What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4346263 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4346263?

Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $980.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Refund Of Electricity Fixed Costs: $512.01 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4346263?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4346263?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/8223207-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4346263 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4346263?

Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $980.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Refund Of Electricity Fixed Costs: $512.01 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4346263?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4346263?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/8223207-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

ORDER Tenancy Tribunal Case 4346263 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4346263 — net $1,712.45 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
a number of claims against the landlord. The tenant is seeking compensation and exemplary damages against the landlord f	$200.00	a number of claims against the landlord. The tenant is seeking compensation and exemplary damages against the landlord f
Exemplary damages: bond, receipts, insulation, unlawful entry	$980.00	bond, receipts, insulation, unlawful entry
Refund of electricity fixed costs	$512.01	Refund of electricity fixed costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,712.45
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,712.45

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4346263 — net $1,712.45 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
a number of claims against the landlord. The tenant is seeking compensation and exemplary damages against the landlord f	$200.00	a number of claims against the landlord. The tenant is seeking compensation and exemplary damages against the landlord f
Exemplary damages: bond, receipts, insulation, unlawful entry	$980.00	bond, receipts, insulation, unlawful entry
Refund of electricity fixed costs	$512.01	Refund of electricity fixed costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,712.45
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,712.45

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details.
must pay immediately, calculated as shown in the table below: Reas ons:
Both parties attended the hearing. [The landlord/s] appeared along with their son [The landlords’ son] as support person. [The tenant/s] appeared with her husband [The tenant’s husband] as support person.
In this case, the tenant lived in a granny flat located on the landlords’ property from May 2020 until September 2021.
The tenant has brought a number of claims against the landlord. The tenant is seeking compensation and exemplary damages against the landlord for: LandlordTenant $200.00 Exemplary damages: bond, receipts, insulation, unlawful entry$980.00 Refund of electricity fixed costs$512.01 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant$1712.45 ▪ failing to lodge the bond ▪ not providing rent receipts ▪ not providing copy of signed tenancy agreement ▪ no insulation or healthy homes statement provided ▪ unlawfully entering property ▪ overpayment of power bills
The landlord has filed a cross-application against the tenant. The landlord is seeking exemplary damages against the tenant for: ▪ stress and making false allegations ▪ breach of the tenancy agreement – letting dog into the property
Before I consider the specific issues, I begin by noting that as with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the parties to establish their respective claims on “the balance of probabilities”. That means that the parties must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
Both parties submitted substantial documentation with their online applications, and further documentation at the hearing. There was also a hearing that was reasonably lengthy. For the sake of brevity, I have not referred to all the evidence presented by the parties; however, they can be assured that it has all been carefully considered.
I deal with each claim in turn below. Tenant Claim 1 - Failing to Lodge Bond
This claim can be dealt with reasonably promptly, because the landlords accept that the bond was not lodged with the Bond Centre.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”).
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
The tenant said she only became aware that the bond had not been lodged after a phone call to the Bond Centre.
The landlords said that they had previously experienced delays when trying to expedite refunds for tenants from the Bond Centre. Therefore, they believed they were essentially doing the tenant a favour by keeping and then refunding the bond directly themselves, which would be faster.
They said they are now fully aware of their obligation to lodge the bond.
The bond system is there for a reason. A bond is prima facie a tenant’s money and is not to be used by a landlord for general cash flow purposes. The bond system ensures that a landlord cannot act as their own judge and jury regarding potential claims on the bond.
Failure to lodge a bond undermines the integrity of the bond system which provides security for both tenants and landlords.
The landlord has committed an unlawful act. I will discuss the issue of damages below. Tenant Claim 2 - No Receipts for Rent
The tenant says that rent was always paid in cash, at the landlords’ insistence. She said that she ended up keeping her own records due to concerns about rent. She said that having to pay in cash added extra strain on her with having to go and get cash from money machines.
The landlords said that the tenant never asked for a receipt for her rent payments. They said that they did keep rent records and provided a spreadsheet to the Tribunal.
The landlords did not dispute that they wanted the rent paid in cash and said that they didn’t understand why it was such a big problem. They said that going to an ATM to withdraw cash was just “part of their daily life”.
They also said that the tenant never issued them with a 14-day notice to remedy this issue.
In 2022 it is unusual for a landlord to request payment in cash. Cash has inherent difficulties, of which accurate record keeping is just one. Despite the landlords’ view, for many people having to withdraw cash is not part of their daily life as there are almost no parts of daily life that require cash as opposed to some form of electronic payment. 1 1In this case there was no dispute regarding rent, but this seems down to good luck. I urge the landlord to consider automatic payments in future. They should also download the free rent summary template from Tenancy Services website.
While a landlord is of course entitled to request payment in cash, if that is their choice then they must comply with the provisions of section 29 of the Act, which requires a comprehensive written receipt to be given immediately after each payment.
There is no requirement for a tenant to request a receipt. The onus is on the landlord to provide it.
Failure to provide such receipts is an unlawful act for which the landlord may be liable for an infringement fee up to $1,000.00, or exemplary damages up to $350.00.
The landlord does not deny that they failed to provide receipts, because they seemed unaware of their need to do so.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
I deal with the issue of damages below. Tenant Claim 3 – No Signed Tenancy Agreement
The tenant says that she never received a copy of the signed tenancy agreement. Failure to provide a written copy of a Tenancy Agreement is a breach of section 13 of the Act.
The landlords say the tenant is simply mistaken and refer to an email exchange between the parties at the start of the tenancy.
I have sighted an email dated 30 April 2020 in which the landlord says: “I have printed off two copies of Tenancy Agreement which will be available tomorrow for you.”
The landlord said that the following day that happened and that they kept a copy and gave one to the tenant. I have sighted the signed agreement.
On balance, I am satisfied that the landlord did provide a copy of the signed tenancy agreement.
This claim is dismissed. Tenant Claim 4 - No Insulation Statement or Insurance Information
The tenant says that the landlord did not provide an insulation statement with the tenancy agreement.
The tenant further says that no insurance information was provided.
Section 13A(1A) of the Act provides that the landlord must include a signed statement in the tenancy agreement that states whether or not insulation is installed in ceilings, walls and floors, and details of the location, type and condition of all insulation installed.
Alternatively, if the landlord is unable to provide some or all of the information required, they must include a statement explaining what information cannot be obtained, why it cannot be, and that all reasonable efforts have been made to do so. See section 13A(1B) and (1C) of the Act.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(1F)(a) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
Section 13A(2) further provides that a landlord must include in the tenancy agreement a statement that advises whether or not the premises are insured, and if they are insured, setting out any excess amount for which the tenant might be liable for damage to the property. They must also advise the tenant that a copy of the policy document is available to the tenant on request.
Failure to provide this information is an unlawful act for which the landlord is liable to a fine or infringement fee of up to $1,000.00.
In relation to insulation, the landlords said that because this was a tenancy which commenced prior to December 2020 the requirement for healthy homes information was not in force in this case.
While the landlord is correct regarding the compliance date for the entirety of the Healthy Homes Standards, it has been a compulsory since 2019 for landlords to provide information relating to insulation.
The landlords accepted that they failed to include this information, which they say was a genuine mistake as they were not aware that they needed to do so. I accept that this was an oversight and not done in bad faith. Nevertheless, this failure amounts to an unlawful act.
In relation to insurance, an insurance statement as described above has likewise been compulsory since 2019.
Again, the landlords accepted this was not provided but say they were unaware of the requirement to provide this information.
They said that they verbally advised the tenant that they had home insurance and advised her she should get her own contents insurance. The tenant agreed that she had a vague recollection of this conversation.
I accept that this was not done in bad faith. Nevertheless, this amounts to an unlawful act. I will deal with the issue of damages below. Tenant Claim 5 - Unlawful Entry/Breach of Quiet Enjoyment
This is really two claims in one. The tenant says that there were several occasions during the tenancy where the landlord has entered her property without her consent and without providing adequate notice.
The tenant also says that this behaviour, as well as the decision by the landlords not to allow her husband to live with her, amounted to a breach of her quiet enjoyment. a. Entry by the Landlord
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) of the Act.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48(4)(a) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
The tenant said that the landlord did give notice on some occasions in order to undertake repairs, but that it was not consistent. She provided several examples where she said that the landlords had entered her unit.
She said that on a number of occasions she came home and there were food deliveries which had obviously arrived during the day sitting on her bench. She said on at least one occasion food had been emptied into her fridge.
She said that she was aware the landlord was simply trying to be kind, but this made her very uncomfortable. She said she felt she could not say anything to them. In the end after trying to have the deliveries scheduled to only arrive when she was going to be home, she ended up cancelling the food deliveries altogether because she did not want the landlord going into her unit when she was not home.
She said that on one occasion she had been away in Wellington and when she came home there was a box of coffee and mail sitting inside her unit. She spoke to a friend the following day who said she had seen [The landlord/s] opening the door to the unit while the tenant had been away. She says this made her feel as though her privacy had been invaded.
She described an occasion when the landlord had told her (after the event) that he had been inside her unit and opened up the windows to give it an airing out because he had been running his car in the adjoining garage. Again, she said that she felt uncomfortable about this.
She said that these types of entries occurred between 5-10 times during the tenancy.
She said that all of these times she felt stressed and had a general feeling of unease and invasion of privacy. However, she did not raise these issues with the landlords as she wanted to keep everything amicable, and it was only later that she realised that in fact the landlord’s behaviour was unlawful.
The landlord said that he always asked for permission to enter to undertake repairs and maintenance, which had included fixing some lights, the rangehood, a leak under the kitchen sink and an oven seal, for example.
The landlord did not deny that he had entered the unit without notice on the occasions described however he said he was simply trying to be helpful and that he inferred that the tenant was consenting to these entries because nothing was raised by her.
He said that in relation to the car engine, this was tantamount to an emergency situation because he considered there would be carbon monoxide accumulating in the unit and so it was a health and safety issue. (The landlord had been doing work on a car and would from time to time run the engine to keep things ticking over).
The landlord said these types of informal entries only happened 2-3 times during the tenancy.
The reality is that it was not up to the landlord to draw inferences about whether or not the tenant might consent to his entering the premises. While his intentions may well have been admirable, that does not negate his legal obligations.
It is entirely understandable that a tenant might feel uncomfortable with a landlord being inside their home without their knowledge or consent. It is also understandable that a tenant might feel wary of raising this issue with a landlord, particularly when the landlord-tenant relationship seemed to be one that was “friendly” rather than formal. A tenant’s failure to raise an objection cannot be taken as consent.
In relation to airing out the unit, again while perhaps done with good intentions, this was not an emergency situation. The landlord had made a conscious decision to run the car engine at that time, when the tenant was not home. It was certainly courteous of him to advise the tenant of this fact; it was another thing altogether for him to enter the unit and open her windows without seeking her permission.
I find the landlords have entered the premises without notice and without consent. They have committed an unlawful act. I will deal with damages below. b. The Tenant’s Husband
The tenant says that when she first moved into the property, it was always with the intention that her husband would join her at some point in the future. The tenant and her husband had been married for 30 years but the tenant’s husband was in prison when the tenancy first started. For the tenant this was a significant stressor in her life and was the first time she had lived alone in 30 years.
The tenant said that the landlords were fully aware of this before the tenancy started, and that although she was renting the place by herself, she understood that the issue of her husband joining her would be reviewed when the time came. She said that if they had said no at the outset then she would not have accepted the tenancy.
The tenant said that as her husband’s parole date came closer and closer, she had to keep raising this with the landlord to give her a clear answer.
She said that for the entire duration of the tenancy she had tried to be “the best tenant possible” so that he would be able to join her. Indeed, it may well have been this desire to be seen to be completely trouble free that prevented the tenant from raising any legitimate complaints with the landlord.
In the end, the landlord said “no”. The tenant said she was devastated and so had no choice but to give notice to end the tenancy. There were some additional delays due to lockdown but eventually she was able to leave the tenancy.
The landlord said that they always made it clear to the tenant that they were not agreeing for her husband to stay at the property.
They said that they had only agreed to consider it when the time came. In the end they felt that it was not right, and they did not want him to live there. They said it had not been an easy decision.
The landlords said that when they advertised the property it was clearly stated as suitable for one person and that although there was no number written in the actual tenancy agreement it was part of the “terms and conditions” portion of the tenancy agreement.
Section 40(3) of the Act provides that where a tenancy agreement “specifies a maximum number of persons that may ordinarily reside in the premises during the tenancy, the tenant shall ensure that no more than that number ordinarily reside in the premises at any time during the tenancy”. A breach of this obligation is an unlawful act.
In the present case, the tenancy agreement used by the landlords was their own typewritten document. The danger of using their own document has already been demonstrated by the breaches that have been found above. In this case, the document failed to specify the maximum number of persons allowed to reside in the tenancy.
As such, the landlords had no legal basis on which to prevent the tenant’s husband from living there with her.
Despite the landlords claim that it was part of the written “terms and conditions”, those terms and conditions merely set out the legal requirement as outlined in section 40(3). It did not specify any particular number.
During the hearing the landlords said that they felt they had the right to determine the suitability of the persons living there. They also said they did not want the Department of Corrections to be coming to vet the property for suitability.
Although a landlord may determine “who they want living there” when granting a tenancy (subject of course, to the requirement not to unlawfully discriminate) once a tenancy has been granted it is not for the landlord to then determine who shall and shall not live with the tenant (other than specifying a maximum number of occupants).
I accept that the advertisement may have said that the unit was suitable for one person, however an advertisement is not a legal agreement.
There is no reason on the face of it why the type of unit rented by the tenant is only appropriate for one person as opposed to a couple. There is no additional bedroom or living space required, and only minimal impact on utilities. Had there been a genuine reason why only one person was permitted, the landlords would have said so at the outset, and not agreed that this was a matter that was amenable to review at a future date.
A tenant, just like any other citizen, is entitled to conduct their own private life as they see fit. It is not for landlords to act as some kind of moral gatekeeper. To do so is infantilising and trespasses on something deeply personal and private.
In respect of the claim that they did not want the Department of Corrections to come there to vet the property, that was not a matter for them to decide. That particular imposition would have been on the tenant, not the landlord. It is for the tenant to decide who comes and goes to her home.
Section 38(2) of the Act provides that the landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.
I find that in purporting to refuse the tenant’s husband the ability to live with her at the property, the landlords have breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the property.
A breach of this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
In this case, while I have found that the landlords have breached the tenants right to quiet enjoyment, I do not consider that their actions have amounted to harassment of the tenant. Therefore, although the breach is proved, it is not a case where an award of exemplary damages is justified.
However, an award of general damages may be justified; I address the issue of damages below. Tenant Claim 6 - Overcharging for Electricity
The tenant says that she only ever received handwritten notes on small pieces of paper telling her what she owed for electricity. I have sighted photocopies of some of those messages.
She says she asked for the power bills but never received them.
The tenant also says that she paid a flat rate for internet usage, however there were periods of time when she could not even use the internet due to issues with the location of the router. However, during the hearing the tenant indicated she was not interested in pursuing compensation for internet usage.
Section 39 of the Act provides that a tenant is responsible for outgoings where they are exclusively attributable to their occupation of the premises. A landlord is responsible for outgoings that are incurred whether or not the premises are occupied or for common facilities.
The landlords said that they had a separate sub meter for the granny flat, and that they showed the tenant where that sub meter was located, which was in the hallway in the main dwelling.
They said that they that had a vague recollection of the tenant asking to view the power bills but cannot recall specifics around that.
I accept that the landlords would have showed the tenant where the meter was. However, it was in a location that the tenant had no right to enter, namely the landlords own dwelling. If the tenant was asking to view the power bills, the landlord ought to have given them to her. Indeed, they should have done so without her needing to ask.
Because the tenant was not able to access the sub-meter, the landlords also ought to have made that available for her to view when she was querying the power bills.
The landlords have provided the power bills to the Tribunal. I accept that in terms of usage costs the landlords were charging the correct amount to the tenant.
However, it is clear from viewing the amounts the landlord did charge, that they were also charging the tenant for half of the fixed costs.
That is not permissible as the fixed costs are not “exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises”. Those costs would apply whether or not anyone was in the granny flat.
I therefore order a refund in the amount of $512.01 which covers the fixed costs wrongly charged to the tenant. Landlord Claim 1 – Stress and False Allegations
The landlord says that the filing of this claim has caused significant stress to them. In particular they are distressed by what they say are “false allegations” made against them.
However, damages can only be awarded where a party has been proved to have breached a legal obligation. Filing a legal proceeding is self-evidently not a breach of any legal obligation.
Although I understand that any court proceeding can be inherently stressful, this is not a basis for awarding compensation or exemplary damages, unless the proceedings are vexatious or entirely without merit.
In this case, the claims were unremarkable and indeed some of them have been proved. The claims were neither vexatious nor without merit.
This claim is dismissed. Landlord Claim 2 – Breach of Tenancy Agreement regarding Dog
The landlord says that the tenant has breached the tenancy agreement by allowing a dog into the property. The landlords said that the tenant’s daughter had a dog, and they observed the dog at times being let inside the property.
The tenant says that this is not correct. She said her daughter would visit from time to time and would bring her dog. She said usually they would take the dog for a walk along the beach. The tenant further said that if her daughter stayed for a cup of tea the dog would be tied up outside.
The problem the landlords face with this claim is that no legal obligation has been identified that the tenant has breached, so as to be a basis for compensation.
Even if having a dog in the property may be a breach of a provision in the tenancy agreement, there is no provision in the Act that would prohibit a dog being on the property per se. Accordingly, such a provision (if there was one) is inconsistent with the Act and can be of no effect.
Most importantly in this case, having reviewed the tenancy agreement, there is no such term in any event.
This claim must therefore be dismissed. Damages
Damages in civil claims fall into three categories.
Compensatory damages are as they sound; they aim to compensate any losses incurred by a party.
General damages are for “pain and suffering” or “emotional distress”. The Court in Palmer 2 held that when assessing the quantum of general damages, the Tribunal must take into account the following factors: (a) the nature of the breach; (b) the duration of the breach; and (c) the effect of the breach on the party
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal stated: 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.
In this case, I have found that although the landlords have breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment in relation to refusing her husband to live with her, this has not amounted to harassment and as such exemplary damages are not justified.
However, I do accept that general damages to reflect pain and suffering are warranted. In making this finding, I take into account that the nature of the breach was one that intruded into a matter that was deeply personal and private. However, it was a single breach which was of short duration. The effect of the breach on the tenant was significant, and effectively made it untenable for her to continue the tenancy. The choice she faced was either to move or to live separately from her husband.
I consider that an award of $200 is appropriate for pain and suffering and order accordingly.
In relation to the other claims that I have found proved, the landlord has committed unlawful acts.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) of the Act. 2 Palmer v Housing New Zealand (No 2), Auckland TT 2378/92, 25 August 1993
Intentional means that the party who has committed the breach must be aware of it. The focus of the intention however must be the act (or omission) and not the legal knowledge of the offending party. The District Court has confirmed that: Like all citizens... [the landlord is]... deemed to know the law and on that basis a failure to provide these fundamental documents is properly seen as intentional. Parliament’s intention would be subverted if landlords were able to escape consequences for the unlawful acts involved by claiming ignorance of the law.
I have therefore determined that: a. It is more likely than not that the established breaches were intentional. The landlord was aware (or is presumed to have been aware) of their legal obligations. b. There has been a detrimental impact on the tenant from the breaches, particularly in relation to the unlawful entry. c. There is a strong interest for tenants and landlords generally that compliance with laws that are designed to protect both parties are adhered to. Failure to do so undermines the integrity of the system. In relation to the unlawful entry in particular, an individual has an important, fundamental interest in preserving for themselves, access to their home. Indeed, this forms the basis for the requirement to give notice. On any view of it, those breaches were a significant intrusion on the tenant’s rights. d. It would be just to make an order
Schedule 1A of the Act outlines the maximum award of exemplary damages available for each of the breaches that have been established. On balance, given that I find there was no malice or bad faith on the part of the landlords in this case, I have adopted awards at the lower end of the scale.
I make the following orders. a. The maximum amount for failing to lodge the bond is $1500.00. I award $300.00. b. The maximum amount for failing to issue rent receipts is $350.00. I award $80.00. c. The maximum amount for failing to provide an insulation statement is $750.00. I award $100.00. d. The maximum amount for unlawful entry is $1500.00. I award $500.00
That means the total award of exemplary damages is $980.00.
Exemplary damages are not available for the failure to provide an insurance statement, and in this case, I do not consider the imposition of an infringement to be justified. Although I have found that the landlords were in breach, they nevertheless did verbally advise the tenant of the fact that they had insurance. They kept to the spirit if not the letter of the law. Suppression
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings the tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties or is justified because of the parties conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Section 95A(4) provides that the Tribunal may on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that the name of any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded in the proceedings, I have ordered suppression of her name and identifying details.
I also consider that in this case, there is no legitimate public interest that would require publication of the landlords’ names. I therefore also order suppression of their names and identifying details. Filing Fee
Because the tenant has been substantially successful in the proceedings, I order reimbursement of the filing fee. Final Remarks
It is always important to remember that a Tribunal hearing is a legal proceeding, not a moral judgement of the parties.
It seemed clear during the hearing that both parties had genuinely good intentions and the issues raised by each were fraught with emotion.
The landlords expressed a sense of deep hurt at being taken to the Tribunal by the tenant. They had perceived their relationship to be friendly and gave examples of dinners had together, coffees and wines had outside, or just friendly chats from time to time. They spoke about personal matters together and felt that they had supported the tenant during some difficult times. They said they had provided support in relation to bereavements she had suffered.
They said the claim seemed to come out of the blue when all along they had believed that everything had ended amicably. They felt that by going to the Tribunal the tenant had not allowed them an opportunity to make amends.
Similarly, the tenant was emotional when talking about the issue that led her to give notice; the landlords decision to tell her that her husband would not be able to live at the property. It is clear that was deeply hurtful for her and that it was also unexpected. She felt that there had been constructive discussions between them about the issue and her husband had written letters to the landlords thanking them for “taking care” of his wife.
She was also emotional when describing how she felt that the landlords had been inside her home without her permission and felt that she was unable to say anything to them about it.
It is important for all parties to remember that at the end of the day, a landlord who is renting a property is running a business. As such, the expectations are that the running of that business will be professional and in accordance with the law.
This does not and should not necessarily preclude a friendship developing with tenants, but it is important to divide the professional from the personal and not allow the boundaries to become blurred.
I urge the landlords to avail themselves of the information as well as downloadable documents and templates that are freely available on the Tenancy Services website
Finally, I would like to apologise to both parties for the delay in issuing this decision. J R Smith 6 October 2022

Tenancy Tribunal case 4346263 — Exemplary damages at ORDER

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4346263 — Exemplary damages at ORDER

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions