Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 5153375 — Rent arrears at ES:

Published 15 January 2026 · Application 5153375

Dismissed

Rent arrears
Smoke alarms
Cleanliness
Exemplary damages
Harassment

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Outcome

Dismissed

From published order

Location

Wairoa

Tribunal region

Dispute themes

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5153375. Verify amounts on MoJ.
Claim	Category	Amount	Awarded to	Reason

Order

Emma Greenwood is to pay Property Brokers Hawkes Bay Limited as Agent for Clinton and Mali Rivers $2,280.57, immediately, being rent arrears to 10 February 2025.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The background in this case is extensive, but the dispute between the parties primarily relates to issues around the level of rent that should be charged at the premises. The Tribunal has conducted a number of previous hearings in relation to this complex and largely the same parties. The Tribunal has previously made orders on what the market rent for these premises should be. Further rent increase notices were issued, and the tenants have filed further claims again seeking the Tribunal’s determination of what the rent should be, in addition to other claims. There is also an application for rent arrears from the landlord for one tenancy.
This matter was adjourned following a previous hearing on 29 April 2025, so that the Tribunal could obtain an independent valuer’s report on what the rent for these premises should reasonably be. That report from Mr Cole, the independent valuer, has now been received, and so the Tribunal must proceed to consider the claims. As will be discussed below, over the proceeding, some of the claims have been withdrawn.
A further hearing was convened in Wairoa on 20 November 2025. In attendance was Dr Olsen for the tenants, a number of the tenants, and Ms Wanoa, representing the landlord.
To clarify, the claims with which the tenants wished to proceed, as well as the landlord’s claim, are dealt with below. The tenants’ representative withdrew all remaining claims by the tenants.

