What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4849524?

The tribunal order states: Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited Ling Gao Matthew

How much money was awarded in case 4849524?

Compensation: (Loss of amenity of po…: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: (Water rebate for Marc…: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: (Water rebate for May…: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Per Week: $2,900.00 awarded to tenant; Per Week For 14 Weeks: $700.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4849524?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4849524?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10510454-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4849524?

The tribunal order states: Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited Ling Gao Matthew

How much money was awarded in case 4849524?

Compensation: (Loss of amenity of po…: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: (Water rebate for Marc…: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: (Water rebate for May…: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Per Week: $2,900.00 awarded to tenant; Per Week For 14 Weeks: $700.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4849524?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4849524?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10510454-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

43 Waiatarua Road, Remuera, Auckland 1050 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4849524 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4849524 — net $4,220.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
per week	$2,900.00	per week
Compensation: (Water rebate for May 2023 from April pool shock treatment	$50.00	(Water rebate for May 2023 from April pool shock treatment
Compensation: (Water rebate for March 2024 from Feb 2024 pool shock treatment and backwash valve issues x2	$150.00	(Water rebate for March 2024 from Feb 2024 pool shock treatment and backwash valve issues x2
Compensation: (Loss of amenity of pool for 4 weeks in April 2023 and Feb 2024 after shock treatments	$400.00	(Loss of amenity of pool for 4 weeks in April 2023 and Feb 2024 after shock treatments
per week for 14 weeks	$700.00	per week for 14 weeks
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,220.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,220.44

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4849524 — net $4,220.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
per week	$2,900.00	per week
Compensation: (Water rebate for May 2023 from April pool shock treatment	$50.00	(Water rebate for May 2023 from April pool shock treatment
Compensation: (Water rebate for March 2024 from Feb 2024 pool shock treatment and backwash valve issues x2	$150.00	(Water rebate for March 2024 from Feb 2024 pool shock treatment and backwash valve issues x2
Compensation: (Loss of amenity of pool for 4 weeks in April 2023 and Feb 2024 after shock treatments	$400.00	(Loss of amenity of pool for 4 weeks in April 2023 and Feb 2024 after shock treatments
per week for 14 weeks	$700.00	per week for 14 weeks
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,220.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,220.44

Order

Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited Ling Gao Matthew Robertson must pay Scott Wotherspoon, Andrew Muir and Kate O'brien $4,220.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 25 July 2024: a. Engage an appropriately qualified contractor to investigate the issue with the swimming pool lights and either repaired or replaced the lights so they are in full working order and are not tripping any of the premise’s other electrical circuits.
If the landlord fails to comply with either Order 2(a) above, then the tenants may undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of this work up to $7,000.00. These costs may be set off against rent payable.
The landlord must reduce the tenants rent by $20.00 per week until the date the pool lights are repaired or replaced and are fully functional and fit for purpose.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants applied for compensation, work orders, a market rent assessment and reimbursement of the filing fee.
Several of the tenant’s failure to maintain claims were resolved to the tenants’ satisfaction at mediation on 16 May 2024. As a result, I was not required to traverse the tenants claims relating to the living room curtain, the removal of green waste and the mechanical pool timer at today’s hearing or to make any work orders in relation to these issues. Work Orders
The tenants claims that the landlord did not fix the swimming pool lights.
The tenant wants the problem fixed.
The tenants have proven they initially raised the issue of the pool lights not working with the property manager on 16 September 2021. This was when the property was being managed by Barfoot & Thompson. The tenants say Barfoot & Thompson raised the issue with the owners of the property, and around 29 October 2021 a contractor investigated the issue and the owners decided not to repair the lights as they considered the repair to be too expensive.
The tenants confirmed they continued to raise this issue with Barfoot & Thompson, and nothing was done to address the issue. As a result, the tenants lost some amenity of the pool as they were unable to use it at night or in the early mornings because the lack of lighting created health and safety issues.
The tenants also provided evidence that when they signed up to a renewal of their fixed term tenancy in March 2023, Barfoot & Thompson included an unlawful clause in the renewal agreement that records the tenants having agreed to the pool lights not being fixed as a condition of their fixed term tenancy being renewed for a further year. The tenants stated they were placed in a position of agreeing to that term being included in the renewal agreement or their tenancy would have been ended.
No landlord can contract out of its statutory obligations to “provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes”. (See s45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA)).
Where the Tribunal finds the landlord has failed to comply with its s45(1)(b) obligations, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
If the work order is not being made by consent of both parties, the Tribunal must also make a monetary order as an alternative to compliance with the work order. This provision does not apply to any work order, or part of a work order, in relation to smoke alarms, insulation, a failure to comply with a standard of fitness under section 120C Health Act 1956, or a failure to comply with any health or safety legislative requirement. See sections 78(2) and 78(2AA) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
A work order may also authorise the tenant to undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of doing the work if the landlord should fail to comply with the work order and alternative monetary order. A monetary limit must be imposed by the Tribunal on the amount of costs that can be charged. These costs can be set off by the tenant against rent payable. See sections 78(2AAB) and 78(2AAC)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord has agreed to get a contractor in to investigate and repair/replace the pool lights and I make an order for the landlord to carry out that work by 25 July 2024.
Given the owners of the property have refused to have the lights repaired or replaced for 145 weeks from 16 September 2021, I have made an alternative monetary order with a limit of $7,000.00. This amount is based on there being 2 to 3 pool lights and the average cost of replacing each light being between $625.00 to $1,700.00 per light.

Has the landlord failed to comply with their s45 of the RTA obligations?

The tenants claim the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA in that it failed to repair or replace the pool lights in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances and then tried to get the tenants to agree to waive their statutory rights to have the property provided to them in a reasonable state of repair.
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 1
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 2 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .
Breaching this s45(1)(b) obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The Tribunal may also award general damages for a landlord’s unlawful breach of s45(1)(b) of the RTA in the form of a rent rebate that recognises the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience caused by the breach(es). Pool lights
The tenants have proven they raised the issue with the pool lights not working on 16 September 2023 and the landlord, after having the issue investigated, decided not to get the pool lights fixed due to it deeming the repair to be too costly. What the landlord did after the tenants raised this issue is traversed in more detail in paragraphs [4] to [9] above.
I find the landlord has intentionally failed to meet its repair and maintained obligations to the tenants and has tried unlawfully to contract out of its s45(1)(b) of the RTA obligations by forcing the tenants to sign a renewal of lease that records their agreement not to require the landlord to fix the pool lights. This agreement was obtained by the landlord putting the tenants under duress to sign it after the tenants had refused to agree to the loss of the use of the pool altogether for a rent reduction of $90.00 per week.
I find that it would be just to award the tenants $2,900.00 in general damages for this unlawful breach of the RTA. The landlord failed to repair and maintain the pool lights from 16/09/21 to 27/06/24 (a period of 145 weeks). I find a rebate of $20.00 per week to be an appropriate rent rebate for this loss of amenity, the health and safety issues the breach posed to the tenants and the stress and inconvenience of having to keep trying to reinforce their legal rights to the point 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. the landlord put them under duress to get them agree to allow it to unlawfully contract out of its obligations under the RTA.
The tenants did not apply for exemplary damages, so even though I have found the landlord committed an unlawful act intentionally, no exemplary damages are awarded. Pool valet
The landlord agreed to maintain the pool by engaging a pool valet to clean it and keep the water balanced on a fortnightly basis. This agreement is recorded in the tenancy agreement.
The prior property management company engaged a pool valet that the tenants say came fortnightly and kept the pool very clean and in great working order. They also stated they had a good working relationship with this pool valet and had never had any issues with him.
The parties confirmed that when the current property management company took over the management of the premise, it took some time to get a pool valet provider in place. The prior property management company informed the pool valet that his services were no longer required once the current property managers took over managing the premise.
The parties gave evidence there has been 4 pool valets since the current property management company took over the tenancy, City Wide Pools (that the current property managers say undertakes all their pool maintenance), The Pool People Ltd, Kiwi Spa and Pool and Sparkling Pools that currently undertake the pool valet service on a fortnightly basis.
The tenants gave evidence that the issues started when the new property managers took over and had not arranged a pool valet for the first month of the tenancy. On 2 April 2023, the tenants say they confirmed to the new property managers that the pool was due for a valet on 4 April 2023 and the first valet occurred on 25 April 2023. This was undertaken by Jo from City Wide Pools. By this time, they say the quality of the water in the pool was so bad it required a shock treatment, which rendered the pool unusable for two weeks and resulted in an increase in their water consumption of $50.00 for that month.
The landlord says it tried to get the previous pool valet service person to keep valeting the pool, but he refused to carry on with this service and did not say why. They then had to get the pool on to their regular pool valet providers list and it took a month before she could fit hem into her pool valet schedule.
The tenants say that they were unhappy with Jo’s service and that the pool was left full of debris at the end of her valets, so Scott talked to her at the end of the valet on 15 November 2023. One of the property manager’s, Chester Duffett, was at the premises at the time and says he witnessed the exchange and had to talk to both parties after the altercation that ensued. Chester stated that Jo felt Scott was unfairly critiquing her pool valets and was rude to her. Consequently, she withdrew her service and refused to come back to the premise.
Scott says that at the end of the pool valet the spa pool and pool was full of leaves and debris, and he was not happy, as this was not how the prior pool valet service person had left the pool. He says that Jo from City Wide Pools confirmed to him she was only engaged to undertake a mini valet, that did not include cleaning the pool of debris, that she had done the balancing of the water, they had a pool vacuum and a scoop and it was their responsibility to keep the pool free from leaves and debris. He was not happy with this and let her know that this did not meet his expectations, it was not how the previous provider had left the pool at the end of a valet and the pool vacuum did not work well enough to allow him to keep the pool free from leaves and debris.
The landlord raised with me that the tenants had not once raised any issues with the pool valet service with it from April to November 2023 and that if the tenants had the landlord could have promptly addressed the quality issues the tenants had complained of for the first time in their Tribunal application and that would have prevented the altercation between the provider and Scott. They also stated that failure by Scott to raise his concerns with it instead of with Jo directly led to further valet delays after Jo confirmed on the 16 November 2023 invoice “last valet- tenant keeps turning pump off pool is filthy due to pool cleaner not working because pump is off tenant is rude and turns pump off after each visit and fiddle with settings causing damage”.
The tenants deny turning the pump off after each of Jo’s visits and deny fiddling with the settings causing damage. They state the mechanical timer for the pump had issues and it failed to turn on and off at the correct times. Scott admitted to turning the pump off once when he was watching a movie and it started in the middle of the day at a time it had not been set to turn on. Other than that, he and the other tenants deny having manually turned off the pump.
The landlord states that none of the 4 pool valet service providers had raised an issue with the pool plug or the mechanical timer and it says that if that had been an issue one of the providers would have picked this up and fixed it.
The tenants claim they do not know why the issue was not picked up by Jo as she had been servicing the pool from April to November 2023 and the timer or plug was clearly causing issues. I note the landlord agreed to replace the mechanical pool timer at mediation and there have been no issues with the pool pump not going on at the correct time since. The landlord stated that it only agreed to a new timer because the tenants insisted on it and not because it agreed the old one was faulty.
From 15 November 2023 to 21 December 2023, no pool valet was undertaken at all. There were 4 to 5 pool valet services missed during this time.
The landlord provided evidence that it has requested that Richard from The Pool People Ltd visit the property to see if it would like to take the property on for regular pool maintenance. The Director of The Pool People Ltd confirmed in an email dated 11 January 2024 to the property manager “we serviced that pool and spa back in 2010 and had a number of issues with it leaking. I spoke to the tenant and quite frankly I don’t think we would get along. He told me he turns the time off when watching movies as the pump is too noisy and in this kind of weather the pool will go green- even now the pool is starting to go cloudy. Based on the above we therefore decline to take this property on as a Valet Customer”.
The tenants say the landlord then told them it would not be able to get a pool valet done before Christmas as everyone was shutting down and they would try again to locate a provider in the New Year. The tenants passed on their dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response as this was the time of the year the tenants most wanted to use the pool and spa.
In January 2024, the tenants say they continued to request that someone be engaged to Valet the pool as it was going green again and was not usable. After the landlord failing to find someone to undertake this service, the tenants found a pool valet service company to do a one-off valet while the property management company tried to find a regular valet provider.
On 1 February 2024, Kiwi Spa and Pool Maintenance Ltd was engaged by Scott Wotherspoon to undertake a one-off valet. The invoice provided shows that it was the tenants and not the landlord that arranged this valet and that another shock treatment was necessary due to the delay in getting a pool valet done. The tenants say they were reimbursed for this valet and that the company did not want to take up a regular service contract.
The parties confirm that Sparkling Pools took over the pool valet service in February 2024. The first invoice from it suggests the first valet was undertaken on 10 February 2024 and that a further shock treatment was required on 22 February 2024 with two follow up shock treatment doses given on 23 and 26 February 2024 and floccing on the 29 February 2024. The pool has been regularly valet by Sparkling Pools since then and there has been no further pool related issues.
The tenants gave evidence that they were unable to use the pool after the shock treatment on 22, 23 and 26 February 2024 for a further two weeks until the chemical levels reduced to a safe swimming level. The also say the shock treatment required the pool to be emptied out a long way and refilled at their expense a few times. Additionally, they say the pool valet service person left the backwash valve open twice during this period which resulted in the pool continuing to empty out again after it had been filled. The water rates submitted in evidence show the tenants water bill for March 2024 from Feb 2024 pool shock treatment and backwash valve issues x2 amounted to $150.00.
The tenants also confirmed that it was they and not the landlord that found and engaged Sparkling Pools Ltd, and had they not done so they would have been without the use of the pool for longer.
I am satisfied that the tenancy agreement transfers the responsibility to maintain the pool to the landlord and that prior to the current property management company managing the property, the tenants had enjoyed a clean and well- maintained pool and spa in accordance with the terms of the tenancy agreement.
The landlord says it did not instruct Jo to undertake a mini service, but the tenants state she told them on 15 November 2023 that was why the pool and spa had not been cleaned by her. This seems a reasonable explanation to me for why the pool and spa was no longer being cleaned and maintained as well as it had been under David and the landlord’s made several claims during the hearing that the tenants had some responsibility for ensuring the pool was regularly vacuumed, scooped and the filters cleaned out between valets. It also submitted excerpts from Tenancy Services and cited prior Tribunal Orders that confirmed the responsibility for maintaining a pool laying with the tenants. Unfortunately, in this situation the landlord has agreed to largely assume that responsibility in the tenancy agreement when it say the monthly pool maintenance is included in the rent and the tenants gave evidence they did scoop and clean the filter regularly but could not vacuum as the vacuum provided to them was ineffective and at one stage the scoop net broke and it took time to get a replacement from the landlord. In addition, there is some evidence to suggest the mechanical pool timer may be to blame for the pump not running on and off at the correct time and not the tenants turning the pump off. I am satisfied the mechanical timer was the issue and that the tenant did not keep turning the pump off all the time as soon as a valet had been done because: a. I accept the tenant’s evidence he turned the pump off once or twice to watch a movie and then turned it back on again later because it when on at a time that it was not supposed to and that caused loss of amenity to the tenant; b. I accept the tenant may have told two of the valet service people he was concerned about the timer and had turned the pump off once or twice so he could hear his movie when the timer went off at an unexpected and inconvenient time and that this timer issue may be causing the pump and filter issues with the pool; c. I accept the tenants kept raising the timer as an issue and the timer was not replaced until they sought a work order for it; d. There was no other explanation provided to me by either party for why the pool required shock treatments after missing 2 and then 4 to 5 valet services other than the pump not turning on and off as scheduled due to the mechanical timer; e. There was nothing in the evidence provided by the landlord that proves the pool valet persons before Sparkling Pools tested the timer and found it fully functional. The only provider that serviced the pool for any length of time was City Wide Pools and Jo did not appear to provide a quality service and has not indicated on any documents I have been given that she tested the timer and it was not an issue. The second provider didn’t do anything on the pool, the third provider only did a one-off valet; and f. On the balance of probabilities I find that no one had tested the timer to see if it was the issue, as the tenants had stated it was as they heard it going on and off at odd times, and after it has been replaced there has been no more issues with the pump going on and off at the correct times. I do not accept the tenants regularly turned to pump off to be annoying to the valet providers as it was not in their best interest to do so.
I also accept from the water bills provided in evidence that the tenants have incurred $200.00 of additional water consumption charges than they would have but for the shock treatments to the pool in April 2023 and February 2024 and the backwash valve issues. As such, they should be reimbursed for this expense. I have awarded the tenants $50.00 for the additional water cost in their May 2023 bill and $150.00 for the additional water cost incurred in their Mach 2024 water bill.
I also find on the objective evidence provided to me that the landlord failed to make reasonable attempts in all the circumstances to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem was with the pool maintenance and that its failure to do so led to the breakdown in the relationship between the tenants and some of the providers engaged as the tenant acted out of frustration that the pool was repeatedly unable to be used as it was dirty, green or full of shock treatment chemicals. The evidence also shows the landlord did not make any reasonable attempt to locate an alternative provider after Jo’s 15 November 2023 decision not to continue to service the pool or to get the mechanical timer investigated when there was reason to suspect it was causing the pump turning off issue. Instead, they took the provider’s comments at face value and did not check with the tenants whether or not the tenants had made the comments on the invoices/emails or the context for those comments.
I find that the landlords acts or omissions were the primary cause of the pool going green and needing to have two shock treatments and that this was the cause of the tenants being unable to use the pool for the four week period in April 2023 and February 2024 and award compensation of $100.00 per week of loss of amenity of the pool for that 4 week period, being a total award of $400.00.
I also award compensation for the stress and inconvenience caused to the tenants for the 7 missed pool valets and having to try to locate providers themselves. The award is for $50 per week for 14 weeks, being a total award of $700.00. Has the landlord breached the tenants’ privacy and quiet enjoyment of the property?
Scott Wotherspoon, Andrew Muir and Kate O'brien claims the landlord has breached their privacy and quiet enjoyment by having the bamboo, other weed- based trees and foliage removed from the property without their agreement or consent and without informing them this removal was going to take place and why before the work was undertaken. The tenants say they came home to find that the privacy afforded to them by the trees, bamboo and green foliage was gone and they had lost the privacy they had enjoyed for some time during the tenancy. They provided before and after photographs that show the backyard and pool area is significantly more exposed to the neighbours than it was before the trees, bamboo and foliage was removed.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
General damages may also be awarded for breaches of s38 of the RTA.
The landlord provided Auckland Council Inspection reports that show the Council was concerned about the bamboo and weed trees that had grown on the premises as they could impact on the stability of the fence, and they required the bamboo, trees and foliage to be removed before they would pass the pool area. This decision appeared to have been made by the Council out of the abundance of caution because the property fence had to fulfil the purpose usually afforded to a separate pool fence around the pool. The landlord’s chose to keep the ascetics of the pool area by not having to have another fence around the pool separate to the boundary fence. The consequence of that decision was that the trees and bamboo had to be removed as well as the ivy off the fence itself.
The landlord accepts it could have communicated this requirement to the tenants earlier rather than have them come home to find the trees and bamboo removed with notice.
The tenants do not accept the Council instructed the landlord to remove the trees and bamboo and say the Council reports do not expressly address this.
There are comments in the reports that show the Council was concerned about the roots of the trees and bamboo affecting the integrity of the fence and it suggested a second fence around the pool if these trees and bamboo were to remain. In addition, the landlord gave evidence that the pool inspectors had told it this.
I accept the landlord’s evidence and find that the tenants could not have more of a reasonable expectation of privacy than what the boundary fence afforded to them. I find the landlord had the right to trim or remove trees, bamboo and other weeds, that it had not planted, and that it considered the roots of to be a risk to the integrity of the fence in the short to medium term. In addition, the Council also raised this risk with the landlord and that ultimately led to its decision to remove the trees/bamboo/weeds instead of erecting another fence around the pool itself.
I am satisfied that the tenants have failed to prove their claim for loss of privacy and their claim is therefore dismissed.

Is the new rental rate being charged from 5 April 2024 above market rate?

Scott Wotherspoon, Andrew Muir and Kate O'brien claims the landlord is seeking rent in excess of the market rent set by the Tenancy Tribunal.
Where the Tribunal has made a market rent order under section 25 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the landlord cannot require the tenant to pay an amount in excess of that order. See section 27(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $350.00. See section 27(2) and Schedule 1A RTA.
General damages are also available for this type of breach.
The tenants say that o 13 January 2024, the landlord gave them notice of a rent increase from $1,230.00 per week to $1,350.00 per week from 5 April 2024. The tenants say that the new rental rate of $1,350.00 per week is above the market rent for a 3-to-4-bedroom home in Remuera.
The tenants provided numerous Trade me advertisements for comparable 4- bedroom properties in the same area of Remuera and in the close suburb of St Heliers. These advertisements showed comparable properties being rented at between $1,100.00 per week to $1,400.00 per week with a number of them being $1,350.00 or $1,400.00.
The landlord argued that the percentage increase it had given to the tenants was well below the average market rate increases for the area being an increase of $120.00 per week or around 9.75%.
Tenancy Services maintains a database of comparable rental properties in each area that he Bond Centre holds bonds for. This database shows that rent for a 4-bedroom property in Remuera has a lower quartile of $978.00 per week, a median of $1,180.00 per week and an upper quartile of $1,350.00. Given the property has a pool and spa pool, the cost of pool maintenance is included in the rent and it is a free standing home on a reasonable sized section, I am satisfied the rent being charged to the tenants is within the market rates and should be rented out for a rental that sits in the upper quartile of the Tenancy Services database. The advertisements provided by the tenant also show that the rent being charged is similar to other properties in the area.
For the reasons outlined above, I find that the rent being charged is within the range of fair market rates for the area and the nature of the property. Therefore, the tenants claim that the rent is above market rate is not proven and is dismissed. Reimbursement of the filing fee
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4849524 — Tenancy dispute at 43 Waiatarua Road, Remuera, Auckland 1050

Tenancy Tribunal case 4849524 — Tenancy dispute at 43 Waiatarua Road, Remuera, Auckland 1050

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord failed to comply with their s45 of the RTA obligations?

Is the new rental rate being charged from 5 April 2024 above market rate?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord failed to comply with their s45 of the RTA obligations?

Is the new rental rate being charged from 5 April 2024 above market rate?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions