What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5370775 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 5370775?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5370775?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5370775?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12968159-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5370775 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 5370775?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5370775?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5370775?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12968159-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 1, 5 Dellwood Avenue, Henderson, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5370775 — Tenancy dispute

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord and the tenants name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

This tenancy commenced on 18 October 2023. The rent was $600.00 per week. The property is a two-bedroom townhouse located in Henderson. At the time the tenancy began, it was a new development.
The townhouse has two bedrooms, one bathroom, and an additional toilet. It is arranged over three levels and includes a deck, an internal garage, and an internal laundry. Photographs of the property indicate that it is well and tastefully constructed and designed, albeit compact, in the style of modern townhouses commonly found in urban centres in New Zealand today.
In late August 2025, the respondent issued a 60-day notice increasing the rent from $600.00 to $630.00 per week. The tenants, who are the applicants, believed this proposed rent to be well in excess of market rent and engaged in correspondence with the respondent to understand the basis for the increase. They provided information and evidence to the property manager explaining why they considered the increase unjustified. They believed this material to be compelling and expected that it would be presented to the owner, and that there would be an opportunity for discussion and explanation, consistent with the style of communication they had previously experienced with their original property manager (the property manager has changed twice over the course of the tenancy).
The applicant received a brief email response from the owner stating that the rent had not increased for two years and that the increase was intended to reflect market rent and the increased costs of maintaining the property.
The applicant subsequently investigated the respondent’s initial 60-day notice and identified that it appeared to come into effect before the expiry of the full 60 days. They raised this issue with the landlord.
On 15 December 2025, after the applicant made their complaint to the National Manager of [The landlord/s], the General Manager wrote to them acknowledging the concerns raised. On 17 December 2025, following a review, he advised that due to the concerns raised, the proposed rent increase to $630.00 was being withdrawn. The rent would remain at the original amount of $600.00 for the time being, and a new rent increase notice would be issued in due course.
The following day, on 18 December 2025, a new rent increase notice was issued, increasing the rent from $600.00 to $615.00 per week.
It is my view, that the applicant’s primary grievance which was never addressed or acknowledged by the landlord relates to the manner in which they were communicated with. This was in contrast to their own communication style and to the approach previously taken by their original property manager from the same company whom they report having had a positive relationship with. The written communications provided in evidence indicate that the responses were curt and to the point and, while addressing the technical aspects of the questions raised, did not acknowledge or engage with the substance of the applicant’s concerns.
The applicant asks the Tribunal to determine what the market rent is and to substitute the rent increase of $615.00 with a market rent that they believe to be between $570.00 and $600.00 per week.
In support of their position, the applicant provided a series of screenshots of two- bedroom properties in Henderson advertised at rents between $570.00 and $600.00 per week. I clarified with the applicant that this range represented what they believed to be the market rent, and they confirmed that this was the case.
The respondent stated that another unit within the same development has recently been tenanted for $620.00 per week. They provided the listing for this property, which was advertised earlier this month, and advised that it has been successfully tenanted. The respondent submitted that market rent for the subject property is between $620.00 and $630.00 per week. They distinguished the subject property from the examples provided by the applicant on the basis that it has three internal levels, an internal garage, an enclosed garden, and an additional toilet.
Section 25(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that, on an application made by the tenant at any time, the Tribunal may, if satisfied that the rent payable or to become payable exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount, make an order reducing the rent to an amount that is in line with market rent.
The questions I must therefore determine are: a) what is the market rent for this property; and b) whether the rent of $615.00 per week, which comes into effect on 25 February 2026, exceeds market rent by a substantial amount.
The market rent range proposed by the applicant, being $570.00 to $600.00 per week, includes a variety of properties. While they are all townhouses or similar to townhouses, the lower-priced properties appear to be located in developments of a lower overall value than the tenancy under consideration. I make this assessment on the basis that those properties appear to be part of more compact complexes, with closer proximity to neighbouring properties on each side. In contrast, this development appears to be more independent, better designed, and better appointed.
On this basis, I accept the respondent’s evidence that the subject property is of a higher standard than the lower-end examples at the $570.00 level, including because it has an internal garage, an additional toilet, and a higher-quality overall presentation.
However, I consider the market rent for this property to be $600.00 per week, which is the upper end of the range proposed by the applicant. I do not accept that the respondent’s assessment of market rent at $630.00 or above is correct, and I consider the respondent to be pushing the upper limits of what can reasonably be charged for a property of this type.
However, the statutory test under the Residential Tenancies Act requires that the rent payable or to become payable exceed market rent by a substantial amount before the Tribunal may intervene. The difference between $600.00 and $615.00 is $15.00 per week, representing a difference of approximately 2.44%. I do not consider this to constitute a substantial amount for the purposes of section 25(1).
Accordingly, it is not appropriate to substitute the rent increase.
For the reasons set out above, the application is dismissed.
I have granted the applicants request for suppression on the basis that there interest in privacy exceeds any public interest per section 95A(4). Because they have been unsuccessful in this review, I have extended suppression to the respondent.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord and the tenants name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

This tenancy commenced on 18 October 2023. The rent was $600.00 per week. The property is a two-bedroom townhouse located in Henderson. At the time the tenancy began, it was a new development.
The townhouse has two bedrooms, one bathroom, and an additional toilet. It is arranged over three levels and includes a deck, an internal garage, and an internal laundry. Photographs of the property indicate that it is well and tastefully constructed and designed, albeit compact, in the style of modern townhouses commonly found in urban centres in New Zealand today.
In late August 2025, the respondent issued a 60-day notice increasing the rent from $600.00 to $630.00 per week. The tenants, who are the applicants, believed this proposed rent to be well in excess of market rent and engaged in correspondence with the respondent to understand the basis for the increase. They provided information and evidence to the property manager explaining why they considered the increase unjustified. They believed this material to be compelling and expected that it would be presented to the owner, and that there would be an opportunity for discussion and explanation, consistent with the style of communication they had previously experienced with their original property manager (the property manager has changed twice over the course of the tenancy).
The applicant received a brief email response from the owner stating that the rent had not increased for two years and that the increase was intended to reflect market rent and the increased costs of maintaining the property.
The applicant subsequently investigated the respondent’s initial 60-day notice and identified that it appeared to come into effect before the expiry of the full 60 days. They raised this issue with the landlord.
On 15 December 2025, after the applicant made their complaint to the National Manager of [The landlord/s], the General Manager wrote to them acknowledging the concerns raised. On 17 December 2025, following a review, he advised that due to the concerns raised, the proposed rent increase to $630.00 was being withdrawn. The rent would remain at the original amount of $600.00 for the time being, and a new rent increase notice would be issued in due course.
The following day, on 18 December 2025, a new rent increase notice was issued, increasing the rent from $600.00 to $615.00 per week.
It is my view, that the applicant’s primary grievance which was never addressed or acknowledged by the landlord relates to the manner in which they were communicated with. This was in contrast to their own communication style and to the approach previously taken by their original property manager from the same company whom they report having had a positive relationship with. The written communications provided in evidence indicate that the responses were curt and to the point and, while addressing the technical aspects of the questions raised, did not acknowledge or engage with the substance of the applicant’s concerns.
The applicant asks the Tribunal to determine what the market rent is and to substitute the rent increase of $615.00 with a market rent that they believe to be between $570.00 and $600.00 per week.
In support of their position, the applicant provided a series of screenshots of two- bedroom properties in Henderson advertised at rents between $570.00 and $600.00 per week. I clarified with the applicant that this range represented what they believed to be the market rent, and they confirmed that this was the case.
The respondent stated that another unit within the same development has recently been tenanted for $620.00 per week. They provided the listing for this property, which was advertised earlier this month, and advised that it has been successfully tenanted. The respondent submitted that market rent for the subject property is between $620.00 and $630.00 per week. They distinguished the subject property from the examples provided by the applicant on the basis that it has three internal levels, an internal garage, an enclosed garden, and an additional toilet.
Section 25(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that, on an application made by the tenant at any time, the Tribunal may, if satisfied that the rent payable or to become payable exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount, make an order reducing the rent to an amount that is in line with market rent.
The questions I must therefore determine are: a) what is the market rent for this property; and b) whether the rent of $615.00 per week, which comes into effect on 25 February 2026, exceeds market rent by a substantial amount.
The market rent range proposed by the applicant, being $570.00 to $600.00 per week, includes a variety of properties. While they are all townhouses or similar to townhouses, the lower-priced properties appear to be located in developments of a lower overall value than the tenancy under consideration. I make this assessment on the basis that those properties appear to be part of more compact complexes, with closer proximity to neighbouring properties on each side. In contrast, this development appears to be more independent, better designed, and better appointed.
On this basis, I accept the respondent’s evidence that the subject property is of a higher standard than the lower-end examples at the $570.00 level, including because it has an internal garage, an additional toilet, and a higher-quality overall presentation.
However, I consider the market rent for this property to be $600.00 per week, which is the upper end of the range proposed by the applicant. I do not accept that the respondent’s assessment of market rent at $630.00 or above is correct, and I consider the respondent to be pushing the upper limits of what can reasonably be charged for a property of this type.
However, the statutory test under the Residential Tenancies Act requires that the rent payable or to become payable exceed market rent by a substantial amount before the Tribunal may intervene. The difference between $600.00 and $615.00 is $15.00 per week, representing a difference of approximately 2.44%. I do not consider this to constitute a substantial amount for the purposes of section 25(1).
Accordingly, it is not appropriate to substitute the rent increase.
For the reasons set out above, the application is dismissed.
I have granted the applicants request for suppression on the basis that there interest in privacy exceeds any public interest per section 95A(4). Because they have been unsuccessful in this review, I have extended suppression to the respondent.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5370775 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Unit 1, 5 Dellwood Avenue, Henderson, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5370775 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Unit 1, 5 Dellwood Avenue, Henderson, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions