What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5438768 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal's order dated 26 March 2026 is replaced by this order.

How much money was awarded in case 5438768?

3. The Rent Of: $252.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5438768?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5438768?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13878145-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5438768 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal's order dated 26 March 2026 is replaced by this order.

How much money was awarded in case 5438768?

3. The Rent Of: $252.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5438768?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5438768?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13878145-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 9, 2 Miller Street, Glenholme, Rotorua 3010, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5438768 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5438768. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
3. The rent of	$252.00		3. The rent of

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5438768. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
3. The rent of	$252.00		3. The rent of

Order

The Tribunal's order dated 26 March 2026 is replaced by this order.
By consent, and pursuant to s 25 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the rent for the tenancy at Unit/Flat 9, 2 Miller Street, Glenholme, Rotorua is fixed at $252.00 per week.
The rent of $252.00 per week takes effect from 1 June 2026, being the date from which the Council's later rent increase notice was to take effect.
This order is confined to this tenancy and this tenant. It is not a determination of the rent payable for any other unit in the Council's elderly housing portfolio.
The stay of proceedings earlier granted is discharged.
There is no order as to costs.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Counsel, Mr Leef, appeared for the [The landlord/s].
On 26 March 2026, the Tribunal determined the Tenant’s application under s 25 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and reduced the rent for this tenancy to $200.00 per week.
That decision was made after the Landlord did not attend the hearing. The Tribunal proceeded on the evidence then available. The Landlord later applied for a rehearing and also filed an appeal in the District Court.
I directed that the rehearing application be set down for a 60-minute hearing so both parties could be heard before the Tribunal determined whether a rehearing should be granted.
The parties attended before me on 24 June 2026. By that stage, they had engaged directly and constructively. The matter was not argued to a final rehearing. Instead, the parties advised that they had reached a consent position and sought time to file a joint memorandum.
The parties have now filed a joint memorandum recording the terms of their agreement. It is necessary to record by way of background that:
1.The Council manages elderly housing units for older residents who meet eligibility criteria.
2.Historically, rentals had been set at 30% of income.
3.The Council has since resolved to change the way the portfolio is managed, including by engaging Emerge Aotearoa Housing Trust and moving toward a market-rent framework.
The Council has assured the Tribunal that it seeking to avoid tenants wholly reliant on New Zealand Superannuation being materially worse off.
The memorandum records that the Council obtained a desktop market rental assessment for its bedsit and one-bedroom units, and that the subject one- bedroom unit was assessed at $360.00 per week.
It also records that the Council later adopted a reduced-rent approach for tenants who qualify for financial assistance, with the rent set at a level intended to maximise available accommodation assistance while contributing toward the Council’s increased operating and maintenance costs.
The Tenant has now completed the relevant assessment. The parties agree that, in this Tenant’s circumstances, the appropriate weekly rent should be $252.00. The parties also record that this figure enables the Tenant to access the maximum accommodation subsidy available to her, resulting in a lower net weekly rental cost.
I record these matters because they explain how the parties reached the agreed figure. I do not make wider findings about the Council’s rent-setting framework, the market rent of other units, the condition of other units, or the position of other tenants. Those matters were not determined after a contested hearing.
The Tribunal’s task under s 25 remains focused on the rent payable for the particular tenancy before it. Other tenants who wish to challenge rent increases must bring their own applications, supported by evidence relevant to their own tenancy, including the condition, amenities, comparable rents, and any relevant assessment process that has or has not been completed.
Equally, this order should not be read as encouraging multiple applications where the Council has an available process for assessing whether a tenant qualifies for reduced rent or financial assistance. A tenant may still apply to the Tribunal where there is a genuine dispute, but the Tribunal will ordinarily be assisted by evidence that the Tenant has first engaged with the assessment process and that the parties have attempted to resolve the issue directly, in good faith.
The original decision included comments about the Landlord’s non-attendance and the difficulty the Tribunal experienced in contacting an appropriate representative on the day of the first hearing. Those comments were made in the context of the evidence and circumstances then before the Tribunal.
The rehearing process has since allowed the Landlord to engage with the Tenant and the Tribunal. I acknowledge and commend the constructive steps taken by the Council since the original hearing, including its direct engagement with the Tenant, its explanation of the wider housing portfolio context – a work which was well underway before the Applicant filed here application – and its agreement to a resolution that both parties now consider fair.
In all the circumstances, I am satisfied it is appropriate to grant the rehearing by consent and replace the earlier order with the agreed order now sought.
Subject to any further direction from the District Court, the parties have indicated that, once this order is made, they will jointly seek to discontinue the District Court appeal with no issue as to costs.
This decision is to be published without suppression applied, on public interest grounds.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5438768 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Unit 9, 2 Miller Street, Glenholme, Rotorua 3010,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5438768 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Unit 9, 2 Miller Street, Glenholme, Rotorua 3010,

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