What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5485438?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5485438?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5485438?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5485438?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13564384-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5485438?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5485438?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5485438?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5485438?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13564384-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

56 Hokioi Drive, Kenepuru, Porirua 5022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5485438 — Exemplary damages

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video conference hearing.
The tenant has applied for Tribunal orders regarding two matters that occurred during the tenancy. They are that: a. The rent charged after the end of the fixed term in October 2024 exceeded market rent by a substantial amount and b. The landlord committed an unlawful act by entering the property for an inspection on 22 October 2025 without the required notice.

Did the rent charged exceed market rent by a substantial amount?

The tenancy commenced on 14 October 2023 for a fixed-term until 13 October 2024 at a weekly rent of $870. The tenancy then became periodic and the rent continued at $870.00 per week. About 8 months after the change to a periodic tenancy, the tenant requested a rent reduction. This was followed by emails that included a reference to Tenancy Services bond data. The rent record shows that on 4 October 2025, the rent reduced to $770.00 per week. The tenants ended the tenancy on 2 January 2026. On 13 April 2026 the tenant lodged an application for a market rent assessment for the period for 51 weeks from October 2024 to October 2025
Sections 25(1) and (3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provide: 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 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.
To determine whether rent payable exceeded market rent by a substantial amount, the tenant must provide evidence to enable the Tribunal to determine market rent for the period the tenant has applied for. That is because the first step is for the Tribunal to determine market rent. In The Tenant v Fisken & Associates Limited trading as Professionals CIV-J2023-059-000065 NZDC 17698 [2023] Judge Tuohy granted an appeal where he determined that the adjudicator had insufficient evidence to make a finding about market rent. The tenant had made a claim that the increased rent exceeded market rent. The Judge stated at paragraph 25: The jurisdiction to make an order reducing the rent only arises if the Tribunal is satisfied by evidence that the increased rent exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount. To reach that conclusion obviously the Tribunal must first assess what the market rent is using the definition in s 25 (3) of the Act. That can only be done on the basis of some evidence which the Tribunal accepts.
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 evidence for comparable rents is usually based on advertisements for similar premises in the locality. This evidence has its limitations. Although advertisements usually list the essential features of the property advertised, there is often 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.
It is also common for parties to refer 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. Tenancy Services bond information is insufficient to assess market rent. It only provides information about newly acquired rentals. The figures given for upper and lower amounts are averages and therefore do not show specific rental information. For these reasons the Tenancy Services website states: “It is a useful guide for landlords and tenants but should not be used alone to determine the market rent of any property”.
In the present case the tenant has only provided evidence of bond lodgements from Tenancy Services. The tenant has not provided evidence of rent at comparable properties or advertisements for similar properties.
The tenant submitted that the Tribunal could make an assessment that market rent would be lower than the rent charged because rent was reduced by $100.00 in October 2025. The tenant may be correct that prior to October 2025 the market rent for the property was less than the rent charged. However the Tribunal must determine actual market rent, not whether market rent may be lower than rent charged. For the reasons given, the claim is dismissed. There is insufficient evidence for the Tribunal to determine the market rent for the property. Did the landlord commit an unlawful act by entering the property for an inspection without the required notice?
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant claims that on 22 October the landlord entered the premises without the correct written notice.
The background to the claim is that the landlord had sent several written notices to the tenant regarding the inspection. Notice was sent on 9 September 2025 for an 18 September inspection. On 17 September the tenant asked for the inspection to be delayed until November because of a wedding anniversary and travel plans. The landlord declined to wait that long and sent a notice on 30 September for an inspection on 6 October. The tenant decline access due to sickness. Another inspection notice was sent on 07/10/2025 for 13/10/2025. In text messages the tenant requested the 13 October inspection not go ahead. The landlord suggested Monday 21 October. The tenant responded, “please tentatively schedule for next Wednesday instead of Monday and hopefully we will be able to avoid any further back and forth.” The landlord replied, “Sure”. The texts are below.
The landlord arrived at the property on Wednesday, 22 October. After knocking at the door and there being no response, he let himself in through the garage. The tenants had changed the combination on the door lock. (The tenant should note that altering a lock without the landlord’s consent is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $1,500.00 may be ordered.) The tenants were home and objected to the landlord letting himself in. He left the property a followed up with a phone call to the tenant. It was not answered and so he then texted requesting to know when it was suitable to call.
The tenant has claimed that the landlord did not give a written notice confirming the inspection for 22 October.
The purpose of a written notice is to make sure that a tenant knows the date of an inspection. What must be determined in this case is whether it was reasonable for the landlord to assume that the written correspondence between the parties was adequate notice of an inspection on 22 October.
The tenant has focused on the word ‘tentative’ in the text. He stated that the landlord should have sent notice to confirm.
I satisfied that it was not the landlord’s responsibility to confirm the date that the tenant had given for the inspection. The tenant chose to make the date tentative, not the landlord. If the landlord made the date tentative, it would be up to the landlord to confirm. Because the tenant made the date tentative, it was up to the tenant to advise if the date was not suitable. The tenant gave the date of 22 October. It was up to the tenant to let the landlord know if the date had not worked out.
I am satisfied that because the tenant gave a tentative date that the tenant did not change, it was reasonable for the landlord to enter the premises for an inspection.
I am also satisfied that the notice for the inspection was in writing. The landlord’s response to the tenant’s date of 22 October was, ‘Sure”. This clearly shows the parties’ written agreement for a 22 October inspection unless the tenant advised otherwise.
For these reasons, the tenant’s claim regarding unlawful entry is also dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5485438 — Exemplary damages at 56 Hokioi Drive, Kenepuru, Porirua 5022

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5485438 — Exemplary damages at 56 Hokioi Drive, Kenepuru, Porirua 5022

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the rent charged exceed market rent by a substantial amount?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the rent charged exceed market rent by a substantial amount?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions