What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5156871 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5156871?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5156871?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5156871?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11983419-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5156871 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5156871?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5156871?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5156871?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11983419-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5156871 — Mould & damp

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The tenant appeared. [ Suppressed] , Property Managers, appeared for the landlord.
On 28 January 2025, the landlord issued the tenant a 60 day notice to increase the rent from $670.00 to $725.00 per week effective 02 April 2025. On 05 February 2025, the tenant filed an application for a market rent assessment under section 25(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”). The tenant argues that the proposed rent exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount.
This is not the first market rent determination sought by the tenant.
The tenancy commenced on 31 March 2021. The property was advertised as a 4-bedroom property, although the landlord has since conceded this was an error. The property comprises three bedrooms and three bathrooms and is located in central [ suppressed]. On 02 June 2023, the landlord proposed a rent increase from $680.00 to $775.00.
On 20 July 2023, the tenant filed their first application to determine the market rent.
The tenant referred to rent data from the Tenancy Services website, which showed that, based on bonds lodged between 01 December 2022 and 31 May 2023, weekly rents for three-bedroom houses in the area were as follows: lower quartile $565.00, median $600.00, and upper quartile $680.00.
The tenant also referred to the substandard condition of the property, including adequate insulation, which affected the moisture levels, particularly in winter.
While acknowledging obvious benefits of being in the centre of town, the tenant felt this was offset by late night noise from nearby pubs and clubs during the weekend.
The tenant referred to nearby properties advertised which they submitted were similar or more desirable but listed for less rent.
The tenant argued that the property was in the lower to medium quartile, and that both the current, and proposed rent, exceeded the market rent by a substantial amount. The tenant submitted that the rent should be no more than $600.00 per week.
In a detailed decision, the Adjudicator determined the market rent for the property, at the time of the application, to be $640.00. This placed the property in the median to upper quartile for three-bedroom houses in the area. The Tribunal considered that the proposed rent exceeded the market rent by a substantial amount and proceeded to set the rent at $670.00 for six months from 20 July 2023.
The rent has remained at this level until 02 April 2025, from which date the landlord seeks to increase it from $670.00 to $725.00. 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), (3) and (4) 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. (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 that the date of the application for the order and no later than 30 days after the date of the order.
Section 26 of the Act provides that where an order is made under section 25, the Tribunal must also record the duration of that order. In the case of a periodic tenancy any order made may be for a period of 6 months or such shorter period.
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.
The Act does not provide a definition of the words “substantial amount,” and therefore, the Tribunal must interpret those words by applying their ordinary meaning. The Oxford English dictionary defines substantial as “large in amount, value or importance.” Position of the parties
The tenant has filed written submissions advancing an argument similar to that made on the last occasion. The tenant referred to four nearby properties for rent which they claim are more desirable yet listed at lower rents than that previously set by the Tribunal. The tenant has produced articles they claim show that the rental prices are declining nationwide and in the Waikato. The tenant has produced rent data from the Tenancy Services website for the period 01 September 2024 to 26 February 2025, showing lower quartile rents for three- bedroom houses at $620.00, the median at $650.00, and upper quartile $
00. The tenant argued that the property belonged in the lower to medium quartile and that the rent for the property should be set at $650.00 or less.
The landlord also filed detailed written submissions. The landlord argued the properties referred to by the tenant were less desirable, being further from the town centre, having fewer bathrooms, lacking garaging, or temporarily listed due to being offered for sale.
The landlord stated the property complied with the Healthy Homes Standards (effective 01 July 2025), an additional upstairs heat pump had been installed, and the landlord had kept up with repairs and maintenance.
The tenant accepted that some work had been done but denied that the property had been improved beyond the median quartile.
The landlord argued the rent increase was consistent with the Tribunal’s previous rent determination. The landlord stated that Tribunal had determined the market rent to be $640.00 per week, which was 6.67% above the median rent, placing the property in the median to upper quartile. The landlord submitted the Tribunal had then fixed the rent at $670.00 per week which was an uplift of 4.69% on the market rent. The landlord stated that there had been no material changes, and if anything, the property’s desirability had improved, and it remained in the median to upper quartile.
The landlord noted the current median rent for three-bedroom houses was $660.00. Applying the same 6.67% uplift as before, resulted in a market rent for the property of $704.00 per week. Therefore, a rent of $725.00 did not exceed the market rent by a substantial amount. Decision
I accept the landlord’s argument that the properties referred to by the tenant are not comparable, being further from the town centre, having fewer bathrooms, lacking garaging, or temporarily listed due to being offered for sale.
While the Tribunal is not bound by its own prior decisions, I find the determination made on the last occasion highly persuasive. After a detailed analysis, the Tribunal concluded that the property was in the median to upper quartile. There is no evidence to suggest that it should now be placed in a lower quartile.
The median rent for three-bedroom houses in the area is $650.00 per week. This property sits in the median to upper quartile, and I consider the appropriate market rent to be $704.00 per week. In this case, I am not satisfied that the rent of $725.00 exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount.
The application is dismissed. Other matters
The tenant’s application also contains an allegation that the property managers, acting as agents for the landlord, gave false evidence at the previous hearing by asserting that the property had four bedrooms when it only had three.
Section 111 of the Act states that a person commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years who after promising to tell the truth (having taken the promises under section 97(2) of the Act) makes any assertion as to a matter of fact, opinion, belief, or knowledge knowing that the assertion to be false and intending to mislead the Tribunal.
This is not a matter within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and must be pursued either by complaint to the police, or by a private prosecution in the District Court.
Section 138 of the Act provides that despite section 25 of the Criminal Procedure At 2011, the limitation period for offences against this Act, or any regulations made under it, is 12 months for the date of the alleged offence. The hearing in question was more than 12 months ago.
Even if the matter was within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, which it is not, and despite being out of time, the allegation is flatly denied by the landlord. Having reviewed the Tribunal’s prior decision there is no indication that any assertion was made under the promise with intent to mislead the Tribunal. 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.
The landlord has been wholly successful in these proceedings and is granted name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5156871 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5156871 — Mould & damp

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