What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5306181 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 5306181?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,573.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5306181?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5306181?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13334173-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5306181 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 5306181?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,573.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5306181?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5306181?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13334173-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5306181 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5306181 — net $4,601.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 16 March 2026	$4,573.00	Rent arrears to 16 March 2026
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,601.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,601.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5306181 — net $4,601.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 16 March 2026	$4,573.00	Rent arrears to 16 March 2026
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,601.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,601.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Quotable Value Limited T/A Darroch Property Services As Agent For Waka Kotahi, NZ Transport Agency $4,601.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by Monday 4 May 2026: a. Investigate whether the landlord is responsible for remediating the storm water pipes jutting out of the cliff (below the lot of land the tenant’s premise and his cross lease neighbours premise sits on), that have been broken off during the cliff slips (caused by Cyclone Gabrielle in 2023) so that they no longer feed directly into the ocean but drip down the cliff face causing further erosion to the cliff face. The landlord must provide the results of its investigation(s) directly to the tenant by email as soon as it receives any such advice; b. If the landlord is found to have legal responsibility for remediation of these storm water pipes, it must have the storm water pipes (from the two premises on the cross-lease lot the tenant’s premise sits on) extended so they return to feeding directly into the ocean and no longer cause further erosion to the cliff face.
As an alternative to compliance with Order 3, the landlord must give the tenant a rent rebate of $200.00 per week from 6 May 2026 until the remediation work has been completed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing today.
The tenant was represented by [The tenant’s representative]. The landlord was represented by Sarah Chapman.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for a rent reduction from 25 November 2025 of $200.00 per week, because he claims the rent increase letter does not take into consideration the ongoing cliff instability and yellow placard issues with the property that gave rise to the $200.00 rent reduction commencing 25 June 2024. He also seeks reimbursement of the filing fee and work orders to do with remediation of the two storm water pipes that were broken off in the 2023 Cyclone Gabrielle and now run down the cliff face instead of straight into the ocean.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary damages
The Tribunal can award compensation or general damages where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation or general damages awarded.
Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional. Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA. Background
The rental premise was previously owned by the tenant and purchased, following a Public Works Notice, by the landlord. The purpose of the sales was to demolish the house for the cycle way to be added to the side of [The bridge]. The premise was rented back to the tenant until those works were due to commence.
This work is no longer going ahead, and the tenant is indicated he is considering re-purchasing the property.
The property is cross leased and has two premises on it (that I refer to as a main and minor dwelling). The tenant rents the larger of the two premises and the one closest to the cliff face (the main dwelling).
On 23 April 2023, the tenant accepted a rent of $900.00 per week for the main dwelling until “all remedial work to be carried out by the landlord and the Council was complete and restrictions removed”. Thereafter the rental would be “the current market rental for the whole property”.
The two properties are numbered inconsistently by different entities, and this has caused some confusion when it comes to assessing the yellow placard issue because the tenant has confirmed: a. [The council] refers to the main dwelling as [main dwelling address suppressed] and the minor dwelling as [minor dwelling address suppressed]; b. The New Zealand Postal Service refers to the main dwelling as [main dwelling address suppressed] and the minor dwelling as [minor dwelling address suppressed]. This is based on the central rule that on a cross leased site, the house closest to the Post Office is the main number. On the original cross lease plans the minor dwelling is listed as 5 and the main dwelling as 1/5. This reference number must have changed over time; c. On the LIM, the main dwelling is listed as [main dwelling address suppressed] and the minor dwelling as [minor dwelling address suppressed]; and d. On the Resource Consent the premise main dwelling is listed as [main dwelling address suppressed] and the minor dwelling as [minor dwelling address suppressed].
[The council] placed the yellow placard on the main dwelling, which sites [main dwelling address suppressed] as only being able to be accessed by a person authorised by the issuing authority (being the Civil Defence Emergency Management Controller or other responsible persons under the authority of s133BT of the Building Act 2004 or the Civil Defence Emergency management Act 2002) in relation to “the landslide on either side of the property on cliff side” and “bottom part of the front deck”.
This placard became the basis for the claims I have heard today, being 23 March 2026.
On 19 September 2025, the Tenancy Tribunal adjourned the hearing of the landlord’s claim 5306181 until: a. The tenant had filed and served is cross application. This application 5449769 was filed on 19 February 2026; b. The Parties had clarification from [The council] as to the status of the yellow sticker and any misdescription or errors as claimed by the Tenant; and c. Both parties had filed evidence addressing the rent reduction and subsequent rent increase and market rent under s25 of the RTA, including but not limited to: i. Comparable rent appraisals, tenancy listings, or expert evidence; ii. Any updated inspection or engineering reports relevant to the habitability and use restrictions. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

How much is owed for rent?

The parties agreed to the weekly rent payable being $900.00 per week from 1 August 2023. This was a $200.00 per week rent reduction that recognised the tenant’s loss of amenity of the walkway to the cliff land and jetty that went to the ocean prior to the slips caused by Cyclone Gabrielle in February 2023.
The landlord provided the tenant with a further $200.00 per week rent reduction commencing, 25 June 2024. This reduction was recorded in the Tenancy Tribunal’s 26 November 2024 Order 1 . This Order also required the rent reduction to continue from Tuesday 3 December 2024, unless the rent amount was changed lawfully.
On 25 September 2025, the landlord lawfully increased the rent to $900.00 per week commencing on 25 November 2025.
Section 24 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) allows a landlord to increase the rent payable, under a periodic tenancy, if: a. The landlord gives the tenant notice in writing of the increase; and b. That notice specifies the amount of the increased rent and the day upon which the increased rent shall become payable; and c. the day upon which the increased rent shall become payable is not less than 60 days after the date on which that notice is given; and d. The rent must not be increased within 12 months after the date of the commencement of the tenancy; and e. The rent must not be increased within 12 months after the date on which the last increase took effect.
The landlord: 1 [2024] NZTT 4972653, 4988349. a. Gave the tenant notice of the increase in writing on 25 September 2025; and b. That notice specified the rent would increase from $700.00 per week to $900.00 per week from 25 November 2025; and c. 60 days after the date on which the rent increase notice was given is 24 November 2025. The landlord started the increase from the next day as that was the beginning of the next rent period; and d. The rent was not increased within 12 months after the date of the commencement of the tenancy (being 1 August 2023); and e. The rent was not increased within 12 months after the date on which the last increase took effect. The rent records prove there had never been a rent increase, only a partial or full rent reduction.
The tenant accepted that $1,400.00 of the rent arrears owing relate to missed rent payments and that the remaining $3,200.00 owing relates to the $200.00 rent increase from 25 November 2025 that the tenant has refused to pay.
I am satisfied that the rent increase letter meets the requirements of s24(1) of the RTA and is enforceable. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing as at 16 March 2026. TENANT’S CLAIMS Has the tenant been required to pay above market rent for the premise from 25

November 2025?

The tenant claims the landlord required him to pay rent in excess of the market rent when considering the yellow placard that was placed on his premise on 20 April 2023, restricting his use of “the bottom part of the front deck” and “the land either side of the property”.
The tenancy commenced on 28 April 2023 and that date was varied on the tenancy agreement to 1 August 2023, after the parties agreed to a rent reduction of $200.00 off the market rental rate (from $1,100.00 down to $900.00 per week) to reflect the tenant’s loss of amenity post Cyclone Gabrielle. This agreement is recorded in a lawyer’s letter dated 26 April 2023 and provides the following conditions on the rent reduction “until all remedial work to be carried out by our client and the Council is complete and the restrictions removed”. The parties confirmed this rent reduction related to the tenant’s loss of access to the walkway on the property that connected to the Council walkway to the jetty pre- Cyclone Gabrielle.
The landlord was required [prior application numbers supressed] to continue a further $200.00 per week rent reduction (making weekly rent $700.00), which had taken effect from 25 June 2024, and was to be continued from 3 December 2024 unless the rental amount was changed lawfully.
The tenant states that this rent had been set above market rate, based on the yellow placard that had not been removed from the premise as of 25 November 2025. He states that the rent reduction should continue until there is no further restriction on his use of the front yard and front deck.
The tenant has applied to the Tribunal seeking an order for continuation of the $200.00 per week reduction in the rent, under s 25 of the RTA.
Section 25 of the RTA provides: Market rent (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 are three questions arising for determination under s 25 of the RTA. First, what a market rent would be for the premise. Second, whether the rent charged is substantially above the market value. And, if so, thirdly, what the rent should be.
Each of these three questions are analysed separately below.

What would a market rent would be for the premise?

The landlord produced information from [Property management company], dated 11 March 2026, whose valuer assessed the market rent for this property at between $1,100.00 and $1,200.00 per week. This valuation was based on this being a spacious 4-bedroom home in a prime [location suppressed] location based on similar properties currently renting in the area and the current state of the rental market.
Additionally, the landlord produced: a. Updated information from [The council] dated 16 January 2025 that states the restriction applied to [tenancy address and minor dwelling address suppressed]. It says; “Apologies for late reply, the RBA work is not my primary function and is done only a couple of hours a week at most. I can confirm that the placard in relation to [tenancy address suppressed] has been removed and will not show LIM from this point forward. The official record has now been amended and the placard placed onto the correct address [minor dwelling address suppressed]”; and b. The landlord’s engineer’s 3 February 2025 statement reinforcing the relevant portion of his report submitted to [The council] that confirms the property is safe – “there is no risk of slope instability on the dwelling or risk of loss of life, from our perspective further slope failures if they do occur, would be slow regression of the slope crest towards the west”. This statement proves there are no habitability and/or use restrictions on the main dwelling.
The tenant did not produce: a. Any comparable rent appraisals, tenancy listings, or expert evidence; and/or b. Any updated inspection or engineering reports relevant to the habitability and use restrictions.

Was the rent substantially above the market value?

Market rent is the amount a landlord might reasonably expect to receive, and a tenant might reasonably expect to pay, for a tenancy. It needs to be similar to the rent charged for similar properties in similar areas.
The market data shows the tenant was paying a reduced market rental rate of $900.00 per week for the premise as agreed in the tenant’s lawyer’s 26 April 2023 letter to the landlord’s lawyers.
I find that on the balance of probabilities, the evidence produced by the parties proves the current market rent for this premise is between $1,000.00 and $900.00 per week, when the known use restrictions from Cyclone Gabrielle are considered against the valuation assessment for similar properties in the area that are not subject to restricted use.

What the rent should be?

The tenant has had the benefit of an additional $200.00 rent rebate each week from 25 June 2024 to 24 November 2025 due to uncertainty about further use restrictions and slope stability under the front deck. The landlord has produced a statement from its engineer that confirms there is no risk of slope instability on the dwelling or risk of loss of life, and that any, if they do occur, future slope failures would be from slow regression of the sloe crest towards the west. The Council have also confirmed the yellow placard area relates to land that the house and deck are not sitting on.
I find that the tenant has benefited from a reduced rent of $700.00 per week from 24 June 2024 to 24 November 2025, when the landlord has known since the 3 February 2025 engineers report there are no stability or restricted use reason for keeping the rent reduction in place.
I also find the landlord’s 25 September 2025 rent increase notice is lawful and enforceable.
I therefore find that on the balance of probabilities, the evidence supports a finding that the rental rate being charged by the landlord is commensurate with market rental rates for the premise, albeit at the reduced rate agreed to by the tenant on 26 April 2023.
Therefore, the tenant’s claim for an order reducing the rent under s 25 of the RTA is dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. Has the landlord failed to comply with its obligations to repair and maintain the premise toa reasonable standard in all the circumstances?
Section 45(1)(b) of the RTA provides that the landlord must “provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes”.
Section 78(1)(e) of the RTA provides that the Tribunal may, in the exercise of its jurisdiction, make work orders and s78(2) of the RTA provides for the making of alternative money orders compliance with the work order.
The tenant confirms the property that the main and minor dwelling sits on has two storm water drainpipes that, prior to the Cyclone Gabrielle damage, fed directly into the ocean and did not touch the cliff face. He has also produced evidence that proves post, the Cyclone Gabrielle damage, these storm water drain pipes have been cut off and now drain down the cliff face and are causing further erosion to an already precarious cliff face. The tenant says these storm water pipes no longer meet the Council/Building requirements and need to be remediated.
The landlord states it has taken advice and that these storm water pipes are not its responsibility to remediate, and that this responsibility sits with another entity such as Watercare.
The tenant confirms the responsibility sits with the owners and there was an email produced in evidence for today’s hearing from [The council] that confirms the storm water drains are the owner’s responsibility.
The landlord has indicated it is willing to get the storm water pipes assessed and to investigate further who is responsible for any remediation required, e.g extending the pipes, so they discharge straight into the ocean.
The landlord has agreed to have the storm water pipes remediated if it is found to be responsible for the upkeep of them and that they are required to be extended so they flow straight into the ocean.
I have made Work Orders to this effect and have provided for a monetary alternative to the landlord undertaking this investigation and remediation work by way of a further rent rebate of $200.00 per week from 5 May 2026, if the investigation and required remediation work by the landlord has not been completed. If the remediation work is found not to be the responsibility of the landlord, the alternative money order will be of no effect where the identified responsible party has not carried out the remediation work by 4 May 2026.

OTHER CLAIMS

Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because Quotable Value Limited T/A Darroch Property Services As Agent For Waka Kotahi, Nz Transport Agency has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Name Suppression
The tenant applies for non-publication of his name and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, 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.
The tenant have not wholly or substantially succeeded in his proceedings. However, I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenants’ conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5306181 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5306181 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

How much is owed for rent?

November 2025?

What would a market rent would be for the premise?

Was the rent substantially above the market value?

What the rent should be?

OTHER CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

How much is owed for rent?

November 2025?

What would a market rent would be for the premise?

Was the rent substantially above the market value?

What the rent should be?

OTHER CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions