What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5495317?

The tribunal order states: This order replaces the order dated 7 May 2026 because the correct date for

How much money was awarded in case 5495317?

Ed Term Tenancy Is Dismissed. 4. The…: $950.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5495317?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5495317?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13656594-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5495317?

The tribunal order states: This order replaces the order dated 7 May 2026 because the correct date for

How much money was awarded in case 5495317?

Ed Term Tenancy Is Dismissed. 4. The…: $950.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5495317?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5495317?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13656594-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

55C Atkin Avenue, Mission Bay, Auckland 1071 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5495317 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5495317. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
ed term tenancy is dismissed. 4. The Tribunal orders that the weekly rent to apply to this tenancy from 19 April 2026 is	$950.00		ed term tenancy is dismissed. 4. The Tribunal orders that the weekly rent to apply to this tenancy from 19 April 2026 is

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5495317. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
ed term tenancy is dismissed. 4. The Tribunal orders that the weekly rent to apply to this tenancy from 19 April 2026 is	$950.00		ed term tenancy is dismissed. 4. The Tribunal orders that the weekly rent to apply to this tenancy from 19 April 2026 is

Order

This order replaces the order dated 7 May 2026 because the correct date for the order is 26 May 2026.
The term of the tenancy of Alex Duval at 55C Atkin Avenue, Mission Bay, Auckland 1071 is to continue to the end of the fixed term of 29 March 2027.
The landlord application to reduce the fixed term tenancy is dismissed.
The Tribunal orders that the weekly rent to apply to this tenancy from 19 April 2026 is $950.00, which the Tribunal assesses as the market rent for these premises.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on 7 May 2026.
The landlord was represented by counsel, and this was consented to by the tenants 1 . 1 Section 93(2)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986
The tenancy began on 29 March 2025 and was for a fixed term due to end on 29 March 2026.
At issue is whether the fixed term tenancy was extended by the tenant exercising a right of renewal 2 , or whether the landlord gave notice of their intention not to continue with the tenancy 3 and therefore the fixed term tenancy does not continue as a periodic tenancy.
If the tenancy is to continue by virtue of the right of renewal, the tenant claims that the rent to become payable by virtue of the rent increase notice 4 exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount and therefore seeks an order reducing the amount to be in line with the market rent 5 .
If the tenancy is to continue, the landlord seeks a reduction of the fixed term tenancy due to an unforeseen change in the landlord’s situation 6 . Right of renewal
The tenancy agreement produced by the parties for this tenancy contains an additional clause 7 which states, “Right of renewal The tenant has the right to renew this fixed-term tenancy for a further fixed-term period. The tenant can exercise this right by informing the landlord in writing no less than 21 days before the end of the original fixed-term period.”
This clause is repeated at section 60B(1) and (2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants sent an email to the landlord on 17 February 2026 providing formal notice that they wanted to exercise their right of renewal under the tenancy agreement. That notice was sent 40 days prior to the end of the fixed-term period and therefore complies with the clause in the agreement 8 and the Act 9 .
The tenancy agreement was drafted by the landlord using the residential tenancies agreement builder from the Tenancy Services website. The right of renewal clause is optional. 2 Section 60B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 3 Section 60A(2)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 4 By email dated 18 February 2026 5 Section 25(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 6 Section 66(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 7 Page 9 8 Additional clause, page 9 9 Section 60B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986
The tenants say that when they viewed the premises, they had discussed with the landlord wanting to have a tenancy with long term tenure, but this is denied by the landlord.
It is relevant that the landlord drafted the agreement, and that the clause was optional. The landlord needed to turn her mind to whether to include the clause in the agreement, which she did.
The agreement, the Act and the tenant’s notice is silent as to the term of the renewal. While it should have been set out in the tenancy agreement usually the renewal would be for the same term as the original fixed term, unless there is evidence to the contrary. The intention of the parties is that there was a one- year fixed term tenancy with a right of renewal and therefore it is likely that the intention was for a further one-year term. There is nothing to suggest that a different term would apply to the renewal and therefore it should be for a further one-year term from 29 March 2026 to 29 March 2027. Landlord notice
On 9 February 2026, via WhatsApp communication the landlord messaged, “Hi Alex and Jessie, I just wanted to give you guys the heads up as early as possible – we have decided to renovate my place and move in. So sorry. I believe the end of your 12 month contract comes up on the 29 th March so that’s when we will bet moving on things. So sorry as I know the timing isn’t great so I feel terrible but after much thought this is the best for us. Thank you, Kirsty.”
The landlord submits that this communication was formal notice in accordance with section 60A(2)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 which provides, “...the tenancy does not continue as a periodic tenancy if, –... (c)within the effective period, either party gives to the other party written notice of their intention not to continue with the tenancy ...”
The “effective period” is the period that starts on the 90 th day before the date on which the tenancy expires and ends on the 21 st day before that date.
The notice was given by the landlord within the effective period.
The landlord submits that the tenancy does not continue beyond the end of the fixed term because of this notice and because it was given before the tenant exercised the right of renewal.
The landlord also states that the tenant’s response to her notice constitutes agreement for the tenancy not to continue beyond the end of the fixed term 10 . I am not satisfied that the tenant’s response of “All good” can reasonably be 10 Section 60(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 considered as agreement for the parties not to continue with the tenancy beyond the end of the fixed term. Instead, I consider this response to be more of an acknowledgement of receipt of the landlord’s communication.
In the correspondence between the parties the landlord mistakenly thought that the notice that she gave on 9 February 2026 was notice to end the tenancy pursuant to section 51(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. It was on this basis that she recorded that the tenancy would end on 10 May 2026.
On the date that the notice was given there was a fixed term tenancy. Section 51(1) only applies to periodic tenancies and therefore is not relevant in this situation. Does the landlord’s notice have priority over the right of renewal?
The tenant’s right of renewal is meaningless if the landlord retains the right to terminate by notice. A reasonable interpretation is that by granting the right of renewal to the tenant the landlord has surrendered their right to end the tenancy at the expiry of the fixed term. The tenant can exercise that right up to 21 days before the end of the fixed term 11 .
Section 60A is designed to govern what will happen only where the tenancy would otherwise roll forward at the end of a fixed term. If the tenant has a contractual right to renew, as in this situation, then the tenancy never rolls forward. A right of renewal once exercised correctly creates or continues a new tenancy automatically, without requiring the landlord’s consent.
In summary, by virtue of the right of renewal, the tenancy continues for a further one-year fixed term until 29 March 2027. Reduction of fixed term tenancy
The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 11 Section 60B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986
The landlord has submitted that the unforeseen change is that her stepdaughter was diagnosed with cancer in approximately July 2025.
In relation to hardship, the landlord referred to a plan for her family to return to live in the premises and renovate the garage to provide her stepdaughter with her own space. I note that the landlord also submitted that her stepdaughter’s mental health is fragile after chemotherapy treatment.
The landlord and her family rent premises which are currently on the market for sale, although the property has been listed since October 2025.
At the hearing the landlord proposed that the tenants remain at the premises for three months after the date due for their baby (mid-May 2026) with a reduction of the fixed term tenancy to 7 August 2026.
While the landlord had mentioned that there was some financial hardship the difference from renting as opposed to moving back into the premises was only $520.00. I therefore determine that financial hardship is not a significant factor to consider for the landlord’s situation.
While I accept that there has been an unforeseen change for the landlord and the situation for the landlord and her family is likely to be very challenging, I am unable to determine that the landlord will suffer severe hardship if the tenancy is not reduced.
As I have reached the view that the landlord will not suffer severe hardship it is not necessary to assess any potential hardship on the tenant.
The landlord’s application to reduce the fixed term tenancy is dismissed. Rent increase
The tenant seeks an order reducing the weekly rent to an amount in line with the market rent 12 .
On 18 February 2026 the landlord emailed the tenant advising that because they were unable to agree to a vacate date, she was giving 60 days’ notice that the weekly rent would increase from $900.00 to $1,120.00 per week 13 . The date that the rent increase was to take effect was 19 April 2026.
While the tenancy agreement provides that the rent may be increased during the fixed term tenancy no increase will take effect within 12 months from the commencement of the tenancy, or within 12 months of the last rent increase. 12 Section 25(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 13 Section 24(1)(g) Residential Tenancies Act 1986
The notice of rent increase complies with the tenancy agreement and the Act, but the tenant seeks an order from the Tribunal that the rent payable or to become payable exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount 14 .
The increase proposed by the landlord is 24.5% more than what the tenant had been paying for rent.
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 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. 14 Section 25(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986
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 tenant’s case
The tenant submitted that the rent increase proposed by the landlord was not related to the market but instead her financial position. He said that the rental market has softened, and Auckland rent is down in 2025 from 2024.
The tenant produced a document which records rental data from REINZ in January 2026. The document does not specifically contain Mission Bay figures, but the tenant has referred to Remuera which has experienced a 13.3% drop in weekly rent for a three-bedroom tenancy.
The tenant referred to a property in Nihill Crescent which was advertised in TradeMe. He submitted that the property was similar in that it had three bedrooms, 1 bathroom but it was fully furnished and recently renovated. That property was listed for $900.00 per week and had been advertised for 44 days.
The tenant submits that the current rent of $900.00 is at, or above the market rent for this tenancy. The landlord’s case
Even though the landlord had given notice for the rent to increase to $1,120.00 per week, in her submissions for the hearing the landlord sought that the rent increase to $975.00. She said that she had obtained appraisals that the market rent is $950.00 to $995.00 per week. I take this as the landlord accepting that the original proposed increase was not in line with the market rent for this tenancy.
The landlord produced three rent appraisals for the tenancy from early May 2026. Those appraisals provide a current market value for this property ranging from $950.00 to $1,000.00 per week. Analysis
The question to be determined, is whether the rent proposed 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.
The parties submitted evidence which I have taken into consideration. I conclude that the proposed weekly rent of $1,120.00 for these premises is not market rent. I have reached that conclusion based on the evidence provided by both parties. In relation to the question as to whether the rent increase is an amount substantially above what the market rate would be, I find it is.
The Tribunal substitutes its own assessment that the market rent for these premises will be $950.00 per week, and that rent is to apply from 19 April 2026, the date when the rent increase was effective from. Filing fee
As both parties have had some success with their applications I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5495317 — Tenancy dispute at 55C Atkin Avenue, Mission Bay, Auckland 1071

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5495317 — Tenancy dispute at 55C Atkin Avenue, Mission Bay, Auckland 1071

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions