What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4523709 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord must pay the tenant $400.00 immediately, as set out in the table

How much money was awarded in case 4523709?

Interference With Reasonable Peace C…: $150.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4523709?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Smoke alarms, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Harassment, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4523709?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10536053-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4523709 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord must pay the tenant $400.00 immediately, as set out in the table

How much money was awarded in case 4523709?

Interference With Reasonable Peace C…: $150.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4523709?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Smoke alarms, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Harassment, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4523709?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10536053-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4523709 — Mould & damp

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4523709. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Failure to lodge the bond		$250.00	Failure to lodge the bond
Interference with reasonable peace comfort and privacy		$150.00	Interference with reasonable peace comfort and privacy

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4523709. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Failure to lodge the bond		$250.00	Failure to lodge the bond
Interference with reasonable peace comfort and privacy		$150.00	Interference with reasonable peace comfort and privacy

Order

The Order dated 15 June 2024 is amended. The total award payable by the landlord to the tenant is $400.00, and not $350.00. This is the only amendment.

The landlord must pay the tenant $400.00 immediately, as set out in the table below: Description Tenant Failure to lodge the bond $250.00 Interference with reasonable peace comfort and privacy $150.00 Total award $400.00

Reasons

Ms Mosen appeared in person. [The landlord/s] have appeared by audio visual link.
The tenancy commenced on 06 April 2020. During the tenancy, the property was sold to another, after which there was a change of landlord on 07 March 2022. The tenant’s application was filed on 13 March 2023. The claims against the landlord cover acts or omissions said to be in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”) between 06 April 2020 and 07 March 2022.
The tenant’s claims against the landlord are: (in brackets are details of the compensation and damages sought), (i)That the notice issued to terminate the tenancy was invalid, (compensation $56,480,00), (ii)That the landlord failed to lodge the bond within the required period, section 19(1) of the Act, (exemplary damages up to the maximum statutory $1,500.00), (iii)That the property did not comply with the Healthy Homes Standards relating to insulation, section 45(1) (bb) and Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016, (exemplary damages up to the maximum $7,200.00), (iv)That the landlord has failed to maintain the property free from excessive dampness and moisture, section 45(1)(c) and Reg 15 Housing Improvement Regulations 1947, (compensation of $2,076.00, exemplary damages up to the maximum $7,200.00), (v)That the landlord has failed to provide adequate ventilation in the bathroom, section 45(1)(c) and Reg 11 Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (exemplary damages up to the maximum $7,200.00) (vi)That the landlord has failed to provide and maintain an adequate means for collection and storage of water, section 45(1) (ca), (compensation $30,000.00, exemplary damages up to maximum $7,200.00) (vii)That the landlord has failed to maintain the towel rail in the bathroom (compensation $56.00), the plumbing in the kitchen, the plumbing in the wash house, and the wiring at the property, section 45(1)(b) of the Act, damages of $3,500.00, exemplary damages up to the maximum of $7,200.00), (viii)That the landlord failed to give the tenant written notice that the property was for sale, section 47(1) and (3) of the Act, (exemplary damages up to the maximum $1,800.00), (ix)That the landlord has interfered with the reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy of the tenant to the extent that the conduct of the landlord has amounted to harassment, section 38(2) and (3), (compensation, exemplary damages up to the maximum $ 3,000.00).
Despite making monetary claims exceeding $100,000.00, the tenant accepts that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to make orders up to $100.000.00 only.
The onus of proving these claims rests with the tenant. The standard of proof required is on the balance of probabilities. The tenant must establish more likely than not the landlord has breached to terms of the agreement or provisions of the Act. Was the notice issued to terminate the tenancy was invalid, (compensation $56,480,00),
The facts concerning this claim were addressed in a previous hearing where the tenant claimed that the agent handling the property was not authorised to serve the notice on behalf of the landlord, thus rendering it invalid. On 28 February 2022, lawyers acting on behalf of the landlord in the sale and purchase agreement had emailed the landlord, advising that upon the contract for sale and purchase becoming unconditional, a 90-day notice terminating the tenancy would need to be served because the new owners sought vacant possession. The email was also sent to the agent who was at the material time engaged by the landlord to sell the property. The lawyers suggested that the respondent could deliver the notice. On Wednesday 02 March 2022, the agent emailed a notice to the tenant on behalf of the landlord, terminating the tenancy on 06 June 2022. The notice specified the ground for termination and the end date of the tenancy. The email notice contained both the name of agent and the landlord.
Under section 51(2) of the Act the landlord may give the tenant 90 days’ notice to terminate if there is an unconditional agreement for sale requiring the purchaser to have vacant possession. Section 51(3)(d) of the Act provides that the notice shall be issued by the landlord or an agent.
I am satisfied that the notice to terminate the tenancy was valid. In this case the property was sold to another party on 07 March 2022, who then became the tenant’s landlord until 08 May 2022. The notice was sent via email to the tenant by the agent on behalf of the landlord. The notice contained the names of both the landlord and the agent, the grounds on which the notice was being issued, and the end date. This claim the notice is invalid is dismissed. Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond within the required period, (exemplary damages up to the maximum statutory $1,500.00),
There is no dispute that the bond was not lodged by the landlord, who misunderstood their obligations. On the advice of a family member, the landlord kept the bond and then past to the new landlord on or about 07 March 2022.
Under section 19 of the Act the landlord must lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within 23 days of receiving it. Failing to do so is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00, where it is just to do so.
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 s 109(3) the Act).
I am satisfied that there has been a breach of the Act concerning the bond. The issue is exemplary damages.
The bond is the tenant’s money and should be treated as such. How to deal with bonds appropriately is clearly set out by Tenancy Services and in the provisions of the Act. Landlords must be aware of their legal obligations, and it is in the public interest that they do so. Considering the factors in section 109(3), I believe award of $250.00 exemplary damages is appropriate. The property did not comply with the Healthy Homes Standards relating to insulation, (exemplary damages up to the maximum $7,200.00),
Under section 45(1) (bb) and Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016, the landlord must comply with insulation regulations, which came into effect 01 July 2019. Failure to comply is a breach, and if loss has occurred compensation may be awarded. It is also unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded.
The tenant states that a contractor who visited the property to conduct a pre-sale inspection reported that the ceiling was only partially insulated.
The tenancy agreement includes a certificate of assessment completed by the landlord, indicating that the property complies with the insulation regulations. The landlord states that they inspected the ceiling and found insulation that met the requirements. Since the property is elevated one metre off the ground on piles, due to the flood risk in the area, it is easy to see that there is underfloor insulation. Because the property is elevated there is no requirement for a ground moisture barrier.
The onus is on the tenant to establish that despite the assessment, the property does not comply. Apart from what the contractor is alleged to have reported to the tenant, there are no photographs, or any other evidence produced. On the evidence I am not satisfied that the landlord has failed to meet their obligations. The claim is dismissed. That the landlord has failed to maintain the property free from excessive dampness and moisture,
The Healthy Homes Standards for this tenancy came into effect on 01 July 2025. However, under section 45(1)(c) of the Act and Regulation 15 Housing Improvement Regulations 1947, the property must be maintained free of dampness and moisture. Failure to comply with the Regulations is a breach, and if loss has occurred compensation may be awarded. It is also considered an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded.
Upon moving out of the property in May 2022, the tenant discovered that items of clothing and shoes in two wardrobes, as well as on a wall adjoining the bathroom. The tenant states that during the tenancy, the property experienced excessive condensation, causing curtains to regularly stick to the windows. The tenant did not raise this issue with the landlord during the tenancy. There are no photographs of mould or moisture and no other evidence on which to make an objective assessment. The claim is dismissed. That the landlord has failed to provide adequate ventilation in the bathroom,
As stated, Healthy Homes Standards for this tenancy came into effect on 01 July 2025. To comply with these standards the property must have extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen that vent outside and meet certain size and performance requirements.
However, under section 45(1)(c) of the Act and Regulation 11 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947, habitable rooms must have adequate ventilation. Failure to comply with the Regulations is a breach, and if loss has occurred compensation may be awarded. It is also an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded.
There is no extractor fan in the bathroom. The tenant believes there should be a fan. The tenant states that excessive moisture formed on the walls. They state these issues were raised with the landlord but simply ‘shrugged it off.”
The room is described as small, with a large opening window. The ratio of window to floor space is generous. The landlord cannot recall the matter being raised by the tenant. There are no emails, texts, or notices produced. There are no photographs or other evidence. There is insufficient evidence to establish that the bathroom does not comply with the ventilation regulations in effect at the material time. The claim is dismissed. That the landlord has failed to provide and maintain an adequate means for collection and storage of water, section 45(1) (ca), (compensation $30,000.00, exemplary damages up to maximum $7,200.00)
The property is not on a mains water supply. Water at the property is collected from the roof of the house and stored in a water tank.
Under section 45(1) (ca) of the Act, if the property is not on a mains supply, the landlord must provide and maintain an adequate means for the collection and storage of water. Failure to do so is a breach, and if loss has occurred compensation may be awarded. It is also an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded.
Around Christmas 2021, the tank ran dry. The tenant states that advised the landlord that the tank was empty. Although not obliged, under the agreement or the provisions of the Act to provide water, the landlord arranged for the tank to be filled. The tenant states that after filling the tank, the contractor advised that they had seen frogs in the tank. In mid-January 2022, a family member of the tenant visited the property, climbed up onto the tank, and retrieved two frogs, one alive, and one deceased. The tenant sent a photograph of the frogs to the landlord noting that the inside of the tank appeared dirty, and the lid was broken. The tenant states that there was a discussion on how the frogs may have gotten into the tank. If it was through a broken lid, the landlord suggested that putting mesh over the lid may help. The tenant states that the landlords father dropped some mesh off, but as the tenant had no way of accessing the top of the tank, or the lid, they did not personally address the matter. The tenant stated that the water tasted sour and was discoloured. However, the tenant stated that as this occurred toward the end of the tenancy, it had not been raised as an ongoing issue.
The landlord states that the area surrounding the tank is marshy and low lying. The tank is made from mesh reinforced concrete, including the lid which is made to fit the tank. The tank has a filter. The landlord states if the tank is allowed to run completely dry, adding water will stir any naturally occurring sediment, causing the water to become temporarily cloudy but then settle. Due to the elapse of time the landlord does not recall if they had personally visited the property to inspect the tank, fixed any holes, or whether their father, who had dropped off the mesh and completed other small jobs around the property, had done so.
There is insufficient evidence, and the claim is dismissed. Apart from the two frogs, there are no photographs of the damaged lid or any holes in the tank. The photographs taken of the inside of the tank are too dark to see the condition of the interior or the quality of the water. There are no photographs showing water coming out of taps or in containers to indicate its quality. Further, the tenant states that as they are unable to easily access the top of the tank, they cannot say whether the lid was fixed or not. That the landlord has failed to maintain the towel rail in the bathroom (compensation $56.00), the plumbing in the kitchen, the plumbing in the wash house, and the wiring at the property, section 45(1)(b) of the Act, damages of $3,500.00, exemplary damages up to the maximum of $7,200.00),
Under section 45(1)(b) of the Act the landlord must provide and maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair. Failure to do so is a breach, and if loss has occurred compensation may be awarded. It is also an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded.
The landlord’s obligation under section 45(1)(b) is to investigate and repair any defect brought to their attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances. The length of this timeframe depends on the gravity of the problem and attempts made by the landlord to investigate and resolve the issue.
The tenant claim under this section involves the towel rail in the shower, the heated towel rail in the bathroom, the plumbing in the kitchen, the plumbing for the washing machine, and the wiring. Towel rail
The tenant stated that the towel rail in the inside of the shower box had come away from the wall and that the heated towel rail had come away from the wall. The tenant initially stated that they had mentioned both matters to the landlord but had been “brushed off.” Later, the tenant stated that these issues had not been raised until the end of the tenancy. The tenant purchased and installed another rail in the shower, which appears to have suffered damage no more than fair wear and tear, and re attached the heated towel rail using more substantial screws. I am not satisfied that the landlord has failed in their obligations in these matters, and the claim is dismissed. Plumbing in kitchen
Regarding the plumbing in the kitchen, during a visit by the landlord, the tenant raised a foul smell coming from a pipe under the kitchen bench. The landlord suggested putting some tin foil over it, which the tenant did. This did not stop the smell, and some months later, the tenant raised it again, verbally. Despite this nothing happened until near the end of the tenancy, shortly before the property was sold.
The landlord accepts that during the inspection the matter was raised and that neither party could identify the exact source of the smell, which appeared to be intermittent and dependent on the direction of the wind at the time. The landlord surmised that wind direction could be influencing the air flow through the septic tank system. Placing the foil over the pipe concerned was a diagnostic test. The landlord states that it was not raised again as an ongoing issue but that it was addressed before the end of the tenancy when the presale inspection by the new owner revealed an issue with the u trap under the kitchen sink, which was replaced.
Apart from the tenant’s oral testimony, there is no other evidence confirming that it had been raised as an ongoing issue. Based on the material before me, I cannot be satisfied that the landlord has failed to respond appropriately. The claim is dismissed. Plumbing for washing machine
The washing machine is located in the garage. Initially, water to the machine was supplied via a 1500 litre capacity tank nearby, with the user having to fill the machine manually with a hose. This system was replaced with a line running from the house, supplied by the larger tank already referred to. This provided greater better water pressure to the machine. However, the tenant, states that the outlet from the washing machine simply discharged onto the ground, causing it to become waterlogged with grey water, which the tenant considered a nuisance.
Landlord states that drainage not raised as an issue.
Photographs have been produced showing that the outlet drains into a concrete culvert located under the tank, and not, as the tenant claims, straight onto the ground. The landlord states that the water from the culvert runs into a “Wisconsin man” designed wastewater system.
When the tenant raised concern about the insufficiency of the water supply to the washing machine, the landlord addressed the matter. I am not satisfied that the tenant raised concerns about the drainage before the end of the tenancy. I am not satisfied that the water from the washing machine simply discharged onto the ground. The claim is dismissed. Wiring
Regarding the wiring in the property, the tenant states that the contractor completing the presale inspection reported that the wiring in the ceiling was a fire hazard. The landlord states that they were advised that a junction box in the ceiling required a cover to be code complaint. The landlord states that they were unaware of the issue and, as soon as advised, arranged for the matter to be rectified. The landlord states that there is no evidence before the Tribunal from someone qualified that there was, in fact, a fire hazard. This is the case. There are no photographs or any other evidence. I am not satisfied that the landlord when advised has failed to respond appropriately, and the claim is dismissed. Did the landlord fail to give the tenant written notice that the property was for sale, (exemplary damages up to the maximum $1,800.00). Did the landlord interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy of the tenant to the extent that the conduct of the landlord has amounted to harassment, (compensation, exemplary damages up to the maximum $ 3,000.00).
The claims that the landlord failed to give notice that the property was on the market, and that they breached the tenants right to quiet enjoyment, should be dealt with together as they both arise from the same incident.
The tenant states that on Thursday 04 June 2020, shortly after the commencement of the tenancy, they received advice from the landlord of an inspection which was to be carried out by the landlords’ mother on Thursday 11 June 2020 around noon. Shortly before the appointed time, the tenant noticed a woman waiting outside the property. It was not the landlord’s mother. The woman informed the tenant that the property was on the market and that she was there for a viewing. The tenant was surprised, stating that they had received no notice that the property was for sale. The tenant states that landlord’s mother arrived and confirmed that the property was on the market. The landlord’s mother asked, if during the inspection, the landlord could show the woman around to which the tenant agreed.
The tenant states that after the visit, they called the landlord who advised them that the property had been on the market before the start of the tenancy but then taken off and relisted it without their knowledge, by an associate. The tenant states the landlord advised that the listing was going to be removed. The landlord arranged to carry out repairs on the property on 20 June 2020. On 17 June 2020, the landlord advised that while they were at the property the woman who had viewed the property previously wanted to do so again. The tenant agreed.
On 20 June 2020, the woman arrived before the landlord. The tenant states that the woman advised that there was, in fact, an open day and showed the listing on Trade Me. Before the landlord arrived, another man visited, also stating the there was an open day. The man left but returned after the landlord arrived. The tenant states that when challenged the landlord did not appear overly concerned and advised a number of people may arrive and asked whether it would be okay to show them around. The tenant states they felt obliged to agree but asked that the landlord not show the inside of the garage. The tenant states that around six people viewed the property, and despite their request the landlord was seen showing people the inside of the garage.
The tenant states that on 22 June 2020 the landlord advised that the property had been removed from the market and that they had three prospective purchasers. The tenant states that about a fortnight later they received a call from the landlord advising that more people where interested. When the tenant expressed surprise as the property had been supposedly taken off the market, the landlord advised that the people had expressed an interest while it was still on the market and had viewed it prior to the tenancy.
The tenant states that had been given not written notice and no prior warning of the open viewing. Despite agreeing to the viewings, the tenant stated that due to insufficient notice, they were unsettling and had impacted on the privacy of the other occupants. The tenant states at the time of entering the agreement they had noted a for sale sign in front of the property, but that the landlord’s mother, who handed the keys, advised that it had been taken off the market.
The tenant called [Witness] to give evidence. [Witness] took the promise to tell the truth. He stated that he was a friend of the tenant and had been at the property when the female, whom he believed had previously viewed the property arrived for a second viewing. [Witness] stated that he was present when the tenant and the woman were discussing the property. When the tenant stated she had been told the property was not on the market, the female produced her phone showing both the tenant and him the listing on Trade Me, confirming that it was on the market. [Witness] further states that he witnessed around four people visit and view the property and had heard the tenant ask the landlord to show the garage, as it has personal items, but that he had nevertheless done so, nonetheless.
[Witness] stated that he had been present when the landlord’s mother, who appeared to have been acting as an agent, showed the tenant the property and advised this it was for “long term rental,” inferring that it was no longer for sale. He added that the for-sale sign had also been removed two weeks after the start of the tenancy.
The tenant states that they discovered the property relisted on 25 October 2022 and that they had not been given notice.
The landlord stated that they had purchased and renovated the property, after which it had been listed for sale with an agency who advertised on Trade me. The landlord stated that Covid restrictions made it difficult to market the property. The property remained empty. The landlord states that while he resided elsewhere at the time, his parents resided nearby and were not affected by travel restrictions. The landlord states that the listing was amended to include a sitting tenant to attract more inquiries.
The landlord stated that the tenant expressed an interest in renting the property. The landlord states that he told the tenant that the property would remain on the market with a sitting tenant. The tenant denies this. The landlord states that although the sign may have been taken down that the property was never off the market until 22 June 2020, when he advised the tenant that three prospective purchasers had expressed an interest with the tenant remaining in occupation. The landlord questioned whether his mother would have told the tenant that the property was off the market but accepted that she may not have been aware of the landlord plans to continue to market the property for sale with a sitting tenant.
The landlord stated that the advertising of the open day for 20 June 2020, was a mistake, but that the tenant had agreed, and appeared happy to accommodate the viewings. The landlord states that the had been unaware that the property had been relisted again on 25 October 2020, and that it may have been by the listing agency acting unilaterally. The landlord could not recall being asked not to show the garage but stated that if such a request had been made, they would have viewed it as an unreasonable request, implying they would have done so regardless.
Section 47 (1) of the Act states that at any time after entering the agreement the landlord puts the property on the market they must as soon as reasonably practicable to give the tenant written notice. Under subsection (3) failure to do so is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $1,800.00 may be awarded.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises (see s 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986). Breaching 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 s 38(3) and Schedule 1A of the Act).
In the case of Smith v Floris, Auckland TT 1404/93, 9 March 1994 at 6, the Tribunal stated: Quiet enjoyment means effectively the right not to have the quality of the tenancy significantly impaired by actions of the landlord and/or the landlord’s agents. Balanced against that, however, one must bear in mind that landlord/tenant relationships tend to be between individuals and that will inevitably involve some interaction between them on a personal level. It is important not to allow a simple clash of personality to become the sole basis [ my emphasis] for a claim for breach of this type.
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 s 109(3) 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).
Black’s Law Dictionary defines harassment as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
These definitions suggest there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However, in Whatiura v Shoulder [1987] NZTT Palmerston North TT 12/87, the Adjudicator noted that: although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness”.
Each case will be therefore determined on the facts proven and require an objective assessment as to whether the nuisance or intrusion impacting the quality of the tenancy is over and above that which a tenant could be reasonably expected to endure.
The issue is whether any of the alleged incidents reach a threshold were they objectively amount to an interference with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy, and if so whether one, or more, or collectively they amount to harassment.
For there to be a breach of section 47(1) the tenant to establish that the property was more likely than not, not for sale at the commencement of the tenancy.
The landlord states that it was and that he advised the tenant. The landlord cannot state whether his mother knew what they had planned. As the for sale sign was visible, I am satisfied that the tenant would have likely enquired with the landlord’s mother. The tenant states that the landlord’s mother advised that the property was no longer for sale. [Witness] stated that the landlord’s mother had advised the property was available for long term rental, which he took to mean was no longer for sale. These are two different things.
Despite what the landlord’s mother may or may not have told the tenant, which I consider uncertain, I am satisfied that the property was being offered for sale at the commencement of the tenancy, but not being actively marketed due to Covid restrictions.
I do not accept that the advertised open day on 20 June 2020, was the result of a mistake. It is more than coincidental that the landlords visit to conduct repairs coincided with the viewing. I find that the landlord simply failed to advise the tenant in advance. I accept the tenant’s evidence that this put her in a position where she felt obliged to agree and that the lack of proper notice had interfered with their peace comfort and privacy. I find it more likely than not that the landlord was asked not to show people inside the garage but did so anyway. If proper notice had been given, allowing the tenant the opportunity to prepare, then the request would have been unreasonable. However, in this case, with no notice it was a reasonable request, and ignoring it was an interference.
While I am satisfied there has been an interference with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy, I do not consider it to have amounted to harassment. Considering the loss of amenity suffered, I award the tenant nominal damages of $150.00.
As stated, I am satisfied that the property was in fact on the market at the entering of the tenancy and on that basis, there was no obligation for the landlord to give notice. The tenant did not bring a claim for misrepresentation. Concerning the further listing on 25 October 2020, I do not accept that this had necessarily occurred without the knowledge of the landlord. The tenant had not been given notice.
While there has been a breach amounting to an unlawful act, section 109(2)(b) of the Act provides that any claim for exemplary damages for this breach must be made within twelve months after the date of the commission of the act.
Although not expressly stated in the Act in my view the provision should applied to be consistent with those of the Limitation Act 2010, which provides that time, in this case the twelve months in section 109(2)(b), begins when the applicant ought reasonably to have gained knowledge of the fact that the act or omission on which the claim is based had occurred.
In other words, in this case, the twelve months begins from when the tenant discovered on 25 October 2020, that they had not received the required notice. Costs
The tenant has been partly successful with their claims, there is no order for reimbursement of the filing fee. Name suppression
Both parties seek name 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.
The landlord has been substantially successful defending the claims made against them and is granted name suppression.
Section 95A (4) of the Act allows the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, to order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.
It cannot be said that the tenant has been substantially successful in these claims, and no other grounds have been advanced in support of name suppression. However, the tenant’s witness [Witness], is not a party and the Tribunal orders suppression of his name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4523709 — Mould & damp

Tenancy Tribunal case 4523709 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions