What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4904078?

The tribunal order states: Paul Wager must pay Lee Schwarzenberg $822.75 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4904078?

Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Soil Reimbursement: $222.75 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4904078?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4904078?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10883369-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4904078?

The tribunal order states: Paul Wager must pay Lee Schwarzenberg $822.75 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4904078?

Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Soil Reimbursement: $222.75 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4904078?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4904078?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10883369-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

10 Carpenter Lane, Silverdale, Silverdale 0932 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4904078 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4904078 — net $822.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Soil reimbursement	$222.75	Soil reimbursement
Exemplary damages - insurance policy	$100.00	Exemplary damages - insurance policy
Exemplary damages - unlawful entry	$500.00	Exemplary damages - unlawful entry
Net award	$822.75
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$822.75

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4904078 — net $822.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Soil reimbursement	$222.75	Soil reimbursement
Exemplary damages - insurance policy	$100.00	Exemplary damages - insurance policy
Exemplary damages - unlawful entry	$500.00	Exemplary damages - unlawful entry
Net award	$822.75
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$822.75

Order

Paul Wager must pay Lee Schwarzenberg $822.75 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionTenant Soil reimbursement$222.75 Exemplary damages - insurance policy$100.00 Exemplary damages - unlawful entry$500.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant$822.75
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the tenant, seeking compensation, general and exemplary damages from the landlord on multiple grounds. However the primary issues centre around an alleged water leak in the premises, which the tenant claims resulted in mould and unsafe living conditions.
Both parties appeared at the hearing in the North Shore District Courthouse on 26 September 2024. Ms Thompson represented the property manager, Bayleys alongside the landlord.

BACKGROUND

The parties entered into a fixed-term tenancy agreement to commence on 22 May 2021. The fixed term was for one year, but the tenancy rolled into a periodic tenancy following. The landlord is Paul Wager by way of a property manager, Bayleys. There were two co-tenants who had one young son living in the premises.
The premises are a quality dwelling and was around 6 years old at the start of the tenancy. The Code of Compliance Certificate from the Auckland Council has been provided.
The premises are over two levels. The ground floor comprises three bedrooms, two bathrooms and a walk-in wardrobe, and that is the level of the water leak.
In July 2022 the tenant raised concerns with the landlord around mould and the premises having a musty odour. That same is noted in a property inspection report dated 26 July 2022.
The next inspection is from 18 October 2022 which notes a report from the tenant of dampness in the master bedroom wardrobe and mould on clothing.
On 20 October 2022 the property manager attended the premises with her father Steve Thomas who is a qualified builder, to assess whether there were any leaks. The landlord reports that the advice was that no leaks could be found, but the premises were not adequately ventilated by the tenants.
On 5 February 2023, New Zealand experienced the extreme weather event, Cyclone Gabrielle.
On 6 February 2023, the tenant reported the carpet in the bedroom was damp. That was raised with the landlord, who subsequently contacted the company that built the dwelling, requesting they inspect the premises.
The building company, Maddren Homes, attended and gave an opinion on 13 March 2023 in relation to cleaning of pits and water pooling.
The landlord agreed to a 40% rent reduction.
The tenant requested mould testing. The landlord instructed a mould specialist to assess the premises, and that assessment was on 25 May 2023. When the mould report was received, the landlord obtained advice from a specialist tenancy company, and that was to proceed to terminate the tenancy on the grounds of inhabitability.
On 2 June 2023 a 7-day termination notice was issued to the tenant, requiring possession of the premises to return to the landlord on 9 June 2023. This was on the basis of section 59 of the RTA, relating to ‘destruction of premises’. The tenant did not accept the validity of that notice and failed to comply with it, but he did not challenge it in the Tribunal at that time.
Maddren Builders attended the premises. The plasterboard on the inside of the dwelling, at the location of a concrete block retaining wall was removed, and the fill behind the retaining wall was excavated. A photograph provided of the inside of the bedroom, does show in my assessment, a damp area on the block work, which would be near the corner of the building (the opposite side to the wardrobe which was on the same wall). The work included applying a waterproofing membrane to the inside of the retaining wall, and refilling the retaining wall with proper drainage fill (as opposed the the earth / clay it was filled with prior).
On 4 August 2023 the tenant vacated the premises.
On 31 May 2024 the tenant filed this application with the Tribunal.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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.

ANALYSIS

I will now proceed to consider the tenants claims in turn.
Soil reimbursement
The tenant seeks reimbursement for soil purchased during the tenancy. The landlord agrees that this claim should be ordered in full being $222.75 (the sum confirmed on the invoice from Central Landscaping Supplies).
Exposure to mould
The majority of the tenant’s claims relate to water ingress and mould.
The tenant submits that the landlord has rented premises which are leaking and mouldy, and is seeking an order of $10,000.00 compensation for that.
The tenant states that he got sick during his time at the tenancy, and has had extensive time off work, he relates that to the effect of mould in the dwelling. The tenant says that he might need to have his tonsils removed. The tenant relies on the mould report, and also points to the photographs showing his clothing to be mouldy. The tenant states he developed rashes and ‘strep throat’, and these have eased after he moved out of the premises. The tenant is concerned about any long-term health effects from the mould.
The tenant states that when he raised his concerns with the landlord, all they said was that he needed to ventilate the premises better. The landlord did not send any experts to assess the premises.
The problems became particularly problematic with heavy rain.
The problems started in the wardrobe of the master bedroom, and later became problematic in the bedroom. When the carpet was lifted up there was mould under the carpet.
The tenant considers there is a duty of care on the landlord that has been breached.
The landlord states that during an inspection in July 2022 the tenant raised concerns for the first time.
The landlord states that experts who have inspected the premises, is that the mould was the result of how the tenant was living in the premises, such as not closing the bathroom door when showering or properly ventilating the premises.
The landlord considers there are two separate and unrelated issues, being: a. Mould in the walk-in wardrobe b. Waterproofing failure following Cyclone Gabrielle.
The landlord considers the issues are separate given the timeframe of events. The mould in the wardrobe was the initial problem noted, and no leak could be found there, and that is why they consider the issues to be separate. The landlord notes the wardrobe and leak in the bedroom are in separate locations with around 8 metres between the two.
Mr Wager states that there was a hole cut in the wardrobe to assess moisture behind the wardrobe, and it was found it to be dry, Ms Thompson stated that was an internal wall.
The landlord provided the council documents, confirming that the council had signed off the original building work as compliant.
The landlord’s position is that when the issues were raised by the tenant, they did get the right people to review the complaint, and is critical of the remediation that was undertaken.
The landlord’s view is that if the premises are not properly ventilated, there will be mould issues and that is what has happened here.
In conclusion, the tenant confirmed that he first noticed problems in the bedroom before July 2022, but July was the month when it was first raised with the landlord.
The tenant maintains that there were defects with how the house was built, in particular the drainage behind the bedroom wall.
The tenant said he made the decision to move out, because the landlord was not undertaking what he considered to be a proper tradesman-like repair, and the repairs were not signed off by a suitable expert.
In response Mr Wager stated that his advice was that the wall did not have a waterproofing issue, but he had directed the interior waterproofing be extended beyond the house on the wing wall, and also to the interior wall because the block wall had been exposed. Analysis
It is well-accepted that one of the factors promoting mould growth is moisture. But it is also well accepted that moisture in a tenancy can arise either from a defect with the dwelling (which would be the landlord’s responsibility), or from ventilation of the tenancy (which would be the tenant’s responsibility).
There is no doubt there was some leaking in the bedroom, I must firstly consider the extent of the leaking of the dwelling, and then determine the likely cause of the mould on the evidence.
As above, the landlord considers the issues with mould in the wardrobe are separate from the accepted leak in the bedroom. For these reasons, I agree with that assessment.
The starting point must be to recognise there was a water leak in the bedroom, the landlord does not dispute that. The leak appears to have been in the corner of the bedroom. I have not received any formal report from an independent expert, like the builder, explaining precisely what the cause of that leak was. But it does make sense it related to the exterior of the building, and probably the wing wall that extended past the bedroom on the deck. That makes sense, particularly given the builders did remediation work to that wall, and the landlords evidence that the problem has been resolved.
I accept that leak caused moisture on the block wall that would have been behind the tenant’s bed. That is confirmed in one photograph which shows the exposed wall, and what is probably damp areas on the block wall.
However, on the evidence presented, the tenant has not convinced me that there was a water leak to account for the mould in the wardrobe. In that regard, I have received no evidence from an independent person suggesting a water ingress cause in the wardrobe, and I also accept that the builders had opened the wall behind the wardrobe, and it was dry, arguing against a leak in that location.
A further important factor is that there is some 8 metres (according to the landlord) between the water leak in the bedroom and the wardrobe, to that extent the areas are not particularly proximate to presume a relationship. Further there is another room between the bedroom and wardrobe, that the is a bathroom.
There is however an alternate, and more supported cause for the mould, and that is failure to ventilate the premises. That was the view of Builder Thomas who assessed the premises after problems were first raised, and also the view of the mould assessor, who states in the mould report: •It would appear the tenant in the downstairs bedroom is not closing the door in the bathroom when showering. This is allowing steam to be carried throughout the wardrobe in the bedroom. •Ventilation appears to be at a minimum. Circulating air is vital for the control of fungal growth. •If possible leave windows on safety latches to achieve their circulation. •The [relative humidity] readings were of an acceptable level when tested but we are not certain that the readings are realistic of what may be happening on a daily basis with the house is locked up.
A further piece of evidence supporting a ventilation cause is that there was mould found upstairs. Again the mould report records: The confirmed levels of airborne spores indicate a highly elevated presence of potential mycotoxins unbefitting of a healthy living environment. The laboratory results indicate active mould growth in all areas tested. The upstairs living area was tested as a precaution with this test returning a highly elevated reading for Asp / Pen. There was a pram with fungal growth on it. This will need to be removed and thoroughly cleaned.
I accept that the moisture from the leak in the bedroom may have contributed to overall moisture, but I am not persuaded there is evidence to show it to have been a cause of any significance.
For the above reasons, I find that the mould described by the tenant was not the result of any breach on the part of the landlord. It must follow that this claim from the tenant for mould-related compensation must be dismissed because it has not been established.
Pain, suffering, inconvenience, lost time and stress
The tenant claims $10,000.00 by way of general damages for matters including pain, suffering, inconvenience, lost time and stress.
The tenant considers that the landlord was slow in getting the problems at the tenancy sorted out which dragged things on for him worsening and prolonging the health problems they faced. The tenant also spent considerable time helping the landlord to identify and resolve the problem, including searching the relevant Building Code obligations.
If the tenant did not need to deal with these problems, he could have spent that time doing other things.
In response, the landlord considers that there was no breach, so the mould claims should be dismissed. Analysis
Given my finding that the tenant has not proven the mould to arise from a breach of some obligation of the landlord, it must follow that the claim for general damages from the mould or any claimed health effect must fail.
In terms of compensation or damages for delays, having considered the timeline and communications, I consider that the landlord did act with reasonable haste in getting the problem assessed, and the work completed.
Finally, because the landlord issued a termination notice, which was not overturned or stayed by the Tribunal, the tenant needed to have left the premises by 9 June 2023. The landlord cannot be liable for paying compensation or damages around the mould (if proven), or water leak, or delays with remediation after 9 June 2023, because the tenant was not in lawful possession of the premises after that date.
This claim must be dismissed.
Loss of income due to sickness and child being off day-care
The tenant seeks an order of $15,000.00 for lost income due to his own sickness, and time off for his child.
Again the tenant’s position is that because of the mould, there was sickness experienced by himself and his son. The tenant confirmed that if necessary, he can provide the accounting records to show his loss.
Again the landlord’s position remains, there has been no breach on the landlord’s part. The landlord also notes that this occurred at a time of particularly bad weather.
The tenant notes that as a contractor he could not work, and did not have the benefit of sick pay that an employee would have. Analysis
Again in the absence of the mould being linked to a breach on the landlord’s part, there could be no link between the breach and health impacts for the tenant or child, so this claim must be dismissed.
If that were not the case, the tenant would have faced a further insurmountable hurdle, which is that he has not provided expert medical opinion linking any mould present in these premises, with a health effect for himself his child specifically. The tenant has described a sore throat / bacterial throat infection, tonsillitis and rash, but those are common conditions in the community generally, and not instantly accepted as relating to mould.
This claim must be dismissed.
Child being exposed to toxic mould
The tenant seeks an order of $5,000.00 for his son being exposed to mould. The tenant states that his child was sick for several weeks
The landlord recognises the difficulties faced with unwell children. Analysis
Again this claim must be dismissed for the above reasons. The landlord is not liable for any mould-related effect in this tenancy.
Tenant’s time in assisting to resolve the problem
The tenant seeks an order that $5,000.00 be ordered toward his time in liaising with the builder or others in resolving the water and mould problem. The tenant states that it was akin to a project management role. That included finding an engineer who assessed the premises and finding the relevant requirements under the Building Code.
The landlord states that the landlord did not request the tenant to do the work that he undertook, he did that work on his own initiative and voluntarily as the tenant accepted in communications with the landlord.
In conclusion, the tenant states that his contents insurance did not cover possessions stolen, so he wanted to be present when workers were there. Analysis
I do accept that the tenant has gone above and beyond to assist the landlord with the water leak problem. But I do not consider the landlord requested him to do that, and further there is no legal obligation on the tenant to do the work or tasks he did.
Certainly the RTA requires that the tenant notify the landlord of any maintenance needed (s40(1)(d)), and also permit workers into the premises to undertake maintenance, but that is the extent of the expectations on the tenant. When workers are in the house, the tenant is welcome to be present, but that is his choice. If he elects to be in the tenancy he cannot charge the landlord for his time.
That being the case, I can see no legal basis to order the landlord to pay for the tenant’s time as claimed. Without any legal obligation to pay the tenant for his assistance, this claim is declined.
Landlords failure to provide an insurance policy when requested.
The tenant states that the tenancy agreement recorded the premises were to be insured.
The tenant states that early in the tenancy, around February 2023, he asked for a copy of the insurance policy.
The landlord states that they tried to get an updated policy from the insurer, but had difficulties given the post-cyclone issues, but accepts that they probably did not provide that to the tenant.
The tenant accepts that he received an expired policy from 2021, but not the policy current at that time. Analysis
As I noted at the hearing, the RTA requires that the landlord provide a copy of the insurance policy if the tenant asks for it. Section 45(2B) requires: The landlord of premises that are insured may at any time, and must within a reasonable time after receiving a request from the tenant for a copy of the insurance policy, provide to the tenant under a tenancy agreement a copy of each insurance policy that is relevant to the tenant’s liability for destruction of, or damage to, the premises.
To be fair, the landlord concedes that they have breached this obligation. I have no trouble accepting there would be delays getting the policy from the insurer post the Cyclone given the huge number of claims the insurer would have been processing (and their urgency), but that would not excuse delays into June 2023.
The tenant claims exemplary damages. Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: 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. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.
Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the Act, which for this breach is $900.00.
Taking account of the section 109 factors, I consider the breach is likely to have been intentional, in the sense that the landlord is represented by a professional property manager who should know their obligations. The effect on the tenant was that he did not know the full insurance situation which was relevant for him. There are reasonable interests for the tenant to know his liability, but in this case, there would not be any liability. The insurance policy is only relevant if the tenant has carelessly damaged the premises, which is not the case here. But the landlord should have provided it nevertheless. I consider it would be in the public interest to make an order, and it would be just.
However, I do accept there is a mitigating factor, that was the delay in obtaining the policy from the insurer. That being the case I consider only a nominal order should be granted. I consider an order of $100.00 of exemplary damages would be reasonable, and that is ordered.
Retaliatory termination notice
The tenant states that after the landlord received the mould report, that they became very worried about the mould exposure and ordered the termination of the tenancy. The tenant states that he was advised just before a long weekend that he needed to move out within 7 days. The tenant was deeply disappointed with this, and stated that it felt like they were being treated as if they had a methamphetamine laboratory on the premises. The notice caused them stress and distress not having anywhere else they could go, and needing to find somewhere else to live in short order.
The tenant’s position is that the mould report of itself did not provide authority to end the tenancy, and based on the advice he received from Tenancy Services, the landlord was acting without the necessary authority.
The landlord disputes that the notice was retaliatory, the notice was given because the mould report confirmed that the levels of mould in the house were such that the dwelling was no longer habitable. The notice was given because of the health impacts presenting, not the actions of the tenant. Analysis
This claim must be dismissed for technical reasons. The tenant claims that the termination notice was retaliatory. This is a claim under section 54 of the RTA which holds: 54 Tribunal may declare retaliatory notice of no effect (1) Within 28 working days after receipt of a notice terminating the tenancy, being a notice that complies with the requirements of section 51 (or, in the case of a boarding house tenancy, section 66U), the tenant may apply to the Tribunal for an order declaring that the notice is of no effect on the ground that, in giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercise by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or by this or any other Act or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy.
As can be seen from that provision, any claim for retaliatory notice needed to be lodged within 28 days. The claim in this case was lodged months out of time, and for that reason, the claim is dismissed.
However, it is reasonable to observe that even if I could adjudicate this case, I would have dismissed it. The landlord can order termination of the tenancy for the destruction of the premises as it did. The landlord did not first need approval from any organisation in order to do that, if the landlord considered the premises to be uninhabitable, notice can be given. If the tenant disputed that notice, he could have filed a claim in the Tribunal, and we would have dealt with that urgently, but he did not do that. In fact a claim was only filed after the tenancy ended.
Based on the mould report, I can understand the landlord having severe concerns over the habitability of the premises as he did, and the report forming the basis for the termination. It must be observed that the tenant was also very concerned as demonstrated in these significant claims he has filed against the landlord in relation to mould, including raising concerns over long-term health impacts and cancer.
But because this claim is lodged late, it is dismissed.
Unlawful entry
The tenant states he was given a termination notice on the Friday, and within a few hours received a notice, an email was sent at 4:12pm that the manager of Bayleys would be attending the premises for an inspection. The tenant says that he did not respond to that email / notice. The landlord entered the premises with less than 24 hours’ notice around 9:00am the following morning.
The landlord states that adequate notice was given to the tenant. Because of the nature of the issues. Analysis
As I explained at the hearing, there is a breach here. The RTA is clear, that a landlord cannot enter premises except in three circumstances, that is any time in an emergency (which this was not), or with correct notice, or with the consent of the tenant (which the landlord did not have).
Section 48 of the RTA confirms that if the landlord is entering the premises for an inspection, then 48 hours’ notice is needed. Here the landlord entered with less than 24 hours’ notice. The breach is deemed an unlawful act, so exemplary damages can be ordered.
I have set out the section 109 factors that apply for exemplary damages awards. Considering those, I consider the breach is likely to be intentional. I am sure the property manager and the manager of the agency, would be very well aware of their obligations to enter a tenancy. There are very strong interests for tenants and the public generally, in not having the landlord unlawfully enter their tenancy. I consider in the circumstances an order would be just.
The maximum level of exemplary damages I can order would be $1,500.00. I do not consider there are aggravating factors supporting an order close to the maximum, and consider there are some mitigating factors, such as the entry being for a legitimate reason, and given the level of concerns held by the tenant. That being the case, I order exemplary damages at one-third of the maximum being $500.00.
Property manager hindered the tenant finding another Bayley’s property
As I explained at the hearing, a claim of this nature could only be brought if there had been unlawful discrimination, which there is not. The property manager is not legally obligated to help an outgoing tenant into a new tenancy. This claim is dismissed.
Moving costs and cleaning
The tenant seeks an order that the landlord reimburse his moving costs to the sum of $600.00, and cleaning costs of $500.00.
The tenant states that he needed to hire a moving company in order to move out. Had the issues not arisen, he is likely to have lived there longer. The tenant states in relation to the cleaning, that he normally does his own cleaning, but with everything that was happening, he needed to incur these costs with a commercial operator.
The landlord’s position is that these are standard costs, and would have been incurred when his tenancy ended one way or the other.
The tenant responded that he would probably have free help if needing to move at a later date. Analysis
The tenant has not proven that the termination from the landlord was unlawful. The tenancy ended in June 2023, and the tenant needed to move out, and return the tenancy reasonably clean and tidy. Because the termination was not unlawful, nor is the landlord responsible for the mould ( the basis for the termination) there are no grounds to pass these costs onto the landlord.
Rent reduction
The tenant seeks a rent reduction of 25% from the first provable issue with mould in the room, which was 26 October 2022 to the following February. After February 2023 the tenant seeks a 75% refund in his rent.
The landlord states that a 40% reduction in rent was provided for the affected times, including a reimbursement of power and cleaning. In short the landlord considers that it has already provided adequate compensation and disputes that further reduction should be ordered.
The tenant does not consider that he has been fully reimbursed for the power because he was using dehumidifiers, because he thought the insurer would cover those costs. The tenant notes that he was also paying bills in his alternate premises. Analysis
The only costs that the landlord could be liable for, would be compensation in relation to the bedroom water leak. The landlord is not liable for compensation for the mould.
In relation to the leak, that involved one room of the large dwelling, but I accept would impact other rooms such as the landlord’s son’s room where bedroom items were stored.
In this case the parties had agreed on a level of compensation, which appears to be to be a very fair if not generous level of compensation. I decline to order any greater level of compensation in this case.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the tenant has applied for name suppression. However as the tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful, tenant name suppression is declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4904078 — Exemplary damages at 10 Carpenter Lane, Silverdale, Silverdale 0932

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4904078 — Exemplary damages at 10 Carpenter Lane, Silverdale, Silverdale 0932

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions