What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5174591 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5174591?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5174591?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5174591?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11570112-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5174591 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5174591?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5174591?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5174591?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11570112-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

161 Early Valley Road, Lansdowne, RD 2, Lansdowne 7672 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5174591 — Healthy homes

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The applicant claimed that the rent increase on 1 January 2025 which increased the rent initially to $650, although subsequent to receiving the Tribunal application the landlord has agreed to reduce the rent to $630, should be set aside on the basis that the $630 rent is substantially in excess of market rent for the property.
The landlord claims that while she will abide with the Tribunal’s decision, she considers the $630 rent is fair market rent and should not be reduced.
Section 25 of the RTA is the relevant section. It says; (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. Background
The property is a semi-rural, three-bedroom home, with a sunporch (that can be used as a bedroom during the Summer months) and 2 bathrooms (one attached to the sunroom. It has a large deck. It is situated on the landlord’s 4-hectare property 9km from Halswall and has about one acre of ground. The tenants also have access to a playground and sandpit. The house does not have a covered garage but has ample parking and the landlord provides additional storage. The landlord confirmed it is healthy homes compliant.
The tenancy started in April 2018 and the rent was initially $475. The first rent increase was in January 2024 and increased the rent to $585. On 1 January 2025 the landlord increased the rent again to $650, but has, as noted, now reduced that to $630.
In support of the tenant’s claim, the following evidence was produced, a reference to a property in the same road that is rented for less than $500 and a phone number for the owner. Several Trade Me advertisements for properties listed, although the tenant noted the advertised prices may not be what the properties were actually rented for. One property rented at a lower rent is not indicative of market rent, as that term is defined. Evidence of the general rent in the area is required. The trade me ads are also of very limited value.
The landlord said she was confident the initial rent was fair but had reduced it as a good will gesture. She referred to information from the Tenancy Services website obtained when bonds are lodged.
The District Court has confirmed that the Tribunal must first make a finding about what the market rent is, before considering whether the rent proposed is substantially in excess of that. Substantially has been defined as around 10% higher than fair market rent.
The Court has also confirmed that the Bond Centre information, while only a guide, is a useful starting point, as it is updated monthly and contains information of rent, from the previous six months excluding the most recent month.
The market rental for a 3-bedroom home in the Halswell suburb of Christchurch is recorded as lower quartile $618, median $650 and upper $670.
It is likely based on the evidence provided that the property would fit the average quartile.
The landlord owns another 3-bedroom property in Halswell that she said she had recently advertised for rent. She said she had multiple people willing to rent it for $650. She reduced the rent to $630 for the particular tenants, as she wants to do some remedial work, and considers this reduction fair while that work occurs.
When asked, what she would advertise this property for if the tenants left, she said $650 without hesitation and that she would be very confident she could rent it for this, noting that she had in fact had enquiries from people wanting to rent it. She also said that she appreciated that the new rent might be harder for the tenants to pay, but that she needed to keep the rent more inflation adjusted to keep pace with rising costs.
The tenant said that Halswell was more urban, than this property is, and therefore the rents there may be higher. I asked what Christchurch suburbs that are more rural fringe might be and therefore arguably more relevant. Prebbleton and Lincoln were the two alternatives proposed. Prebbleton market rents are recorded as $680 lower quartile, $718 median and $750 upper. Lincoln as $538 lower, $655 median and $713 upper.
The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the $630 rent is substantially in excess of market rent.
The parties names are to be supressed, as there is negligible public interest in publishing either name.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The applicant claimed that the rent increase on 1 January 2025 which increased the rent initially to $650, although subsequent to receiving the Tribunal application the landlord has agreed to reduce the rent to $630, should be set aside on the basis that the $630 rent is substantially in excess of market rent for the property.
The landlord claims that while she will abide with the Tribunal’s decision, she considers the $630 rent is fair market rent and should not be reduced.
Section 25 of the RTA is the relevant section. It says; (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. Background
The property is a semi-rural, three-bedroom home, with a sunporch (that can be used as a bedroom during the Summer months) and 2 bathrooms (one attached to the sunroom. It has a large deck. It is situated on the landlord’s 4-hectare property 9km from Halswall and has about one acre of ground. The tenants also have access to a playground and sandpit. The house does not have a covered garage but has ample parking and the landlord provides additional storage. The landlord confirmed it is healthy homes compliant.
The tenancy started in April 2018 and the rent was initially $475. The first rent increase was in January 2024 and increased the rent to $585. On 1 January 2025 the landlord increased the rent again to $650, but has, as noted, now reduced that to $630.
In support of the tenant’s claim, the following evidence was produced, a reference to a property in the same road that is rented for less than $500 and a phone number for the owner. Several Trade Me advertisements for properties listed, although the tenant noted the advertised prices may not be what the properties were actually rented for. One property rented at a lower rent is not indicative of market rent, as that term is defined. Evidence of the general rent in the area is required. The trade me ads are also of very limited value.
The landlord said she was confident the initial rent was fair but had reduced it as a good will gesture. She referred to information from the Tenancy Services website obtained when bonds are lodged.
The District Court has confirmed that the Tribunal must first make a finding about what the market rent is, before considering whether the rent proposed is substantially in excess of that. Substantially has been defined as around 10% higher than fair market rent.
The Court has also confirmed that the Bond Centre information, while only a guide, is a useful starting point, as it is updated monthly and contains information of rent, from the previous six months excluding the most recent month.
The market rental for a 3-bedroom home in the Halswell suburb of Christchurch is recorded as lower quartile $618, median $650 and upper $670.
It is likely based on the evidence provided that the property would fit the average quartile.
The landlord owns another 3-bedroom property in Halswell that she said she had recently advertised for rent. She said she had multiple people willing to rent it for $650. She reduced the rent to $630 for the particular tenants, as she wants to do some remedial work, and considers this reduction fair while that work occurs.
When asked, what she would advertise this property for if the tenants left, she said $650 without hesitation and that she would be very confident she could rent it for this, noting that she had in fact had enquiries from people wanting to rent it. She also said that she appreciated that the new rent might be harder for the tenants to pay, but that she needed to keep the rent more inflation adjusted to keep pace with rising costs.
The tenant said that Halswell was more urban, than this property is, and therefore the rents there may be higher. I asked what Christchurch suburbs that are more rural fringe might be and therefore arguably more relevant. Prebbleton and Lincoln were the two alternatives proposed. Prebbleton market rents are recorded as $680 lower quartile, $718 median and $750 upper. Lincoln as $538 lower, $655 median and $713 upper.
The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the $630 rent is substantially in excess of market rent.
The parties names are to be supressed, as there is negligible public interest in publishing either name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5174591 — Healthy homes at 161 Early Valley Road, Lansdowne, RD 2, Lansdowne 7672

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5174591 — Healthy homes at 161 Early Valley Road, Lansdowne, RD 2, Lansdowne 7672

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