What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4860128 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4860128?

Compensation: $5,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Refund Overpaid Rent As Agreed: $514.29 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4860128?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4860128?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12198284-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4860128 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4860128?

Compensation: $5,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Refund Overpaid Rent As Agreed: $514.29 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4860128?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4860128?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12198284-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

20 Factory Road, Mosgiel, Mosgiel 9024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4860128 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4860128 — net $7,014.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Refund overpaid rent as agreed	$514.29	Refund overpaid rent as agreed
Exemplary damages for non-lodgement of bond	$1,500.00	Exemplary damages for non-lodgement of bond
Compensation	$5,000.00	Compensation
Net award	$7,014.29
Bond	$1,000.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$7,014.29

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4860128 — net $7,014.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Refund overpaid rent as agreed	$514.29	Refund overpaid rent as agreed
Exemplary damages for non-lodgement of bond	$1,500.00	Exemplary damages for non-lodgement of bond
Compensation	$5,000.00	Compensation
Net award	$7,014.29
Bond	$1,000.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$7,014.29

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Dean McAlwee - as agent for Kevan McAlwee must pay [The tenant/s] $7,014.29 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Background

Both parties attended the four hearings, on 31/10/2024, 23/1/2025, 6/3/2025 and 23/7/2025. The last mentioned hearing was attended by the parties respective lawyers.
The tenancy was a verbal periodic tenancy which began on 10/12/2016 and ended by consent on 29/4/2025.
In a letter to the landlord dated 5/6/2023 the tenant set out her issues with the lack of maintenance on the premises.
After an inspection and when the tenant felt nothing had been done, she filed an application on 16/4/2024 for compensation of “approximately” $11,000.00 and exemplary damages for non-lodgement of the bond, breach of Healthy Homes Standards and unlawful entry, and work orders.
Subsequently the tenant removed the application for work orders and refined her claim as follows: a. $503.13 for electricians’ accounts, b. $8, 941.86 for property inspection condition reports, c. $4,025.00 for counselling costs, d. $150,620.00 rent refund for unlawful premises, e. $800.00 rent overpayment.
Due to the original landlord’s son becoming involved in the tenancy as a result of his father’s health issues, the tenant filed the application against Dean McAlwee as agent.
Following an unsuccessful mediation on 9/6/2024 and correspondence between the parties the landlord on 22/1/2025 filed an application for access.
At the hearing on 23/1/2025 the Tribunal made an order by agreement for the tenancy to end at 5pm on Saturday 26 April 2025.
In addition, the landlord was to have access for two hours on Wednesday 29 January 2025 to allow a building inspector to undertake a Healthy Homes Standards Compliance report and building report.
As the parties reached an agreement on termination and access, and the landlord did not seek exemplary damages, the only matters I need to determine are the tenant’s claims for compensation and exemplary damages. Standard of proof
This is a civil jurisdiction which means when looking at the claims the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Put simply this means the tenant must establish, with evidence, that her claims are more likely than not.
The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain. All evidence presented is considered and weighed to decide what is more likely.
Where there are serious allegations, or important issues at stake, such as is the case here, the Tribunal needs a level of supporting evidence benefitting the matters to be decided.
Although I have not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearings the parties can be assured that it has been considered. For the purposes of conciseness only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to.
The onus is on the applicant, in this case the tenant, to provide the necessary evidence to support her claims. If she fails to do so then the application will be dismissed, whether it has merit or not.

Was the tenancy agreement in writing?

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not ensured the tenancy agreement was in writing.
A landlord must ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing, signed and a copy provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing. See section 13 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
From February 2021 breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
There is no dispute that the tenancy agreement was verbal.
However, because the tenancy commenced in 2016, I find the landlord has not committed an unlawful act because at that time failure to provide a written tenancy agreement was not an unlawful act.

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
There is no dispute that the landlord failed to lodge the $1,000.00 bond when it was paid in 2016.
I find the landlord committed an unlawful act.

Did the landlord fail to keep records or notify a change of landlord?

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord did not provide records of rent and bond payment when she asked for them in July 2024.
As a result, the tenant believed she had overpaid her rent at the end of the tenancy and sought a refund of $800.00.
In response the landlord agreed that he had been unable to find the rent records in his late father’s papers.
However, the landlord confirmed that the tenant had made two payments totalling $514.29 at the end of the tenancy which he was agreeable to refunding as overpaid rent.
Due to the lack of any other evidence from the tenant she agreed to accept the amount and an Order has been made accordingly.
A landlord must keep proper business records showing details of all rent payments and any bond paid by the tenant. See section 30(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $350.00. See section 30(2) and Schedule 1A RTA).
If during the term of the tenancy the interests of either party pass to another person, the other person must notify the other party of the change.
Under section 16 any change of name and address must also be notified.
Breaching of either of these obligations is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00.
Due to the change of landlord, the circumstances involved, and the fact that the evidence supports the tenant was aware throughout different periods in the tenancy who the landlord was, I find the landlord has not committed an unlawful act.

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has harassed her.
The tenant was concerned that her quiet enjoyment of the premises had been disturbed by the landlord failing to maintain the premises, not giving the appropriate notice when he turned up to undertake work, allowing contractors to work on the grounds and failing to ensure her privacy while in the bathroom from the neighbouring property.
In particular, following the unsuccessful mediation the tenant believed that the correspondence between the parties was a deliberate attempt by the landlord not to follow “procedural rules”.
The submission on behalf of the tenant was that the actions of the landlord had a considerable psychological effect which led her to direct all communication to the landlord via a support person.
In support of her position the tenant provided written evidence from her psychologist.
While agreeing that following the inspection on 5/6/2023 he was happy to fix outstanding matters, the landlord believed from the communications that the tenant was following up with the tradespeople.
The landlord suggested while he was aware that the tenant was unhappy with people coming to the premises and respected her privacy, he did not realise her particular issue was with males.
Due to the difficulties experienced in communication with the tenant after the mediation the landlord suggested he filed an application because he was “desperate” to gain access with a builder so he would have evidence for the hearing on 23/1/2025.
The submission for the landlord was that the tenant failed to mitigate loss because no remedial work could be undertaken after the mediation due to the refusal of the tenant to provide access.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 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 section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Under section 49 where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches the provisions of the agreement or Act, the other party must take reasonable steps to limit the damage arising from the that breach, according to the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage on breach of contract.
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.
I am not persuaded by the submission that the uncontested evidence of the tenant about the behaviour of the original landlord amounted to harassment. Put simply there is no objective evidence to support there was any particular pattern of behaviour intentionally directed towards the tenant by the landlord.
Indeed, a presumption can be raised that due to the length of the tenancy before the letter in June 2023, the tenant had no significant issues with the original landlord.
Nor do I consider that the evidence supports any harassment by the landlord, in particular after the mediation.
I consider the email by the landlord of 9/6/2024 supports a willingness to sort out the issues rather than as suggested by the tenant it being a “breach of privacy” and in “bad faith”.
I find the landlord has not committed an unlawful act. Did the landlord breach his obligations & fail to comply with HHS?
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations by failing to maintain the premises and not complying with healthy homes standards.
In support of her claim the tenant provided two reports by Craig Dodd from Building Surveying Ltd dated 22/10/2024 and 5/3/2025, and reports from Kinetic Electrical and Aotea Electrical dated 5/12/2024 and 4/3/2025 respectively and photographs taken around the time of the inspection in June 2023.
The tenant submitted that lack of maintenance was an issue from the start of the tenancy, such as broken window latches, loose roofing iron on the shed, paint lifting from windowsills, malfunctioning smoke alarm, broken gate latch, faulty range plug, faulty hot water cylinder, and low water pressure.
When water began pouring through the rangehood and leaking from the kitchen ceiling the tenant submitted that she wrote to the landlord on 5/6/2023 setting out extensive maintenance issues requiring attention at which point the landlord’s son took over the tenancy and undertook an inspection of the premises.
Mr Dodd gave evidence about his findings in his respective reports, which included an overview of the history of the tenancy provided by the tenant and his opinion on various provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The reports confirmed, among other issues, that there were no building consents after 1956, possible closure of a veranda, water damage to the kitchen ceiling, a broken toilet seat, peeling paint on internal and external joinery, kitchen extractor fan not connected in the ceiling to the exterior vent outlet, mould on rear hallway plaster adjacent to external door.
Mr Dodd’s opinion was that building work had been carried out to lower the kitchen ceiling and a new bedroom with inadequate sized windows created from a laundry sometime after the landlord purchased the property in 2013.
In his later addendum report Mr Dodd outlined his communication with the Dunedin City Council about what he considered was unapproved building work undertaken by the landlord.
An email dated 13/2/2025 from the Principal Building Advisor of the Dunedin City Council confirmed that the floor plans approved under the 1956 building permit did not match the current floor plan but may not have required approval under Schedule 1 of the Building Act 2004 or previous by laws.
Further that the work carried out to create the middle bedroom would not comply with the Building Code for natural light and visual awareness but may have been assessed under section 112 of the Building Act 2004 had an application been made.
The DCC did not consider the damp and mouldy carpets reached the threshold in sections 123, 123A and 124 of the Building Act 2004 and declined to issue an Insanitary Building Notice or take any further action.
The electrical inspection report of 5/12/2024 found no significant issues but noted that the ducting for the kitchen rangehood needed to be attached to vent to the outside.
After an assessment following a significant rainfall on 4/3/2025 the electrician found historic water stains, but no obvious signs of recent water leakage.
On the other hand, the landlord provided a Healthy Homes Standards assessment report and a building inspection report both dated 7/2/2025.
The Healthy Homes Standards report confirmed that the premises were not compliant for ventilation, draughts, drainage and guttering and that one bedroom did not meet the 5% minimum opening requirements of the total floor area.
The building inspection report highlighted a moderate level of concern for the exterior roof, roof space, external wall cladding, rotten windowsills, weathertightness, cracking in external pavements, outside shed, mould and mildew in the bathroom, and historic water damage in the kitchen ceiling.
Under section 45, a landlord must, among other matters, provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply 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 draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
The landlord did not dispute after the inspection on 5/6/2023 that numerous maintenance issues required attention, and his expectation was that the tenant would liaise with tradespeople.
The evidence from the reports provided by both parties confirm that the premises were not maintained in a reasonable state of repair.
However, there is no evidence to support that the premises were not in a reasonable state of repair at the beginning of the tenancy.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act by failing to maintain the premises.
However, and despite the non-compliance for three of the healthy homes standards I find the landlord has not breached section 45(1)(bb).
The reason for this is that the tenancy began in 2016 before the standards came into effect and was not renewed during the term.
I am not persuaded by the submission on behalf of the tenant that a notice of increase of rent was a renewal of the tenancy because no terms or conditions of the tenancy were altered.
The effective date for this tenancy for compliance with Healthy Homes Standards was 1 July 2025.

Between December 2016 and May 2023, the tenant submitted that she found the conduct of the landlord left her feeling “increasingly uncomfortable, bewildered, and harassed” due to his arriving unannounced and often without reason.
The submission for the tenant was that her uncontested evidence about two particular events relating to the hot water cylinder and a neighbour gaining access to the backyard of the property satisfied the evidential burden of proof that the landlord failed to give notice on either of these occasions.
The submission for the landlord was that on the few occasions he arrived at the premises with his late father they were always let in without question.
In addition, the submissions suggested that there was no evidence about how the neighbour entered the back yard.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance.
Section 48(2) provides the required notice is at least 24 hours’ notice for repairs or 48 hours for inspections, or with the tenant’s consent given immediately before the time of entry. If the appropriate notice is given, the tenant’s consent to the access is not required.
Under section 48(2)(cb) the landlord may enter the premises after giving 24 hours notice for the purpose of complying, or preparing to comply, with healthy homes standards.
Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
While it is possible that the landlord did not give prior notice of their intention to attend to repairs, I find there is not enough persuasive evidence to support that it is more probable than not that this was the case.
There must be something more than “uncontested” evidence to move a possibility to a probability.
I find the landlord has not committed an unlawful act.

Was the property an unlawful residential tenancy?

The tenant submitted that the premises were unlawful and sought a refund of the rent she had paid for the term of the tenancy, amounting to approximately $150,620.00.
In support of the claim the tenant relied on the building report from Mr Dodd dated 22/10/2024.
In particular Mr Dodd’s opinion was that despite significant building work having been undertaken since 1956 no building consents had been granted since that time.
Further he suggested that when the landlord purchased the property in 2013 it would have been clear that work was unconsented, raising assumptions that the landlord either ignored the unlawfulness of the work or in fact did the work himself without the appropriate consents.
In response, the landlord gave evidence that he was unaware what, if any, building work had been undertaken on the premises, apart from redecorating, after the purchase in 2013.
The evidence from building inspector R Williams provided by the landlord was that dropped down ceilings were not load bearing and didn’t require consent. Nor was a consent required if a ranch slider was installed into an existing opening without making the opening wider.
Mr Williams noted that closing a veranda had exemptions depending on the square metres being enclosed but that the information on the MBIE website about size was conflicting. He opined that when the work was done on the premises the regulations were looser and closing a porch was not an issue. Law
There is extensive jurisprudence as to what constitutes an unlawful residential premise.
Section 77(2)(ac) sets out that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine whether any premises are, or were at any material time, unlawful residential tenancies as defined in section 78A(2)
Under section 78A(2) “unlawful residential premises” are defined as residential premises that are used for occupation for a person for a place of residence but: a. that cannot lawfully be occupied for residential purposes by that person (whether generally or whether for the particular residential purposes for which that person is granted occupation); and b. where the landlord’s failure to comply with the landlord’s obligations under section 36 or 45(1)(c)... has caused the occupation by that person to be unlawful or has contributed to that unlawful occupation.
Under section 36 a landlord must take all reasonable steps to ensure at the beginning of the tenancy there is no legal impediment to occupation of the premises by the tenant.
Section 45(1)(c) provides, among other matters, that a landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment applying to the premises.
Residential premises are defined in section 2 as any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence, whether or not that occupation or intended occupation for residential purposes is or would be unlawful.
The definition of premises includes, among other things, any part of any premises. Discussion
When considering unlawful residential premises, the question is whether the premises can be lawfully occupied either generally or for a particular residential purpose for which the tenant occupied it.
In addition, the Tribunal must look at whether the landlord failed to comply with sections 36 or 45(1)(c) which caused or contributed to the unlawfulness of occupation.
Section 40 of the Building Act 2004 provides that a household unit, being a building intended for residential occupation, must have a building consent, and be certified as being compliant by having a code compliance certificate.
In cases where the Local Authority has advised that the whole premises, not just part, had not been consented for residential purposes the Tribunal has found the premises were unlawful residential tenancies. These premises, such as converted garages or sleepouts were self-contained and exclusively the subject of a tenancy agreement and were unlawful residential premises.
However, this is not the case here where the tenant rented a lawful residential premise where some unpermitted work had been undertaken at an unspecified date by an unknown person to create a middle bedroom.
Put another way the conversion without the appropriate permit does not make the whole premise an unlawful residential premise, but rather a lawful residential premise, with an unlawful conversion.
The public policy behind section 78A was to discourage landlords from renting out properties that were unconsented or unlawful and had therefore never been subject to meeting the legal requirements to ensure their safe and healthy occupation by tenants.
In tenanting a property that cannot be lawfully occupied for residential purposes a landlord is not only profiting from illegal conduct but is potentially placing a tenant’s health and safety at risk.
It was not aimed at a regulatory failure of a premise that is otherwise a lawful residential premise.
However, this does not mean a landlord can escape liability for renting unconsented premises. Rather this failure is covered by sections 45 and 36. Should compensation by way of refund of rent be awarded for breaches of the landlord’s obligations and loss of amenity?
The landlord is in breach of section 45(1)(c) because he has not complied with all enactments that apply to the premises, the Building Act 2004 in particular.
Section 36 requires a landlord to take all reasonable steps to ensure, at the commencement of the tenancy, there is no legal impediment to the occupation of the premises for residential purposes.
There is no evidence to support that the landlord knew there was no consent for the creation of the middle bedroom when the property was purchased in 2013.
Nor am I persuaded by the speculative opinion of Mr Dodd that the landlord in fact undertook the conversion.
In those circumstances I do not consider the lack of a permit was a lawful impediment to the tenant occupying the premises from the beginning of the tenancy.
Compensation by way of a refund of rent is not available to the tenant.

Should compensation and or exemplary damages be awarded?

As I have found the landlord committed unlawful acts by failing to lodge the bond and maintain the premises, I must consider whether exemplary damages should be awarded.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages if 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.
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).
However, because of the time limit in section 109(2)(b) I am unable to award any exemplary damages for the failure to maintain the premises 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act, which I have established as June 2023.
In making an award of exemplary damages I need to consider the four matters set out in section 109(3).
First, I need to consider the intent of the landlord.
The District Court has said the requirement of intention is not about whether the party was aware they were breaching the Act. Rather, it is about whether they acted intentionally i.e. whether they intended to do whatever it was they did or did not do, (Parton v Fifita TT 1815/00 DC Auckland, 1/5/2001)
The District Court has generally rejected a landlord pleading confusion, lack of knowledge, or ignorance of the law, see TMT New Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182.
I consider there is more than enough evidence to find that the landlord intentionally failed to lodge the bond.
I accept the evidence of the tenant that she was told by the landlord he would not be lodging the bond.
The effect on the tenant has been significant, with the bond not being lodged until the same day as the first hearing.
The legislation provides for bond money to be used for dispute resolution procedures under the Act. Non lodgement is a loss and against the public interest.
A bond is tenant’s money and must be lodged with the Bond Centre within the statutory time limit to protect the tenant’s 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 is not deterrent.
The landlord has had the benefit of the bond in his own account for eight years, no doubt earning interest.
Having considered the factors set out in section 109(3), particularly the effect on the tenant and the public interest I consider it just to award maximum exemplary damages of $1,500.00.
Section 85 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides useful guidance about how the Tribunal should exercise its jurisdiction. The Tribunal must consider the substantial merits and justice of the case without being bound to give effect to the strict legal rights or obligations, or to legal forms and technicalities.
As I have been unable to award exemplary damages for the failure of the landlord to maintain the premises, I consider it just and reasonable to award compensation for the effects on the tenant during the tenancy.
However, I have reduced the award because of the failure of the tenant to mitigate loss, especially in the period after the mediation.
I have awarded what I consider reasonable compensation of $5,000.00.
No further compensation is awarded for the accounts and counselling costs sought by the tenant.
The renting of premises is a business. Properties need to comply with the legislation.
Tenants and landlords both have rights and obligations, neither of which should be ignored during the term of the tenancy.
No filing fee is awarded because both parties were partly successful, and the filing fees effectively cancel each other out.
Suppression granted to the tenant pursuant to section 95A because she was partly successful, and it is in her interests to have her name suppressed.
The landlord did not seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4860128 — Exemplary damages at 20 Factory Road, Mosgiel, Mosgiel 9024

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4860128 — Exemplary damages at 20 Factory Road, Mosgiel, Mosgiel 9024

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was the tenancy agreement in writing?

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

Did the landlord fail to keep records or notify a change of landlord?

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

Was the property an unlawful residential tenancy?

Should compensation and or exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was the tenancy agreement in writing?

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

Did the landlord fail to keep records or notify a change of landlord?

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

Was the property an unlawful residential tenancy?

Should compensation and or exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

At a glance

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was the tenancy agreement in writing?

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

Did the landlord fail to keep records or notify a change of landlord?

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

Did the landlord enter the premises without notice or consent?

Was the property an unlawful residential tenancy?

Should compensation and or exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was the tenancy agreement in writing?

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

Did the landlord fail to keep records or notify a change of landlord?

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

Did the landlord enter the premises without notice or consent?

Was the property an unlawful residential tenancy?

Should compensation and or exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions