What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4936555 about?

The tribunal order states: All other claims are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4936555?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4936555?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Harassment, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4936555?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11509256-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4936555 about?

The tribunal order states: All other claims are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4936555?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4936555?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Harassment, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4936555?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11509256-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

76B Hankey Street, Mount Cook, Wellington 6011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4936555 — 14-day notice

Order

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [The tenant/s] was represented by his Counsel, [The tenant’s counsel].
This tenancy commenced on 14 February 2022. [The tenant/s] claims compensation and exemplary damages for various breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). He originally sought work orders however given the tenancy was due to end shortly after the hearing, his claims are now curtailed to monetary orders and restraining orders.
At the conclusion of the hearing on 15 October 2024, the parties agreed, with the assistance of [The tenant’s counsel], to negotiate a conclusion date for the tenancy. They did this with the intention of preventing any further altercations between them.
The end date of 28 February 2025 was agreed to, and [The tenant/s] requested that the issue of this decision be delayed until after he had vacated in an effort to protect both parties’ safety. Accordingly, this decision, whilst formulated shortly after the hearing, is issued now upon completion of the tenancy.
The questions for the Tribunal are: a. Was the tenancy agreement complete? b. What happened with the bond? c. Are/were the termination notices lawful? d. Has the landlord breached his maintenance obligations? e. What monetary orders are appropriate?
I discuss each claim separately below but before I do, I note that that the onus of proof lies with the person bringing the claim, [The tenant/s]. It is the civil standard of “balance of probabilities “or “more likely than not” and must be met for a claim to be successful. Background
This property is divided into six units. [The tenant/s] lived in one, 76B. Mr Bradley another (76C) and Gary Duffin, Mr Bradley’s property manager lives in the unit directly above [The tenant/s].
There is no formal documentation confirming that Mr Duffin is the property manager however both parties accept he is. Essentially, he and Mr Bradley run the tenancies in the property together. [The tenant/s] only seeks redress against Mr Bradley as owner of the property.
[The tenant/s] came to move into the unit in 2022 through a friend who also lives in the property in another unit. Mr Duffin is her uncle. Mr Bradley had been living in 76B prior to [The tenant/s] moving in.
The tenancy agreement was signed by Mr Bradley and [The tenant/s] at the offices of Work and Income New Zealand (WINZ) when they attended to have the bond and one week’s rent paid to Mr Bradley. The WINZ officer gave [The tenant/s] a copy of the agreement before it was signed, and Mr Bradley took the signed agreement.
There were various maintenance issues over the course of the tenancy and on 28 August 2023 the Tenancy Services’ Compliance and Investigation Team (TCIT) came to inspect the building. They had been contacted by another tenant. The only area of concern they raised with respect to 76B was with the hole in the wall which is discussed below.
TCIT issued an improvement notice and after Mr Bradley did some repairs, they closed the case file. [The tenant/s], unsatisfied with their involvement, contacted the Ombudsman and then a lawyer.
He filed his claims in the Tenancy Tribunal on 23 February 2024.

Was the tenancy agreement provided lawfully?

[The tenant/s] claims that Mr Bradley did not ensure that the tenancy agreement was completed in full, and he failed to provide a copy of the signed agreement to him. This is in breach of section 13 RTA.
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 RTA.
[The tenant/s]’s evidence is that Mr Bradley provided the standard form agreement but removed the sections regarding inspections, insulation, Healthy Homes Standards and insurance before it was signed saying they were not needed. Therefore, the only sections of the tenancy agreement he was given were the first four standard pages being the details pages (p5) and the unsigned signature page (p6). He says Mr Bradley has the signed signature page.
Mr Bradley says he cannot remember the events but does not think he would have removed pages as he has nothing to hide. He also says it was a casual arrangement because of [The tenant/s] connection with another current tenant.
When the tenancy commenced, section 13A RTA detailed different requirements for a tenancy agreement than there are now. The copy [The tenant/s] has omits the following information that was required at the time: a. the date of commencement of the tenancy, b. a list of any chattels provided by the landlord, c. an insulation statement, d. a HHS statement, and e. an insurance statement.
The evidence provided to me establishes that [The tenant/s] was given an incomplete tenancy agreement by Mr Bradley. [The tenant/s]’ affiliation with another of Mr Bradley’s tenants does not exempt Mr Bradley from complying with this section, or any of the RTA for that matter.
Accordingly, I find that Mr Bradley has committed an unlawful act in failing to provide and execute a full tenancy agreement.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
However, pursuant to s.109(2)(b) of the RTA, an application for exemplary damages must be brought within 12 months of the commission of the unlawful act. This unlawful act occurred over two years ago therefore exemplary damages are not available to Mr Bradley for this breach of the RTA.
I do not consider compensation warranted as there is no evidence of any loss to [The tenant/s] as a result of this omission as this was not a live matter for him until these proceedings.
The claim for monetary awards is therefore dismissed, although it is noted that Mr Bradley has breached the RTA.

What happened/should happen with the bond?

Mr Bradley has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment was received. He has in fact spent it. This is in breach of section 19(1) RTA. Mr Bradley says he did not think the requirement to lodge was compulsory.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A RTA. Mr Bradley has committed an unlawful act in not lodging the bond with the Bond Centre.
I therefore turn to the claim for exemplary damages for this breach. The time requirement under section 109(2)(b) is not relevant to the lodgement of bonds; see section 109(2)(a) RTA.
Mr Bradley provided and ostensibly signed the tenancy agreement that says at clause 16. Bonds must be lodged with Tenancy Services within 23 working days of being paid. I therefore do not accept his submission that he was not aware of his obligations, especially given other bonds he has received have been lodged as required.
Further, Mr Bradley, by his own evidence, has been renting out these units since the 1980s. He has previously used a registered agent to manage them and now does so himself with the assistance of Mr Duffin. I consider he therefore was aware, or ought to have been aware of his obligations as a landlord. Accordingly, I find the element of intent 1 is established here.
I find that Mr Bradley has intentionally committed the unlawful act of failing to lodge the bond. In considering the claim for exemplary damages I note: a. Mr Bradley has spent [The tenant/s] bond. By his own admission he does not have the funds available and would have to apply for a loan to repay them. 1 Section 109(3) of the RTA b. The fact that his bond is insecure is extremely concerning for [The tenant/s]. c. Mr Bradley deliberately flouted the law by spending the bond money. d. Bonds are tenant monies, and it is in the public interest that they be protected until the conclusion of a tenancy. e. There is no evidence that Mr Bradley has breached this obligation in the past although I find it highly likely he has given his lackadaisical view on the matter.
Taking into account all of the above, I find that an award of $1,000 is justified.
I also note that Mr Bradley must repay the bond to [The tenant/s] upon conclusion of the tenancy unless he files claims against it with the Tribunal or the parties agree to an alternative distribution.

Are/were the termination notices lawful?

[The tenant/s] submits that Mr Bradley has tried to end his tenancy on three occasions unlawfully. The most recent is a termination notice dated 17 June 2024 (the June notice). He seeks an order declaring the June notice to be of no effect. The others he seeks compensation and exemplary damages in respect of.
The June notice gives the reason to terminate that Mr Bradley requires the premise for his own residence or that of a member of his family. The covering letter to the notice says (in reference to reason) I’ve touched on the reasons for notice in texts...so there is no need to do so here...we are personalitys that will never get on (sic). Mr Bradley says he issued this notice with advice from the Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) and used the standard form obtained from Tenancy Services.
The second notice was written by Mr Duffin but signed by both him and Mr Bradley (the April notice). It was dated 18 April and gave 45 days’ notice to end the tenancy stating that they had no valid contract as the intention had only been for a short-term stay. Mr Bradley later said by text that he intended to develop the property.
On 27 May, Mr Bradley orally withdrew the April notice when advised by [the tenant’s counsel] that it was unlawful. He agrees that he also said to her he would terminate the tenancy as soon as he could figure out how to lawfully do so.
The first attempt to terminate was by text in April 2022 when he said Get your thoughts together and start making some decisions soon or I’ll make them for you. I require cooperation from the people I allow in this building you or anyone else do not have a right to be here if I don’t want you to be here. I require you to explain and resolve the rent question by 5pm tomorrow or any decisions will no longer be yours to make. At 5 minutes past 5 tomorrow the only issues will be those related to you moving on.
Under Section 60AA RTA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A RTA.
I am not satisfied that the April text was a notice to terminate as it does not meet the requirements of section 51 of the RTA and was more conversational, and therefore I discuss it below with respect to a breach of quiet enjoyment only.
I find that both the April and June Notices were attempted notices to terminate the tenancy, and both were unlawful. Neither comply fully with the requirements of section 51 of the RTA for the issuing of such notices, in particular neither give valid and accurate reasons for terminating.
Weightier however is Mr Bradley’s oral evidence that the sole reason he has been trying to end the tenancy is because [The tenant/s] asked him why he was going on the roof which he considers amounts to an attempt to prevent him from undertaking maintenance. This is not a valid reason to end a tenancy. He says he has no spare funds currently, therefore is clearly not intending to develop the property; and there is no evidence he intends to move in.
Mr Bradley has therefore committed an unlawful act by attempting to terminate the tenancy unlawfully. I also find that he did so intentionally, particularly with respect to the April notice when he had the advice of CAB. I therefore consider an award of exemplary damages and in doing so note the following: a. Mr Bradley has been negligent in employing the correct processes to end a tenancy. Advice on how to end a tenancy lawfully is widely available and easily accessible. b. Further, Mr Bradley has been a landlord for a number of years. He should be or is aware of how to terminate a tenancy effectively. c. Mr Bradley breached the RTA in this way twice, even after he had advice from CAB. d. The impact on [The tenant/s] has been unsettling and antagonising. e. It is of significant public interest that landlords comply with their obligations under the RTA and are deterred from forcing tenants from their homes without following due process. f. Parliament has set the amount of exemplary damages high to signal that there should be significant repercussions for landlords who evade their obligations in terminating tenancies.
Having considered all of the above, I find that an award of $1,500 just in the circumstances.
I also declare that the June Notice was unlawful and of no effect.

Has the landlord breached their maintenance obligations?

[The tenant/s] claims that Mr Bradley has breached his obligations under section 45 of the RTA to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety including 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 RTA.
It is well settled that, the landlord’s obligation under section 45 is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be. Furthermore, a tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) of the RTA. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.
There is also a proactive component to section 45 if a landlord was or should be aware of a defect 2 or potential for a defect.
I discuss each issue separately below. 2 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]-[11]. The hole in the wall
[The tenant/s] says that when he moved in there was a large hole in his bedroom wall. Mr Bradley says he only made it some months into the tenancy. Both agree it remained there until TCIT directed Mr Bradley to repair it (well over a year later).
The reason for the hole is that Mr Bradley started to undertake renovations to install a glass door where a small window had been. These could not however be completed due to a lack of funds. Both agree that a mesh door was hung up (by string) on the outside of the hole. Mr Bradley says there was jib and other materials on the inside to make it weathertight, [The tenant/s] says there was nothing. The photos corroborate [The tenant/s]’s recollection.
The subsequent TCIT directed repairs consist of the reinstatement of the small window which was wedged open, surrounded by makeshift jib and stuffing, taped over and then painted over. Both agree it is a temporary repair. The photos of the repair did however ostensibly satisfy TCIT who closed their investigation upon receipt of it.
[The tenant/s] was not satisfied with the TCIT assessment as he says it is not weathertight and lets a draught in. It is not for me to comment on TCIT’s decisions but for [The tenant/s] to pursue further should he wish to do so.
Making a large (door sized) hole in a bedroom wall and leaving it there for over a year and a half is not adequate maintenance and as such a breach of section 45(1)(b) of the RTA. The evidence does not substantiate that it was adequately boarded up within that time, nor that it was weathertight nor secure. This was also the only natural light source the bedroom had.
This is also in beach of Regulation 11 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (the Regulations) which states that: (1) Every habitable room shall be provided with 1 or more windows so situated in an external wall or external walls that adequate light is admitted. (2) The aggregate area of the glass of the windows of each habitable room shall be not less than a one-tenth part of the area of the floor of the room. (3) The windows of each habitable room shall be so constructed that windows with an area amounting to not less than one-twentieth part of the area of the floor of the room can be opened for the admission of air. (4) Every room which is not a habitable room shall be provided with such window or windows as the local authority may consider necessary for the adequate lighting and ventilation thereof.
This situation is further also in breach of the following HHSs: a. The ventilation standard which sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. b. The draught stopping standard which 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.
This property was required to have been compliant with the HHS on 15 May 2022 (90 days after the tenancy’s commencement).
As such, for the majority of his tenancy [The tenant/s] has not had adequate windows in his bedroom. Likewise for a long period [The tenant/s] has had an inadequately filled hole in his bedroom that has affected his ability to heat the room and to access fresh air. It has also compromised his security given it is easily penetrable by an intruder.
Pursuant to section 109(2)(b) of the RTA, exemplary damages for the hole itself are not awardable as it was commissioned over 12 months prior to the application being filed on 23 July 2024.
They would be available however for the repair which I consider, on the evidence provided to me, insufficient as it was completed on 30 October 2023. The repair meant that [The tenant/s] had a window he could not open nor close properly. There is no evidence however that [The tenant/s] advised Mr Bradley that the window was not working, and I accept that Mr Bradley was entitled to rely on TCIT’s acceptance of his repairs.
Accordingly, I do not consider exemplary damages warranted for this issue. I do however find an award of compensation has merit given the lack of amenity [The tenant/s] had in his bedroom for the majority of his tenancy. Compensation awards are intended to place the injured party in the position they would have been in but for the breach.
However, as a matter of law, a tenant is not entitled to compensation for losses which, had they taken steps to mitigate, they would not have suffered. If, such as in this situation, a landlord was not carrying out repairs I would expect a tenant within a reasonable time to (i) serve a 14 day notice to remedy the breach on the landlord, (ii) arrange for the repairs to be done and for the landlords to reimburse them the cost of the repairs (if the repairs were urgent), (iii) or apply to the Tenancy Tribunal for a work order and compensation if the landlords failed to comply with the 14 day breach of duty notice.
[The tenant/s] did not actively complain about the issue, and he did not undertake his own repairs but did block up the hole. Of relevance is however the close living situation of [The tenant/s] with Mr Bradley and Mr Duffin and the tensions between them.
Having considered the situation holistically, I find that an award of $1,000 is just 3 in the circumstances. Oven
The evidence establishes that the oven did not function from the commencement of the tenancy. Mr Bradley first told [The tenant/s] to get an electrician in who looked at it and said it needed to be replaced. He then told [The tenant/s] to find a good replacement which he would then purchase. [The tenant/s] says he did so and gave those options to Mr Bradley, Mr Bradley says he never heard anything back.
A landlord cannot deflect their maintenance obligations to a tenant. As soon as Mr Bradley was aware the oven was malfunctioning, he had an obligation to repair or replace it within a reasonable timeframe. 4 It was therefore Mr Bradley’s responsibility to ensure [The tenant/s] had a functioning oven. He did not.
[The tenant/s] has not therefore had adequate cooking facilities for the duration of his tenancy. This is a breach of section 45 and an unlawful act. Mr Bradley knew the oven was not working, this is therefore an intentionally unlawful act. Exemplary damages are not available however given the length of time the oven has been faulty. 5
I consider an award of compensation appropriate given [The tenant/s] has suffered a lack of amenity for the duration of the tenancy and did engage with Mr Bradley to get a repair. I find that $800, being an approximate $5 weekly rent reduction is appropriate. Leak
[The tenant/s]’s evidence is that there has been a leak in his kitchen for the duration of the tenancy. He provided photos showing a considerable amount of water on his kitchen floor and a video showing how quickly it comes in. It appears to come in from under the lino, under the cabinets and from the roof.
Mr Bradley says he was not aware of this. He did know about a leak that occurred some time ago in relation to another tenant’s actions, but he says he repaired that and was not aware [The tenant/s] was suffering such water ingress. 3 See section 85 of the RTA 4 See section 45(1)(a) RTA 5 See section 109(2)(b)RTA
The evidential burden is on [The tenant/s] to establish that Mr Bradley was made aware of the leaks. His supporting evidence is reference in the texts to checking that the roof was no longer leaking. I do not find that this is sufficient. I accept that there was a leak from the roof into other units [The tenant/s] is on the ground floor) but that was actioned by Mr Bradley. The evidence does not however establish that [The tenant/s] made Mr Bradley aware of the leak he was suffering in his kitchen, although there was plenty of opportunity to do so.
Accordingly, I do not consider monetary orders appropriate in this instance and this claim is dismissed. Has the landlord breached the tenant’s right to quite enjoyment?
[The tenant/s] claims that Mr Bradley and Mr Duffin, cumulatively the landlord, has harassed him.
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) RTA. 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.
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.
These actions indicate that generally there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person or persons which causes distress. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would generally be unlikely to amount to harassment. The definitions also require the act to be intentional; careless or negligence is not sufficient.
The specific instances of harassment are submitted to be as follows: a. The April 2022 text threatening termination. b. The texts regarding rent being late. Mr Bradley accepts he may have made some errors in the beginning with respect to when [The tenant/s]’s rent was due. c. Mr Duffin and Mr Bradley throwing bottles from Mr Duffin’s unit above down to [The tenant/s]. Mr Bradley says he never saw Mr Duffin do so but knows he did, saying he did ask him to stop. Mr Bradley says he never threw anything himself. Mr Duffin 6 says the same. d. Mr Duffin and Mr Bradley making threatening and/or derogatory statements to him. e. Putting up with frequent visits in the middle of the night from Mr Bradley’s visitors. Mr Bradley says this only occurred once and he did not know the person was coming. f. Mr Bradley making a lot of construction noise late into the night. Mr Bradley says that he stopped doing so when [The tenant/s] complained. g. Mr Bradley leaving construction mess outside the unit. Mr Bradley says this mess wasn’t left by him but more likely by Mr Duffin. h. On 18 December 2022 there was a physical altercation between Mr Duffin and [The tenant/s]. [The tenant/s] says Mr Duffin hit his hand with a stick after he came to talk to him to which Mr Duffin responded by brandishing a stick and knife. He says Mr Duffin also threatened to kill him. Mr Duffin says [The tenant/s] attacked him and he was only defending himself. i. On 23 October 2023 there was another physical altercation between Mr Duffin and [The tenant/s]. Both say the other was at fault. j. On 23 April 2024 a physical altercation occurred between Mr Bradley and [The tenant/s]. Mr Bradley says that [The tenant/s] used all the violence here but accepts he incited it by banging on his walls late at night multiple times as he thought [The tenant/s] had killed a cat. Mr Bradley went to hospital with three broken ribs, stitches and a black eye as a result of this altercation. k. The unlawful termination notices using false reasoning, particularly attempting to say there was no tenancy agreement. l. Attempting to trespass a boy he cares for from the property. Mr Bradley accepts this was a mistake of his.
The first issue to address is whether Mr Duffin’s actions can be considered a landlord action. Section 2 of the RTA defines a landlord as the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement; and, where appropriate, includes...(e) an agent of the landlord. Mr Duffin was Mr Bradley’s agent, therefore he can be, where appropriate, included within the definition of the landlord. 6 In his written submissions
Given some of the actions described were solely Mr Duffin’s, I consider it appropriate here that he also be deemed the landlord for the purposes of this section.
Mr Duffin is however also [The tenant/s] neighbour. It is arguable therefore in some of his actions he was acting in his capacity of neighbour, and in others as agent.
In this situation I consider the distinction of no real effect because of section 45(1)(e) of the RTA. This section states that the landlord must take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants causes or permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises.
Therefore, Mr Duffin was under an obligation not to breach [The tenant/s] quiet enjoyment in his capacity of agent of the landlord (section 38) and Mr Bradley was under an obligation to ensure Mr Duffin did not breach [The tenant/s] quiet enjoyment in his capacity as neighbour (s45(1)(e)).
It is appropriate at this point to make a note regarding evidence. Mr Duffin only provided a written statement; he was not therefore available for questioning at the hearing. Whilst I accepted the statement into evidence, I place less weight on it than the oral evidence I heard during the hearing that was able to be tested.
I have little hesitation in concluding that the combined efforts of Mr Bradley and Mr Duffin (the latter particularly) amounted to a campaign of harassment of [The tenant/s], designed to force him out of the premise. Mr Bradley by his own admission banged a metal bar multiple times on the outside of [The tenant/s] home in the middle of the night. Mr Duffin threw items at [The tenant/s] and engaged in two physical interactions with him.
[The tenant/s] certainly played a part in the physical skirmishes with both Mr Duffin and Mr Bradley, but I do not find that the evidence establishes to the relevant evidential standard that he was the primary instigator. There is evidence from other members of the property that he is abusive and violent, but determination of those allegations are not the claims before me today and therefore I make no findings in that regard. I am concerned in these claims with the behaviour of [The tenant/s] landlord.
As discussed above, the two unlawful termination notices amount to harassment. I also consider Mr Bradley’s text in April 2022 was threatening and unacceptable.
Accordingly, I find it established in evidence that the landlord breached section 38 of the RTA to the extent of harassment. Mr Bradley is a long- term landlord and did or should know better, therefore I consider the breach intentional. Many of the instances occurred within the 12 months preceding the application, therefore I consider an award of exemplary damages.
In doing, so I take into account the following particularly: a. Mr Bradley and Mr Duffin have engaged in a longstanding campaign to effectively wear [The tenant/s] down and have him leave. They both clearly wanted him to vacate. b. It is only due to financial constraints that [The tenant/s] did not vacate earlier. c. Because he has not been able to leave, he has been subject to an unhappy and dangerous home environment. d. The Police have been involved on a number of occasions and all parties have suffered injuries as a result of their interactions with each other. This has been an unacceptable situation.
Considering all of the above, I find that an award of $1,200 is justified.
Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and approve his claim for suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4936555 — 14-day notice at 76B Hankey Street, Mount Cook, Wellington 6011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4936555 — 14-day notice at 76B Hankey Street, Mount Cook, Wellington 6011

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was the tenancy agreement provided lawfully?

What happened/should happen with the bond?

Are/were the termination notices lawful?

Has the landlord breached their maintenance obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was the tenancy agreement provided lawfully?

What happened/should happen with the bond?

Are/were the termination notices lawful?

Has the landlord breached their maintenance obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions