What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5457385 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 5457385?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5457385?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5457385?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13396961-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5457385 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 5457385?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5457385?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5457385?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13396961-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

25 Saffron Street, Birkdale, Auckland 0626 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5457385 — Tenancy dispute

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details.
The application for reducing the rent because of the market rent is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants have applied for a market rent assessment. The application has been filed within 3 months of the last rent review. They believe they are already paying market rent, and that any increase would be unjustified. Sections 25(1) and (3) 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. (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 ...) for comparable tenancies of comparable premises in the locality or in similar localities and such other matters as the Tribunal considers relevant.
The landlord served a notice of rent increase and the proposed increase is $10 a week. The letter was a standard letter that stated: “We have recently completed a review of rents in the area. We found that rental levels have moved significantly since the commencement of your tenancy. We have discussed with the owner the fact that you are very good tenants and taking good care of the property, also that we are keen to retain you as tenants in the property. On this basis they have agreed not to raise the rent to the full market rate but limit the increase to $730.00 per week. Accordingly, your new rent per week will be $730.00.”
The tenant submitted that the landlord had not properly conducted an assessment of market rent in the area before deciding to charge an additional $10 a week. They asked for more information at the time and said:
The landlord said it based the market rent assessment on comparable properties in the area, the bond data collected by Tenancy Services, as well as information gathered from other property websites. At the hearing I was provided with trade me links to two properties and the tenancy bond data. The parties agreed the tenancy bond data for the upper quartile in Birkdale was $734 at the time the rent increase letter was sent and is now $725. As a gesture of good will the landlord said it would accept $725 as the new weekly rent.
Even though the tenants believe they are currently paying market rent I am required to decide what is the market rent for the tenancy premises in Birkdale. The District Court decision in Fisken & Associates Ltd v Tenants [2023] NZDC 17698 set out that the first task for an adjudicator is to make a determination of market rent based on evidence. Once the market rent is established an adjudicator can decide whether the rent paid exceeds it by a substantial amount. If that cannot be established the application under section 25 RTA must fail.
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 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. These terms are not defined by the Act. The Oxford English dictionary defines willing as: "having a ready will; disposed to consent or comply; ready to do (what is specified or implied) without reluctance"; and reasonable as "having sound judgement; sensible ... not asking for too much ... not extravagant or excessive; moderate".
The factors the Tribunal may have regard to are “the general level of rents ... for comparable tenancies of comparable premises in the locality or in similar localities and such other matters as the Tribunal considers relevant”.
The tenants provided me with a detailed comparison between the house they are renting and the two trade me properties. In particular they submitted the house does not compare because of the small bedrooms and very limited car parking. The landlord added that the house is in a quiet street, it is private, and has a good section. This evidence was useful because it gave me an idea of the area and the types of houses in the neighbourhood. I note that any evidence for comparable rents based on advertisements has its limitations because there is limited qualitative information available for comparison. Also, advertisements only cover houses currently on the market and do not necessarily reflect the overall level of rents charged for existing similar tenancies in the area.
The landlord challenged the Barfoot and Thompson information as being prepared for sales rather than an appraisal of market rents. I have also found this information to be the least helpful when deciding the market rent for this particular house.
Both parties referred me to the market rent statistics published by Tenancy Services. These statistics cover the rents charged for tenancies where bonds have been lodged over the preceding 6 months. The statistics include median rent as well as upper and lower quartile. There are currently 711 three bedroom houses being rented in Birkdale. Using data to 31 January 2026 the lower quartile rent is $648 and the upper quartile figure is $725.
It seems most likely to me the house is in the upper quartile. Taking all this into account I find the market rent for this house is $720 a week.
The tenants must now prove on the balance of probabilities that the rent exceeds market rent by a substantial amount. The term 'substantial' is not defined in the RTA, but it is the opposite of ‘minor’ or ‘insignificant’. Some earlier Tribunal cases suggested a 'rule of thumb' of 10% over market rent. However, a rule of thumb based on a specific percentage has no legal status and is not always appropriate, for example where rents rise at a rate significantly above income inflation.
By my calculation the proposed increase of $10 on a weekly rent of $720 is an increase of 1.4%. Looked at as a percentage I do not find that is a substantial amount. Looked at as a $10 a week increase in the Birkdale area I find it is a minor increase to the market rent. I do not find the increase would exceed the market rent by a substantial amount. This means the tenants have not proved their claim and the application is dismissed.
My decision means the proposed rent increase of $10 a week is allowed. The landlord can decide if it will raise the rent by $10 or by the $5 dollars discussed in the hearing.
The tenants also submitted that the landlord did not undertake a conscientious review of market rent and that any increase could not be justified. Section 25 allows me to decide market rent and at this point in time whether the landlord completed the review ‘conscientiously” is not relevant. Also I note there are other factors that influence a rent increase, such as an increase in insurance or rates.
I have used my discretion to allow suppression for all parties. Section 95A RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. There have not been any breaches of the RTA and I find there is no public interest in the names. There is public interest in market rent so the address will be published.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenants have applied for a market rent assessment. The application has been filed within 3 months of the last rent review. They believe they are already paying market rent, and that any increase would be unjustified. Sections 25(1) and (3) 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. (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 ...) for comparable tenancies of comparable premises in the locality or in similar localities and such other matters as the Tribunal considers relevant.

The landlord served a notice of rent increase and the proposed increase is $10 a week. The letter was a standard letter that stated: “We have recently completed a review of rents in the area. We found that rental levels have moved significantly since the commencement of your tenancy. We have discussed with the owner the fact that you are very good tenants and taking good care of the property, also that we are keen to retain you as tenants in the property. On this basis they have agreed not to raise the rent to the full market rate but limit the increase to $730.00 per week. Accordingly, your new rent per week will be $730.00.”

The tenant submitted that the landlord had not properly conducted an assessment of market rent in the area before deciding to charge an additional $10 a week. They asked for more information at the time and said:

The landlord said it based the market rent assessment on comparable properties in the area, the bond data collected by Tenancy Services, as well as information gathered from other property websites. At the hearing I was provided with trade me links to two properties and the tenancy bond data. The parties agreed the tenancy bond data for the upper quartile in Birkdale was $734 at the time the rent increase letter was sent and is now $725. As a gesture of good will the landlord said it would accept $725 as the new weekly rent.

Even though the tenants believe they are currently paying market rent I am required to decide what is the market rent for the tenancy premises in Birkdale. The District Court decision in Fisken & Associates Ltd v Tenants [2023] NZDC 17698 set out that the first task for an adjudicator is to make a determination of market rent based on evidence. Once the market rent is established an adjudicator can decide whether the rent paid exceeds it by a substantial amount. If that cannot be established the application under section 25 RTA must fail.

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 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. These terms are not defined by the Act. The Oxford English dictionary defines willing as: "having a ready will; disposed to consent or comply; ready to do (what is specified or implied) without reluctance"; and reasonable as "having sound judgement; sensible ... not asking for too much ... not extravagant or excessive; moderate".

The factors the Tribunal may have regard to are “the general level of rents ... for comparable tenancies of comparable premises in the locality or in similar localities and such other matters as the Tribunal considers relevant”.

The tenants provided me with a detailed comparison between the house they are renting and the two trade me properties. In particular they submitted the house does not compare because of the small bedrooms and very limited car parking. The landlord added that the house is in a quiet street, it is private, and has a good section. This evidence was useful because it gave me an idea of the area and the types of houses in the neighbourhood. I note that any evidence for comparable rents based on advertisements has its limitations because there is limited qualitative information available for comparison. Also, advertisements only cover houses currently on the market and do not necessarily reflect the overall level of rents charged for existing similar tenancies in the area.

The landlord challenged the Barfoot and Thompson information as being prepared for sales rather than an appraisal of market rents. I have also found this information to be the least helpful when deciding the market rent for this particular house.

Both parties referred me to the market rent statistics published by Tenancy Services. These statistics cover the rents charged for tenancies where bonds have been lodged over the preceding 6 months. The statistics include median rent as well as upper and lower quartile. There are currently 711 three bedroom houses being rented in Birkdale. Using data to 31 January 2026 the lower quartile rent is $648 and the upper quartile figure is $725.

It seems most likely to me the house is in the upper quartile. Taking all this into account I find the market rent for this house is $720 a week.

The tenants must now prove on the balance of probabilities that the rent exceeds market rent by a substantial amount. The term 'substantial' is not defined in the RTA, but it is the opposite of ‘minor’ or ‘insignificant’. Some earlier Tribunal cases suggested a 'rule of thumb' of 10% over market rent. However, a rule of thumb based on a specific percentage has no legal status and is not always appropriate, for example where rents rise at a rate significantly above income inflation.

By my calculation the proposed increase of $10 on a weekly rent of $720 is an increase of 1.4%. Looked at as a percentage I do not find that is a substantial amount. Looked at as a $10 a week increase in the Birkdale area I find it is a minor increase to the market rent. I do not find the increase would exceed the market rent by a substantial amount. This means the tenants have not proved their claim and the application is dismissed.

My decision means the proposed rent increase of $10 a week is allowed. The landlord can decide if it will raise the rent by $10 or by the $5 dollars discussed in the hearing.

The tenants also submitted that the landlord did not undertake a conscientious review of market rent and that any increase could not be justified. Section 25 allows me to decide market rent and at this point in time whether the landlord completed the review ‘conscientiously” is not relevant. Also I note there are other factors that influence a rent increase, such as an increase in insurance or rates.

I have used my discretion to allow suppression for all parties. Section 95A RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. There have not been any breaches of the RTA and I find there is no public interest in the names. There is public interest in market rent so the address will be published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5457385 — Tenancy dispute at 25 Saffron Street, Birkdale, Auckland 0626

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5457385 — Tenancy dispute at 25 Saffron Street, Birkdale, Auckland 0626

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