What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4897720?

The tribunal order states: The rent for the tenancy at 3 Johns Creek Crescent, Silverdale, Auckland in

How much money was awarded in case 4897720?

E Rent For The Tenancy At 3 Johns Cr…: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4897720?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4897720?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11372077-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4897720?

The tribunal order states: The rent for the tenancy at 3 Johns Creek Crescent, Silverdale, Auckland in

How much money was awarded in case 4897720?

E Rent For The Tenancy At 3 Johns Cr…: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4897720?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4897720?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11372077-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

3 Johns Creek Crescent, Silverdale, Silverdale 0932 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4897720 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4897720. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
e rent for the tenancy at 3 Johns Creek Crescent, Silverdale, Auckland in respect of the tenant Kiri Michele Turner rema	$1,200.00		e rent for the tenancy at 3 Johns Creek Crescent, Silverdale, Auckland in respect of the tenant Kiri Michele Turner rema

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4897720. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
e rent for the tenancy at 3 Johns Creek Crescent, Silverdale, Auckland in respect of the tenant Kiri Michele Turner rema	$1,200.00		e rent for the tenancy at 3 Johns Creek Crescent, Silverdale, Auckland in respect of the tenant Kiri Michele Turner rema

Order

The rent for the tenancy at 3 Johns Creek Crescent, Silverdale, Auckland in respect of the tenant Kiri Michele Turner remains at $1,200.00 per week.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.
The landlord’s cross application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant attended with the assistance of a support worker.
The Tenant has applied under s 25 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) for a review of the rent which she says is too high.
Sections 25(1) and (3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 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 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
The tenant must 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 appropriate where rents rise at a rate significantly above income inflation.
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 evidence for comparable rents is usually based on advertisements for similar properties though internet platforms such as TradeMe. Although advertisements usually list the essential features of the property advertised, there is often limited qualitative information available for comparison. Additionally, the advertisements only cover houses currently on the market and do not 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.
This Tenancy commenced on 23 February 2019.
The premises consist of a stand-alone, two-level modern house with 6 bedrooms and 4 bathrooms. The house was built in 2019 and is situated in a new development area of Silverdale, North Auckland. There is a double garage with a laundry. The tenant advises that the property was rented as unfurnished.
The Landlord increased the rent by valid notice dated 12 April 2024 which took effect on 11 June 2024. The new rent payable was $1,200.00. The tenant has been paying this amount since the increase took effect.
On 6 September 2023 this Tribunal determined an appropriate market rent for the tenancy to be $1,010.00 per week. This was to apply from 27 May 2023. I understand that the rental amount also included water.
The tenant says that based on her research the rent should be between $930.00 and $1050.00.
The tenant says that she was advised by various property managers that many of the rents had dropped between 10% and 20%. The tenant says that it is somewhere in this range is what she should have been paying from 11 June 2024.
The tenant also stated during the hearing that they have undertaken considerable work on the property such as sowing lawn and general landscaping. The tenant says that her area is known on the Coast as the ‘slum of the coast’. No evidence was provided in support of this claim.
The tenant says it is a lower quartile house. She says it is a ‘low spec’ property. The tenant says she is a quantity surveyor and that she deals with these homes every day. She further stated that the home is not a home and income. The landlord responded by stating that it has never been advertised as a home and income.
The tenant submitted a number of advertisements from TradeMe for what she says are similar properties. The ‘for rent’ properties are located in Millwater, Red Beach, and Wainui.
The tenant referred to the ‘market rent’ statistics published by Tenancy Services 1 BondsLower QuartileMedian RentUpper Quartile 123$983$1000$1095
The tenant also had 10 rental appraisals undertaken. The two provided were as follows: 1 Tenancy Services market rent for period 1 April 2024 to 30 September 2024 a. 9 October 2024 by Roger Lewis - $950.00 to $990.00 per week b. 9 October 2024 by Lee Smith - $950.00 to $1050.00 per week
The remaining evidence was in the form of TradeMe rental advertisements.
The tenant seeks a refund of the difference paid in rent from 11 June 2024.
The landlord (property manager) says that the rent as paid by the tenant since June last year is under market rent.
She confirmed that she has just re-rented the property for $1,300.00 per week and provided evidence in the form of a new Tenancy Agreement in support of this. She also provided evidence in the form of earlier tenancy agreements.
The landlord maintains that the rent which the tenant has been paying is a market rent. The landlord provided a number of appraisals and background information confirming the current market rent. These appraisals included the following: a. Collett Realty 15 February 2024 between $1300.00 and $1350.00 per week. b. Aspire property management 16 February 2024 between $1250.00 and $1350.00 per week. c. Harcourts 19 February 2024 between $1250.00 and $1300.00 per week. d. Telos Group February 2024 between $1250.00 and $1300.00 per week. e. Vertigro property management February 2024 between $1100.00 and $1250.00 per week. f. Harcourts 19 February 2024 (different branch) between $1200.00 and $1300.00 per week.
The landlord says that the house is an upper-quartile home. They have a waitlist of people wanting to rent the house. Analysis:
The onus is on the tenant to establish that rent to become payable, not only exceeds market rent, but also exceeds it by a substantial amount.
The personal circumstances of landlord and tenant are not relevant to the Tribunal's assessment and nor is the percentage of the proposed increase.
The question to be determined, is whether the rent charged for the premises is at a market rate, and if not, whether the Tribunal should substitute its own assessment of what a market rate will be.
I cannot find any current rentals for comparable properties in the Silverdale area, and I do not consider I am qualified to appraise the rental value of the premises myself. I do not have any current appraisals from a suitably qualified valuer.
Clearly, market rent determinations are by no means a perfect science. They are a highly subjective, and at times speculative exercise.
For instance, I am not privy to private negotiations between Landlords and Tenants.
The parties submitted helpful evidence which I have carefully considered. I find that weekly rent of $1,200.00 for these premises is market rent in all the circumstances.
I have reached this conclusion having considered two particular groups of evidence, that is the landlord’s evidence and the new Tenancy Agreement for the new tenants as provided by the landlord. I also take into account the special feature of this particular property with the attached self-contained ‘granny flat’. I do acknowledge that there has been some downward movement in rents in recent times but ultimately there is no evidence before me which suggests that the current rent exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount for this type of unique property.
The property is modern and in a desirable neighbourhood, even if there is greater land intensification around the area. I do not agree with the tenant that this is a slum area. It is modern and close to numerous amenities including a public transport hub and the motorway.
To determine the market rent I have considered the Trade Me advertisements, including whether the standard of premises is superior to this tenancy and the amount of the bond data between the median rent and the upper quartile. Taking account of these factors I am not prepared to interfere with the current rent payable. What distinguishes this property is the two-bedroom self- contained ‘granny flat’ attached to the dwelling.
The question then becomes whether the rent increase is an amount substantially above what the market rate would be, and I find it is not.
Having regard to all of the evidence it is my finding that the current rent payable, while in excess of the upper quartile, does not exceed the market rent for that area. Accordingly, I am entirely satisfied that the current rent of $1,200.00 does not exceed the market rent by a substantial amount.
The tenant’s application is therefore dismissed. Landlord’s application:
The landlord confirmed during the hearing that the tenant has now given notice to end the tenancy. The last day of this tenancy is 5 February 2025.
Accordingly, the landlord confirmed that she now discontinues her application.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
The tenant applied for non-publication of her name and identifying details. She has been unsuccessful with her application.
There is nothing to warrant a departure from the principle of open justice. I do not make any suppression orders regarding the publication of this decision.
I have considered if I should grant a name suppression order for the tenant having regard to the interests of the parties and public interest under Section 95A(4) RTA.
I am mindful that open justice is a fundamental principle in our legal system. The issue here I need to consider is whether suppressing the landlord’s name and identifying details outweigh the interest of the open justice reporting principle.
In my view, the application for name suppression and identifying details ought to be declined for the following reasons: a. It is common for parties appearing before the Tribunal to seek suppression orders. But that is not of itself a sufficient reason to make the order. b. The disputes before me are not unusual or other than the ordinary business of the Tribunal. c. The open justice principle requires the outcome of adjudication to be available to the public; and d. Weighing up the interests of the tenant and the public interest, the public interest outweighs the tenant’s interests.
Accordingly, no order is made for suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4897720 — Tenancy dispute at 3 Johns Creek Crescent, Silverdale, Silverdale 0932

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4897720 — Tenancy dispute at 3 Johns Creek Crescent, Silverdale, Silverdale 0932

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions