What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4506009 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $600.00 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4506009?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoym…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Details For Agent: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4506009?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4506009?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9760919-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4506009 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $600.00 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4506009?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoym…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Details For Agent: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4506009?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4506009?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9760919-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4506009 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4506009 — net $700.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning and carpet clean	$200.00		Cleaning and carpet clean
Failure to notify of water damaged laundry	$200.00		Failure to notify of water damaged laundry
Exemplary damages: Failure to provide contact		$200.00	Failure to provide contact
details for agent		$400.00	end of the scale. I order the landlord to pay $200.00 for each breach totalling $400.00.
Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoyment		$500.00	Breach of quiet enjoyment
Total award	$400.00	$1,100.00
Net award		$700.00
Bond		$2,600.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$700.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4506009 — net $700.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning and carpet clean	$200.00		Cleaning and carpet clean
Failure to notify of water damaged laundry	$200.00		Failure to notify of water damaged laundry
Exemplary damages: Failure to provide contact		$200.00	Failure to provide contact
details for agent		$400.00	end of the scale. I order the landlord to pay $200.00 for each breach totalling $400.00.
Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoyment		$500.00	Breach of quiet enjoyment
Total award	$400.00	$1,100.00
Net award		$700.00
Bond		$2,600.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$700.00

Order

[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $600.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [The tenant’s representative] attended as representative for his mother, [The tenant/s]. The landlord attended the hearing. The Tribunal was assisted by a Mandarin speaking court interpreter.
This matter was heard over two days, 24 August 2023 and 15 November 2023.
The tenant rented a 3-bedroom 1980s home from the landlord in October 2018 and lived there with her family. They moved out in March 2023 and the tenancy ended in April 2023.
The landlord recorded on the tenancy agreement is [The property management company] as agent for [The owner’s daughter]. [The owner’s daughter] is the daughter of the party named as landlord in these proceedings recorded as [The landlord/s]. [The landlord/s] is recorded as the owner of the premises.
[The owner’s daughter] acted as agent and assisted her mother in communicating with the tenants during most of the tenancy.
It was agreed that [The property management company] ceased management of the property. The tenant advised that following [The property management company] ceasing management they dealt directly with the landlord in China. The tenant advised that they were not aware [The owner’s daughter] and [The landlord/s] were two different people until the end of the tenancy.
The landlord advised that the property has not been retenanted and she is currently living in the premises.
The tenant filed an application on 16 February 2023 and claims the following: (a)Failure by the landlord to provide contact details for an agent when overseas pursuant to section 16A RTA. (b)Breaches by the landlord in respect of extension of the fixed term tenancy agreement in September 2022 (c)Failure to repair an electrical socket and the shower door. (d)Breach of quiet enjoyment by contacting the tenant’s former employer and discussing tenancy issues, messaging the tenant during night-time hours, requesting rent two months in advance, accusing the tenant of having extra occupants, sending a covid questionnaire in March 2023, contacts from five different property managers from late February to early April 2023. (e)Refund of rent paid from vacate date 10 March 2023 to the end of the fixed term period.
The landlord filed a counter claim on 7 June 2023 which includes seeking bond refund, compensation and/or exemplary damages for damage to the premises, lost rent, failure to notify landlord of damage and reimbursement of filing fee.
The landlord claims the following: (a)Damages pieces off on floor in the front bedroom – Excess $500 (b)Damages on floor by water damages in Hallway next to bathroom - $500 (c) Damages on floor by water damages in middle of living room - $500 (d) Damaged hole on the wall of living-kitchen room (e) Big reddish stain next to French window on the carpet - $500 (f) Carpet stains in lounge and dining room - $500 (g) Wallpaper damages with crack dent about one finger long as major dent in middle bedroom and some other dents in other area of wallpaper - $500 (h) Pets Damages with pet’s urine and feces foul smell and trace on carpets and wallpaper in middle bedroom - $500 (i) Laundry damages, the Vinyl Floor and Basin have damaged by tenants - $500 (j) House not left reasonably clean and tidy (cleaning fee) (k) Net mouldy curtains need replacement (l) Need to replace new net curtains. (Curtain fee) (m) Oven damaged by tenants, broken oven button – excess $500 or new oven (n) Insinkerator in kitchen has damaged on the top. (Repair fee) (o) Tenants [The tenant/s] and her families have breach Tenancy Agreement and Tenancy by not notifying of damage
The onus is on the party making a claim to prove the claim on the balance of probabilities. Tenant claims Did the landlord fail to appoint an agent and notify the tenant of their contact details when out of New Zealand for longer than 21 days?
The tenant claimed that the landlord breached their obligation under section 16A of the RTA by failing to appoint an agent when out of New Zealand for longer than 21 days.
Both [The owner’s daughter] and [The landlord/s] lived in China for most of the tenancy.
The landlord stated that initially [The property management company] was the agent and when this ceased they appointed [The property manager/s] to be the agent in New Zealand.
The tenant advised that although they met [The property manager/s] when he came to the premises to do maintenance, they were never provided with contact details for him.
Section 16A (4) and (4A) states that the landlord who appoints an agent must immediately after appointing them notify the tenant of the agent’s name, contact address and address for service and notify the chief executive if a bond is held, the agent’s mobile number must also be provided.
The landlord was asked to provide proof of notification to the tenant of the required details but no proof was provided.
The landlord did provide a copy of an email to the Bond Centre dated 20 March 2020 notifying of the change of landlord to [The landlord/s] with agent [The property manager/s] but this does not appear to have been actioned by the Bond Centre.
I am satisfied that the landlord appointed [The property manager/s] as their agent while out of New Zealand. However, I find that the landlord did not comply with the requirements to notify the tenant and the bond centre of the contact details for the agent. Therefore, the landlord has committed an unlawful 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 16A(6) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Landlords have a responsibility to know tenancy law and comply with it’s requirements. The tenants stated that they had no one in New Zealand they could contact regarding the tenancy. They could only speak to [The property manager/s] when he chose to come to the premises. The landlord required them to contact China which with the time difference was unsatisfactory. I find that the failure to provide [The property manager/s] contact details to the tenant was intentional.
I have considered the evidence including that the Bond Centre was notified of the change in landlord and agent, there was an agent in New Zealand but the tenant could only speak to him on the landlord’s terms and this is the first offence of this nature that the Tribunal is aware of. I find that an award of exemplary damages at the low end of the scale in the sum of $200.00 is appropriate.

Was the fixed tern tenancy lawfully extended?

[The tenant/s] claims that she entered into a contract renewing or extending the fixed-term tenancy under duress.
This tenancy commenced in October 2018. The parties entered in to a one-year fixed term agreement to end on 24 October 2019.
The tenancy agreement contains a right of renewal or extension.
As the original tenancy agreement was signed before 11 February 2021 the law changes relating to security of tenure and assignment of tenancies do not apply.
The parties advised that each year up to October 2022 they agreed to extend the fixed term for a further year.
When the fixed term came up for renewal on in October 2022 the parties entered into communication regarding the renewal.
The parties provided a document dated 20 September 2022 signed by both parties agreeing to extend the fixed term from 25 October 2022 until 26 April 2023. The document states that it is to be read in conjunction with the tenancy agreement dated 25 October 2018.
The landlord provided a message from the tenant in 2021 advising that she intended to live in the premises for two more years.
The landlord also produced messages dated 16 September 2022. The landlord messages the tenant and asks, “Would you like to sign another one year Extend Tenancy Agreement with us?”. The tenant replies stating “Maybe we can do around 6 months, not sure when I will be moving out. Have a nice weekend a, and yes send me the contract and I will sign”. The landlord agreed to six months and sent a renewal contract to the tenant.
Communication then became difficult between the parties with the tenant being sent multiple renewal contracts and changing her mind to state in a handwritten note that she wished to roll over to a periodic tenancy. The landlord did not agree to this and responded, “we do not do periodic tenancies”. The landlord advised that they would end the tenancy if the tenant wanted a periodic tenancy.
The tenant claimed that she entered into this fixed term extension under duress.
As this tenancy commenced prior to 11 February 2021 the law as it was prior to July 2021 applies to this tenancy. Section 60A of the RTA prior to July 2021 provided that either party is entitled to end the tenancy prior to the end of the fixed term in accordance with the legislation. Under the earlier 60A a fixed-term tenancy becomes periodic unless the parties enter into a new tenancy agreement or agree to extend the existing tenancy agreement; or within a period between 90 days and 21 days before the tenancy expires either party gives the other written notice of the party’s intention not to continue with the tenancy.
I accept there was a difference of views between the parties and the tenant wished the tenancy to roll over to periodic, but the landlord wished to extend the existing tenancy for a further fixed term The landlord was entitled to give notice to end the tenancy if they chose to. I find that the landlord requesting a further fixed term does not amount to duress.
The tenant requested that the further fixed term be for a reduced period of six months and the landlord agreed. Therefore, the parties signed the extension of the fixed term. The exact date of signing is in dispute, but it was on or about 20 September 2022. This was more than 21 days before 25 October 2022. Having considered the evidence the Tribunal finds that the parties lawfully entered into an extension of the fixed term tenancy for a further six months to 26 April 2023.

Is the tenant entitled to a rent refund?

The tenant sought a rent refund on the basis that she continued to pay rent after moving out of the premises. I have found that the fixed term was lawfully extended, and the tenant was in a fixed term tenancy until 26 April 2023. The tenant has failed to prove that the landlord agreed to release her from the fixed term. Therefore, she has not proved on the balance of probabilities that a rent refund is due. Accordingly, this claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair
The tenant claimed that the landlord failed to maintain the premises by failing to repair the shower door and failing to repair an electrical socket. Shower Door
The premises were provided with a shower that had a three-panel sliding door. The tenant advised that one of the door panels fell off as the bolts had rusted through and they notified the landlord in March 2021 that the door needed repair. The landlord agent attended the premises and removed the door that was broken and replaced it with a curtain that was tied to the door frame with string. The tenants stated that the temporary curtain did not work properly resulting in water spilling out of the shower and inconvenience to them in the use of the shower. The landlord repeatedly failed to remedy this and have the door repaired properly by a contractor. In support of their claim the tenant provided photographs of the door before it broke, photographs of the temporary curtain installed and copies of ongoing messages to the landlord informing the landlord that the repair was not satisfactory.
In response the landlord claimed that the door was repaired and provided messages where the landlord stated to the tenant that the repair was done.
The tenant provided photographs of the premises at the end of the tenancy showing that the temporary curtain was still tied to the door frame.
I have considered the evidence and find that the tenant has proved on the balance of probabilities that the shower door was not maintained in a reasonable state of repair. The premises were provided with a working shower door and the landlord was responsible to arrange a repair or replacement when the door stopped working. Electrical socket
The tenant claimed that the landlord failed to repair electrical outlets in the lounge.
The tenant sent a message to the landlord on 3 May 2022 informing them that electrical outlets in the lounge were not working.
The landlord replied and told the tenants to use other electrical sockets as they would not be repaired. She stated that there was another outlet that could be used and that maybe a few years later they would repair it.
The tenants stated that due to the failure to arrange the electrical repair they were unable to plug in any electronics near the large wall of the lounge which left one empty area. They stated that they had to huddle around the only working socket and use a multi plug when working from home.
The landlord arranged the repair at the end of the tenancy and produced an Electrical Certificate of Compliance dated 12 March 2023 stating that the power point repair was completed.
I have considered the evidence and find that the tenant has proved on the balance of probabilities that the landlord failed to repair the electrical outlet which restricted their use of the lounge.
The Tenants’ claim for compensation is in the nature of general damages for the inconvenience of the landlord’s failure to repair the shower door and the electrical outlet. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to make such award pursuant to section 77(2)(n) of the Act: Eayrs v Hindmarsh, DC Wellington, TT223/93, 12 November 1993. Awards of compensation are generally modest. I find that the temporary repair of the shower and the failure to repair the electrical outlet impacted the tenant’s use of the premises but as these are comparatively minor matters the impact was on the lower end of the scale. I order the landlord to pay $200.00 for each breach totalling $400.00. Breach of Quiet Enjoyment
The tenant claims that the landlord breached her quiet enjoyment of the premises.
Section 38(1) and (2) of the Act provides that: The tenant shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord or any person claiming by, through or under the landlord or having superior title to that of the landlord. 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.
The terminology “quiet enjoyment” has been explained in the sense of “peaceful” and not in the acoustic sense. The word “enjoy” refers to the exercise and use of the right and having the full benefit of it, rather than of deriving pleasure from it.
The tenant claims that the landlord breached her quiet enjoyment in the following ways: (a)On 12 March 2023 the landlord contacted the tenant’s employer and asked for her contact details. By way of explanation the landlord said that she just wanted the tenant to withdraw the Tribunal case. She stated that she thought the tenant’s employer would try to persuade her to withdraw the case. (b) The landlord messaged the tenant repeatedly at 1,2 and 3 am in the morning. The tenant stated that the notifications woke her up. When the tenant raised this with the landlord she replied, “the time in New Zealand doesn’t matter”. (c) On 16 February 2023 after the landlord discovered that the tenants wished to end their tenancy the landlord’s agent came to the premises and had the landlord’s daughter on the phone. She demanded rent be paid more than 2 months in advance in a lump sum. The landlord denied that a lump sum was claimed and there is no written evidence of this. (d) The landlord sent a message to the tenant on 3 May 2022 accusing her of having a fifth tenant at the premises in breach of the tenancy agreement and stated that the tenant’s mother was living there. The tenant stated that this was distressing for her as there was no extra occupant and her mother has died. By way of explanation the landlord said they just wanted to ask the question as they were not sure who was living at the property. (e) The landlord sent the tenant a covid questionnaire in early 2023 after being notified that one of the tenants had a faint positive result when the agent was doing an inspection. The tenant advised that later after a retest the result was negative. The landlord responded that they were just showing the tenant that they cared. (f) In the month of March 2023, the tenant was contacted successively by five different property managers all stating they were managing the property. The tenant stated that this was very confusing and led to miscommunication at the end of the tenancy regarding who to return the keys to. The landlord responded that they were having difficulty engaging a property manager and considered that this was partly due to the tenants being difficult. If there is a change in landlord or agent, the tenant needs to be notified of this in writing in the proper way pursuant to section 15 and 16 of the RTA so that they know who to communicate with.
Having regard the evidence of the parties I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that with the exception of the covid questionnaire the cumulative effect of ongoing inappropriate communication with the tenant including through their employer, through late night messages and multiple agents contacts caused interruption to the tenant and amounted to a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises.
I find therefore that the Tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of the premises has been breached such that it is appropriate to award them compensation in the nature of general damages for inconvenience and stress pursuant to section 77(2)(n) of the RTA. The breaches occurred primarily in the final two months of the tenancy. In these circumstances I consider that that a lump sum of $500.00 is appropriate. False evidence
The tenant raised the issue of the landlord allegedly providing false evidence.
There is no provision in the RTA that gives the Tribunal the power to make orders regarding false evidence. Section 109 is the provision which gives the Tribunal the power to make an order that either the tenant or landlord pay the other party exemplary damages, if that party commits a defined unlawful act (at the hearing I gave the example of section 48(4)(b) where the tenant unreasonably fails to allow a landlord entry to the premises). As I noted, I know of no defined unlawful act around ‘false evidence’, therefore exemplary damages under section 109 cannot be ordered. Section 109 does not provide the Tribunal with the power to order exemplary damages other than where there is a breach of a specified provision deeming the action an ‘unlawful act’.
Section 111 is a provision that allows the District Court to sentence a person to imprisonment for up to three years on conviction, for giving false evidence in a Tribunal proceeding. The Tribunal has no power to enter a conviction, or to sentence a person to prison (see 78 for the defined list of orders that the Tribunal can make).
Accordingly, this claim must be dismissed Landlord claims

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided before and after photographs of the premises. The entry photographs show that the premises were tired at the beginning of the tenancy and there was ingrained dirt in the cabinets, walls and bathroom and some existing marks on the carpet. The exit photographs show that the premises were mostly left reasonably clean and tidy having regard to the age of the premises, however, some further cleaning in the kitchen and a carpet clean was required to leave it reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord seeks $402.50 for the cleaning. I have considered the evidence and order the tenant to contribute part of this cost and to pay $200.00 compensation towards cleaning.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
The landlord claims that the tenants caused damage during the tenancy. I will consider each of the claims in turn.
Floor damage (a)Damage to floor in the front bedroom The landlord produced photographs of some marks on the floor in the front bedroom and claimed it was caused by a chair on the floor. The tenant agreed that this damage occurred during the tenancy but stated that it was caused as a result of a leak in the house which was notified to the landlord in 2020. The leak was in the laundry which is next to the bedroom. The tenants stated that the water damage spread to the bedroom and when the floor dried the boards cracked. The landlord arranged for the leak to be repaired but there were no repairs done to the floorboards. The tenant stated that the landlord’s agent [The property manager/s] came to the premises and saw the effects of the leak on the floorboards but took no further action. The landlord states that the excess to repair this should be $500.00 and seeks reimbursement. No insurance proof was provided. (b)Damages on floor by water damages in hallway next to bathroom and living room- $500 excess for each room The landlord claimed that water damage was caused to the floor in the hallway and living room. The tenant claimed that this was also a result of the leak at the premises in the laundry which went underground and caused dampness to the floorboards. (c) Having considered the evidence provided I am not satisfied that the landlord has proved that the tenant is responsible for the floor damage. The tenant disputes responsibility for the damage and the landlord has not produced sufficient evidence to prove the claim on the balance of probabilities. In any event the landlord has not provided evidence to prove the compensation sought. The landlord seeks excess by way of $500 per room to replace the floor in the three rooms but no insurance evidence was provided and no evidence the repairs have been done.
Wall damage The landlord claims that the tenant damaged the walls during the tenancy and provided a photograph of a crack in the wallpaper in one bedroom. The paintwork and wallpaper in the premises is old and the entry photographs show marks on the walls. I am not satisfied that the landlord has proved that any further wall damage is beyond fair wear and tear.
Carpet damage (a) The landlord claimed that the tenant caused stains to the living and dining room carpet and provided a photograph of this, in particular a reddish stain in the living room. The landlord also claims that the carpet smelt of pet urine and required replacement. In support of this claim the landlord provided entry and exit photographs, quotes for carpet replacement and a report from [carpet company]. The landlord seeks the sum of $500.00 on the basis that this should be the insurance excess for replacement. The landlord agreed that the carpet was old but stated it was in good condition. (b)The tenant disputed that the stain in the living room was caused by them and claimed that the entry photograph in the living room did not show the same area of carpet. As the entry photographs do not have a close up photo of the area in question it is difficult to ascertain whether the stain was caused during the tenancy. The tenant disputed that they were responsible for the carpet having pet urine smell as they did not have pets and stated that they were not aware of any smell during the tenancy and no concern was raised by the agent when he visited the premises during the tenancy. The tenants disputed the report of [carpet company] on the basis that the company is registered as a clothing company. Evidence from the Companies Register was supplied. (c)As the landlord produced no evidence that the tenant had pets during the tenancy, the entry photographs show some existing marks on the carpet, the carpet is old and the landlord has provided no insurance information the Tribunal finds that the landlord has not proved on the balance of probabilities that the tenant is liable for carpet replacement. In any event due to the age of the carpet it is fully depreciated.
The landlord sought compensation to replace mouldy net mouldy curtains. No evidence to support this claim or the cost of replacement as provided but in any event the Tribunal considers net curtains to have an expected lifespan of 1 year, so they have fully depreciated.

Did the tenant fail to notify the landlord of damage to the vinyl floor and basin?

The landlord provided photographs of water damage to the laundry. She stated that she had spent $200.00 to purchase a new laundry tub and sought reimbursement as the tenant had not notified of the damage.
Tenants have a responsibility to notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises pursuant to section 40(1)(d) of the RTA. The tenant stated they were aware of the laundry damage and that it resulted from the leak in 2020. As the leak was notified to the landlord, they assumed that the agent [The property manager/s] would investigate. The photographs show water damage between the washing machine and the laundry tub. This was not easily visible while the washing machine was there. The tenants had a responsibility to point out this damage to the landlord’s agent. Although the leak under the floor was repaired the wet area around the tub was not addressed resulting the tub needing replacement. I find the tenants were in breach for failing to notify the landlord of the water damage in the laundry and order compensation for the cost of the laundry tub being $200.00.
The landlord raised some other damage issues at the hearing. These were not included in the landlord application filed on 7 June 2023 and insufficient evidence was provided so these have not been considered by the Tribunal. Suppression/Filing fee
The Tribunal may on the application of any party or on its own initiative make a suppression order, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. Section 95A (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The landlord has applied for suppression. The Tribunal must order suppression if a party has been successful with their claim. In this case both parties have had some but not total success with their claims. Having considered the factors in this case the Tribunal considers it appropriate to grant suppression of all identifying details.
Because both parties have had some success with their claims, I decline to reimburse either filing fee. See section 102 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4506009 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4506009 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Was the fixed tern tenancy lawfully extended?

Is the tenant entitled to a rent refund?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenant fail to notify the landlord of damage to the vinyl floor and basin?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Was the fixed tern tenancy lawfully extended?

Is the tenant entitled to a rent refund?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenant fail to notify the landlord of damage to the vinyl floor and basin?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions