Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 4563776 — Tenancy dispute at 60 Martin Road, RD 2, Upper Moutere 7175
Decided 4 Sept 2023 · Published 4 Sept 2023 · Application 4563776
- Exemplary damages
- Harassment
- Healthy homes
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
- Stefan Hajszan and Elke Hajszan must pay [The tenant/s] $2,280.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing on 10 August 2023.
- The tenants sought compensation of $75,6000 and cited unlawful acts of the landlord. These have been treated as claims for exemplary damages where appropriate.
- This hearing was a continuation after a first hearing confirmed jurisdiction of this Tribunal and adjourned the matter for a second hearing. While the landlords did not attend that first hearing, they had made prior submissions refuting this jurisdiction. In a letter to the Tribunal on 2 June 2023 they stated “we do not understand or recognise you as you appear to be acting as a third party interloper and are thus a stranger to the facts. Lacking subject matter jurisdiction, no proceeding can commence”.
- The adjourning order dated 28 June 2023 confirmed jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Essentially, I considered the agreement of 31 May 2022 between the parties confirmed the “Private Community Principal” as the landlord, as envisaged in the above definition. The “Private Community Member” was a tenant. Many of the key terms in that agreement were consistent with those expected in a residential tenancy agreement.
- By the time of this continuation hearing the landlords revised their position and accepted jurisdiction. They engaged fully in the hearing, and it is expected they work within the statutory requirements for residential tenancies going forward. The introduction of written tenancy agreements with other residents and the lodging of the bonds is a positive start.
- The landlord has been advised in the first order that their claims against the tenants should form in a counterclaim that could be considered at the same hearing. No counterclaim was lodged.
- That order of 28 June 2023 also stated: [13] From the nature of some of the claims and the evidence provided to date, I also require confirmation regarding the lawfulness of the premises. Given the premises were recently constructed, along with a number of other similar dwellings, it should be straightforward for the landlord to provide the appropriate resource and building consents, or in the alternative the basis of any exemption or exclusion, to confirm it is lawful status. Such written confirmation is expected before the next hearing.
- Therefore, this hearing considered claims regarding the lawfulness of the premises, the return of the bond, the failure of the landlord to lodge the bond, landlord breaches of quiet enjoyment, landlord failures to maintain and adhere to Healthy Home standards pertaining to the minimum ventilation requirements, and illegal termination.
- A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
- The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
- Much of the submissions regarding the claims reply on recounting of verbal interactions or understandings. There is some written record at the commencement and final stage of the tenancy; these were of benefit.
- In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered. Background
- Before forming the “private community” the property owned by the landlords was developed with four cabins and an administration office built at the rear of their rural property. They continued to live in the main house.
- Land use consent to construct and operate tourist accommodation units (four self-contained units) and an associated administration office in the Rural 2 Zone was authorised via an appropriate resource consent. A later variation was sought and approved for the administration office to also be used for accommodation. The resource consent was for short-term stays of no longer that three months.
- The landlords submitted they have a further application with the Tasman District Council for a further resource consent for the dwellings to be let for long-term residential use. This was not evidenced but I accepted the submission. This process may establish further consenting requirements that improve the operation of the multiple tenancies at the property.
- The private community concept was developed later by the landlords, in some way due to the adverse impact of the Covid-19 restrictions on the short-term accommodation market. This resulted in some further development or extension of accessways to the dwellings, beyond that initially consented.
- This tenancy was established on 31 May 2022 and commenced 1 June 2022.
- The tenants responded to an online advertisement on TradeMe and subsequently inspected the premises approximately one week before. A “few days” later they accepted the offer. They moved in on 31 May 2022 and that same evening they were presented and signed a four-page agreement.
- The other dwellings were rented out. The landlord continued to live in the main house at the property. Unlawful premises
- The Tribunal may declare premises to be unlawful residential premises. See section 77(2)(ac) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Residential premises are unlawful if they cannot be lawfully occupied for residential purposes, and the landlord has caused or contributed to the unlawful occupation by failing to comply with sections 36 or 45(1)(c) RTA. See section 78A(2) RTA.
- Where the Tribunal declares the residential premises to be unlawful, it must not make an order for rent arrears or compensation against the tenant unless, having regard to the special circumstances of the case, it would be unjust not to make the order. The Tribunal may order the return of all rent paid by the tenant, although it may deduct an amount from that sum if, in the special circumstances of the case, it would be fair to do so. The Tribunal may also make a work order requiring the landlord to remove any impediment to lawful occupation or to comply with any building, health or safety requirements. The Tribunal may make any of these orders on its own initiative, even if the tenant has not applied for a particular order. See sections 78A(3)(a), (4) and (5) RTA.
- The confirmation or otherwise of the consented status of the dwelling might assist in assessing the extent or impact of a number of landlord failings claimed by the tenants.
- From the evidence provided, I do not find the dwelling fails to meet the requirements of the building consent and appropriate code of compliance have been issued. The lack of appropriate resource consent for the use of the dwellings for long-term residential use rather than short-term is a breach insomuch the premises cannot be lawfully occupied for such a purpose. That may change pending a further resource consent approval.
- In Tenant v Krankenberg & Anor [2021] 4298196, 4294929 the Tribunal summarised the factors relevant to awarding any compensation under s 78A(4) as follows: a. The landlord’s motivation for renting the property, and their conduct during the tenancy. b. The tenant’s motivation for renting the property and bringing the claim, and the length of and time they lived in the property. c. The benefits the landlord received in renting the property. d. The benefits the tenant received in renting the property. e. The seriousness of the regulatory breaches making the premises unlawful. f. Any other breaches by the landlord. g. Any detriment or loss the tenant suffered. h. The purpose of s 78A in ensuring landlords do not unfairly profit from unlawful premises. i. The public interest in discouraging unlawful tenancies. j. Any other compensation or exemplary damages that are ordered.
- I consider the lack of an appropriate resource consent here to be a technical breach and I do not make any order regarding the lawfulness or otherwise per s 78A. I do not consider, in the circumstances here, that to do so would be fair at this time, noting the consideration of other compensation orders.
- Given that, I turn to specific requirements for residential tenancies. Tenancy agreement
- The landlord failed in meeting a number of other landlord requirements regarding the content of tenancy agreements (see s 13A RTA). These are not addressed individually here.
- Given the stance of the landlord and their belief at formation that this was not a residential tenancy, a number of technical unlawful acts have occurred. HHS Compliance
- [The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] consider that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard.
- Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy but for a private rental such as here it must comply within 90 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021, with all private rentals complying by 1 July 2024.
- The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
- The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances, but I see no application of any exemption here.
- Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
- The landlord committed an unlawful act in not providing extractor fans as required within 90 days of the tenancy commencing. Failure to maintain
- It is well settled that, the landlord’s obligation under s45 is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be.
- Furthermore, a tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) RTA. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.
- The tenants claim that the landlord failed to remedy several repair issues within a reasonable timeframe.
- There were no curtains provided. This was explained by the landlord as being due to the attractive rural outlook. There is no statutory requirement for curtains, but it may be an implied term of a tenancy agreement that curtains are provided for windows, particularly in bedrooms for privacy and comfort for sleeping. The tenants hung curtains of their own.
- Pathway/drive-on access. There was a designated car park some distance from the cabin. Such an arrangement would have worked for the initial short- term accommodation but as the more permanent tenancies formed, changes to access resulted. In this instance, the tenants started driving across a patch of bare land to get close access to the premises. This use does not appear to have been challenged or blocked by the landlord. This access appears to have led to a change in rainfall drainage. Certainly the access walkway from the designated carparking area showed signs of deterioration with a loss of metal and some vegetation appearing. The tenants claim rainwater runoff down the accessway caused the deterioration, the landlord stated it was from the unformed access and rough-cut steps in the bank down to the premises. There was discussion between the parties regarding more metal and maintenance. The tenants unilaterally laid a concrete patch and drain in an attempt to negate the access issue problems. This did not resolve the problem.
- Internet access was promised but access was an issue. This was resolved by the tenants at their cost. The cost compensated by the landlords but there was a delay and impact on the tenants’ prior access.
- A number of drainage and access issue to other parts of the premises, and to areas best considered communal, were also raised.
- The respective requirements of sections 40 and 45 place responsibilities on both parties. I have considered the submissions and evidence of both parties pertaining these in establishing the compensation as ordered below. Bond Bond not lodged
- The tenant claims the landlord failed to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the required period.
- A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received (see s 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986). This applies whether the bond is paid in part or whole.
- Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00 (see s 19(2) and Schedule 1A RTA.
- 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) RTA).
- A bond is the tenants’ money and must be lodged with the Bond Centre within the statutory time limit to protect the tenants’ interests. Lodging a bond is not a conditional obligation but a mandatory one and it is in the public interest that landlords fulfil their obligations under the Act. If no penalty is imposed there can be no deterrent.
- The failure to lodge the bond must be intentional for exemplary damages to be awarded. Therefore, damages will not be awarded where non-lodgement is a genuine oversight, rather than an intentional act (Chief Executive for Housing New Zealand v Walls [1993] NZTT Auckland 548/92).
- However, the Tribunal may draw an inference of intent where the landlord claims to have simply forgotten, as a landlord should have systems in place to ensure this does not happen. Exemplary damages have been awarded where: the landlord has no explanation for the non-lodgement and has other tenancies (Jones v Ying [2001] NZTT Auckland 2783/01); the landlord is experienced (Hart v Allen Realty Ltd [2003] NZTT Auckland 2183/02); and where the landlord knew of the obligation from the bond form signed by the tenant (Fu v Florendo [2013] DC Manukau, CIV-2013-092-2373).
- While the landlord clearly failed to lodge the bond, having considered the submissions and facts in this instance, I decline to make any order for exemplary damages here. The landlord now is using residential tenancy agreements for those residing at the property and future breaches
- Exemplary damages are punitive in nature. Where appropriate, an award is made in addition to compensation to mark the breach and deter repeat offences.
- No exemplary damages are ordered. Return of the bond
- Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenant.
- I note that the landlord had inferred some potential claims in correspondence, but no counterclaim has been filed. Quiet enjoyment
- 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 RTA).
- 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) RTA).
- 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.
- I do not find any unlawful act per s 38(3) has been committed by the landlord.
- The other obligation of the landlord regarding tenant quiet enjoyment is specified in s 45(1)(e) RTA. This requires the landlord takes all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenants in the use of their premises. The landlord relied on the mechanisms within the private community but those processes do not appear to have successfully dealt with issues as they arose and the alternative collective approach cannot absolve the landlord from its responsibilities.
- I have considered the submissions and evidence of both parties pertaining to quiet enjoyment in establishing the compensation sum as ordered below. Termination
- The landlords stated the agreement was “akin to a fixed term tenancy” and they believed they could give notice to end it at the end of the term. This is incorrect and s 60A RTA does not permit a unilateral termination at the end of the tenancy by a landlord. I note the landlords listed a number of other grounds to end the tenancy due to tenant behaviour. The appropriate recourse for any such claims and subsequent termination, if merited, is not through such cancellation as occurred here.
- The notice to the tenants that the tenancy would end was served on 26 March 2023.
- It is noted the tenants left before of their own accord and they stated they would have left sooner if able. I am also mindful of terms as accepted in the formation agreement.
- The decision to terminate the fixed-term tenancy was without any statutory basis and was unlawful. If challenged by the tenants at the time it would more than likely have been deemed of no effect but it was clear that the friction within the community made an exit for the tenants equally desirable for them. Witness statements
- Both parties provided written statements from witnesses, or character references. These are acknowledged but as a collective they were of minimal use as they effectively supported the already disparate positions or character of the parties, effectively cancelling each other out. Manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised
- Section 85 RTA outlines the manner this Tribunal should exercise its jurisdiction. It states: (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. (2) The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.
- I am mindful of the intent of this section and its appropriate application in this matter. The private community may not have provided the experience or benefits the tenants had anticipated. There were interactions recounted that are akin to a communal function but other examples highlighted the challenge in managing the relationship between the landlord and tenants, as well as between the various tenants.
- I do find the tenants entered into the arrangement aware of the community aspect of the arrangements. They also has the opportunity to inspect the property before accepting. Some two days prior to the tenancy forming the tenants messaged the landlords saying, “It was awesome meeting you both today, thanks for taking the time to show us around. We would love to join your little community and move into the cottage. We all share the same interests and lifestyles, so think it is a great fit.” In a later message the tenants reply to the landlord that “the contract looks great”.
- The tenants mentioned a number of verbal assurances they received from the landlord that the stay would operate as a residential tenancy per the Residential Tenancy Act 1986. These have not been proven. Given some of the issues raised at the end of the tenancy, prior notices to remedy served on the landlord or similar assertion of tenant rights would have strengthened their argument.
- The rent take is not insignificant, and it is retained by the landlord. In the landlord’s submission they stated, “We believe the community contribution fee 1 is consistent with market rent.” The community benefits do not extend to cheap accommodation and the landlords will need to consider to how best balance their obligations as a landlord to all of the tenancies while operating within a private community. It should not be insurmountable.
- The tenants made a written response to the landlord’s prior written submission. At [32] they acknowledge that they have “been asking the landlords to educate 1 The community contribution fee was the weekly sum paid by the tenants – it is considered rent. themselves and update dwellings, contracts, and behaviour since March 2023”. They note the landlords’ refusal and their refuting of jurisdiction from that time but this was near the end of the tenancy that had commenced much earlier on 31 May 2022. Prior to March 2023 there is evidence of both parties having flexibility in the arrangements. For the tenants that included installing a shed, clothesline, water tank, a chicken run (a later source of friction within the community), creating an unformed “driveway” to create a parking spot by the premises (complete with a cut stairway), and laying a concrete pad to try and improve access. There was some sharing of tools and firewood availability, but it does not appear that the community engaged in deeper collective activities.
- I do not find it established that the tenants were asserting their statutory rights prior to 27 March 2023 and I consider they were informed when joining the community and engaged in its operation during 2022 and early 2023. Based on some of the messaging viewed, it was not all bad. Once the notice to terminate was served by the landlord on 26 March 2023 these was an escalation and more formal assertion of rights by the tenants. Around this time there were issues and tensions arising within the community. The change in the tenants circumstances and needs during, and after the pregnancy into 2023, compounded some of these. Unfortunately for the tenants, earlier messages between them and other residents regarding issues such as noise from the farming activities or lack of curtains do not suffice to establish the landlord was aware of any such impacts.
- Lastly, while the landlords have not lodged a counterclaim, there is evidence of exit issues they had to address. Given the root cause of some issues might be argued as tenant responses to landlord or premises failings, such costs may have balanced out regardless. Compensation
- Section 77(2)(n) RTA allows the Tribunal to grant general damages where a landlord or a tenant has breached a provision of the RTA. These damages can include an amount for distress and pain and suffering.
- In Palmer v Housing New Zealand (No 2) Auckland TT 2378/92, 25 August 1993 and upheld in the District Court decision of Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust, CIV -2018-009-002094 [2020] NZDC 17667 at paragraph [36], three factors were set out that the Tribunal should take into account when making a damages award, being: a. The nature of the breach b. The duration of the breach c. The effect of the breach.
- Appellate Courts have advised of the need to adopt a global approach when considering compensation awards. They have repeatedly emphasized that the assessment of the proper amount of compensation is a question of fact in each case; it is not an exact exercise and a common-sense approach is required; that there are no general or absolute rules for calculating the amount of compensation but that the primary purpose of awarding compensation is to reflect the extent of the loss actually and reasonably suffered by the injured party
- The requirements for the Healthy Homes standards are well publicised but it is accepted these requirements pertain to residential tenancies only and were not a requirement for the initial building consent. However, the variation to the resource consent so the administrative office could be converted for habited use required ventilation requirements had been upgraded to require this by that time.
- The lack of mechanical ventilation in the kitchen or bathroom were cited by the tenants as having a detrimental impact. In the kitchen they claimed the opening of the window when cooking made the gas hob prone to being blown out by the wind. In the bathroom, they stated the lack of any mechanical extraction meant they had to have the window open, and more concerningly, leave the bathroom door open (more so after their baby was born) when using the shower. They claimed this meant they has no privacy at these times.
- Having reviewed the configuration and aspect of the dwelling at the property, I do not find either cited problem, from a neutral perspective, can be correlated with the significant distress claimed. I accept privacy was important to one tenant, especially after the birth of her child, but in the absence of evidence of clear communication to the landlord of this heightened sensitivity, especially prior to March 2023 I do not find grounds for the significant compensation as sought are established.
- The other issues regarding quiet enjoyment (stock management, fencing and foot traffic) and failures to maintain (access to gas bottles, chicken coop, walkway) have been considered and they face a similar challenge. The nature of the community living and lack of clearly defined boundaries, and absence of sufficient evidence of any of the issues being raised with the landlord in a timely manner, makes retrospective assignment of any landlord failure problematic to me. Some of the problems appear to be as much a result of tenant action as any landlord failure.
- I have attempted to balance the community benefits received by the tenants against the impacts on the tenants from a lack of a bond lodgement, illegal termination by the landlord, internet connectivity. I also consider the community consultation approach, while laudable, was not sufficient to conclude the landlord took all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants interfered with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenants.
- By way of calculating any sum for general compensation, given the overall circumstances of this tenancy I have considered the landlords’ characterisation of the rent as being at market. I do not consider the tenants received the equivalent of market rent and have used a $20.00 per week reduction for the approximate tenancy duration to determine a compensation order of $1000.00.
Should exemplary damages be awarded?
- As I have determined that the landlord committed unlawful acts I must decide if it is appropriate to award exemplary damages.
- Exemplary damages under the Act are different from compensation. The provision of such damages is designed to punish and deter; Attorney-General (Commissioner of Crown Lands) v Little Bo Peep Sheep Company Ltd (HC CIV 2010-412-134).
- 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) RTA
- There have been numerous unlawful acts by the landlord.
- As described by Cooke P in Auckland City Council v Blundell 2 : 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.
- The landlord adopted a confrontational approach to the Tribunal process prior to just before the second hearing. It would have been better for all if they had accepted jurisdiction and implemented appropriate landlord processes well before the second hearing. I do not accept they suffer from any disadvantage due to English not being their first language. I rather think they may have received some poor advice.
- However, I do not consider this is something that exemplary damages under the RTA is intended to punish. By a fine margin I have decided the landlord acted without intent as envisaged by the RTA. In deciding this I have considered the lack of any documented tenant assertion prior to 27 March 2023 and the tenants’ engagement within the community structure. Therefore, no exemplary damages are ordered. In landing on this outcome I have been mindful of the period after 27 March 2023 when I believe any prior misconception regarding their landlord status and obligations should have reasonably been reassessed after the tenant notice. From that point the messaging between the parties provided some evidence that suggests the landlord adopted an appropriate 2 Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] 1 NZLR 732 (CA) at 704. stance. One example was a written request by the tenants of a “48 hour notice period prior to any viewing”, with the landlord response, “Yes, we will text you with 48 hours notice prior to a viewing”. That was adhered to.
- I have also accepted the belated acceptance by the landlords of their status and responsibilities under the RTA. They are cautioned that just signing a residential tenancy agreement and lodging any bond received will not be sufficient defence to any future failures under the RTA. Application filing fee
- [The applicant/s] established sufficient grounds to justify their application therefore I have reimbursed the filing fee. That is primarily with regard to the bond dispute at the date of lodging. Suppression
- Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
- Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
- The tenants request suppression. The application has not been as successful as the tenants might have expected but that reflects the somewhat unique circumstances of their opting into the community. Their application highlighted landlord failings that otherwise may have continued and for that reason, having regard to public interest in having tenants bring such claims to the Tribunal without fear of any later adverse impact on their tenant history, I consider it appropriate to grant them suppression.