What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5063668 about?

The tribunal order states: By way of declaration: the market rent of the subject premise as at 8 January

How much money was awarded in case 5063668?

Per Week. 2. Trust Property Manageme…: $16,606.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5063668?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5063668?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12481427-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5063668 about?

The tribunal order states: By way of declaration: the market rent of the subject premise as at 8 January

How much money was awarded in case 5063668?

Per Week. 2. Trust Property Manageme…: $16,606.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5063668?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5063668?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12481427-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

5 Cheviot Road, Lowry Bay, Lower Hutt 5013 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5063668 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5063668. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
per week. 2. Trust Property Management Limited As Agent For Dave Taylor And Myung Kyu Kim [The respondent/s	$16,606.00		per week. 2. Trust Property Management Limited As Agent For Dave Taylor And Myung Kyu Kim [The respondent/s

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5063668. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
per week. 2. Trust Property Management Limited As Agent For Dave Taylor And Myung Kyu Kim [The respondent/s	$16,606.00		per week. 2. Trust Property Management Limited As Agent For Dave Taylor And Myung Kyu Kim [The respondent/s

Order

By way of declaration: the market rent of the subject premise as at 8 January 2025 is $1,250 per week.
Trust Property Management Limited As Agent For Dave Taylor And Myung Kyu Kim [The respondent/s] $16,606.00 in overpaid rent from 8 January to 30 September 2025.
The Tribunal continues suppression orders in favour of the tenant.

Reasons

These proceedings have a lengthy history as summarised in paragraph 3 of the Tribunal’s order of 4 July 2025.
This decision is regarding the remaining live issue. 1 [The tenant/s] seeks an order pursuant to section 25 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) for 1 [The tenant/s] has referenced potential other claims he has in his submissions however has not as yet filed formal application for the determination of those claims, so they are not the subject of this order. determination of the market rent of the tenancy premises, and an order reducing the rent in line with that assessment.
As noted in the Tribunal's direction of 5 September 2025, the questions for the Tribunal in this determination are: a. What is the market rent of 5 Cheviot Road, Lowry Bay? b. Does the current rent charged by the landlord exceed the market rent by a substantial amount? c. If so, what orders should be made?
The evidence available to the Tribunal to assist this determination are: a. Submissions and evidence from both parties filed prior to the hearing and subsequent to receipt of the independent valuation. b. Oral submissions of the parties at the hearing. c. Independent valuation as instructed by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) pursuant to section 100 of the RTA (the valuation). Summary of the evidence/submission [The tenant/s] position
[The tenant/s] understanding on his own research is that property values in the area have dropped by 12% over the last two years. He considers the rent currently and previously charged has exceeded the market rent for the property for some time.
[The tenant/s] provided: a. A report from [Property project management company] 2 stating: i. The rent has doubled the market benchmark, without justification from rental market trends, capital improvements, or changes in comparable property condition. 3 ii. The rent is materially overcharged...significantly exceeding fair market rates. 4 iii. That 16 Cheviot Road is a comparable property and has a weekly rent of $880. 5 2 Dated 2 May 2025. [Property project management company] is a self-described specialist consultancy providing document analysis and legal research across a range of matters. The report writer describes experience in resource management. 3 Page 2 4 Page 3 5 Page 2 b. An extract from the Regional Housing & Business Development Capacity Assessment 2023 – WLRC 6 which states: Since 2022, rent prices have plateaued and slightly declined to the mid-$500 range. 7
[The tenant/s] submits that there is a particular impact on rental prices in his street by Tupua Horo Nuku, the seawall and shared path that is being built between Port Howard and Eastbourne. Initial construction of Tupua Horo Nuku commenced in August 2022. Construction in Lowry Bay commenced in June 2024 and is continuing.
This construction requires there to be sections of Marine Parade (the only access way to Cheviot Road) reduced to one lane with traffic lights for periods. This leads to varying and often unpredictable delays in accessing the property [The tenant/s] says.
He submits that the seawall construction must be taken into account in a market rent assessment because of its longevity and extent. The work has been impacting access to the property since 2022 and is forecast to do so for at least another year. He has to increase his allowed time for any travel which is a frustration and inconvenience.
[The tenant/s] agrees with the valuation’s findings. He accepts that it is an independent valuation and views it as thorough and correct.
As such he says the current rent of $1,687 exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount being $437 per week or 35%.
He therefore seeks an order that the landlord repay the overpaid rent since the date of his application being 8 January 2025. The landlord’s position
The landlord submits that it is [The tenant/s] burden to establish that the rent is in excess of market rent, and it does not fall to them to prove in evidence that the rent was within the realms of market rent. They consider [The tenant/s] has not met his evidential burden.
Their submission is that this is a high calibre home, not of the type that is usually rented. Each such home must be assessed on their own specifications with a holistic approach when setting rent Mr Buck submits. He says their team have extensive experience renting out such homes, usually more in an effort to retain the homes for absentee owners rather than a genuine attempt to make a profit. 6 Published 16 February 2024 7 Regional Housing & Business Development Capacity Assessment 2023 - WRLC)" to Hutt City Council in August 2023 (published on 16 February 2024). The commentary In Chapter 3: Hutt City Council HBA P 127-128
They say their primary reason for the rental increase was to keep it in relation to

CPI

8 in accordance with the tenancy agreement, and say they always take note of other rentals when setting rental increases. Specifically they note that this increase was 3.97% and yet Reserve Bank statistics state that rent inflation over the relevant period ranged between 4.2% and 4.8%.

As of 23 May 2025, there were 23 properties listed in the Wellington region with weekly rents exceeding $1,250. This premise however offers superior location and privacy to all those listed and is of a higher calibre, Mr Buck submits.
The landlord provided the following property comparisons: a. 10a Bloomfield Terrace Lower Hutt: $820 per week. b. 4 Bloomfield Terrace: $1,750 per week. c. 16 Burnell Avenue, Thorndon, 4 bedroom, 210 Sqm, $1,700 per week. d. A list of comparable properties rented for over $1,250 in the Wellington region, although none in the same suburb.
Essentially, they say, property comparisons are of limited value when considering such a property because of the unique nature of such a home.
They challenge the [Property project management company] report for two reasons. Firstly, they say the report writer, is a lawyer who has been struck off the role of barristers and solicitors in New Zealand and convicted of fraud. This makes his evidence unreliable, they submit.
Secondly, they note that [Property project management company] is not Wellington-based and does not have relevant experience nor qualifications in the area of rental appraisal.
They submit that road works cannot be considered within the market rent appraisal. This is because they are everywhere and can occur at any time outside of the control of the landlord. They also say the roadworks are ultimately in benefit of the property and thereby the tenant, so are a necessary part of society that must just be tolerated. Their submission is that by allowing roadworks to influence a market rent assessment a wide-reaching “can of worms” would be opened.
They further provided statistics obtained from the Hutt City Council 9 saying that the average wait time was only 2 to 6 minutes and therefore not as significant as depicted. 8 Consumer Price Index 9 https://huttcity.govt.nz/council/our-projects/cycleways-and-shared-paths/cycleways-and-shared-paths- tupua-horo-nuku-/traffic-updates?utm_source=chatgpt.com
The landlord categorically disputes the validity and relevance of the valuation. Specifically, Mr Buck alleges the following deficiencies with the valuation: a. The assessment was conducted in August 2025 and as it is not contemporaneous cannot accurately reflect the market conditions in January 2025. The rental market in Wellington is dynamic and significantly varies monthly. b. Statistics referenced 10 do not relate to the relevant time. 11 c. Specific property comparisons 12 were also not from the relevant period. d. Reliance on advertisements is misleading as a property is presented favourably and cannot be compared to the firsthand viewing of this property which is being kept in a poor state. e. Only one of the comparisons used was in a comparable location and had a higher rent. f. Sufficient weight was not afforded to the elite nature and desirability of the locality of Lowry Bay. g. The valuation reflects how the current tenant has chosen to use and present the property rather than the reality that it is a high-value, executive standard home.
The landlord’s submission is that the rent has been set transparently and consistently for six years. Moreover, the acceptance of the rent by the current and preceding tenant is evidence that the rent is not and has not been substantially excessive to the market rent.
They say that high-value executive homes generate significantly higher costs which result in reduced net rental return. Therefore, such properties are required to accrue higher rental rates. The generated rental income here does not cover the owner’s expenses.
As such they say, the Tribunal should treat the comparisons provided in the valuation with caution and look beyond these for a true indication of the actual market rent.
Finally, they submit that all increases have been made genuinely and in line with overall market increase. As such they seek the dismissal of [The tenant/s] application. The valuation 10 The six months prior to August 2025 11 8 January 2025 12 Dated February 2024 to September 2024
The valuation was conducted by [the Valuer], a registered valuer on behalf of [the valuation company]. MBIE contracted [the valuation company] with instructions to ascertain a market rental assessment as at 8 January 2025. The report notes it is presented in an abridged report format and does not constitute a valuation nor comply with the requirements of the International Valuation Standards and Guidance Papers for Valuers and Property Professionals published by the Australian Property Institute (API), Property Institute of New Zealand (PINZ) and New Zealand Institute of Valuers (NZIV).
As a part of the assessment, [the Valuer] visited the property on 18 August 2025.
[The Valuer] notes the following features of the premise: a. It is a two-story, good quality, four-bedroom plus study and two bathroom residence with double integrated garaging. b. It has a living area as measured, of 251 m2 plus integrated garaging of an additional 48 m2 being a total of 299 m2. It has a functional layout and is relatively tidy and modern in nature, and provides indoor/ outdoor flow to an attached deck with automatic louvre roof of approximately 25 m2. c. It is in average/good condition. d. Internally the property is tidy and relatively modern in nature and is of a good quality. e. The property is situated on a level site close to the waterfront and has slight water views from two of the upper-level bedrooms. f. It is located within the popular 'Bays' area of Lowry Bay and is approximately a half an hour drive to central Lower Hutt and 45 minutes to Wellington CBD.
Six comparable properties were assessed. One in Lowry Bay, four in Eastbourne and one in Days Bay. The advertisements ranged between February 2024 and September 2024. [The Valuer] noted there were 13 four comparable properties listed in Lowry Bay and Eastbourne with asking rents of between $1,020 and $1,550 per week. Further, these listings had been advertised for between one and six months and all have had their asking rents lowered since first advertised, further reflective of the falling rental market in greater Wellington which has been on the decline for the last couple of years.
[The Valuer] assesses the market rent of the tenancy premise as at 8 January 2025, as $1,250 per week. The law 13 As at end of August/early September 2025
Section 25 of the RTA provides that the Tribunal may make an order reducing the rent to an amount that is in line with the market rent. The Tribunal must be satisfied that the rent payable or to become payable for the tenancy exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount.
Market rent is defined as: 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 ... for comparable tenancies of comparable premises in the locality or in similar localities and such other matters as the Tribunal considers relevant.
As such, 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”. This is called the willing landlord/willing tenant test as described in the District Court decision of Property Brokers Hawke’s Bay Limited v Michaelsen and ord [2024] NZDC 13815 at [14].
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 RTA. 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”. 14
The test in section 25(3) is an objective one, and the initial focus of enquiry must be on an assessment of the level of rent being paid for comparable tenancies of comparable premises, before any other relevant factors are considered. The District Court in Thai v Mahmood, DC Christchurch, CIV2003-009-2542 stated: “When considering claims that a rental being charged is too high, the first consideration is to assess the general level of rents for comparable tenants of comparable premises in similar locations. It is not open to the tribunal to make a determination as to market rents having regard only to such matters as the tribunal considers relevant.”
The District Court has grappled with the difficulties faced when independent comparable evidence is hard to obtain. Judge Tuohy in Fisken & Associates Limited v Lecole and Lecole [2023] NZDC 17698 at [29] states that “I recognise 14 Section 25(3) RTA that truly independent evidence may not be available... However, rentals paid for comparative properties are objective facts which can be proven.”
While section 25(3) of the RTA lists a number of factors that the Tribunal should have regard to, no one factor should take precedence or priority over the others. Recognition must also be had that market rent assessments are not a science but one that is primarily based on the evidence available to the Tribunal.

What is the market rent of 5 Cheviot Road, Lowry Bay?

I have carefully considered all of the available evidence and submissions made to me. My finding is that the market rent for the subject premise as at the date of application being 8 January 2025, is $1,250 per week. I explain why in the following discussion.
Just because a tenant has paid a demanded rent does not necessarily translate to the rent equating to market rate.
I must also reject the landlord’s submission that the property’s outgoings are of relevance. Section 25(3) of the RTA specifically states that the personal circumstances of the landlord or tenant are irrelevant to an assessment as to market rent.
Turning to the two reports I have been provided with.
Firstly, the [Property project management company]. This report asserts generalised statements as to how the rent has exceeded the market rent. I accord it limited weight given it is not written by a local residential tenancy specialist, or registered valuer.
It also relies primarily on only one comparison: 2/16 Cheviot Road which accrued a much lesser rental income. 2/16 Cheviot Road is more modern and also has four bedrooms, three bathrooms and two-car garaging. Its capital value is significantly less, and it has much less garden area. It is a comparative property as it is on the same road but is not determinative on its own.
Secondly the valuation. I accept this as a truly independent report as it was commissioned by MBIE. I also accept that [the Valuer] is a specialist in the area. It is however, limited as it is not a comprehensive, nor particularly detailed report.
The comparable properties relied on in the valuation are as follows: a. 234 Marine Parade, Lowry Bay, $1,700, 9 February 2024. Considered to be larger and of superior quality with 5 bedrooms and 3 bathrooms and located opposite the waterfront. b. 22 Puriri Street, Eastbourne, $1,200, 16 April 2024. Considered to be similar accommodation and condition, though smaller but more modern style with slight water views from the upper level. c. 14 Marama Terrace, Eastbourne, $1,100, 11 March 2024. Considered to be Similar size and accommodation but different style on a larger, rising site with slight water views. d. 7 Maire Street, Eastbourne, $1,095, 10 September 2024. Considered to be a superior location, smaller with less accommodation but tidy and modern situated opposite the waterfront. e. 10A Moana Road, Days Bay, $995, 12 February 2024. Considered to be a comparable location, smaller and slightly more dated in nature but with additional bedrooms and on a rising, bush clad site with superior water views. f. 47 Rona Street, Eastbourne, $995, 24 February 2024. Considered to be slightly inferior location, smaller and slightly more dated in nature with slight water views.
[The tenant/s] has provided evidence of the increasing reduction in rents from 2024 to 2025. This is a well-known and accepted trend of rental properties in the Wellington area over the past 12 months, given the increase in stock and decrease in demand. I consider this generalised trend accepted. 15
The comparable properties in the valuation are not sourced from the relevant time, but prior. Given the trend in the reduction of rental prices throughout 2024 and markedly in 2025, I consider these properties relevant to an assessment of the market rent as at 8 January 2025.
Weighty also is the evidence that the properties advertised in the locality in August 2025 had been reduced in rent and listed for some time. This is consistent also with the recent market trend.
I do not accept the submission that the market rent purported was reduced because of the way [The tenant/s] utilises the home. I am satisfied that [The tenant/s] has sufficient experience and ability to have looked past the internal use to the facilities and amenity of the property itself. She also notes: “Internally the property is tidy and relatively modern in nature and is of a good quality”. 16
I also do not accept the submission that the Tupua Horo Nuku roadworks detrimentally affect the rental valuation of the home. Although they are longstanding and frustrating, roadworks are temporary and ultimately for the benefit of local properties.
Finally, as an aside, for the reasons discussed in my decision 17 of 4 July 2025, I have accepted that usage of the road and drainage reserve as part of the tenancy 15 Pursuant to section 97(5) RTA: The Tribunal may in any proceedings make use of any facts that may be judicially noticed. 16 Page 4 17 Particularly paragraph 63 amenity are currently appropriate. Therefore, there should be no deduction in the market rent attributed to lawful ownership of the various areas of the premise.
Ultimately, this property is a large, well maintained executive home in a sought- after affluent neighbourhood. It has a large, private garden and outdoor entertaining area. It has double garaging and other parking available. It is a desirable, high-end property.
As such, it can attract a premium rent. That being said, such a property is also particularly subject to market fluctuations as the target demographic for such a property is narrow. The evidence indicates that such properties can be hard to tenant in this current market, and the market in January. This affects what the market rent can be assessed as.
I have considered all the comparative properties that have been promoted. Not one is directly analogous given the unique nature of the property. They are all however of assistance.
I accept that Lowry Bay is a desirable neighbourhood, and such rental properties are rare. Days Bay and Eastbourne are comparable neighbourhoods given their adjacent locality, however less affluent. The two comparable waterfront properties, 7 Maire Street, Eastbourne and 234 Marine Parade, Lowry Bay indicate this difference with their respective rents being $1,095 and $1,700.
234 Marine Parade is larger and of higher quality than 5 Cheviot Road. Its procurement of $1,700 per week 11 months prior to the relevant date of this property is cogent.
I accept the valuation findings. The comparative properties discussed before and since the relevant time have led [the Valuer] to what I consider a fair and accurate assessment of the home’s rental value. I accept her credentials which have led her to her finding of what a landlord might reasonably expect to receive, and a willing tenant might reasonably expect to pay for the tenancy on 8 January 2025.
As such, I find that the market rent of the subject premise as at 8 January 2025 being the date of application, is $1,250 per week. Does the current rent charged by the landlord exceed the market rent by a substantial amount?
I am satisfied that the rental charged of $1,687 per week is substantially in excess of the market rent of $1,250 per week being $437 higher.
I note that the Tribunal has previously found that when rents are as high as they currently are compared to national wage inflation, an increase of $10-$20 per week above market rent, may be considered substantial given the disproportionate effect on discretionary spending. 18 This amount is well in excess of that disparity.
Even taking into account the landlord’s outgoings, I find that $1,697 per week exceeds the market rent of $1,250 per week by a substantial amount.

What orders should be made?

Pursuant to s 25(1) RTA, I make an order reducing the rent to $1,250, in line with the market rent from 8 January 2025.
I direct that the rent is to be reduced from the date of application, 8 January 2025. The landlord must therefore repay the overpaid rent of $437 per week. Assuming [The tenant/s] has paid his rent as required, the amount of overpaid rent between the date of application of 8 January and today (which is the end of the current rental week) is $16,606.
I consider it appropriate to continue the suppression orders as made on 4 July 2025.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5063668 — Tenancy dispute at 5 Cheviot Road, Lowry Bay, Lower Hutt 5013

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5063668 — Tenancy dispute at 5 Cheviot Road, Lowry Bay, Lower Hutt 5013

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

CPI

What is the market rent of 5 Cheviot Road, Lowry Bay?

What orders should be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

CPI

What is the market rent of 5 Cheviot Road, Lowry Bay?

What orders should be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions