What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4912393 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 4912393?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4912393?

The primary dispute was Lost Rent. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4912393?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11920553-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4912393 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 4912393?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4912393?

The primary dispute was Lost Rent. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4912393?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11920553-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4912393 — Lost Rent

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay $2,223.34 of the $2,980.00 bond ([Bond number suppressed]) to Jagpreet Singh and Roneeka Lochan immediately and the remaining $756.66 to [the tenants].

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 5 May 2025.
The landlords have applied for rent arrears, lost rent, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants have applied for compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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.
In summary, we do not need to be completely certain, but we need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, we must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). We must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy commenced on 27 January 2023
The landlord increased the rent from $745.00 per week to $850.00 from 23 July 2024.
The tenants complained that an increase of $105.00 per week was excessive and that it put the rent above market rate for similar properties in the same area.
The tenants have refused to pay the rent increase and have continued to pay $745.00 rent per week from 23 July 2024 to when the tenancy ended on 17 November 2024, being 16 weeks.
The tenants have asked the Tribunal to find the new rental rate to be excessive and above market rate but have not provided the Tribunal with any comparison market rent data that supports their claim. Therefore, the tenants claim for a rent reduction to $745.00 per week for that 16-week period is dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence to prove their claim on the balance of probabilities.
The landlords have provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. I award the landlords $1,680.00 rent arrears owing by the tenants.

Should the tenants be held responsible for rent beyond 17 November 2024 ?

The landlords seek 23 days rent in lieu of not having received 28 notice of the tenants termination of the tenancy. The fixed term tenancy had become a periodic tenancy on 28 January 2024 and the tenants were entitled to end the tenancy by the giving of 28 days written notice: a. Identifying the premises to which the notice terminating the tenancy relates; and b. Specifying the date by which the tenants are to vacate the premises; and c. Signed by the party giving the notice, or by that party’s agent.
The landlords claim the tenants provided notice to them on 12 November 2024 and then moved out on 17 November 2024, giving 5 days’ notice when they were legally required to provide notice of 28 days.
The landlord increased the rent from $745.00 per week to $850.00 from 23 July 2024.
The tenants say they gave notice to the landlords on 11 August 2024 that they were going to move out. Harcourts responded to this email on 30 August 2024, seeking clarification that the move out date would be 7 September 2024. Harcourts say it never received any response to this email.
The tenants confirm that after issuing the 28 days notice on 11 August 2024, the subsequently had issues with the new house they were due to move into. They did not agree an extension to the notice period with Harcourts. Instead, they sent Harcourts an email on 11 September 2024 that said, “as we are still here what is happening with the repairs and maintenance”. Harcourts informed them that the repairs would be done once the tenants had vacated the property.
The tenants did not move out until 17 November 2024.
The landlord confirms that because the tenants had not confirmed the termination date when it had enquired if 7 September 2024 was the tenants intended move out date and then the tenants did not move out, discuss an extension to the original termination date, or agree a new termination date with the landlord. As such the landlord assumed the tenants had changed their minds, were staying longer and would give a new termination notice once they were ready to move out.
The next time termination notice was given was by email on 12 November 2024 stating “I will be moving out this week. What would you like me to do with the keys?”. The tenants say this was just an update to the 11 August 2024 email. I do not agree. The tenants did not agree an extension to their original termination notice with the landlord and the landlord had no idea when or if the tenants were going to move out. Therefore, the landlord was only given 5 days’ notice of the actual date the tenants were going to terminate the tenancy.
I am satisfied that the tenants are liable for the remaining 23 days’ notice that they failed to give the landlord.
I award the landlord 23 days rent in lieu of notice at $121.43 per day, for the period 18 November 2024 to 11 December 2024, being a total amount of $2,792.89.

Did the tenants owe any water rates arrears?

The evidence shows that the original property manager told the tenants that it would bill the tenants for water rates and that the tenants were not to pay the water rates to the owners directly but to make payment to the property management company.
The first water rates invoice the tenants received was for an incorrect amount as it was for the period for 7 January 2023 to 7 February 2023 when the tenancy had not commenced until 27 January 2023. The tenants say they asked for a revised bill but never received one.
After the owners took over the management of the property in March 2023, they never provided the tenants with regular water rates bills because thy say they set the tenants up on their Watercare account so the tenants could pay the bills directly to Watercare. There is no evidence of the owners communicating this clearly to the tenants or giving them the access information. There is also no evidence as to how the fixed costs were to be addressed with Watercare.
The owners say they followed up the nonpayment of the water rates in April 2023, but there was no evidence to support this claim presented to the Tribunal. It was during this alleged telephone conversation that the owners state the tenants were given verbal instructions on how to pay the water rates. No follow-up email was sent to the tenants to confirm these alleged instructions.
The first reminder the landlord sent was y email on 13 December 2023. It said “Hi, I was wondering if you have made any Water care payments til date? From Jan 2023 to Dec 2023. The bill is a total of $1,461.43. If you haven’t already, please make payment to Watercare” and “Are you receiving your Watercare bills to pay I had already spoke to Watercare to redirect the bills to you”.
The owners says they sent a second reminder to the tenants by text on 11 March 2024 saying “Please confirm that you have been paying your WC bill since you have been living at the address you were also being CC’d into the bills since last year. I have left a message with your wife thank you”. The tenants respond, “Hi I will look into it”.
The tenants say in their prior flat there were no water bills. Bayleys told the tenants at the start of the tenancy to pay water rates to it on invoice and not to the landlord as they needed to deduct the fixed costs and invoice the tenants for the consumption charges. The tenants had only ever received one incorrect invoice, that the tenants had disputed, and they had never received a reissued corrected version.
The tenants say that eventually some invoices came in for July and August 2024 but they were significantly higher than they should have been, so the tenants queried these as they had experienced some leaking issues at the property.
The landlords confirmed that the two tenants that took over the tenancy after this tenancy ended have used significantly less water, but no work has been done to remedy any leaks as none have been identified.
The landlords are seeking compensation of $3,440.89 for the water rates arrears they say the tenants owe them.
There is no dispute that the tenants used water while living at the premise and that they had not paid for this water consumption during the tenancy as a result of not being given regular water rates invoices. The landlords are now asking the Tribunal to award them the full water rates arrears that they could have collected during the tenancy if they had issued the tenants with regular water rates invoices and given the tenants clear instructions on how to pay these water rates. They did neither of these things.
A landlord has an obligation to mitigate their losses by ensuring they provide tenants with regular water rates invoices during the tenancy and then following the tenants up with 14-day notices if the tenants fail to make payment by the due date.
The landlord has rested on it laurels and is now seeking full compensation for the tenants’ water consumption at the end of the tenancy because the landlord did not put adequate systems in place to ensure they received payment of the water consumption at the end of each month during the 22 month tenancy.
I find that it would be unjust, inequitable and not in the interests of justice to allow the landlord to fail to invoice the tenants regularly for water consumption and then seek full compensation for the arrears at the end of the tenancy. On the other hand, the tenants have consumed water and should pay for at least some of that consumption.
I find that it would be equitable to require the tenants to pay for 50% of the total compensatory sum sought for water arrears, being $1,720.45, and award that amount to the landlords.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Has the landlord breached its section 45(1)(a),(b) and (bb) obligations to the tenant?

The tenants say the landlord has breached its s45(1)(a), (b) and (bb) of the RTA obligations to him.
Under s45(1)(a) of the RTA, the landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a time frame that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 1
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 2 . However, 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 5 .
Under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, a landlord must also comply with all the healthy homes standards.
Breaching any of these s45(1) of the RTA obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a total maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants. Did the landlord provide the premise to the tenants in a reasonable state of cleanliness?
The tenants say the landlords have failed to provide the rental premise in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
Specifically, the tenants produced an email dated 6 February 2023 that sets out in detail all the cleanliness and repair/maintenance issues the tenants have identified with the property. This email confirms the tenants’ oral evidence at the hearing that the “move into was a fiasco, the property was a mess. It was very dirty, flies, fly excrement everywhere, rubbish of the side of the deck (that was never removed), spider webs, the lawns not mown, broken tiles at the front of the property, green bin full of green waste, trees need cutting back, shower curtain was missing, carpets were dirty and deck was slippery and mossy. The rangehood and oven was not clean”.
The tenants stated that when they went to view the premise, the prior tenants were living there so they did not really see the state of the property.
The tenants say the landlord did nothing to address these issues and they had to hire a professional cleaner to try to address a foul smell in one of the bedrooms, but his made the smell worse. The tenants say the HHS assessor told the tenants to get a builder to give them a quote to fix the smell as the HHS assessor did not think it was a dirty carpet issue. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31].
The tenants say they cleaned the oven and the rangehood and that they were still waiting for the rubbish from the last tenants to be removed and at the end of their tenancy this rubbish still remained.
The tenants say they paid $500.00 for a professional cleaner to come to clean the house but could not produce an invoice for this work.
The tenants 6 February 2023 email to Ray White 6 regarding the tenants’ issues on commencement of tenancy was forwarded to the owners around Mid-March 2023. The owners say the property manager presented them with an entry inspection report, prior to handing over the management of the property to the owners and a lot of these issues were missing from this report. When the tenants saw the entry inspection report they became concerned that Ray White Youngs or the property owners may try to hold them liable for the state of the property, a state they say resulted from previous tenant(s).
A landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness 6 , even if the tenant has noticed the state of the premise when entering into the tenancy agreement 7 . However, a reasonable state of cleanliness does not mean spotless. 8
A tenant might be awarded compensation if premises are offered in a generally untidy condition but cannot immediately terminate the tenancy 9 . Unless the premise is uninhabitable, a landlord is entitled to reasonable time to remedy. 10
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average reasonable bystander would consider reasonable 11 , not commercially clean 12 , spotless 13 or to a hotel or motel standard 14 . The better the premise and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected 15 .
The landlord says they have a schedule from Ray White that shows they were invoiced for carpet cleaning but that invoice was not provided to the Tribunal and the tenants photographic evidence supports their claim that the premise was not handed over to them in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. At the start of the tenancy. 6 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s45(1)(a). 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s45(3). 8 FTER Ltd v Knight [2015] NZTT Napier 1136 at[25]. 9 Re Grant NZTT North Shore TT112/87, 24 December 1987 at [10]-[11]. 10 FTER Ltd v Knight [2015] NZTT Napier 1136 at[26]. 11 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 12 Mills v kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009 at [15]-[17]. 13 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]; Herbert v Garton [2013] NZTT Hastings 237 at [42]; Reardon v Fahey Property Management Ltd [206] NZTT Auckland 3149 at [6]. 14 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 15 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770].
I find that the landlords knew the premise was not in a reasonable clean and tidy condition when the tenant took possession of the premise on 27 January 2023, and the landlords intentionally took no further steps to remedy these issues raised by the tenants on the first day of his tenancy.
I award the tenant a compensatory sum of $600.00 for the landlords intentional and significant breach of the landlords s45(1)(a) of the RTA obligations. Failure to maintain
The tenants say the landlord has failed to investigate and repair defects with the property brought to its attention, within a time frame that is reasonable in all the circumstances.
The tenants sent their first email about numerous repair and maintenance issues to Ray White on 6 February 2023. The tenants then followed this email up on 8 February 2023 and they received an email from the property manager on 9 February 2023 confirming that a contractor has been engaged to investigate the remedial work that needs to be done.
On 9 February 2023, the contractor contacts the tenants confirming the property manager had asked him to touch base with the tenants regarding the repair and maintenance work that needs to be done. Within a six days, the property management company contacted the tenants by email to inform them that it had cancelled the investigation appointment as the owners had notified it that they would be taking the property management over from 11 March 2023 and they did not want the contractor undertaking any work at the premise.
On 16 February 2023, the tenants respond to this email stating that they want the leaks and the other issues to be addressed with urgency. The property manager notified them that the owners had made it clear they did not want the repair and maintenance issues addressed and that they wanted their insurer to sort out the leaks.
On 17 April 2023, the tenants emailed the owners about the ongoing repair and maintenance issues, ask the owners to have these addressed and remind them that these extensive issues were first raised with the property manager on 6 February 2023 and that they had also sent photographs of these issues. This 17 April 2023 email notes the following outstanding issues to be addressed: a. Laundry taps do not work; b. Broken toilet seat in the upstairs toilet; c. Ensuite shower that has a rubber seal missing from the lower edge of the door that results I far too much water landing outside the shower tray; d. Leak under kitchen sink, bad smell under kitchen sink and areas of the worktop missing sealant and the wood underneath is swollen; e. Rubbish at the side of the property; f. Furniture from the garage that needs removing (cabinet and table); g. Ripped net curtains; h. A section of the fence that is loose; i. Trees requiring trimming; j. Windows have significant gaps that cause a lot of draught and noise in the master bedroom and lounge areas; k. Damaged decking that requires replacement that they were told by the previous property managers would be replaced three months ago; and l. A request to see the document provided by Watercare that allows for the mains water pipe to run above ground along the driveway.
The tenants say that around May 2023 we made numerous attempts to contact the owners about these ongoing issues without any success, and that other than a some minor repairs, around mid-2023,, no other repairs have been done.
The tenants confirmed that sometime around August 2023, they finally got hold of the owners on the phone, and the female owner informed the male tenant in an aggressive tone “this is my property and I am not doing any more work on it”.
Subsequently there have been more leaks, in the lounge and the garage and the tenants did not know what to do as the owner had made it clear that they had no intention of doing any work on the property. Consequently, there are major maintenance works that still remained undone at the end of the tenancy. These major issues the tenants say are as follows: a. Foul smell in the downstairs bedroom and upstairs bedroom; b. -Damaged and slippery decking; c. -Lounge leak; d. -Garage leak; e. -Gutters overflowing with storm water; f. -Draught from certain doors and windows house; g. -Damaged fence h. -Broken letter box i. -Issues with the exposed blue mains water pipe on the driveway.
The tenants say they carried out some minor repairs at their own expense.
In mid-June 2023, the tenants reminded the owners again of the issue with exposed mains water pipe and the smell in the house via a WhatsApp message.
On 20 August 2024, the tenants issued the owners with a 14-day notice for “failing to undertake any maintenance at the premise nor repair relevant items from before the tenancy commenced and that they want the owner to: a. Repair/replace the decking that is damaged; b. Repair the gaps in the windows and door that are causing draughts; c. Investigate and remediate the cause of the foul smell in two bedrooms; d. Repair the leak in the lounge; e. Repair the damage from the previous leaks in the lounge; f. Repair the garage leaks; g. Repair the broken fence panels; h. Repair the guttering to allow water to drain; i. Cover blue mains water pipe that runs along the driveway; and j. Repair letter box.
The tenants have produced photographic evidence that none of these issues had ben addressed when they moved out on 17 November 2024. They have also given comprehensive evidence to the Tribunal about the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience they suffered as a result of the owners failing to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair during the tenancy.
The tenants also confirmed that the owners insurance company did not show up to assess the leaks for months and then the leaks were never repaired, hence there were two further leaks in that same area and there was still a badly damaged ceiling from the leaks at the end of the tenancy.
I find that the owners intentionally failed to carry out the required repairs and maintenance and that the tenants should receive compensation of $35.00 per week for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity they suffered due to these repair and maintenance issues that were not investigated or repaired in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances. The tenants endured this loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience for a period of 96 weeks and 2-day period (from 6 February 2023 to 11 December 2024) at a cost to the owners of $35.00 per week, totalling a compensatory sum of $3,370.00.
I have found that the landlords s45(1)(b) of the RTA breaches were intentional and therefore s109(3) of the RTA provides for the Tribunal to award exemplary damages for these breaches. However, s109(2)(b) of the RTA places a limit on the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to award exemplary damage in that this provision states that the tenants cannot apply for exemplary damages for any breach where that application is made more than 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act. All of these breaches occurred from 6 February 2023 and therefore the tenants were statutorily barred from applying for exemplary damages for these breaches from 6 February 2024.
The tenants have sought one week’s lost wages for the week’s annual leave the tenants took when they were informed that the remedial works to the leaking ceiling was to be carried out. The insurer told the tenants that the landlord had cancelled the job and that is why it had not been completed. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to award lost wages. This claim is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The tenants also seek compensation for the time they took to chasing up the $1,000.00 credit card debt that was incurred because someone stole the new credit card from the broken letter box and for the two parking fines and overdue penalties incurred because the tenants did not receive reminders for these unpaid fines. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to award compensation for these types of losses. This claim is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Homes Standards Compliance
The tenants claim the landlords have breached their obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The tenants consider that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.
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 tenancy agreement commenced on 27 January 2023. As such, the landlord was required to comply with all the healthy homes’ standards from the 120th day after the tenancy commenced, being Saturday 27 May 2023.
The landlord commissioned a healthy homes assessment report, dated 25 November 2020, over two years before the tenancy commenced. This report indicates the premise complied all five of the healthy homes’ standards at that time, except for one of the extractor fans in a bathroom. The landlords say they were entitled to rely on that report. Draught stopping and moisture ingress and drainage standards
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenants] consider that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard and the moisture ingress and drainage standard.
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 tenants have proven that from when the tenancy commenced there were draught stopping and moisture/drainage issues with the premise that were not addressed within the first 120 days of the tenancy and that these breaches were intentional by the owners.
I find Jagpreet Singh and Roneeka Lochan committed an unlawful act in not addressing these HHS breaches within the statutorily required time frame.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages of up to a maximum of $7,200.00, 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 interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
However, s109(2)(b) of the RTA places a limit on the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to award exemplary damage in that this provision states that the tenants cannot apply for exemplary damages for any breach where that application is made more than 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act.
Given the breaches occurred on 27 May 2023, the tenants are barred from bringing exemplary damages claims from 27 May 2024. The tenants made their application to the Tribunal on 10 November 2024. Therefore, the tenants claims for exemplary damages for these HHS breaches are dismissed. Reimbursement of the filing fee
Because both the tenants and the landlords have substantially succeeded with their claims, I have reimbursed the filing fees to both parties. Name suppression
The tenants apply for non-publication of their names and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenants have substantially succeeded in these proceedings, and I do not consider publication is in the public interest and justified because of the tenants’ conduct.
Non-publication of the tenants’ name and identifying details is granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4912393 — Lost Rent

Tenancy Tribunal case 4912393 — Lost Rent

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

How much is owed for rent?

Should the tenants be held responsible for rent beyond 17 November 2024 ?

Did the tenants owe any water rates arrears?

TENANTS CLAIMS

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

How much is owed for rent?

Should the tenants be held responsible for rent beyond 17 November 2024 ?

Did the tenants owe any water rates arrears?

TENANTS CLAIMS