What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5526560 about?

The tribunal order states: Online Rentals Limited Frazer Coombes must pay [The tenant/s] tenant/s] $20.00

How much money was awarded in case 5526560?

Compensation:Balance of agreed compe…: $20.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5526560?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5526560?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14092201-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5526560 about?

The tribunal order states: Online Rentals Limited Frazer Coombes must pay [The tenant/s] tenant/s] $20.00

How much money was awarded in case 5526560?

Compensation:Balance of agreed compe…: $20.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5526560?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5526560?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14092201-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room 3D, Unit/Flat 312, 41 Ward Street, Hamilton Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5526560 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5526560 — net $20.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation:Balance of agreed compensation/ lift	$20.00	Balance of agreed compensation/ lift
Net award	$20.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$20.00

Both parties attended the hearing by video conference.

The tenancy began on 6 October 2025 and ended on 29 June 2026.

The premises were an apartment located on the third floor of the Quest Hotel in Hamilton.

The tenant sought compensation for the lift being broken for 3 months. The landlord had offered compensation for 12 weeks inconvenience. The landlord said that this was based on notifications from the body corporate. The landlord said that they had followed up with the body corporate to organise a solution and it was remedied on 25 February, amounting to 14 weeks.

The tenant agreed with compensation for 14 Weeks at $10.00 per week. The tenant has received $120.00 in compensation, and this was credited against the end of tenancy rent, leaving a $20.00 balance to be paid. Rent increase.

The tenant sought a refund of what she claimed was an unjust rent increase questioning whether a rent increase that started on 23 March 2026 was appropriate or justified. This was based on loud intrusive overnight building and infrastructure works occurring outside her window through the night, and that other apartments that were similar were being rented out for less.

There was no dispute that the Hamilton City Council were conducting works through the night. The tenant provided photographs and said that the drilling noise and the building shuddering sometimes severely affected her sleep. The work would begin at 10pm at night and she said it was unbearable. She said that noise complaints were made by her to the City Council.

The tenant travelled to Hamilton for work and said if she had been forewarned, she could have altered her schedule so that she didn’t have to stay there while the work was being undertaken.

The landlord said that they were notified of the work on 22 May 2026 and forwarded the notification to the tenants that day. A copy of the notice was provided. The tenant agreed that they had received the notification.

The tenant accepted that the landlord could not control this but said due to the lack of enjoyment of the premises over this time the rent increase was not appropriate.

The landlord confirmed that they only knew about the works on 22 May and the rent increase notice was sent in January 2026.

I do not find that these are grounds under the RTA to reimburse rent paid. The works undertaken were outside the control of the landlord and the tenant was notified as soon as the landlord knew about it.

The second ground raised was that other apartments, which were similar, were being rented out for less.

The rent paid for this apartment included electricity. The agreement did not specify a usage amount.

The Tribunal considers questions raised about market rent under section 25 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 where the Tribunal can may make an order reducing rent to an amount that is in line with market rent if it is satisfied that the rent being paid is exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount.

Broken down the Section 25 requires the Tribunal to consider two issues, what is the market rent for the premises and if the rent payable exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount.

The tenant said her claim was that the rent should not have been increased and provided copies of advertising for three other units at the same premises rented for between $390.00 to $410.00. She said she had seen inside one and it was in better condition than hers and on the quiet side of the building away from the noisy night earth works. No evidence was provided.

The landlord said that these premises could be distinguished from the tenants because they did not have electricity included in the rental price.

The tenant had sought clarity around the amount of electricity used by her and the said that the landlord refused to release that information due to confidentiality.

At the hearing the landlord was asked to provide the individual amount charged for the amount of electricity used by the tenant based on the check metre readings. The information was provided confirming the cost for electricity for two months were$87.05 April to May and $86.79 from May to June. I am unable to see why this information was not able to be shared prior to the hearing. However, there was no claim made in relation to release of the information.

The evidence provided of relevant market rent I find support the amount charged for the premises due to the inclusion of the utilities. Even if that were not the case the increase of rent by $20.00 per week is not increasing the rent by a substantial amount.

The tenant clarified that her claim was that the rent increase was not justified, also due to the timing with the night works and the lift not working.

The tenant said she was seeking the hearing also to stand up for tenants as she believed that she had not been treated well by the property manager and as such had not enjoyed the tenancy. Some other examples were given but none had evidence to support them.

Compensation as agreed by the parties has been awarded, the night works were not within the landlord’s control and they notified the tenant as soon as possible, the rent increase was notified in January and the there are no grounds established to reduce the rent based on claim that market rent was exceeded.

I find that the tenant has not established grounds for the reimbursement of the rent increase and this claim is dismissed.

The applicant was not substantially successful and therefore this is a situation where the filing fee should be reimbursed.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5526560 — net $20.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation:Balance of agreed compensation/ lift	$20.00	Balance of agreed compensation/ lift
Net award	$20.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$20.00