What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5014988?

The tribunal order states: Rawinia Andrews and Rodney McCall must pay Edwards Realty Limited T/As

How much money was awarded in case 5014988?

Cleaning: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,144.25 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Patch & Paint: $569.25 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $10,628.57 awarded to landlord; Report Costs Contribution: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Water Charges: $3,027.84 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5014988?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5014988?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13172070-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5014988?

The tribunal order states: Rawinia Andrews and Rodney McCall must pay Edwards Realty Limited T/As

How much money was awarded in case 5014988?

Cleaning: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,144.25 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Patch & Paint: $569.25 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $10,628.57 awarded to landlord; Report Costs Contribution: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Water Charges: $3,027.84 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5014988?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5014988?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13172070-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

51 Westerham Drive, Dannemora, Auckland 2016 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5014988 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5014988 — net $7,842.41 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 08/09/2025	$10,628.57		Rent arrears to 08/09/2025
Water charges	$3,027.84		Water charges
Cleaning	$1,144.25		Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$172.50		Carpet Cleaning
Patch & paint	$569.25		Patch & paint
Rent compensation		$2,400.00	Rent compensation
Report costs contribution		$500.00	Report costs contribution
Total award	$15,542.41	$2,900.00
Net award	$7,842.41
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,842.41

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5014988 — net $7,842.41 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 08/09/2025	$10,628.57		Rent arrears to 08/09/2025
Water charges	$3,027.84		Water charges
Cleaning	$1,144.25		Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$172.50		Carpet Cleaning
Patch & paint	$569.25		Patch & paint
Rent compensation		$2,400.00	Rent compensation
Report costs contribution		$500.00	Report costs contribution
Total award	$15,542.41	$2,900.00
Net award	$7,842.41
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,842.41

Order

Rawinia Andrews and Rodney McCall must pay Edwards Realty Limited T/As Century 21 As Agent For Garth Morris $7,842.41 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,800.00 (5341519-006) to Edwards Realty Limited T/As Century 21 As Agent For Garth Morris immediately.
The remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

This decision determines an application by the landlord for rent arrears, water charges and post-tenancy compensation, and a cross-application by the tenants alleging breaches of the landlord’s repair and maintenance obligations and the Healthy Homes Standards, and seeking rent compensation, reimbursement of certain costs, and exemplary damages.
The tenancy has ended. The tenants gave notice and vacated on 8 September 2025. As a result, the landlord’s claim for termination and the tenants’ claim for a work order are no longer live issues. The remaining issues are financial and declaratory.
In reaching this decision I apply the ordinary civil standard of proof. Each party must prove its claim on the balance of probabilities, meaning the fact asserted is more likely than not. I have considered all evidence filed and all oral evidence at the hearings. I do not refer to every document in these reasons, but nothing has been ignored. I also acknowledge and apologise for the delay in issuing this decision. Background
The premises were a large residential dwelling in Dannemora (5 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms), built in the early 2000s, approximately 388m². The tenancy commenced on 12 May 2023. The rent was $1,200 per week and the bond was $4,800.
The landlord applied for termination (now moot), rent arrears, unpaid water charges, the bond, and the filing fee, plus certain cleaning and damage-related costs at the end of the tenancy.
The tenants filed a cross application alleging the landlord failed to maintain and repair the premises and failed to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards. The tenants sought a work order (now moot), rent reduction/compensation, compensation for “excess power”, reimbursement of the costs of reports and other expenses, and exemplary damages. The tenants also disputed the method of calculating water charges and sought adjustment or waiver.
The tenants’ original cross-claim exceeded the Tribunal’s monetary jurisdiction. The tenants elected to limit the claim to $100,000 so the matter could proceed in the Tenancy Tribunal.
The matter proceeded over multiple hearing days (including 28 January 2025, 17 July 2025 and 13 November 2025). At the first hearing the Tribunal explained the principle of equitable set-off. If the tenants proved a monetary claim closely connected with the landlord’s claim for arrears, any award could be set off against arrears to achieve a fair net outcome. By the later hearing, the tenancy had already ended. Parties’ positions The landlord’s position
The landlord claimed rent arrears to the vacation date of $10,628.57, supported by a rent ledger/summary. The landlord claimed water arrears of $3,027.84, asserting a lawful split-meter arrangement supported by a plumber’s report and regular readings. The landlord claimed an invoice for locksmith services of $259.90 on the basis a front door key was not returned.
The landlord also claimed end-of-tenancy costs supported by photographs and invoices: cleaning ($1,144.25), mouldy curtain cleaning ($1,610.00), carpet cleaning of bedroom 3 ($172.50), patch and paint of a hole in bedroom 3 ($569.25) and the filing fee ($28.00). The landlord sought application of the bond toward amounts owing.
The landlord opposed the tenants’ cross-application, contending the premises were maintained appropriately for their age and character, that repairs were attended to through work orders and trades, and that the tenants’ reports were not independent or overstated issues. The landlord also contended some issues were not notified promptly, invoking the tenants’ obligation to notify repairs under section 40(1)(d) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). The landlord opposed rent compensation, report reimbursement and exemplary damages. The tenants’ position
The tenants accepted the patch and paint claim for bedroom 3.
The tenants disputed the locksmith claim, saying the keys provided at the commencement of the tenancy were returned. They argued the photograph relied on by the landlord was not definitive.
As to cleaning, the tenants said mould and moisture issues made cleaning more difficult and a health and safety concern, they did the best they could under the circumstances. They accepted they could not clean everything.
In their cross-application the tenants alleged serious and persistent defects affecting health, safety and habitability, including moisture, mould, sewage/drainage issues, heating inadequacy, ventilation deficiencies, electrical concerns and structural issues. They relied on a Healthy Homes inspection report, a building inspection report, an electrical assessment/quote and other material (photos/videos and communications).
They sought rent compensation for loss of amenity and non-compliance, reimbursement of certain costs (reports and other expenses), and exemplary damages. They also sought suppression, asserting undue hardship due to the sensitivity of the issues.
The tenants sought equitable set-off of any proven compensation against rent and water arrears. Relevant law
The following provisions and principles are relevant. Rent and outgoings
Section 40(1)(a) RTA requires a tenant to pay rent when it is due. Rent is not lawfully withheld as “self-help” because of alleged disrepair or disputes. A tenant’s remedies are to use the notice and enforcement processes under the Act, including applications for work orders and compensation.
A tenant may also be required to pay certain outgoings if the tenancy agreement lawfully provides for it and the charges meet legal requirements (including that the charges are for the supply to the premises and are properly calculated). Landlord repair and compliance obligations
Section 45(1)(b) RTA requires the landlord to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period of the tenancy.
Section 45(1)(bb) requires compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS).
Section 45(1)(c) requires the landlord to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety so far as they apply to the premises. Tenant notice obligations
Section 40(1)(d) RTA requires the tenant to notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises or need for repairs.
A landlord’s duty to repair is not excused simply because a tenant did not use the “right” system or wording. However, whether and when notice was given is often critical to whether a landlord had a reasonable opportunity to respond, and to the period for which compensation (including rent compensation) may be appropriate. Rent compensation and monetary compensation
Where the premises are not maintained or are not compliant, the Tribunal may award monetary compensation. A rent reduction/abatement (often described as rent compensation) may be awarded where the tenant proves a loss of amenity or that the tenant did not receive the full benefit of the tenancy due to the landlord’s breach. Quiet enjoyment and unlawful entry
Section 38 RTA provides that a tenant is entitled to quiet enjoyment of the premises without interference by the landlord. A breach of section 38 requires conduct by the landlord that amounts to a substantial interference with the tenant’s peace, comfort, or privacy. Mere disagreement, strained relations, or the existence of maintenance issues will not of themselves establish a breach.
Section 48 governs a landlord’s right of entry and strictly limits entry to specified purposes and circumstances, including requirements as to notice. Entry without lawful authority, or entry in a manner that is unreasonable, may constitute a breach of section 48 and may also amount to interference with quiet enjoyment under section 38. The onus rests on the party alleging breach to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the landlord entered unlawfully or engaged in conduct amounting to substantial interference. Exemplary damages
Exemplary damages under section 109 RTA are punitive and are only available for specified unlawful acts if the Tribunal is satisfied the act was committed intentionally. “Intentionally” in this context means the person meant to do the act or omitted to do the act knowing it was required, or was reckless as to whether the act was required. Negligence, poor administration, or a genuine dispute about what was required is not, without more, sufficient. Issues to be determined
The issues requiring determination are whether the landlord has established rent arrears, water charges, and entitlement to end-of-tenancy compensation; whether the tenants have established breaches of section 45, non-compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards, and breach of section 38 (quiet enjoyment), and whether those breaches give rise to compensable loss; whether the statutory threshold for exemplary damages is met; and whether the tenants are entitled to recover report costs and other claimed expenses. Analysis and findings Preliminary observations about scope
Some allegations raised by the tenants related to events after the tenants filed their application. The Tribunal can only determine claims properly raised in the application (and any properly filed amendments) and supported by evidence. Later events may provide context, but they cannot expand the causes of action or remedies beyond what was pleaded and properly before the Tribunal.
Further, because the tenancy ended on 8 September 2025, remedies requiring an ongoing tenancy (termination orders and work orders) are not available and are dismissed as moot. The landlord’s application Rent arrears
The landlord produced a rent summary/ledger showing rent arrears of $10,628.57 to the vacation date.
The tenants did not produce evidence sufficient to displace the landlord’s ledger, and in closing acknowledged that arrears were noted at the earlier hearing, although they maintained those sums should be offset by abatement/compensation.
On the balance of probabilities, I find the rent arrears are proved in the amount claimed.
Accordingly, rent arrears are awarded to the landlord in the sum of $10,628.57, subject to any set-off determined below. Water arrears
The landlord claimed $3,027.84 for water charges and maintained the charging arrangement was lawful and supported by evidence (including a plumber’s report and regular recorded readings). The tenants disputed the method, alleging the meter arrangement (two dwellings) made exclusive use unreliable and sought adjustment or waiver.
Having considered the material, I am satisfied the landlord has proved, on the balance of probabilities, that the charges claimed represent the tenants’ share of metered supply to the premises under a lawful arrangement, and that the sum claimed is supported by the landlord’s documentation.
Accordingly, the landlord is awarded water charges of $3,027.84, subject to set- off. Locksmith invoice
The landlord claimed $259.90 for changing locks, asserting a front door key was not returned. The tenants denied any missing key and argued the landlord’s photo evidence was not definitive.
The landlord bore the onus to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that (a) a key was not returned, and (b) key and lock replacement was a reasonably necessary response.
While the landlord provided a signed key record and office statements, the evidence did not persuade me to the required standard that a key was in fact missing at the end of the tenancy. In circumstances of conflicting accounts and non-definitive photographic evidence, the landlord has not met the onus.
This claim is declined. End-of-tenancy cleaning and carpet cleaning
The relevant legal question is whether the tenants left the premises reasonably clean and tidy, allowing for fair wear and tear, and if not, whether the landlord’s claimed costs are reasonable and were reasonably incurred.
While the tenants attributed difficulty to mould and moisture, that does not remove the tenants’ obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy.
On the evidence (including invoices and the tenants’ concessions), I find the landlord has proved the general cleaning cost of $1,144.25 was reasonably incurred.
I also find the bedroom 3 carpet clean cost of $172.50 was reasonably incurred. Curtain “mould cleaning”
The landlord claimed $1,610.00 for cleaning mouldy curtains. The tenants’ case was that mould was a feature of the premises due to moisture issues, and that this was part of the wider maintenance dispute.
This claim sits at the boundary between tenant responsibility and landlord responsibility. If the curtains became mouldy primarily because the premises had a proven moisture/ventilation defect not reasonably remedied by the landlord, it is less likely to be fair to treat this as a tenant-caused cleaning cost. Conversely, if the mould is primarily due to tenant use (for example, insufficient ventilation and heating habits in an otherwise compliant premises), the cost may be recoverable.
On the evidence before me, I am not satisfied the landlord has proved that the curtain mould was more likely caused by tenant conduct rather than the moisture/ventilation issues that were the subject of dispute and, as addressed below, were not fully resolved in a timely way. Given that uncertainty, and the landlord’s onus for this compensation claim, I decline the curtain cleaning cost. Patch/paint
The tenants accept the patch and paint claim of $569.25 and I allow it. The tenants’ cross-application Approach to the tenants’ maintenance and Healthy Homes claims
The tenants alleged extensive defects over the tenancy, supported by their reports and narrative timeline. The landlord disputed both the existence/severity of the defects and the independence/weight of the tenants’ reports, and also relied on its own work orders, invoices, and reports.
In a case of this kind, the Tribunal must identify what is actually proved, not what is alleged. The Tribunal must also identify the period for which any breach is proved and the extent of loss of amenity that follows from that breach. A large, older dwelling may have maintenance needs and cosmetic deterioration without breaching section 45. Conversely, persistent wastewater/sewage issues, significant unresolved ventilation failures, and non-functional required heating can, if proved, amount to breaches.
I make three findings that are central to the outcome.
First, there were maintenance issues through the tenancy, and the landlord did undertake a significant amount of work. The existence of many work orders and invoices supports that the landlord was not simply doing nothing.
Second, the tenants did not prove all alleged defects to the standard required. In particular, allegations that the home was definitively a “leaky building” or “uninhabitable” were not proved on the evidence before me to the balance of probabilities standard. Some reports were framed as pre-purchase style assessments and contained qualifications about the assessor’s limits (including lack of invasive testing). Those features affect weight.
Third, notwithstanding the above, I am satisfied there were periods where the landlord did not maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and/or did not address certain habitability-affecting issues within a reasonable timeframe after notice, particularly in relation to wastewater/sewage odour/overflow concerns and aspects of ventilation/heating performance as they affected amenity. The landlord’s position that it cannot fix what it is not told is correct as a general principle (section 40(1)(d)), but it is not a complete answer in circumstances where there is evidence of repeated complaints, multiple attendances, and ongoing issues not fully resolved. Breach findings under section 45
On the balance of probabilities, I find as follows.
I am satisfied that wastewater/sewage issues were raised during the tenancy and were of a kind that materially affected amenity. The evidence supports that plumbing works occurred later, and the dispute continued as to odour thereafter. Even accepting the landlord’s evidence of attendances and difficulty locating a leak, the persistence of an issue of this nature over an extended period is inconsistent with the premises being maintained in a reasonable state of repair throughout.
I am also satisfied that ventilation/heating concerns were raised and were closely connected with the tenants’ mould/moisture complaints. I do not find every asserted Healthy Homes failure proved. However, I am satisfied that, at least for part of the tenancy, the tenants did not receive the full benefit of the tenancy because the landlord did not adequately remedy a combination of moisture- management/ventilation/heating issues within a reasonable timeframe after notice, in a way that meaningfully restored the intended amenity.
Accordingly, I find the landlord breached section 45(1)(b) RTA to a limited but material extent, for a period within the tenancy.
As the tenancy has ended, it is not necessary to make a work order. The remaining question is the appropriate monetary remedy, if any. Healthy Homes Standards
The tenants alleged failure of three standards and relied on their Healthy Homes assessment. The landlord relied on its own Healthy Homes documentation and disputed the tenants’ assessor’s independence and methodology.
The Tribunal’s task is not to prefer one label over another, but to decide whether non-compliance is proved and, if so, what flows from that. On the evidence, I am not satisfied that the tenants proved, to the required standard, that the premises failed three standards in the manner and extent asserted for the entire relevant period. However, I am satisfied that there were shortcomings materially affecting ventilation/heating outcomes for a period, and that these shortcomings overlapped with the landlord’s section 45 maintenance breach described above.
In practical terms, I treat the proven deficiency as supporting a rent compensation award for loss of amenity for a defined period, rather than as a basis for additional separate awards that would risk double counting. Rent compensation for loss of amenity
The tenants sought a substantial rent reduction (25%–50%). The landlord opposed any abatement and emphasised the size and value of the home and the tenants’ continued occupation and renewal.
Continued occupation does not, by itself, defeat rent compensation. Tenants often remain due to cost, disruption, schooling and work needs, and limited housing availability. However, continued occupation and renewal are relevant to assessing the severity and overall impact, and to whether the tenant truly experienced a near-total loss of amenity as alleged.
Rent compensation must be anchored to what is actually proved. It is not a generalised fairness adjustment. The Tribunal must identify (1) the nature of the proven breach, (2) the period during which the breach materially affected amenity, and (3) a proportionate percentage reflecting the degree of loss of amenity.
I am not satisfied that the tenants proved that the premises were “uninhabitable” or that there was a pervasive Healthy Homes failure for the duration claimed. The evidence shows substantial maintenance was undertaken during the tenancy.
Having weighed the evidence, I am not satisfied the circumstances justify abatement at the upper end claimed. The defects proved are material but not shown to have deprived the tenants of the essential character of the home for the full period claimed.
However, I am satisfied that for a defined period the tenants experienced a material loss of amenity arising primarily from unresolved sewage-related concerns and overlapping ventilation/heating shortcomings.
On the evidence, the period during which amenity was materially affected is best assessed at approximately 10 weeks. This reflects the timeframe during which the sewage-related concerns were active and not yet satisfactorily resolved.
The loss of amenity during that period was real but not total. The premises remained a large 5-bedroom dwelling, and not all areas were affected. A moderate abatement of 20% is appropriate to reflect reduced enjoyment rather than deprivation of the essential character of the tenancy. Rent was $1,200 per week. 20% of $1,200 is $240 per week. Over 10 weeks this equates to $2,400.
I award rent compensation of $2,400.00 for loss of amenity attributable to the landlord’s breach of section 45. This figure reflects a moderate, not punitive, allowance recognising the impact of the proven issues over a meaningful period, while also recognising that the tenants occupied a very large dwelling, the landlord undertook many repairs, and not all alleged defects were proved. “Excess power” claim
The tenants claimed $4,262.85 in excessive power costs. The landlord objected that no power bills were provided.
The tenants bear the onus to prove both causation (that the landlord’s breach caused higher power consumption) and quantum (the amount). On the evidence before me, the claim is not proved. It is declined. Report and assessment costs
The tenants sought reimbursement for: a builder’s inspection report ($920.00), a Healthy Homes report ($171.35), and an electrical assessment ($218.50), plus other costs.
The Tribunal can award costs as compensation where they are reasonably incurred and reasonably necessary to establish or mitigate a breach. The fact the landlord did not request a report is not determinative. The questions are necessity and reasonableness.
In this case, the tenants did not succeed on all alleged defects, and some reports contained limitations affecting weight. However, obtaining at least a Healthy Homes assessment and a building inspection in a dispute of this nature was not unreasonable. It also assisted the Tribunal to resolve issues, even if not all findings were accepted.
Balancing those considerations, I award $500.00 as a reasonable contribution to the tenants’ report costs. This avoids over-compensating for reports that did not fully prove the tenants’ broader claims, while recognising that some independent assessment was reasonably obtained in the circumstances. Exemplary damages
The tenants sought exemplary damages on the basis the landlord intentionally failed to meet obligations.
I am not satisfied the statutory test for exemplary damages is met. The evidence shows disputes about notice, competing reports, and a significant volume of work orders and attendances. The landlord’s conduct, while falling short in some respects (as found under section 45), is not proved to be intentional non- compliance or reckless disregard to the standard required for exemplary damages under section 109. Exemplary damages are declined. Water charge “adjustment/waiver” in the tenants’ claim
For the reasons given earlier, I am satisfied the landlord has proved the water charges claimed. There is no basis on the evidence for a waiver or adjustment. This aspect of the tenants’ claim is declined. Quiet enjoyment and unlawful entry
The tenants allege sustained harassment, intimidation, repeated unlawful entry, and conduct that made the property intolerable. The landlord disputes these allegations and says access was lawfully sought and that any confrontations arose in the context of a breakdown in the relationship.
I deal with the quiet enjoyment allegation under two categories: (a) Condition of the Premises A failure to maintain premises may, in some circumstances, amount to a breach of section 38 if the resulting condition substantially interferes with the tenant’s peace or comfort. However, where the issue is primarily one of repair or compliance, it is generally addressed under section 45 and remedied through compensation for loss of amenity. In this case, I have found that the landlord breached section 45(1)(b) for a limited period due to unresolved sewage-related amenity impacts and overlapping ventilation/heating shortcomings. That breach resulted in measurable loss of amenity. The appropriate remedy for that loss is rent compensation, which I have assessed separately. I am not satisfied that the condition issues proved rise to the level of an independent breach of section 38 beyond the section 45 breach already identified. To treat the same factual matrix as a separate section 38 breach would risk double counting. (b) Alleged Unlawful Entry and Harassment The tenants allege repeated unlawful access and intimidating conduct by contractors and property managers. The landlord disputes this and says access was either notified or involved misunderstandings, and that in at least one instance a contractor attended the wrong property. The evidence before me does not establish, on the balance of probabilities, a sustained pattern of unlawful entry in breach of section 48, nor conduct by the landlord that amounted to deliberate harassment. There is clear evidence of a deteriorated relationship and mutual distrust. There is also evidence of confrontation during inspection attempts. However, strained interactions and disagreements about access, particularly in the context of ongoing litigation, do not of themselves establish a section 38 breach.
I am not satisfied that the tenants have proved that the landlord engaged in conduct that substantially interfered with their peace, comfort, or privacy beyond the repair-related issues already addressed under section 45.
Accordingly, I decline to make a separate finding of breach under section 38. Filing fee
While each party has succeeded in part, neither has achieved substantial success when the proceeding is viewed as a whole. Accordingly, and pursuant to section 102 RTA, I decline to order reimbursement of any filing fee. Each party is to bear their own filing costs. Orders
Summary of landlord’s awards: Rent arrears: $10,628.57. Water charges: $3,027.84. Cleaning: $1,144.25. Carpet cleaning: $172.50. Patch and paint: $569.25. Total landlord award: $15,542.41
The tenants’ proven monetary claims total $2,900 ($2400 rent compensation + $500 report contribution).
Net amount owing to the landlord after set-off is therefore $12,642.41.
The bond is $4,800.00.
The bond is to be applied towards the net amount owing to the landlord. After applying the bond, the remaining amount payable by the tenants to the landlord is $7,842.41.
All claims, counterclaims, allegations and requests for relief advanced by the parties have been considered in full. Where a claim has not been expressly upheld in the reasons, it is dismissed. The dismissal reflects either a failure to discharge the onus of proof on the balance of probabilities, insufficient evidential foundation, or a finding that no legal entitlement arises on the facts established. Suppression
Under section 95A RTA, name suppression is not granted as a matter of preference. The Tribunal must be satisfied that publication would be likely to cause the applicant undue hardship, and the Tribunal must balance that against the principle of open justice and the public interest in publication of Tribunal decisions.
The tenants seek suppression on the basis of sensitive health, safety and financial matters, including references to medical concerns and family circumstances. While I accept that the matters discussed are personal and may be uncomfortable, the evidence does not establish that publication would be likely to cause undue hardship within the meaning of section 95A. The health matters raised were general in nature, no detailed medical records are published in this decision, and the issues determined are typical of tenancy disputes involving maintenance and arrears. The potential impact on future rental prospects or reputation does not meet the statutory threshold.
The landlord also sought suppression. No evidence has been provided that publication would cause undue hardship beyond the ordinary consequences of litigation.
This is a civil dispute concerning compliance with statutory tenancy obligations. There is a strong public interest in the transparency of Tribunal decisions, particularly where issues of maintenance, arrears, and Healthy Homes compliance are raised.
Balancing all relevant factors, I am not satisfied that either party has demonstrated that publication would be likely to cause undue hardship. The applications for suppression are therefore declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5014988 — Rent arrears at 51 Westerham Drive, Dannemora, Auckland 2016

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5014988 — Rent arrears at 51 Westerham Drive, Dannemora, Auckland 2016

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions