates to the finding that the landlord engaged in “rent bidding” and reduces the weekly rent payable to $730.00. The Court directed a rehearing by the Tribunal of those aspects of the claim (rent bidding and the rent reduction to $730.00).

Did the landlord engage in rent bidding?

Section 22F of the Act requires a landlord to state the amount of rent payable for the tenancy in any advertisement or offer for the tenancy. Section 22G of the Act prohibits a landlord from inviting or encouraging a person to pay more than the stated rent. Both sections are relatively new and took effect from 11 February 2021.
The tenancy was advertised on Trademe and on DPM’s website. There was no dispute that the advertisements for the property stated the weekly rent to be $730.00. Ms Hutchison said that the Trademe advertisement stated that pets were negotiable, but no copy of that advertisement was available. Pets were not mentioned on the DPM website advertisement. The tenants say that they only saw the advertisement on the DPM website.
On 5 December 2023 the tenants emailed Ms Hutchison expressing their interest in the property. They mentioned that they had more than the advertised maximum number of occupants and they had a dog. Ms Hutchison replied that same day stating that the owner would agree to a family, and she would check with the owners if they would consider a dog. A viewing of the property was arranged for 7 December.
On 8 December Ms Hutchison emailed the tenants offering them the tenancy. The rent was stated to be $740.00. The offer stated that one dog (Nina) is permitted, and the additional $10.00 rent is for having a pet. The tenants accepted the offer and paid the initial sums requested by Ms Hutchison to secure the tenancy. However, they now say the request by the landlord to pay the additional $10.00 is a breach of section 22G of the Act.
I do not agree. The purpose of section 22G is to address the problem of rent bidding in a heated rental market. That is, to prevent landlords from renting properties to the highest bidder or invite tenants to compete with respect to the rent payable to secure the tenancy. I do not consider that the intention of the section is to prohibit negotiation or agreement between the parties for additional terms or conditions, such as having more occupants than the number stated or the keeping of a pet. Additional wear and tear on a property can result in both of these examples, and I consider it reasonable that a landlord request an additional sum by way of rent to compensate for this. I do not consider it matters that the DPM website advertisement made no mention of whether pets would be allowed (or not). It is clear from the email correspondence in early December that the tenants were aware that the keeping of a dog was something that would require the landlord’s agreement.
The tenants’ application for compensation (refund of rent paid above $730.00), exemplary damages, and a declaration that the rent be $730.00 per week is therefore dismissed.
The claim for payment of the Tribunal application fee is dismissed because the tenants have been mostly unsuccessful in their claims (they have only succeeded on one claim, the late installation of heaters). Suppression
In its order dated 14 August 2024, the Tribunal ordered suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details. The tenants’ names and identifying details are suppressed under this order so as not to undermine the suppression order made on 14 August.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Hutchison represented the landlord.
The tenants had a tenancy of the premises commencing on 4 January 2024. Rent was agreed at $740.00 per week and a bond of $2,940.00 was paid.
On 18 June 2024, the tenants applied for compensation and exemplary damages for various breaches by the landlord of the tenancy agreement and/or the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
On 14 August 2024, the Tribunal found substantially for the tenants and ordered the landlord to pay the sum of $2,220.44, being compensation of $2,200.00 plus the Tribunal application fee. The Tribunal also declared that the rent payable for the tenancy be reduced to $730.00 per week from 8 August 2024.
The landlord appealed the decision, and on 13 May 2025, the District Court quashed the decision of the Tribunal for payment of compensation of $1,680.00 and the Tribunal application fee (the sum of $520.00, relating to the late installation of heaters, was upheld and remains payable). The Court also quashed the decision of the Tribunal that relates to the finding that the landlord engaged in “rent bidding” and reduces the weekly rent payable to $730.00. The Court directed a rehearing by the Tribunal of those aspects of the claim (rent bidding and the rent reduction to $730.00).

Did the landlord engage in rent bidding?

Section 22F of the Act requires a landlord to state the amount of rent payable for the tenancy in any advertisement or offer for the tenancy. Section 22G of the Act prohibits a landlord from inviting or encouraging a person to pay more than the stated rent. Both sections are relatively new and took effect from 11 February 2021.
The tenancy was advertised on Trademe and on DPM’s website. There was no dispute that the advertisements for the property stated the weekly rent to be $730.00. Ms Hutchison said that the Trademe advertisement stated that pets were negotiable, but no copy of that advertisement was available. Pets were not mentioned on the DPM website advertisement. The tenants say that they only saw the advertisement on the DPM website.
On 5 December 2023 the tenants emailed Ms Hutchison expressing their interest in the property. They mentioned that they had more than the advertised maximum number of occupants and they had a dog. Ms Hutchison replied that same day stating that the owner would agree to a family, and she would check with the owners if they would consider a dog. A viewing of the property was arranged for 7 December.
On 8 December Ms Hutchison emailed the tenants offering them the tenancy. The rent was stated to be $740.00. The offer stated that one dog (Nina) is permitted, and the additional $10.00 rent is for having a pet. The tenants accepted the offer and paid the initial sums requested by Ms Hutchison to secure the tenancy. However, they now say the request by the landlord to pay the additional $10.00 is a breach of section 22G of the Act.
I do not agree. The purpose of section 22G is to address the problem of rent bidding in a heated rental market. That is, to prevent landlords from renting properties to the highest bidder or invite tenants to compete with respect to the rent payable to secure the tenancy. I do not consider that the intention of the section is to prohibit negotiation or agreement between the parties for additional terms or conditions, such as having more occupants than the number stated or the keeping of a pet. Additional wear and tear on a property can result in both of these examples, and I consider it reasonable that a landlord request an additional sum by way of rent to compensate for this. I do not consider it matters that the DPM website advertisement made no mention of whether pets would be allowed (or not). It is clear from the email correspondence in early December that the tenants were aware that the keeping of a dog was something that would require the landlord’s agreement.
The tenants’ application for compensation (refund of rent paid above $730.00), exemplary damages, and a declaration that the rent be $730.00 per week is therefore dismissed.
The claim for payment of the Tribunal application fee is dismissed because the tenants have been mostly unsuccessful in their claims (they have only succeeded on one claim, the late installation of heaters). Suppression
In its order dated 14 August 2024, the Tribunal ordered suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details. The tenants’ names and identifying details are suppressed under this order so as not to undermine the suppression order made on 14 August.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4919175 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4919175 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord engage in rent bidding?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord engage in rent bidding?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions