Tenant's Request for Lower Rent Based on Market Rates Rejected
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed a tenant's request to reduce rent below market rates. The tenant argued the current rent was too high compared to similar properties, but the Tribunal found insufficient evidence to support this claim. The tenant's name and details were suppressed.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to a rent reduction only if they can prove the current rent is substantially above market rates.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal dismissed the tenant's claim that the rent exceeded market rates.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed a tenant's claim seeking a rent reduction below market rates, finding the tenant failed to prove the rent was substantially above market rates. The Tribunal suppressed the tenant's name and identifying details.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5427409 1
[2026] NZTT 5427409
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT REMOTE LOCATION | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA
APPLICANTS: [redacted]
Tenants
RESPONDENT: [redacted] [NAME]
Landlord
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [NAME], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
2. The application is dismissed.
Reasons:
1. Both parties attended the hearing on 16 June 2026 by video conference.
2. This order ought to be read together with the Tribunal’s order dated 25 March 2026. In that order the law in relation to the claim was outlined.
3. The tenant claims that the rent that he pays exceeds market rent by a substantial amount and he seeks an order reducing the rent that is in line with market rent.
4. The questions the Tribunal must determine are as follows: (a) What is the market rent for these premises;
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5427409 2
(b) Whether the rent increase is substantially above the market rate, and if so: (c) What should the rent be?
What is the market rent for these premises?
5. “Market rent” is the rent that a willing landlord might reasonably expect to receive and that a willing tenant might reasonably expect to pay for the tenancy, taking into account the general level of rents for comparable tenancies in the locality or similar localities and such other matters as the tribunal considers relevant.
6. By way of background, the premises in question are described as being a 3 bedroom brick bungalow, 187m2 in area, built in 2016. The section is 679m2. The house is fully furnished, apart from one of the bedrooms, including plates, glassware, cutlery as well as the usual furnishings of a bedroom, dining room and living area. It has a double garage with internal access. The windows are double glazed.
7. The tenants say that in the past 6 years the rent has either not increased, or increased by 3%. The last increase from $660.00 per week to $700.00 represents an increase of 6%, whereas they consider that a 3% increase, or no increase at all, is more in line with market rent.
8. A 3% increase would have put the rent at $678.00 per week. 9. To support this assessment of market rent the tenants point to: (a) The bond data for [NAME] for the period October 2025 to March 2026 shows
that the upper quartile of properties have an average weekly rent of $680.00, the median quartile have an average weekly rent of $650.00, and the lower quartile have an average weekly rent of $550.00. Three bedroom homes average $660.00 per week; and
(b) Comparable properties show 3 bedroom homes in [NAME] being rented for between $600.00 and $660.00 per week; and
(c) There has been a 3% drop in rent for the whole of the [NAME] area. 10. As applicants, the tenants are required to establish their claim to the civil law
standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that the tenants have to show that more likely than not, the market rent for these premises is, at most, $678.00 per week.
11. I find that the tenants have not been able to prove their claim to the required standard.
12. The bond data has value as objective evidence. However, it does not differentiate between furnished and unfurnished houses. Furnished houses obviously attract more rent than unfurnished houses, and at the hearing that extra was put at a minimum of $50.00 per week.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5427409 3
13. As an aside, I note that the tenant advised that the tenancy agreement did not stipulate that these are furnished premises. That is the landlord’s error, but it does not take away from the fact that these premises were furnished, and that the landlord is therefore entitled to charge rent accordingly.
14. The comparable properties put forward by the tenants had significant negative differences, such as no internal garaging/no garaging at all, the premises being considerably smaller, single bathrooms, single glazing, a less desirable area and all of them were unfurnished.
15. I also note that while the tenants say there has been a 3% drop in rents , the bond data reflects an increase in bond amounts recorded between the period 1 May 2025 – to 32 October 2025, and October 2025 and March 2026.
16. In answer to the first question, then, I am satisfied that the market rent for these premises is in keeping with the $700.00 weekly charge.
17. In coming to this assessment, I have noted the comparable properties put forward by the landlord, particularly [ADDRESS], which is obviously in the very same location as the premises that these tenants are renting. This property is slightly bigger in size and in section and has a weekly rent of $750.00. That rent commenced in May 2026.
18. Another older house built in 1994, and with just a single bathroom has the weekly rent at $680.00 as at February 2026.
19. The tenants have not succeeded on the first question and so there is no need for me to consider the remaining two questions.
Suppression of names
20. Section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that:
(1) The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to the proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
(2) An order may be subject to any conditions that the Tribunal considers appropriate.
(3) If a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings applies for an order that their name or identifying particulars not be published, the Tribunal must make the order 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.
21. The landlord does not seek suppression of their name.
22. On my own initiative I am suppressing the tenants’ names. I do so because the consequences of not suppressing their names far outweigh any public interest
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5427409 4
in knowing who these tenants are. I also note that the landlord supported suppression of the tenants’ names.
[NAME] 17 June 2026
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5427409 5
Please read carefully: Visit justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals for more information on rehearings and appeals.
Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has happened. For example: • you did not get the letter telling you the date of the hearing, or • the adjudicator improperly admitted or rejected evidence, or • new evidence, relating to the original application, has become available.
You must give reasons and evidence to support your application for a rehearing. A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. You must apply within five working days of the decision using the Application for Rehearing form: justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf
Right of Appeal Both the landlord and the tenant can file an appeal. You should file your appeal at the District Court where the original hearing took place. The cost for an appeal is $260. You must apply within 10 working days after the decision is issued using this Appeal to the District Court form: justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals
Grounds for an appeal You can appeal if you think the decision was wrong, but not because you don’t like the decision. For some cases, there’ll be no right to appeal. For example, you can’t appeal: • against an interim order • a final order, or the failure to make an order, where the amount in dispute on appeal is
less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work, or the failure to make an order, where the value of the
work in dispute on appeal is less than $1000.
Enforcement Where the Tribunal made an order about money or property this is called a civil debt. The Ministry of Justice Collections Team can assist with enforcing civil debt. You can contact the collections team on [PHONE] or go to justice.govt.nz/fines/civil-debt for forms and information.
Notice to a party ordered to pay money or vacate premises, etc. Failure to comply with any order may result in substantial additional costs for enforcement. It may also involve being ordered to appear in the District Court for an examination of your means or seizure of your property.
If you require further help or information regarding this matter, visit tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing- decisions or phone Tenancy Services on [PHONE].
Mēna ka hiahia koe ki ētahi atu awhina, kōrero ranei mo tēnei take, haere ki tenei ipurangi tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, waea atu ki Ratonga Takirua ma runga [PHONE] ranei.
https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals/ https://www.justice.govt.nz/fines/about-civil-debt/ https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions http://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5427409 6
A manaomia nisi faamatalaga poo se fesoasoani, e uiga i lau mataupu, asiasi ifo le matou aupega tafailagi: tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, pe fesootai mai le Tenancy Services i le numera [PHONE].
Reasons:
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The bond data provided by the tenants showed a range of rental prices that included $680.00 as the upper quartile.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The tenants failed to provide evidence that the market rent for their premises is more than $700.00 per week.
- The comparable properties presented by the tenants were significantly different from the rented premises, lacking features such as internal garaging and being unfurnished.
- The tenants could not prove that a 3% drop in rent across the area applied to their specific rental situation.
- The tenants did not succeed in proving that the current rent of $700.00 per week is substantially above market rates.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed the tenant's claim for a reduced rent below market rates.
What was the dispute about?
The tenant claimed the rent was too high compared to similar properties and sought a reduction to match market rates.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided against the tenant, stating the tenant failed to provide sufficient evidence that the rent was substantially above market rates.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, specifically section 95A, was applied to suppress the tenant's name and identifying details.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The tenant's argument that the rent was substantially above market rates was critical, but the evidence provided was deemed insufficient.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the tenant who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should gather strong evidence showing the rent is substantially above market rates to succeed in a claim.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment mentions bond data and comparable property rentals as evidence, but finds them insufficient to prove the rent was substantially above market rates.