What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4782533 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $2,020.44 immediately calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4782533?

Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4782533?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4782533?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10133106-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4782533 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $2,020.44 immediately calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4782533?

Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4782533?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4782533?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10133106-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4782533 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4782533 — net $2,020.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: retaliatory notice	$2,000.00	retaliatory notice
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,020.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,020.44

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4782533 — net $2,020.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: retaliatory notice	$2,000.00	retaliatory notice
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,020.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,020.44

Order

[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $2,020.44 immediately calculated as shown in table below:
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,800.00 immediately calculated as shown in table below:
An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing of this application which has been brought essentially as a class or joint application relating to an alleged five tenancies. I use the term alleged as the tenants, (as I will collectively refer to them), are all of the view that they have separate tenancies with the landlord, however [The landlord/s] considers them all as one group tenancy.
The background is this; in early 2023 [The landlord/s] was having difficulty renting this five bedroomed property out to a group. She therefore commenced advertising the rooms individually, seeking “flatmates”. [Tenant 1], [Tenant 2], [Tenant 3] and [Tenant 4] all responded to the advertisement separately. They all engaged separately with [The landlord/s] and agreed to rent the rooms separately.
[The landlord/s] sent them each a group tenancy agreement (the tenancy agreement). The tenancy agreement was of a relatively standard form, had their four names and a total rental price of $1,495 (higher than the sum of their room rates). It was a fixed term tenancy between 5 February 2023 and 7 February 2024.
[Tenant 2] signed the tenancy agreement without giving it much thought. [Tenant 3] questioned it asking for clarification on the process for moving out.
[Tenant 1] and [Tenant 4] did not sign the tenancy agreement nor give any explanation for their failure to [The landlord/s]. They tell me their reason for not signing in February 2023 was that it did not align with their understanding of the arrangement they had. [The landlord/s] did not follow up with them. They all paid their bond and initial rent for their rooms and moved in.
There was one further room to be filled and [The landlord/s] continued advertising for a “flatmate” to fill it having to reduce the price to do so. She eventually found a couple who moved in. In November, that couple decided to move on and assigned their tenancy to [Tenant 5] and [Tenant 6] telling them the tenancy was just for the room and was for a fixed term.
[Tenant 5] and [Tenant 6] were provided with a Change of Tenant Agreement that notes the following (alongside the other standard terms): a. What their portion of rent and bond was. b. That it was for a fixed term between 20 November 2023 and 7 February 2024. c. The names of the other ‘occupants’ of the property.
They did not sign this as it was not how they understood the arrangement to be. When they were trying to obtain a WINZ grant for their bond, they asked [The landlord/s] for a full tenancy agreement. She provided them with the tenancy agreement however as this did not accord with the arrangement they thought they had for the property, they did not provide it to WINZ and did not pay a bond.
Discussions commenced in November 2023 regarding a new tenancy upon expiry of the fixed term. These resulted in the tenants issuing a 14-day Notice to Remedy (the 14-day notice) on 11 January, and on 12 January [The landlord/s] issued a 90-day notice to terminate the tenancy (the 90-day notice).
The tenants subsequently filed their application with the Tribunal and on 15 January 2024. [Tenant 5] and [Tenant 6] gave notice to [The landlord/s] that they would be ending their tenancy with the fixed term on 11 February 2024. [The landlord/s] responded by giving notice that she deemed [Tenant 5]’ and [Tenant 6]’s notice as notice for all tenants and as such they would all need to vacate by the 11 th (the confirmation notice).
On 28 January [Tenant 1], [Tenant 2], [Tenant 3] and [Tenant 4] gave separate notice to vacate on 11 February due to advice received from Tenancy Services.
The tenants now seek compensation and exemplary damages for various alleged breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) by [The landlord/s].
I consider the claims separately below, however the first question I need to decide is whether these tenants had individual tenancies with [The landlord/s], or whether this was a joint tenancy.
Before doing so it is useful if I outline the requirements for proof. In the Tenancy Tribunal, applicants are required to establish the case to the civil standard of “balance of probabilities”. This means that they must establish that the situation is more likely than not to be as they argue or allege. This means they cannot just allege something; they must adduce evidence to persuade me that their version of events is the correct one.
Finally, I note that considerable evidence and submissions were filed in this case. Whilst it has not all been included in this decision for obvious reasons of brevity, the parties can be assured it has all been considered.

What is the nature of the tenancy or tenancies?

As discussed at the hearing, these relationships appear to be a hybrid of a flat share arrangement and a singular tenancy. [The landlord/s] had advertised for flatmates however not on her own behalf given she doesn’t live there.
There is no conclusive document agreed to by all that describes the relationship. The tenancy agreement is not signed by all and clearly not agreed to by all. The only clear terms were with respect to the individual rent amounts, the fixed term and occupancy.
Accordingly, I must consider whether the parties have a constructive tenancy 1 (one that is not recorded on paper but none the less exists) and if so, what form that takes. In doings so I turn to the fundamental elements of a contract: a. Was an offer made? b. Was there unequivocal acceptance? c. Was there agreement on the fundamental terms? d. Was their intention to create legal obligations?
[The landlord/s]’s offer was made to each of the four initial tenants individually prefaced as a flat share and specified with individual rates. The individual rates did not equate to the collective rate as referenced on the tenancy agreement. Such an offer is usually one which one tenant would make to another. The offer therefore was for occupation of a room in a house shared with others for a specific rate and term.
[The landlord/s] submits that the tenants, by their moving in, accepted the tenancy agreement which they had already seen. She further points to the signing of the change of tenant form by all tenants when [Tenant 7] and [Tenant 8] vacated in November as further indication of their intention. Further still she references an email from [Tenant 3] saying he would have the other tenants sign the tenancy agreement (this did not eventuate).
Each of the four initially accepted the offer to move into the house in exchange for a specific rental which related to their room. They did see the drafted tenancy agreement before they did so, but did not all sign it. Because of this there was clearly not unequivocal agreement on the fundamental terms. For it to be binding, it would have required consensus by all parties.
I am satisfied that none of the tenants individually intended to create a legal relationship with [The landlord/s] as a group. This is evidenced by [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 4] not signing the agreement, [Tenant 5] and [Tenant 6] not accepting it as valid and [Tenant 3] questioning it. They did all know they would be living with each other, but did not consent to contracting with each other, only [The landlord/s].
I cannot therefore be satisfied that the tenants as a whole intended to enter a group tenancy with [The landlord/s]. They did however agree to contract with her separately and as such, each held individual tenancies with her.
There is some evidence of [The landlord/s] being of this impression as well. The following are examples: 1 See section 13C: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other enactment, no tenancy agreement, or variation or renewal of a tenancy agreement, shall be unenforceable on the grounds that it is not in writing. i. In the cover emails attaching the tenancy agreement in January 2023, [The landlord/s] stated “Your room rate as single tenants”. ii. [The landlord/s]’s response to [Tenant 3]’s questioning of the process for tenant replacement by email of 1 February 2023 saying “you are responsible for finding your own replacement(s) if you needed to move on during your fixed term and paying your rent until that time.” Thereby inferring individual liability. iii. Primarily communicating separately with each tenant. iv. By issuing a 14-day notice to [Tenant 5] and [Tenant 6] for rent they had missed. v. Having individual rent registers for each tenant. vi. By email 12 December [The landlord/s] writes: “we will require a single property tenancy after your fix term expires, so the management of individual tenants across the properties has proven too hard to manage. I hope this still works for you. vii. By email 4 January [The landlord/s] writes: Please let me know if you would like to continue on a single tenancy basis. viii. By dealing with compensation for damage in one tenant’s room with that tenant directly.
The common law doctrine of “contra proferentem” contributes to my finding. Also known as "interpretation against the draftsman", it is a doctrine of contractual interpretation providing that, where a promise, agreement or term is ambiguous, the preferred meaning should be the one that works against the interests of the party who provided the wording. The doctrine is often applied to situations involving standardised contracts or where the parties are of unequal bargaining power, and I find both of those features are present here.
The reasoning behind this rule is to encourage the drafter of a contract to be as clear and explicit as possible and to take into account as many foreseeable situations as it can. Contra proferentem also places the cost of losses on the party who was in the best position to avoid the harm. This is generally the person who drafted the contract or created the agreement, here [The landlord/s].
[The landlord/s] is an experienced landlord who has managed and does manage a number of tenancies. This is her occupation and as such she holds the power in a relationship such as this. The tenants were all young students many of whom did not feel able to negotiate even had they understood the legal niceties surrounding the confusing situation.
I appreciate that [The landlord/s] did not intend to mislead the tenants when she created the relationships, but the reality is that she did. She advertised an arrangement that held each tenant individually liable for their particular rental obligations. The terms she used in inducement were that which a tenant as defined at law might advertise for a flatmate. These two entities have very different legal obligations and responsibilities.
Essentially [The landlord/s] advertised for one arrangement and then attempted to contract for another, quite different relationship. That latter arrangement was not agreed to; therefore the former has remained.
I therefore accept this application as separate claims taken individually by [The tenant/s]. For obvious practical reasons I issue the decision collectively.

Was the bond lodged in accordance with the RTA?

It is accepted that [The landlord/s] did not lodge the bonds of [Tenant 1], [Tenant 2], [Tenant 3] and [Tenant 4] until 11 January 2024 (after they had served her with a 14-day notice to do so) despite the tenancies commencing on 5 February 2023. This is in breach of 19(1) of the RTA which states that a landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A RTA. Accordingly, I find that [The landlord/s] has committed an unlawful act. The tenants seek the maximum exemplary damages for this breach.
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. 2
The District Court has held that where there are or may be multiple breaches of the RTA for the same action, only one order of exemplary damages may be made. 3 This finding was in relation to one tenancy however I consider that the principle applies where there is one unlawful act affecting multiple tenancies as here.
In assessing the factors of section 109 RTA in consideration of an award of exemplary damages, I note the following here: a. [The landlord/s]’s reasoning is that she did not lodge the bond as the tenants did not sign the bond form and she did not have all the bonds to submit them jointly. She then forgot about it. 2 See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 3 Gardiner v Upland Bay Investments Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2014-085-13, 27 August 2014; and Manage My Rental Limited v Baxter [2015] NZDC 12011 b. When she realised her error, she immediately lodged it, albeit a year later. c. The effect on the tenants was to increase their sense of distrust in their landlord and exacerbate their concern at the situation in which they were living. d. The tenants gave evidence that another of [The landlord/s]’s properties had also not had their bond lodged. She accepted this with an explanation relating to names of tenants. e. There is considerable public interest in lodging bonds with the Bond Centre. They are tenant monies only to be released to a landlord upon agreement or Tribunal order.
In assessing the above, I consider that an award of $1,000 is justified here. The failure to lodge the bond is a further example of the confusing and lackadaisical approach the landlord took to this tenancy. A landlord ought to know that if they do not have good processes, failing to lodge the bond is a likely consequence which is an unlawful act. For it to happen in more than one tenancy is unacceptable.
As the unlawful act was one act, the award is made as one amount and the tenants who have been affected can distribute it amongst themselves as they consider just.

Were the termination notices unlawful?

The tenants collectively seek an award of exemplary damages and compensation relating to their termination notices.
Two documented attempts were made to end this tenancy, as follows: i. On 12 January [The landlord/s] sent the 90-day notice to all tenants to end the tenancy on 13 April 2024 for the reason that she intended to sell the property. This notice was issued the day following the tenants serving the 14-day notice on [The landlord/s]. ii. After [Tenant 5] and [Tenant 6] had given their 28 days’ notice, [The landlord/s] then on 16 January sent a letter to the other tenants advising that she considered the 28-day notice applied to them all and as such confirmed that the tenancy would end on 11 February: the confirmation notice.
The tenants also consider that [The landlord/s] attempted to unlawfully end the tenancy by failing to allow their fixed terms to roll into periodic tenancies as required by section 60A.
The tenants submit that the 90-day notice was retaliatory and as such unlawful, and that the confirmation notice was provided knowing it was incorrect which is also unlawful. They seek exemplary damages for all three attempts to end the tenancy which they consider breaches of sections 54 and 60AA of the RTA respectively.

Was the termination notice retaliatory?

I discuss firstly section 54 of the RTA. This section provides that in deciding whether the 90-day notice is retaliatory there are four issues to consider: i. Is the 90 day notice a valid notice that complies with section 51? The 90 day notice does comply with the procedural requirements of section 51. ii. Has the application has been made in time (within 28 days of service of the notice)? Yes. iii. The onus is then on the tenant to establish that the landlord was wholly or partly motivated in giving the 90-day notice, by the tenant exercising their rights, in this case, to issue a 14-day notice. Where the tenant has raised issues prior to service of the 90-day notice, there is a rebuttable presumption that the landlord was wholly or partly motivated by the tenant’s action and the onus shifts to the landlord that to establish that they were not so motivated.
A notice can be retaliatory and be issued for a correct reason. If that reason, for example a desire to sell, was sparked in part by a tenant’s exercise of their rights, then it will be a situation where the reason given was correct, but the motivation was retaliatory.
The tenants submit that the 90-day notice coming the day after their 14-day notice, shows a direct link. They also say it is relevant that it was issued after they declined to accept the request for a new singular tenancy at a higher amount.
[The landlord/s]’s evidence is that she made the decision to end the tenancy for a variety of reasons, some of which were personal, others financial, but also contributing were the actions of the tenants at 155b (the adjoining tenancy) and the difficulties she was having with these tenants.
Given [The landlord/s] has accepted that the tenants’ actions in challenging the nature of the tenancy and issuing the 14-day notice the day prior partially impacted on her decision to issue the 90-day notice, I find that the criteria in section 54 are met. Accordingly, I find the 90-day notice retaliatory and as such find that [The landlord/s] has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has issued a retaliatory notice, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $6,500.00 where it is satisfied it would be just to do so taking into account the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. For completeness, the giving of a retaliatory notice does not have to be intentional to award exemplary damages for a breach. 4
[The landlord/s] submits that it would not be fair to award exemplary damages for the following reasons: a. The way the tenants approached the issue in late 2023 was non- conciliatory and inflammatory. b. No concern had been raised about these issues prior to this time, they only arose when she attempted to align the rental payments upon the expiry of the fixed term. c. She did want to sell the property and has now done so.
The tenants submit that the 90-day notice had an extreme effect on them. They had not wanted to move and had travel plans which made this timing difficult as they felt they had to move given a Tribunal ruling could not be obtained prior to the date they had been given to vacate. They had to take unexpected leave and sick days to vacate which placed a significant amount of stress on them. They lost all faith in their landlord and felt extremely vulnerable.
Of additional relevance the tenants submit, is [The landlord/s]’s long history as a landlord and property investor. This the tenants say means that she must be well aware of the law and if she is not, that is unacceptable. [The landlord/s]’s submission is that she had used a property manager for many years and when she took back the management just before this tenancy, she accepts she had lost track of the law.
In assessing the factors of s109 of the RTA to consider an award of exemplary damages, I note the strong public interest in ensuring that tenants not be penalised by losing their home in retaliation for asserting their rights. The facts that there is no intentional element required and the maximum amount is set very high indicate the seriousness with which the Government takes such a situation.
Having considered all of the above, I find that a collective award of $2,000 is justified in the circumstances. [The landlord/s] issued the notice in frustration at the tenants’ actions thereby initiating a series of events that resulted in them losing their home. One award is made, and the tenants can distribute it amongst themselves as they consider just. 4 See section 109(3) and (3A) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
As an aside, [Tenant 5] made the submission that given [The landlord/s] is the landlord to at least six tenancies, the amount of exemplary damages should be considered in line with column 3 rather than column 4. He was in fact referring to the table of fines and infringement fees as noted in schedule 1B of the RTA. These relate to infringement offences and not unlawful acts for which exemplary damages in accordance with schedule 1A relate. Accordingly, the amount is set as a maximum figure as discussed.

Were the termination notices given unlawfully?

Turning to section 60AA. Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so. Breaching section 60AA without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00. 5
The tenants submit that all three attempts to end the tenancy were breaches of section 60AA. They say that [The landlord/s] did not have an intention to sell which was evidenced by her advertising this premise and 155b for rental at the relevant time, offering them a renewed tenancy and failing to provide evidence of her intention when it was requested. 155b was ultimately rented out for a fixed term of a year in early January, around the same time as these termination notices were given. Further they submit, the notices were issued after the tenants refused to change their tenancies to a group tenancy upon the expiry of their fixed terms. Also relevant is that [The landlord/s] did offer to rescind the confirmation notice and 90-day notice if the other tenants would agree to a joint/group tenancy with a rent increase thereby exerting pressure on them to accept her terms.
I decline to consider the 90-day notice in this claim as section 54 provides statutory deterrence in the instance of a retaliatory notice, and it was not the intention of Parliament to have two sections to the same end.
I am also satisfied that [The landlord/s]’s advice to the tenants that if they did not agree to an amalgamated tenancy at the end of their fixed term then their tenancies would end was unlawful. This is because pursuant to section 60A of the RTA, a fixed term becomes periodic upon its expiry unless there is agreement or tenant notice (not relevant here). However, as [The landlord/s] did not serve an actual notice to terminate, rather she was manoeuvring a situation of tenancy end, section 60AA cannot be applied to this situation.
I therefore turn to the confirmation notice. [The landlord/s], in the confirmation notice, confirmed her understanding that [Tenant 5] and [Tenant 6]’s notice 5 See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 applied to all the tenants and directed that the tenancies would all end on the same date. This was based on her view that the tenancy was one with all tenants and so when one tenant gave notice, they did so for all tenants. The latter is a correct understanding of the law, the former is not.
With respect to [The landlord/s] tenanting 155b and advertising 155a for rent prior to the sale, I accept her evidence that she was attempting to cater to purchaser requirement in tenanting half of the property prior to sell. These actions do however lend themselves to an interpretation of [The landlord/s] attempting to evict these particular tenants. This further supports my finding that the notice was retaliatory which is an issue I consider sufficiently dealt with above.
Looking at the situation holistically, I find it established that [The landlord/s] did attempt to end this tenancy unlawfully. Firstly, she only agreed to the tenancies continuing if the terms were altered, i.e., a new joint tenancy with a higher rental was agreed to.
Then, when the tenants resisted that attempt, she provided the 90-day notice saying she was intending to sell although she had not yet taken steps to do so. She then accepted one set of tenants’ notice on behalf of all tenants knowing that they did not consider themselves one tenancy.
I recognise that she did sell the property however find that this action was only taken as a reality when it was clear these tenancies were ending. She had been happy for the tenants to continue to reside there, if they had agreed to her terms.
Section 60AA was inserted into the RTA by Parliament on 11 February 2021 by section 40 of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2020 (2020 No 59). It came alongside the amendments to section 51 of the RTA which essentially removed a landlord’s right to terminate a tenancy without having specific reasons for doing so (known colloquially as the “no fault terminations”). Section 60AA therefore is designed to punish and deter those landlords who act to terminate a tenancy when they do not have grounds to do so pursuant to section 51 of the RTA.
I find therefore that the provision of the confirmation notice was a breach of section 60AA. Accordingly, [The landlord/s] has committed an unlawful act.
I therefore turn to the tenants’ claims. Firstly, exemplary damages. As discussed above, exemplary damages can be awarded if a landlord commits an unlawful act intentionally. I do not find that [The landlord/s] did. She was of the view that the tenants had a joint tenancy and was trying to amalgamate the rental payments going forward. She also applied the law to her understanding of the situation when the 28-day notice was served. Even if I am wrong in that assessment, I do not consider it just to make such an award given the earlier award.
Accordingly, I decline to make an award of exemplary damages. I therefore turn to the tenant’s application for compensation for the moving costs ($1,560.15) they were put to as a result of leaving due to these notices. These costs include transportation and lost pay for time taken to effect the move. In support they say they did not want to leave but felt they had to, especially as Tenancy Services advised them that they could be fined if they remained in the property after the termination date. 6
[The landlord/s] submits that she should not be responsible for these costs as they chose to leave. She says she was happy to have them stay on, albeit on her terms, and tried hard to work with them.
I accept the submissions of [The tenant/s] that they felt they had to leave because of [The landlord/s]’s actions and in doing so they incurred unexpected costs. I consider the actual costs for moving incurred reasonable $341.79 and so approve that claim. I do not find the lost earnings for two of the tenants reasonable as part of this cost was incurred because of the way the move was organised by the tenants.
I award just over $450 compensation as an overall reflection of the inconvenience and stress caused. The Tribunal has the authority 7 to award damages for stress and inconvenience. It does so on the basis that the law of contract allows such damages where the purpose or one of the purposes of the contract is the peace and comfort of the party and, in the case of a tenant, that is regarded as one of the purposes of a tenancy agreement.
Accordingly, I make an award of $800 compensation to [The tenant/s] to reflect the costs and inconvenience incurred as a result of having to relocate earlier than intended. This is a holistic sum and I leave it to them to allocate it between them.

Who is responsible for the outgoings?

The tenants claim the return of all money paid towards their electricity ($1,846.73) on the basis that each of their own usage was not separately metered as it is required to be with separate tenancies in one location such as these. They say they asked [The landlord/s] about her setting up the electricity at the outset but when she did not reply they just set it up themselves.
Section 39(1) of the RTA states that the landlord is responsible for outgoings that are incurred for common facilities. If this was a boarding house, or as here in the case of room tenancies, the electricity for the common areas would be a landlord cost. As the tenants had to pay it, they now seek it be reimbursed. 6 Other reasons discussed above at paragraph 49 7 77(2)(n) RTA
[The landlord/s] defends this claim saying that the tenants never raised the issue until towards the end of the tenancy when communications got difficult. She says they incurred the bills and so should pay them. They set up the accounts and were responsible to the suppliers for them.
The tenants themselves have referenced section 85 of the RTA in their submissions on this point. This section provides that the Tribunal shall determine a dispute according to the substantial merits and justice of the case and in doing so, shall have regard for the law but shall not be bound to give legal effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. This provision recognises that, although applying established legal principles will generally produce a fair result, there are circumstances where it will not. In this situation, the Tribunal is entitled to depart from the strict application of the law to achieve a just outcome. Equally, where the law is uncertain, the Tribunal may adapt an approach that best meets the merits and justice of the case.
I dismiss this claim pursuant to section 85 as I do not consider it just for the tenants to be compensated for a situation they did nothing to address earlier. They sent one email early on seeking clarity, but they did not raise liability with [The landlord/s] until their relationship deteriorated. Filing fee
Because [The tenant/s] have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Suppression
Both parties have sought suppression. Section 95A of the RTA requires the Tribunal to supress a party’s name or identifying details if that party was “wholly or substantially” successful. This includes being successful in their application or in their defence to an application.
I consider all parties successful to an extent in their positions and find it just to approve all applications for suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4782533 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4782533 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

What is the nature of the tenancy or tenancies?

Was the bond lodged in accordance with the RTA?

Were the termination notices unlawful?

Was the termination notice retaliatory?

Were the termination notices given unlawfully?

Who is responsible for the outgoings?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

What is the nature of the tenancy or tenancies?

Was the bond lodged in accordance with the RTA?

Were the termination notices unlawful?

Was the termination notice retaliatory?

Were the termination notices given unlawfully?

Who is responsible for the outgoings?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions