What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5427409 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5427409?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5427409?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5427409?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13760381-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5427409 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5427409?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5427409?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5427409?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13760381-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

70 Dillon Drive, Bell Block, New Plymouth 4312 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5427409 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 16 June 2026 by video conference.
This order ought to be read together with the Tribunal’s order dated 25 March 2026. In that order the law in relation to the claim was outlined.
The tenant claims that the rent that he pays exceeds market rent by a substantial amount and he seeks an order reducing the rent that is in line with market rent.
The questions the Tribunal must determine are as follows: (a) What is the market rent for these premises; (b) Whether the rent increase is substantially above the market rate, and if so: (c) What should the rent be?

What is the market rent for these premises?

“Market rent” is the rent that a willing landlord might reasonably expect to receive and that a willing tenant might reasonably expect to pay for the tenancy, taking into account the general level of rents for comparable tenancies in the locality or similar localities and such other matters as the tribunal considers relevant.
By way of background, the premises in question are described as being a 3 bedroom brick bungalow, 187m 2 in area, built in 2016. The section is 679m 2 . The house is fully furnished, apart from one of the bedrooms, including plates, glassware, cutlery as well as the usual furnishings of a bedroom, dining room and living area. It has a double garage with internal access. The windows are double glazed.
The tenants say that in the past 6 years the rent has either not increased, or increased by 3%. The last increase from $660.00 per week to $700.00 represents an increase of 6%, whereas they consider that a 3% increase, or no increase at all, is more in line with market rent.
A 3% increase would have put the rent at $678.00 per week.
To support this assessment of market rent the tenants point to: (a) The bond data for Bell Block for the period October 2025 to March 2026 shows that the upper quartile of properties have an average weekly rent of $680.00, the median quartile have an average weekly rent of $650.00, and the lower quartile have an average weekly rent of $550.00. Three bedroom homes average $660.00 per week; and (b) Comparable properties show 3 bedroom homes in Bell Block being rented for between $600.00 and $660.00 per week; and (c) There has been a 3% drop in rent for the whole of the Bell Block area.
As applicants, the tenants are required to establish their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that the tenants have to show that more likely than not, the market rent for these premises is, at most, $678.00 per week.
I find that the tenants have not been able to prove their claim to the required standard.
The bond data has value as objective evidence. However, it does not differentiate between furnished and unfurnished houses. Furnished houses obviously attract more rent than unfurnished houses, and at the hearing that extra was put at a minimum of $50.00 per week.
As an aside, I note that the tenant advised that the tenancy agreement did not stipulate that these are furnished premises. That is the landlord’s error, but it does not take away from the fact that these premises were furnished, and that the landlord is therefore entitled to charge rent accordingly.
The comparable properties put forward by the tenants had significant negative differences, such as no internal garaging/no garaging at all, the premises being considerably smaller, single bathrooms, single glazing, a less desirable area and all of them were unfurnished.
I also note that while the tenants say there has been a 3% drop in rents , the bond data reflects an increase in bond amounts recorded between the period 1 May 2025 – to 32 October 2025, and October 2025 and March 2026.
In answer to the first question, then, I am satisfied that the market rent for these premises is in keeping with the $700.00 weekly charge.
In coming to this assessment, I have noted the comparable properties put forward by the landlord, particularly 50 Dillon Drive, which is obviously in the very same location as the premises that these tenants are renting. This property is slightly bigger in size and in section and has a weekly rent of $750.00. That rent commenced in May 2026.
Another older house built in 1994, and with just a single bathroom has the weekly rent at $680.00 as at February 2026.
The tenants have not succeeded on the first question and so there is no need for me to consider the remaining two questions. Suppression of names
Section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that: (1) The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to the proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. (2) An order may be subject to any conditions that the Tribunal considers appropriate. (3) If a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings applies for an order that their name or identifying particulars not be published, the Tribunal must make the order 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 landlord does not seek suppression of their name.
On my own initiative I am suppressing the tenants’ names. I do so because the consequences of not suppressing their names far outweigh any public interest in knowing who these tenants are. I also note that the landlord supported suppression of the tenants’ names. C ter Haar 17 June 2026

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 16 June 2026 by video conference.
This order ought to be read together with the Tribunal’s order dated 25 March 2026. In that order the law in relation to the claim was outlined.
The tenant claims that the rent that he pays exceeds market rent by a substantial amount and he seeks an order reducing the rent that is in line with market rent.
The questions the Tribunal must determine are as follows: (a) What is the market rent for these premises; (b) Whether the rent increase is substantially above the market rate, and if so: (c) What should the rent be?

What is the market rent for these premises?

“Market rent” is the rent that a willing landlord might reasonably expect to receive and that a willing tenant might reasonably expect to pay for the tenancy, taking into account the general level of rents for comparable tenancies in the locality or similar localities and such other matters as the tribunal considers relevant.
By way of background, the premises in question are described as being a 3 bedroom brick bungalow, 187m 2 in area, built in 2016. The section is 679m 2 . The house is fully furnished, apart from one of the bedrooms, including plates, glassware, cutlery as well as the usual furnishings of a bedroom, dining room and living area. It has a double garage with internal access. The windows are double glazed.
The tenants say that in the past 6 years the rent has either not increased, or increased by 3%. The last increase from $660.00 per week to $700.00 represents an increase of 6%, whereas they consider that a 3% increase, or no increase at all, is more in line with market rent.
A 3% increase would have put the rent at $678.00 per week.
To support this assessment of market rent the tenants point to: (a) The bond data for Bell Block for the period October 2025 to March 2026 shows that the upper quartile of properties have an average weekly rent of $680.00, the median quartile have an average weekly rent of $650.00, and the lower quartile have an average weekly rent of $550.00. Three bedroom homes average $660.00 per week; and (b) Comparable properties show 3 bedroom homes in Bell Block being rented for between $600.00 and $660.00 per week; and (c) There has been a 3% drop in rent for the whole of the Bell Block area.
As applicants, the tenants are required to establish their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that the tenants have to show that more likely than not, the market rent for these premises is, at most, $678.00 per week.
I find that the tenants have not been able to prove their claim to the required standard.
The bond data has value as objective evidence. However, it does not differentiate between furnished and unfurnished houses. Furnished houses obviously attract more rent than unfurnished houses, and at the hearing that extra was put at a minimum of $50.00 per week.
As an aside, I note that the tenant advised that the tenancy agreement did not stipulate that these are furnished premises. That is the landlord’s error, but it does not take away from the fact that these premises were furnished, and that the landlord is therefore entitled to charge rent accordingly.
The comparable properties put forward by the tenants had significant negative differences, such as no internal garaging/no garaging at all, the premises being considerably smaller, single bathrooms, single glazing, a less desirable area and all of them were unfurnished.
I also note that while the tenants say there has been a 3% drop in rents , the bond data reflects an increase in bond amounts recorded between the period 1 May 2025 – to 32 October 2025, and October 2025 and March 2026.
In answer to the first question, then, I am satisfied that the market rent for these premises is in keeping with the $700.00 weekly charge.
In coming to this assessment, I have noted the comparable properties put forward by the landlord, particularly 50 Dillon Drive, which is obviously in the very same location as the premises that these tenants are renting. This property is slightly bigger in size and in section and has a weekly rent of $750.00. That rent commenced in May 2026.
Another older house built in 1994, and with just a single bathroom has the weekly rent at $680.00 as at February 2026.
The tenants have not succeeded on the first question and so there is no need for me to consider the remaining two questions. Suppression of names
Section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that: (1) The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to the proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. (2) An order may be subject to any conditions that the Tribunal considers appropriate. (3) If a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings applies for an order that their name or identifying particulars not be published, the Tribunal must make the order 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 landlord does not seek suppression of their name.
On my own initiative I am suppressing the tenants’ names. I do so because the consequences of not suppressing their names far outweigh any public interest in knowing who these tenants are. I also note that the landlord supported suppression of the tenants’ names. C ter Haar 17 June 2026

Tenancy Tribunal case 5427409 — Tenancy dispute at 70 Dillon Drive, Bell Block, New Plymouth 4312

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5427409 — Tenancy dispute at 70 Dillon Drive, Bell Block, New Plymouth 4312

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What is the market rent for these premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

What is the market rent for these premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions