What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5243491?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5243491?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5243491?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5243491?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12267136-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5243491?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5243491?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5243491?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5243491?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12267136-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1002, 85 Wakefield Street, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5243491 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The Tenant has the onus of proving their claim to the civil standard of proof, being, on the balance of probabilities. This means the Tenant must prove that his claim is more likely than not to be correct.
The Tenant has applied to stop the increase in rent from $450.00 to $500.00 per week, on the grounds that the increase is excessive.
The tenancy commenced on 27 June 2022. The property is a 43 square metre apartment comprising two bedrooms and one bathroom. The weekly rent includes water rates. On 22 April 2025, the Landlord issued notice of a rent increase, advising that the rent would increase to $500.00 per week from 14 July 2025.
The Tenant submitted that the rent was initially $380.00 per week at the start of the tenancy and was subsequently increased to $450.00. The Tenant contends that the further proposed increase to $500.00 per week is unreasonable, due to persistent construction noise from three neighbouring building sites continuing until approximately 6:30pm each day, the Landlord had not undertaken any improvements to the property, and that similar properties within the central business district (CBD) were being rented for lower amounts. The Tenant argued that the apartment was small in size, located above commercial shops, and there was lumpy carpeting and a flooding incident the previous year. They also submitted evidence of serviced apartments in the same area being available at significantly cheaper nightly rates. The Tenant submitted the rent was also being increased because the building was full of Asian Tenants who were wiling to pay these amounts. The Tenant submitted that a reasonable rent would be $450.00 or $475.00 per week.
In support of their claim, the Tenant provided several rental property listings for apartments within the same building and surrounding CBD area. These included one-bedroom, two-bathroom apartments ranging from $390.00 to $495.00 per week, and two-bedroom, one-bathroom apartments ranging from $420.00 to $449.00 per week. The Tenant also submitted video evidence of the construction noise and roadworks affecting the area. In addition, they provided examples of serviced apartments offering lower nightly rates.
The Landlord submitted that the proposed increase to $500.00 per week is supported by market evidence and remains below the prevailing market rent for comparable properties. They described the apartment as comprising 43 square metres, with two bedrooms including windows, and noted that water charges were included in the rent. The Landlord advised that their rent assessment took into account furnishings, included utilities, the condition of the premises, rent reviews, and current market rates. They referred to rental data from Trade Me for the period March to July 2025, which showed comparable listings ranging from $500.00 to $580.00 per week. Within the same building, they stated that current rents for two-bedroom apartments ranged from $550.00 to $580.00 per week in July 2025. Specific examples cited by the Landlord included a one- bedroom, two-bathroom apartment (39 square metres) renting for $400.00 per week, a semi-furnished one-bedroom, two-bathroom apartment renting for $460.00 per week, a two-bedroom apartment on Level 12 renting for $550.00 per week, and another two-bedroom apartment on Level 4 renting for $580.00 per week. The Landlord further submitted that the serviced apartments referenced by the Tenant were advertised for short-term tenancy only, with nightly rates ranging from $129.00 to $199.00, amounting to approximately $900.00 per week. They also noted that nearby properties identified by the Tenant were not directly comparable due to their less favourable locations, including properties on hills without lift access or subject to increased street noise The law
. 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.
In the case of a fixed term tenancy, any application must be filed no later than 3 months after the start of the tenancy or the last rent review (see s 25(2) RTA).
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 premises in the locality. This evidence has its limitations. Although advertisements usually list the essential features of the property advertised, there is often limited qualitative information available for comparison. Also, advertisements only cover houses currently on the market and do not necessarily reflect the overall level of rents charged for existing similar tenancies in the area.
It is also common for parties to refer to the 'market rent' statistics published by Tenancy Services. These statistics cover the rents charged for tenancies where bonds have been lodged over the preceding 6 months. The statistics include median rent as well as upper and lower quartile.
The Tribunal may also consider “such other matters as [it] considers relevant” to market rent. In Housing New Zealand v Hobman (DC Lower Hutt, TT89/97, 27 November 1997) the Court said the other factors to be considered must be of the same kind as the preceding specified factors. It is arguable however that the term ‘other matters’ is broad enough to cover any anything relevant to the ‘reasonable’ expectations of a ‘willing’ landlord or tenant.
Section 25(4) RTA provides that a market rent order may not take effect any earlier than the date of the application or any later than 30 days after the date of the order. The order may last for up to 6 months in the case of a periodic tenancy, or for such shorter period the Tribunal specifies. In the case of a fixed term tenancy, the order remains in force for the period specified in the order.
In considering the evidence, I find that the Tenant has not established that the proposed rent of $500.00 per week is substantially above the market rent. They submitted online advertisements for properties they considered to be comparable and evidence of disruptive construction but there was no market rent assessment evidence from Tenancy Services to support their claim. This is evidence that may have assisted the Tribunal. The Tenant submitted the rent was excessive compared to when he first moved in however, the legal test of whether a rent increase is reasonable is not determined by reference to the rent at the commencement of the tenancy, but whether the proposed rent exceeds the current market rent.
Having reviewed the rental listings and evidence presented by both parties, I accept that the market rent for this property is $550.00 per week based on similar properties in the same area. The listings submitted by the Tenant were not adequately comparable, as many of them were smaller, consisted of one- bedroom units, or did not include water rates. The Tenant submitted that there had been no improvements made to the property and that construction noise in the vicinity was disruptive on a daily basis. I find that such noise does not render the proposed rent unreasonable in the market context because this is temporary and out of the Landlord’s control.
I also note the Tenant’s submission regarding lumpy carpet and flooding that occurred the previous year. No independent evidence was provided to substantiate these claims or to show that these issues had a material impact on the condition of the premises.
Further, I find the Tenant’s assertion that the rent increase was also due to the building being full of “Asians paying top dollar for housing” to be irrelevant and inappropriate. Such comments are given no weight in the determination of this matter.
The Landlord, in contrast, provided rental listings that were more comparable in terms of size, configuration, and location. I accept the Landlord’s evidence as a more accurate reflection of current market conditions.
For these reasons, I find that the market rent for the premises is $550.00 per week and the proposed rent of $500.00 per week is not substantially more. The increase in rent is reasonable in the circumstances.
The application by the Tenant is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5243491 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 1002, 85 Wakefield Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5243491 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 1002, 85 Wakefield Street, Auckland Central,

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