MARKET RENT CLAIMS

The tenants have applied for orders setting the rent, because they consider the rent that has been set by the landlord is too high, and not a market rate.
The units in question are all located in the same complex, but they are not identical, and on that basis there is some variation in the rents raised, and as will be discussed shortly, there is a difference in the rental assessed by one of the valuers (Mr Whitaker). However, the rent for the premises has increased for the tenants from an initial $300.00 - $360.00 per week, to $395.00 - $415.00 per week. Again, it is the tenants’ position that the higher amounts do not represent a market rate for these premises in Wairoa. Whitaker valuations
The landlord obtained a valuation from Che Whitaker as to what a market rent for the premises should be. Mr Whitaker provided a comprehensive report on 23 April 2024, with an addendum report on 9 August 2024, which determined the rent should be as follows: a. Unit 1 - $370.00 per week b. Unit 6 – $360.00 per week c. Unit 12 - $350.00 per week.
Mr Whitaker also provided an assessment that a “service fee” of $15.00 per week could be charged for garden, yard maintenance, lawns, security and refuse charges.
Later, on 16 December 2024, Mr Whitaker provided an updated valuation, assessing the rents (excluding the service charge) as follows: a. Unit 1 - $400.00 per week b. Unit 6 - $395.00 per week c. Unit 12 – $380.00 per week Cole valuations
At the hearing on 29 April 2025, the tenants’ representative advised that only 4 of the tenants, for units 1, 5, 7 and 10, were continuing with their market rent applications. Thus, pursuant to an order dated 8 May 2025, the Tribunal then directed Tenancy Services to obtain a registered valuer’s report determining the market rent to apply to the premises, in particular: a. The market rent for unit 7 from 26 July 2024; and b. The market rent for units 1, 5 and 10 from 27 January 2025.
In the order of 8 May 2025, the Tribunal noted that the increase for Dianne McRoberts was from 27 January 2025 and Rhona Johnston and Jock Crarer from 18 February 2025, but considered the difference in dates insignificant and so directed the assessment from the earlier date.
A report was obtained from Cyril James Cole, Registered Valuer.
Mr Cole has undertaken an assessment of what the rent should be for unit 7 as of 26 July 2024 and for units 1, 5 and 10, as of 27 January 2025. His reports have been provided to the parties, so we will not set it out in detail in this decision, but his conclusions on what the market rent should be are as follows: a. Unit 1 - $371.00 per week. b. Unit 5 - $371.00 per week. c. Unit 7 - $371.00 per week. d. Unit 10 - $371.00 per week. Position of the parties
By the time of the hearing in November 2025, the tenants’ claims were advanced in relation to three tenants only, those are: a. Mr Crarer b. Ms Johnston c. Ms Kerley Ms Kerley (Unit 7)
On 27 May 2024, the landlord issued a rent increase notice to apply from 26 July 2024, which increased the rent from $300.00 to $395.00.
On 15 August 2024 the landlord issued Ms Kerley an amended rent increase notice presented as a counteroffer: After careful consideration, the owner has decided to propose a counter offer. Instead of the previously communicated increase to $395 per week, the new proposed rent will be $380 per week (as per tenancy service data for lower quartile 2 bedroom), effective from July 26, 2024. This rate will continue to include services such as lawn mowing, security cameras, and green waste removal.
Dr Olsen is seeking an order that Ms Kerley’s rent is $360.00 to apply from 26 July 2024. The reason is that given Ms Lloyd’s rent was set at $360 per week, and, given the similarity of the tenancies, then it should follow that it is the same for Ms Kerley.
The landlord’s position is that the rent should be confirmed as being $380.00 (it was increased to $395.00 but that was reduced to $380.00). Mr Crarer (Unit 10)
On 20 December 2024, the landlord issued Mr Crarer a rent increase notice to apply from 18 February 2025. The increased rent was to be $415.00 per week.
Dr Olsen submits that the rent should be fixed at $375.00 per week. Dr Olsen refers to the valuer’s report from Mr Cole. Dr Olsen’s position is that the market rent would be $375.00. Dr Olsen submits that the two valuation reports are significantly different, and that the report from Mr Cole is more independent. Further, he said Mr Cole has taken a wider assessment of the rental levels for both private rentals and those rentals managed by the property managers, whereas Mr Whittaker has been heavily influenced by the property managers of the landlord.
In terms of the ‘significantly greater test’ we must apply, Dr Olsen said that for tenants on National Superannuation, a $25.00/week increase would be significant, and it would also be significant for tenants in a general sense.
The landlord submits that the rent should be $415.00/week, but concedes that the additional $15.00 service fee would be a charge falling within rent. Ms Wanoa accepts that the rent should be $400.00.
Ms Wanoa considers that $400 would be a market rent for the premises based on Mr Whitaker’s assessment.
Ms Wanoa notes that Mr Cole has failed to contact the landlord as the Tribunal had directed.
The landlord notes that the rental figures they provided support the market rent assessment. Ms Johnston (Unit 1)
On 20 December 2024, Ms Johnston’s rent was increased to $415.00 per week from 18 February 2025.
Again Ms Johnston’s rent increase was to $415.00/week (like Mr Crarer), and Ms Wanoa also conceded the $15 service fee is included here, bringing what Ms Wanoa considered market rent to $400.00/week.
The arguments from the parties are the same as for Mr Crarer above, but Dr Olsen notes that Ms Johnston has challenging health issues she is facing.

ANALYSIS

The Tribunal must consider applications to set the rent for three of the premises. These are applications under section 25 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which provides: 25 Market rent (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. (2) ... (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.
In order for the Tribunal to set a market rent for the premises, we must firstly be satisfied that the rent the landlord has set, “exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount”.
Subsection 25(3) RTA sets out various matters to assist in that determination, including that the Tribunal cannot take into account the personal circumstances of the tenants or the landlord. One of the submissions made at the hearing, related to the tenants being on National Superannuation, and being vulnerable – cannot be taken into account, because those are personal factors for the tenants.
But what we must consider, is what a willing tenant would pay, and a willing landlord receive for the premises, and taking into account the general levels or rent in Wairoa or in similar locations.
To assist us with that assessment, we have fulsome assessments from two registered valuers. In our assessment, the reports of the valuers should be accepted. While there is some variation in their ultimate opinion, that variation is not significant, and we consider could reasonably be a reflection of professional differences of opinion. But we do not consider that either party has pointed to matters within either of the valuations, which would lead us to conclude the assessments are not reliable. We note here that the valuers have taken account of a range of information including bond lodgement data, advertisements etc. We consider they have taken a fairly broad approach to what they have taken into account, which is appropriate.
Considering as we do that the valuations should be accepted, we find that they are a reflection of what the market rent for the premises would be. Mr Whitaker has determined the market rent would be in the range of $380 - $400 (noting the differing layouts), where Mr Cole has determined that a flat $371 would be a market rate.
In this case, the landlord’s position is that the rental for these three units at $380 - $400 per week would be a market rate.
We agree with the landlord’s assessment. The rates charged would be within the range of market rates as assessed by the valuers, or if it were said to be over this, we do not consider it would exceed the market rate by a significant amount. The result must be that we cannot interfere with the landlord’s rent increases, so the market rent applications are dismissed.
However, as we indicated at the hearing, the landlord cannot lawfully include a ‘service fee’ as has occurred. The tenancy agreement does not include such a fee. The work required such as lawn mowing, would fall to the landlord to pay, as that would be work necessary to the wider facilities, and in short, the tenants are not liable to pay that fee. UNLAWFUL RENT INCREASE NOTICE FOLLOWING MARKET RENT ORDER (SECTION 27)
Dr Olsen submits that the 6 August 2024 order of the Tribunal required that the market rent order apply for six months, and that rent increase demands were made prior to that date.
Dr Olsen notes that the rent increases were: a. Ms Greenwood, rent increase from $360 to $415 on 28 January 2025. b. Ms McRoberts, rent increase from $360 to $415 from 27 January 2025; and c. Ms McCardle, rent increase from $360 to $415 from 4 February 2025.
The tenants seek exemplary damages.
Ms Wanoa submitted that there was an understanding that a rent increase could be issued within the order period, to take effect after the order period, but accepts that the notice in this case was several days short. She said, however, that in this case when they had found the notices were short in time, they were revoked.
In relation to this claim, there is no underlying rent increase notice that is being challenged before the Tribunal as such, because the landlord has withdrawn them already. However, there is an open question over whether exemplary damages can be ordered.
With any claim for exemplary damages, the starting point must be that the claimed breach be defined as a specific unlawful act within the RTA.
Section 27(2) confirms that if a landlord requires a higher amount of rent, during the period a market rent order is in force, the landlord commits an unlawful act.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.
Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
In this case, we are not persuaded that the evidence supports a conclusion that the landlord acted intentionally, in the sense of intentionally setting about to act contrary to their legal obligations. We accept that when the notice was issued, that the landlord genuinely believed that the increase could be made, as it would not apply until after the end of the market rent assessment from the Tribunal.
Finding as we do that the act was not intentional, the claim for exemplary damages cannot succeed. DECLARATION THAT THE LANDLORD ACTED UNLAWFULLY WITH RENT INCREASE – MAUREEN KERLEY
Dr Olsen submits that the landlord contacted the tenants and suggested that if they paid a higher rent, he would not appeal the Tribunal’s order of 14 November 2022 to the District Court. Dr Olsen said the Tribunal dealt with this in relation to Sally Lloyd in a previous order of 31 January 2024. He sought a declaration that Ms Kerley did nothing wrong by paying the landlord an extra $25.00 per week at the time, and said this incident had caused her stress.
The Tribunal notes that paragraph 10 of their Order of 31 January 2024 sets out the circumstances relating to the issue as follows: Noting that the Tribunal’s market rent decision was issued on 14 November 2022, on 8 February 2023 the landlord wrote to the tenants in a document headed “offer to resolve dispute over rent increase”. In short, the landlord advised that it believed the rent increase as notified to apply in October 2022 was a market rent, and the landlord advised that it believed it would succeed with its appeal in the District Court. The landlord proposed that the rent to be applied from March 2023 would be $325.00 per week “in line with section 24 of the RTA (Rent increase; a minimum period of 12 months).” The landlord advised that “[i]f this offer is not accepted, we will proceed with the appeal on Monday the 27 th of March at the Gisborne District Court.
The Tribunal, in its order dated 31 January 2024, did not make any declaration in favour of Ms Lloyd in relation to this incident, but rather ordered the landlord to reimburse the applicant tenants in that application, which had included Ms Lloyd but not Ms Kerley at that time, any amount paid by the tenants for rent above $300.00.
The landlord said that the tenants in question, including Ms Kerley, had all been reimbursed whatever they had paid above $300.00 per week at the time.
As such, Ms Kerley benefitted from the Tribunal’s order of 31 January 2024, though she had not been an applicant at that time, in that she was reimbursed all that she paid over the market rent order for $300.00 per week.
The Tribunal considers that its order of 31 January 2024 ordering the landlord to reimburse any amounts paid by the tenants in question over the market rent order of $300.00 per week addresses this situation adequately and speaks for itself. No further declaration is required, as Ms Kerley has been reimbursed in full, which was not disputed. As such, this claim is dismissed. DECLARATION OF NON-LIABILITY FOR MONEY CLAIMED BY LANDLORD (MS KERLEY)
Dr Olsen states that on 11 November 2024, the property manager issued a breach notice that the tenant needed to pay $625.71.
Ms Wanoa indicated this was rent arrears.
The parties agreed that they would work together to confirm the situation with the rent arrears. We confirmed that if the matter is not settled we can make orders then. Otherwise, we make no further orders on this claim at this time. EXEMPLARY DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF QUIET ENJOYMENT (MR CRARER)
Dr Olsen seeks exemplary damages for how the previous property manager treated Mr Crarer, and in particular, said that Mr Crarer’s quiet enjoyment had been breached.
Mr Crarer gave evidence at the hearing. Mr Crarer said that the previous property manager would frequently contact him to tell him he was in arrears of around $500. Mr Crarer went to the Property Brokers’ office on several occasions to ask what this money was for. Ultimately, he was advised it was for bond. There was a text to pay $245, and he decided just to pay that, then shortly after he received another message that he owed $300.
It was clear that Mr Crarer was very concerned that a debt would be against his name, so paid the money for fear of having the debt.
Mr Crarer advised that he was charged about $50.00 for the replacement of a smoke alarm which was broken. Ms Wanoa agreed that would be refunded.
Following discussion, Mr Crarer and Ms Wanoa agreed that they will work together to confirm the dates and the amounts of the payments (Mr Crarer confirmed he will check with the bank). Ms Wanoa agreed that if this was paid for bond, it needs to be returned because there is no bond required under the tenancy agreement.
Otherwise, Dr Olsen submits that in effect Mr Crarer has been hounded to pay claimed rent arrears. It was submitted that asking a tenant to pay money when they did not need to pay would be a breach of quiet enjoyment. Further the issues that have arisen in the tenancy have deeply affected Mr Crarer.
Ms Wanoa states that the rent records do support that there were rent arrears over time, but the records do not suggest that there was a bond required. Ms Wanoa confirmed that Mr Crarer should not have been asked to pay the smoke alarm replacement cost or to clean the heat pump, as those would be maintenance issues. Otherwise, the landlord does not consider they have acted improperly by advising there are rent arrears, but Ms Wanoa considered it could have been approached more kindly.
Overall, we find this claim has not been established. If a tenant falls into arrears with their rent (which Ms Wanoa said was the case on the rent records over time here), there is no problem with a landlord contacting the tenant about that, even on a number of occasions. While the landlord agrees any such communication could have made in a more appropriate way, we are not of the view that any communication was unlawful. Certainly, we have not seen evidence of harassment which would be the standard necessary to order exemplary damages for a breach of quite enjoyment.
Otherwise, the landlord agrees that any claim for a replacement smoke alarm or cleaning the heat pump should not have been made to the tenant, and agrees to refund Mr Crarer for that, which is appropriate.
There is a question over whether a bond payment was required, and if any such payment was made, then that should also be refunded to Mr Crarer. But on the evidence we have available, we cannot take that claim any further. We are confident that Ms Wanoa will work with Mr Crarer to sort that matter out, but if the Tribunal can assist further with any dispute around bond payments, the parties can request that and we will look at the matter again.
Beyond that, we make no further orders on this claim. LANDLORD’S RENT ARREARS CLAIM AGAINST MS GREENWOOD.
Ms Wanoa states that the amount of the rent arrears claimed is $2,280.57 to 10 February 2025. The landlord had earlier withdrawn their claim for termination of the tenancy, as Mrs Greenwood had vacated the property on 10 February 2025.
Ms Greenwood was not in attendance, and Dr Olsen had no instructions.
The Tribunal has no reason not to accept the rent ledger presented by the landlord, and to accept that Ms Greenwood owes the amount claimed. This claim has not been disputed, so is ordered in full. C. Price, R. Woodhouse 15 January 2026

Topics & place

Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).

Rent arrears Smoke alarms Cleanliness Exemplary damages Harassment Wairoa

Residential Tenancies Act sections

s1, s10, s109, s14, s2(1), s24, s25, s25(3), s27, s27(2), s29, s5, s7

Key findings

Dispute theme: rent arrears
Dispute theme: smoke alarms
Dispute theme: cleaning

Property management

Property Brokers Hawkes Bay Limited as agent for Clinton and Mali Rivers (respondent)

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5153375?

The tribunal order states: Emma Greenwood is to pay Property Brokers Hawkes Bay Limited as Agent

How much money was awarded in case 5153375?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5153375?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5153375?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12972923-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Reasons

The background in this case is extensive, but the dispute between the parties primarily relates to issues around the level of rent that should be charged at the premises. The Tribunal has conducted a number of previous hearings in relation to this complex and largely the same parties. The Tribunal has previously made orders on what the market rent for these premises should be. Further rent increase notices were issued, and the tenants have filed further claims again seeking the Tribunal’s determination of what the rent should be, in addition to other claims. There is also an application for rent arrears from the landlord for one tenancy.

This matter was adjourned following a previous hearing on 29 April 2025, so that the Tribunal could obtain an independent valuer’s report on what the rent for these premises should reasonably be. That report from Mr Cole, the independent valuer, has now been received, and so the Tribunal must proceed to consider the claims. As will be discussed below, over the proceeding, some of the claims have been withdrawn.

A further hearing was convened in Wairoa on 20 November 2025. In attendance was Dr Olsen for the tenants, a number of the tenants, and Ms Wanoa, representing the landlord.

To clarify, the claims with which the tenants wished to proceed, as well as the landlord’s claim, are dealt with below. The tenants’ representative withdrew all remaining claims by the tenants.

MARKET RENT CLAIMS

The tenants have applied for orders setting the rent, because they consider the rent that has been set by the landlord is too high, and not a market rate.

The units in question are all located in the same complex, but they are not identical, and on that basis there is some variation in the rents raised, and as will be discussed shortly, there is a difference in the rental assessed by one of the valuers (Mr Whitaker). However, the rent for the premises has increased for the tenants from an initial $300.00 - $360.00 per week, to $395.00 - $415.00 per week. Again, it is the tenants’ position that the higher amounts do not represent a market rate for these premises in Wairoa. Whitaker valuations

The landlord obtained a valuation from Che Whitaker as to what a market rent for the premises should be. Mr Whitaker provided a comprehensive report on 23 April 2024, with an addendum report on 9 August 2024, which determined the rent should be as follows: a. Unit 1 - $370.00 per week b. Unit 6 – $360.00 per week c. Unit 12 - $350.00 per week.

Mr Whitaker also provided an assessment that a “service fee” of $15.00 per week could be charged for garden, yard maintenance, lawns, security and refuse charges.

Later, on 16 December 2024, Mr Whitaker provided an updated valuation, assessing the rents (excluding the service charge) as follows: a. Unit 1 - $400.00 per week b. Unit 6 - $395.00 per week c. Unit 12 – $380.00 per week Cole valuations

At the hearing on 29 April 2025, the tenants’ representative advised that only 4 of the tenants, for units 1, 5, 7 and 10, were continuing with their market rent applications. Thus, pursuant to an order dated 8 May 2025, the Tribunal then directed Tenancy Services to obtain a registered valuer’s report determining the market rent to apply to the premises, in particular: a. The market rent for unit 7 from 26 July 2024; and b. The market rent for units 1, 5 and 10 from 27 January 2025.

In the order of 8 May 2025, the Tribunal noted that the increase for Dianne McRoberts was from 27 January 2025 and Rhona Johnston and Jock Crarer from 18 February 2025, but considered the difference in dates insignificant and so directed the assessment from the earlier date.

A report was obtained from Cyril James Cole, Registered Valuer.

Mr Cole has undertaken an assessment of what the rent should be for unit 7 as of 26 July 2024 and for units 1, 5 and 10, as of 27 January 2025. His reports have been provided to the parties, so we will not set it out in detail in this decision, but his conclusions on what the market rent should be are as follows: a. Unit 1 - $371.00 per week. b. Unit 5 - $371.00 per week. c. Unit 7 - $371.00 per week. d. Unit 10 - $371.00 per week. Position of the parties

By the time of the hearing in November 2025, the tenants’ claims were advanced in relation to three tenants only, those are: a. Mr Crarer b. Ms Johnston c. Ms Kerley Ms Kerley (Unit 7)

On 27 May 2024, the landlord issued a rent increase notice to apply from 26 July 2024, which increased the rent from $300.00 to $395.00.

On 15 August 2024 the landlord issued Ms Kerley an amended rent increase notice presented as a counteroffer: After careful consideration, the owner has decided to propose a counter offer. Instead of the previously communicated increase to $395 per week, the new proposed rent will be $380 per week (as per tenancy service data for lower quartile 2 bedroom), effective from July 26, 2024. This rate will continue to include services such as lawn mowing, security cameras, and green waste removal.

Dr Olsen is seeking an order that Ms Kerley’s rent is $360.00 to apply from 26 July 2024. The reason is that given Ms Lloyd’s rent was set at $360 per week, and, given the similarity of the tenancies, then it should follow that it is the same for Ms Kerley.

The landlord’s position is that the rent should be confirmed as being $380.00 (it was increased to $395.00 but that was reduced to $380.00). Mr Crarer (Unit 10)

On 20 December 2024, the landlord issued Mr Crarer a rent increase notice to apply from 18 February 2025. The increased rent was to be $415.00 per week.

Dr Olsen submits that the rent should be fixed at $375.00 per week. Dr Olsen refers to the valuer’s report from Mr Cole. Dr Olsen’s position is that the market rent would be $375.00. Dr Olsen submits that the two valuation reports are significantly different, and that the report from Mr Cole is more independent. Further, he said Mr Cole has taken a wider assessment of the rental levels for both private rentals and those rentals managed by the property managers, whereas Mr Whittaker has been heavily influenced by the property managers of the landlord.

In terms of the ‘significantly greater test’ we must apply, Dr Olsen said that for tenants on National Superannuation, a $25.00/week increase would be significant, and it would also be significant for tenants in a general sense.

The landlord submits that the rent should be $415.00/week, but concedes that the additional $15.00 service fee would be a charge falling within rent. Ms Wanoa accepts that the rent should be $400.00.

Ms Wanoa considers that $400 would be a market rent for the premises based on Mr Whitaker’s assessment.

Ms Wanoa notes that Mr Cole has failed to contact the landlord as the Tribunal had directed.

The landlord notes that the rental figures they provided support the market rent assessment. Ms Johnston (Unit 1)

On 20 December 2024, Ms Johnston’s rent was increased to $415.00 per week from 18 February 2025.

Again Ms Johnston’s rent increase was to $415.00/week (like Mr Crarer), and Ms Wanoa also conceded the $15 service fee is included here, bringing what Ms Wanoa considered market rent to $400.00/week.

The arguments from the parties are the same as for Mr Crarer above, but Dr Olsen notes that Ms Johnston has challenging health issues she is facing.

ANALYSIS

The Tribunal must consider applications to set the rent for three of the premises. These are applications under section 25 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which provides: 25 Market rent (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. (2) ... (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.

In order for the Tribunal to set a market rent for the premises, we must firstly be satisfied that the rent the landlord has set, “exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount”.

Subsection 25(3) RTA sets out various matters to assist in that determination, including that the Tribunal cannot take into account the personal circumstances of the tenants or the landlord. One of the submissions made at the hearing, related to the tenants being on National Superannuation, and being vulnerable – cannot be taken into account, because those are personal factors for the tenants.

But what we must consider, is what a willing tenant would pay, and a willing landlord receive for the premises, and taking into account the general levels or rent in Wairoa or in similar locations.

To assist us with that assessment, we have fulsome assessments from two registered valuers. In our assessment, the reports of the valuers should be accepted. While there is some variation in their ultimate opinion, that variation is not significant, and we consider could reasonably be a reflection of professional differences of opinion. But we do not consider that either party has pointed to matters within either of the valuations, which would lead us to conclude the assessments are not reliable. We note here that the valuers have taken account of a range of information including bond lodgement data, advertisements etc. We consider they have taken a fairly broad approach to what they have taken into account, which is appropriate.

Considering as we do that the valuations should be accepted, we find that they are a reflection of what the market rent for the premises would be. Mr Whitaker has determined the market rent would be in the range of $380 - $400 (noting the differing layouts), where Mr Cole has determined that a flat $371 would be a market rate.

In this case, the landlord’s position is that the rental for these three units at $380 - $400 per week would be a market rate.

We agree with the landlord’s assessment. The rates charged would be within the range of market rates as assessed by the valuers, or if it were said to be over this, we do not consider it would exceed the market rate by a significant amount. The result must be that we cannot interfere with the landlord’s rent increases, so the market rent applications are dismissed.

However, as we indicated at the hearing, the landlord cannot lawfully include a ‘service fee’ as has occurred. The tenancy agreement does not include such a fee. The work required such as lawn mowing, would fall to the landlord to pay, as that would be work necessary to the wider facilities, and in short, the tenants are not liable to pay that fee. UNLAWFUL RENT INCREASE NOTICE FOLLOWING MARKET RENT ORDER (SECTION 27)

Dr Olsen submits that the 6 August 2024 order of the Tribunal required that the market rent order apply for six months, and that rent increase demands were made prior to that date.

Dr Olsen notes that the rent increases were: a. Ms Greenwood, rent increase from $360 to $415 on 28 January 2025. b. Ms McRoberts, rent increase from $360 to $415 from 27 January 2025; and c. Ms McCardle, rent increase from $360 to $415 from 4 February 2025.

The tenants seek exemplary damages.

Ms Wanoa submitted that there was an understanding that a rent increase could be issued within the order period, to take effect after the order period, but accepts that the notice in this case was several days short. She said, however, that in this case when they had found the notices were short in time, they were revoked.

In relation to this claim, there is no underlying rent increase notice that is being challenged before the Tribunal as such, because the landlord has withdrawn them already. However, there is an open question over whether exemplary damages can be ordered.

With any claim for exemplary damages, the starting point must be that the claimed breach be defined as a specific unlawful act within the RTA.

Section 27(2) confirms that if a landlord requires a higher amount of rent, during the period a market rent order is in force, the landlord commits an unlawful act.

Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.

Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.

Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.

In this case, we are not persuaded that the evidence supports a conclusion that the landlord acted intentionally, in the sense of intentionally setting about to act contrary to their legal obligations. We accept that when the notice was issued, that the landlord genuinely believed that the increase could be made, as it would not apply until after the end of the market rent assessment from the Tribunal.

Finding as we do that the act was not intentional, the claim for exemplary damages cannot succeed. DECLARATION THAT THE LANDLORD ACTED UNLAWFULLY WITH RENT INCREASE – MAUREEN KERLEY

Dr Olsen submits that the landlord contacted the tenants and suggested that if they paid a higher rent, he would not appeal the Tribunal’s order of 14 November 2022 to the District Court. Dr Olsen said the Tribunal dealt with this in relation to Sally Lloyd in a previous order of 31 January 2024. He sought a declaration that Ms Kerley did nothing wrong by paying the landlord an extra $25.00 per week at the time, and said this incident had caused her stress.

The Tribunal notes that paragraph 10 of their Order of 31 January 2024 sets out the circumstances relating to the issue as follows: Noting that the Tribunal’s market rent decision was issued on 14 November 2022, on 8 February 2023 the landlord wrote to the tenants in a document headed “offer to resolve dispute over rent increase”. In short, the landlord advised that it believed the rent increase as notified to apply in October 2022 was a market rent, and the landlord advised that it believed it would succeed with its appeal in the District Court. The landlord proposed that the rent to be applied from March 2023 would be $325.00 per week “in line with section 24 of the RTA (Rent increase; a minimum period of 12 months).” The landlord advised that “[i]f this offer is not accepted, we will proceed with the appeal on Monday the 27 th of March at the Gisborne District Court.

The Tribunal, in its order dated 31 January 2024, did not make any declaration in favour of Ms Lloyd in relation to this incident, but rather ordered the landlord to reimburse the applicant tenants in that application, which had included Ms Lloyd but not Ms Kerley at that time, any amount paid by the tenants for rent above $300.00.

The landlord said that the tenants in question, including Ms Kerley, had all been reimbursed whatever they had paid above $300.00 per week at the time.

As such, Ms Kerley benefitted from the Tribunal’s order of 31 January 2024, though she had not been an applicant at that time, in that she was reimbursed all that she paid over the market rent order for $300.00 per week.

The Tribunal considers that its order of 31 January 2024 ordering the landlord to reimburse any amounts paid by the tenants in question over the market rent order of $300.00 per week addresses this situation adequately and speaks for itself. No further declaration is required, as Ms Kerley has been reimbursed in full, which was not disputed. As such, this claim is dismissed. DECLARATION OF NON-LIABILITY FOR MONEY CLAIMED BY LANDLORD (MS KERLEY)

Dr Olsen states that on 11 November 2024, the property manager issued a breach notice that the tenant needed to pay $625.71.

Ms Wanoa indicated this was rent arrears.

The parties agreed that they would work together to confirm the situation with the rent arrears. We confirmed that if the matter is not settled we can make orders then. Otherwise, we make no further orders on this claim at this time. EXEMPLARY DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF QUIET ENJOYMENT (MR CRARER)

Dr Olsen seeks exemplary damages for how the previous property manager treated Mr Crarer, and in particular, said that Mr Crarer’s quiet enjoyment had been breached.

Mr Crarer gave evidence at the hearing. Mr Crarer said that the previous property manager would frequently contact him to tell him he was in arrears of around $500. Mr Crarer went to the Property Brokers’ office on several occasions to ask what this money was for. Ultimately, he was advised it was for bond. There was a text to pay $245, and he decided just to pay that, then shortly after he received another message that he owed $300.

It was clear that Mr Crarer was very concerned that a debt would be against his name, so paid the money for fear of having the debt.

Mr Crarer advised that he was charged about $50.00 for the replacement of a smoke alarm which was broken. Ms Wanoa agreed that would be refunded.

Following discussion, Mr Crarer and Ms Wanoa agreed that they will work together to confirm the dates and the amounts of the payments (Mr Crarer confirmed he will check with the bank). Ms Wanoa agreed that if this was paid for bond, it needs to be returned because there is no bond required under the tenancy agreement.

Otherwise, Dr Olsen submits that in effect Mr Crarer has been hounded to pay claimed rent arrears. It was submitted that asking a tenant to pay money when they did not need to pay would be a breach of quiet enjoyment. Further the issues that have arisen in the tenancy have deeply affected Mr Crarer.

Ms Wanoa states that the rent records do support that there were rent arrears over time, but the records do not suggest that there was a bond required. Ms Wanoa confirmed that Mr Crarer should not have been asked to pay the smoke alarm replacement cost or to clean the heat pump, as those would be maintenance issues. Otherwise, the landlord does not consider they have acted improperly by advising there are rent arrears, but Ms Wanoa considered it could have been approached more kindly.

Overall, we find this claim has not been established. If a tenant falls into arrears with their rent (which Ms Wanoa said was the case on the rent records over time here), there is no problem with a landlord contacting the tenant about that, even on a number of occasions. While the landlord agrees any such communication could have made in a more appropriate way, we are not of the view that any communication was unlawful. Certainly, we have not seen evidence of harassment which would be the standard necessary to order exemplary damages for a breach of quite enjoyment.

Otherwise, the landlord agrees that any claim for a replacement smoke alarm or cleaning the heat pump should not have been made to the tenant, and agrees to refund Mr Crarer for that, which is appropriate.

There is a question over whether a bond payment was required, and if any such payment was made, then that should also be refunded to Mr Crarer. But on the evidence we have available, we cannot take that claim any further. We are confident that Ms Wanoa will work with Mr Crarer to sort that matter out, but if the Tribunal can assist further with any dispute around bond payments, the parties can request that and we will look at the matter again.

Beyond that, we make no further orders on this claim. LANDLORD’S RENT ARREARS CLAIM AGAINST MS GREENWOOD.

Ms Wanoa states that the amount of the rent arrears claimed is $2,280.57 to 10 February 2025. The landlord had earlier withdrawn their claim for termination of the tenancy, as Mrs Greenwood had vacated the property on 10 February 2025.

Ms Greenwood was not in attendance, and Dr Olsen had no instructions.

The Tribunal has no reason not to accept the rent ledger presented by the landlord, and to accept that Ms Greenwood owes the amount claimed. This claim has not been disputed, so is ordered in full. C. Price, R. Woodhouse 15 January 2026