Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5400491 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 13, 111 Melrose Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland
Decided 30 Mar 2026 · Published 30 Mar 2026 · Application 5400491
- Rent arrears
Order
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 (BN17595363) to Resolute Property Management Limited As Agent For Marzia Liberale immediately.
- [The tenant/s] must pay Resolute Property Management Limited As Agent For Marzia Liberale $1,206.57 immediately, as below:
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing on 26 March 2026. The landlord attended in person and the tenant attended via teleconference. This hearing had been adjourned from 22 December 2025. 5400491, 54186882
- The tenant applied for refund of the bond, reduction of the fixed-term tenancy, market rent and raised issues with the bond.
- The landlord had applied for rent arrears, break lease fee and refund of the bond. Background
- This tenancy has a somewhat complicated background.
- The parties signed 2 tenancy agreements. The first agreement was signed on 11 November 2025 for a fixed term beginning 14 November 2025 until 11 February 2027 (“the first tenancy agreement”). The agreed rent was $550.00 per week.
- At 8:50 am on 14 November 2025, the tenant told the landlord that she would not be moving in as it was too expensive. The landlord relisted the premises for rent. After 2 days later, the tenant contacted the landlord wanting to move into the premises after all.
- The parties signed the second tenancy agreement on 17 November 2025 for a fixed term beginning 19 November 2025 ending on 16 February 2027 (“the second tenancy agreement”).
- The tenant moved out from the premises on 5 December 2025 stating that the premises was too expensive.
- The premises was relisted for rent and a new tenant moved in on 15 January 2026.
Was rent too expensive?
- The tenant applied for an order reducing the rent claiming the rent exceeded the market rent by a substantial amount.
- Under section 25 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), market rent is what 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.
- The tenant relied on a Crockers report 1 from 14 November 2025 that had comparable listings from 7/111 Melrose Road, 1/131 Melrose Road, 5/111 Melrose Road, 1/98 Melrose Road to come to the conclusion that the estimated rent range for this premises to be $420 to $480 per week. 1 https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:AP:9c98df91-c62f-4a4a-8a32- e763a720ec4d 5400491, 54186883
- However, there was a proviso provided with that estimated rent range. It was written underneath “please note: the rental figure above is based on statistics, similar properties currently rented, and our experience as Property Managers. Rental prices vary significantly according to supply and demand factors and the rental range above is based on current market conditions.”
- The landlord rebutted stating that the rent was not too expensive and was market rent due to the premises having been refurbished and being fully furnished.
- The landlord also said that MSD allowed the rent payments which was indicative of MSD accepting that this was within market rate range.
- Furthermore, the landlord provided evidence of the new tenant that started on 15 January 2026 paying $550.00 per week as well.
- I do not find that the tenant has proven that the rent for this tenancy exceeded the market rent by a substantial amount.
- According to the Trade Me link 2 that was in the Crocker’s report, there is at least one other listing where a 1-bedroom unfurnished rental is asking for $550.00 per week.
- Also, for some reason, the cover of the Crockers report has “for more information regarding your property contact” followed by the name of the tenant as the “Business Development Manager” and her personal email as the email contact.
- I dismiss the tenant’s claim for market rent. Reduction of the fixed-term tenancy
- The tenant sought for the fixed-term tenancy to be reduced to 5 December 2025 when she moved out.
- Under section 66 RTA, the Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) RTA. 2 https://www.trademe.co.nz/a/property/resident ial/rent/auckland/auckland-city/mountroskill/search? bedrooms_min=1&bathrooms_min=1&property _type=unit& 5400491, 54186884
- The tenant struggled to establish what the unforeseen change in her circumstances were.
- The tenant relied on a doctor’s note dated 26 November 2025 where it was written that “[the tenant] is struggling to afford her rent at present and would greatly benefit from a more affordable accommodation option. If you could assist with finding new more affordable accommodation that would make a significant improvement. Due to the stress of high cost of rent and expenses, [the tenant] has experienced an impact on her health.”
- The rent was always set at $550.00 per week. The price of rent itself cannot be an unforeseen change in the tenant’s circumstances.
- At the previous hearing, the tenant explained that she was attacked at a bus stop on the first week of her moving in and as a result she had to leave her part- time job. She said that left her with a shortfall of $120.00 per week.
- She also claimed that there was a friend who was dying of terminal cancer that she wanted to be closer to.
- On the adjournment order I made on 22 December 2025, I had specifically asked her to produce evidence to support her claims. Unfortunately, she did not provide any evidence of the previous job, any payslips, any Police reports, or hospital paperwork.
- The tenant has failed to establish that there had been an unforeseen change in her circumstances to the required standard.
- Therefore, her application to reduce the fixed-term tenancy is dismissed. Bond issue
- The tenant had claimed that there was an issue with the bond.
- At the previous hearing, both parties confirmed that the bond was with the Bond Centre with the bond number BN17595363. The bond was paid to the landlord on 10 November 2025 and was lodged with the Bond Centre on 7 December 2025. This was within the legally required timeframe.
- The tenant was unable elaborate on this claim any further.
- As I see no issues with the bond, I dismiss the claim. Tenant’s other claim – locks
- The tenant also claimed that the front door lock did not have a key.
- The landlord rebutted this by stating that there was a deadlock on the front door with a key provided. 5400491, 54186885
- The landlord also provided a photo from 5 December 2025 to prove that the deadlock was there.
- I do not find that the tenant has proven that there was any functional issue with the front door lock. I dismiss this claim. Landlord’s claims
- Having dismissed the tenant’s application, now I turn to the landlord’s cross- application.
- Although originally, the landlord’s application was for rent arrears and break- lease fee, as the tenant had moved out from the premises and a new tenant had taken over the tenancy, the landlord was seeking for the final rent arrears.
- There was evidence of the Ministry of Social Development (“MSD”) having paid $2,200.00 as bond and $1,100.00 for 2 weeks’ rent in advance on 17 November 2025.
- MSD also paid $737.86 already being $392.86 for rent between 14 and 18 November 2024 for the first tenancy agreement and $345.00 being the break- lease fee for the first tenancy agreement.
- As MSD has already paid the rent and the break-lease fee for the first tenancy, I only need to consider the payments under the second tenancy agreement.
- As I have dismissed the tenant’s claim for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy, the tenant is liable to pay rent to 14 January 2026 under the fixed-term tenancy of the second tenancy agreement.
- She is liable for rent of $4,478.57 being the rent between 19 November 2025 and 14 January 2026. Of that amount, $1,100.00 had been paid by the MSD on 17 November 2025. That leaves $3,378.57 outstanding. I order that the tenant pay this amount to the landlord.
- Lastly, because the landlord has wholly succeeded with cross-application, the tenant must reimburse the landlord’s filing fee.