What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5418759 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s name and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 5418759?

Identifying Details Must Not Be Publ…: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5418759?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5418759?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13808479-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5418759 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s name and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 5418759?

Identifying Details Must Not Be Publ…: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5418759?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5418759?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13808479-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

917 Port Albert Road, Wellsford, RD 3, Wellsford 0973 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5418759 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5418759. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
identifying details must not be published. 2. The claims are dismissed. 3. [The landlord] is to pay Anne Inger and Alwyn	$2,000.00		identifying details must not be published. 2. The claims are dismissed. 3. [The landlord] is to pay Anne Inger and Alwyn

Order

The landlord’s name and identifying details must not be published.
The claims are dismissed.
[The landlord] is to pay Anne Inger and Alwyn Ernest Inger $2,000.00.

Reasons

Mr and Mrs Inger attended the hearing for themselves.
The landlord attended with his grandniece, Ms Brown. Background
The tenants owned the property until 2025 when they sold it to the landlord on 24 August 2025. The settlement date was set for 1 October 2025. The tenancy came about because the tenants did not secure alternative accommodation as they had hoped. About a month after the sale, on about 25 September 2025, the tenant’s asked to be permitted to remain in the property. They suggested a weekly rent of $600.00 and that they be permitted to given notice terminate the tenancy early if they found another property to move to.
On 29 September 2025, through his lawyer, the landlord offered the tenants a short- term fixed term tenancy of 17 weeks duration - beginning on 1 October 2025 and ending on 31 January 2026 - at the rate of $1,000.00 per week, with such terms being non-negotiable.
The tenants purchased a new property and vacated the property on 2 December 2025. Consequently, under the contract they had to pay the landlord $8,714.29 for the remaining period of the fixed term even though they had vacated the premises.
The tenants say they felt they had no option but to accept the offer because it was only two days prior to settlement. They submit the rent was significantly greater than the market rate, the agreement was harsh or unconscionable and ask that the Tribunal reduce the term of the fixed term agreement.

Was the rent more than market rent?

The tenants submit the rent was more than market rent.
Sections 25(1) and (3) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 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. (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.
The first matter to assess for a market rent claim is what the market rent would be for the relevant premises. 1 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 1 Property Brokers Hawke’s Bay Limited v Michaelsen [2024] NZDC 13815; and Fisken & Associates Limited v Lecole and Lecole [2023] NZDC 17698. 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.
The tenants rely on a market appraisal which assesses the weekly rent for the house they occupied of $650.00. However, the same appraisal places a $350.00 per week value on a second dwelling which is part of the property and was therefore included in the tenancy.
The tenants are a couple and had no use for the second dwelling which they had previously rented out. That does not change the fact that the property, which also included a large lifestyle block of farmland, was rented back to them at a fair market value.
Therefore, the market rent for the premises was $1,000.00 per week and the rent was not significantly in excess of market rent. Was the agreement harsh or unconscionable
The tenants had a lawyer who advised them on the tenancy agreement.
They had over a month to vacate the property after selling it. At the time of the landlord’s offer they had only two days to move out days before settlement but could probably have negotiated further time and non-liability for late-vacating penalties if they considered the terms of the offer were unacceptable.
I am not satisfied that the agreement was harsh or unconscionable.

Should the fixed term be reduced?

Under s 66(1) of the RTA, the Tribunal can reduce the term of a fixed-term tenancy “where it is satisfied that, because of an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances, the severe hardship which the applicant would suffer if the term of the tenancy were not reduced would be greater than the hardship which the other party to the tenancy would suffer if the term were reduced”.
However, there was no unforeseen change in the applicants’ circumstances in this case because they anticipated they would move out of the premises early if they found a new house, which is what happened and what leads the parties to this juncture. Landlord’s voluntary reduction
I explained to the parties that I could not see a basis to accept the tenants’ claims but invited the landlord to consider if he would offer the tenants some relief.
The landlord through his grandniece kindly offered to repay the tenants $2,000.00 of the agreed rental. I order accordingly.
The Tribunal acknowledges the landlord’s kind gesture. Non-publication
The landlord seeks non-publication of his name.
The landlord has wholly succeeded in the proceedings. Publication is not otherwise in public interest or justified by the landlord’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. The Tribunal must therefore order non-publication pursuant to s 95A(1) of the RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5418759. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
identifying details must not be published. 2. The claims are dismissed. 3. [The landlord] is to pay Anne Inger and Alwyn	$2,000.00		identifying details must not be published. 2. The claims are dismissed. 3. [The landlord] is to pay Anne Inger and Alwyn

Order

The landlord’s name and identifying details must not be published.
The claims are dismissed.
[The landlord] is to pay Anne Inger and Alwyn Ernest Inger $2,000.00.

Reasons

Mr and Mrs Inger attended the hearing for themselves.
The landlord attended with his grandniece, Ms Brown. Background
The tenants owned the property until 2025 when they sold it to the landlord on 24 August 2025. The settlement date was set for 1 October 2025. The tenancy came about because the tenants did not secure alternative accommodation as they had hoped. About a month after the sale, on about 25 September 2025, the tenant’s asked to be permitted to remain in the property. They suggested a weekly rent of $600.00 and that they be permitted to given notice terminate the tenancy early if they found another property to move to.
On 29 September 2025, through his lawyer, the landlord offered the tenants a short- term fixed term tenancy of 17 weeks duration - beginning on 1 October 2025 and ending on 31 January 2026 - at the rate of $1,000.00 per week, with such terms being non-negotiable.
The tenants purchased a new property and vacated the property on 2 December 2025. Consequently, under the contract they had to pay the landlord $8,714.29 for the remaining period of the fixed term even though they had vacated the premises.
The tenants say they felt they had no option but to accept the offer because it was only two days prior to settlement. They submit the rent was significantly greater than the market rate, the agreement was harsh or unconscionable and ask that the Tribunal reduce the term of the fixed term agreement.

Was the rent more than market rent?

The tenants submit the rent was more than market rent.
Sections 25(1) and (3) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 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. (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.
The first matter to assess for a market rent claim is what the market rent would be for the relevant premises. 1 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 1 Property Brokers Hawke’s Bay Limited v Michaelsen [2024] NZDC 13815; and Fisken & Associates Limited v Lecole and Lecole [2023] NZDC 17698. 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.
The tenants rely on a market appraisal which assesses the weekly rent for the house they occupied of $650.00. However, the same appraisal places a $350.00 per week value on a second dwelling which is part of the property and was therefore included in the tenancy.
The tenants are a couple and had no use for the second dwelling which they had previously rented out. That does not change the fact that the property, which also included a large lifestyle block of farmland, was rented back to them at a fair market value.
Therefore, the market rent for the premises was $1,000.00 per week and the rent was not significantly in excess of market rent. Was the agreement harsh or unconscionable
The tenants had a lawyer who advised them on the tenancy agreement.
They had over a month to vacate the property after selling it. At the time of the landlord’s offer they had only two days to move out days before settlement but could probably have negotiated further time and non-liability for late-vacating penalties if they considered the terms of the offer were unacceptable.
I am not satisfied that the agreement was harsh or unconscionable.

Should the fixed term be reduced?

Under s 66(1) of the RTA, the Tribunal can reduce the term of a fixed-term tenancy “where it is satisfied that, because of an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances, the severe hardship which the applicant would suffer if the term of the tenancy were not reduced would be greater than the hardship which the other party to the tenancy would suffer if the term were reduced”.
However, there was no unforeseen change in the applicants’ circumstances in this case because they anticipated they would move out of the premises early if they found a new house, which is what happened and what leads the parties to this juncture. Landlord’s voluntary reduction
I explained to the parties that I could not see a basis to accept the tenants’ claims but invited the landlord to consider if he would offer the tenants some relief.
The landlord through his grandniece kindly offered to repay the tenants $2,000.00 of the agreed rental. I order accordingly.
The Tribunal acknowledges the landlord’s kind gesture. Non-publication
The landlord seeks non-publication of his name.
The landlord has wholly succeeded in the proceedings. Publication is not otherwise in public interest or justified by the landlord’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. The Tribunal must therefore order non-publication pursuant to s 95A(1) of the RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5418759 — Tenancy dispute at 917 Port Albert Road, Wellsford, RD 3, Wellsford 0973

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5418759 — Tenancy dispute at 917 Port Albert Road, Wellsford, RD 3, Wellsford 0973

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was the rent more than market rent?

Should the fixed term be reduced?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Was the rent more than market rent?

Should the fixed term be reduced?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions