What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5043469 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 5043469?

Compensation: Backyard: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: breach of quiet enjoym…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Roof Leak/Mould: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Unlawful Entry: $75.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5043469?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5043469?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11964325-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5043469 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 5043469?

Compensation: Backyard: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: breach of quiet enjoym…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Roof Leak/Mould: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Unlawful Entry: $75.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5043469?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5043469?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11964325-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5043469 — Mould & damp

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5043469 — net $1,402.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: unlawful entry	$75.00	unlawful entry
Compensation: backyard	$500.00	backyard
Compensation: roof leak/mould	$300.00	roof leak/mould
Compensation: breach of quiet enjoyment	$500.00	breach of quiet enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,402.00
Bond	$2,200.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,402.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5043469 — net $1,402.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: unlawful entry	$75.00	unlawful entry
Compensation: backyard	$500.00	backyard
Compensation: roof leak/mould	$300.00	roof leak/mould
Compensation: breach of quiet enjoyment	$500.00	breach of quiet enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,402.00
Bond	$2,200.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,402.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
Satesh Govind must pay [The tenant/s] $1,402.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

This is the second hearing, held by teleconference, with both parties attending, along with Ms Govind in support of the landlord.
Following the first hearing, which was adjourned part-heard, the parties filed further evidence. At the second hearing, the parties provided oral evidence and submissions in response.
The background facts are set out in my earlier order and are reproduced below. (There are some corrections made to the names of the tenants and the address of the landlord following the parties’ comments at the second hearing.) Background
This tenancy began on 31 August 2018 and ended on 19 October 2024. The rent is $610.00 per week and a bond of $2,200.00 was paid.
The tenancy agreement was originally in the names of [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] and two other named tenants, who were family members living at the premises. The landlord agreed to add the other tenant, [Tenant 3], and was aware the other two named tenants had left (after staying for a few months). The landlord states the Bond Centre records will note the names of the original four tenants, as recorded in the tenancy agreement.
The current tenants have applied for a return of their bond, compensation for breaches of landlord obligations and exemplary damages. The tenants claim compensation of $10,000.00 for unlawful entry by the landlord, lack of use of the backyard, mould, roof leak and a breach of quiet enjoyment. They claim exemplary damages for the various breaches and for the way they have been treated by the landlord. A detailed written statement, with photographic evidence, was provided in support.
The landlord has filed a cross application, seeking payment from the bond for cleaning costs of $420.00. Landlord’s application: 5055368 Cleaning
The landlord provided photographic evidence in support of the claimed cleaning costs and states there were areas that needed further cleaning. He explained that the previous tenants (who stayed prior to the current tenants) had left the place in a mess, leaving them with a lot of cleaning to do. This was the reason they had given the current tenants a list of requirements. The landlord did the cleaning, and seeks $420.00 in compensation. The written statement indicates the cleaning cost was based on 14 hours cleaning time, at a rate of $30.00 per hour. Ms Govind says she worked the whole of Saturday cleaning the premises.
The tenants state the landlord asked them to arrange for a professional cleaner, which they did, and the carpet was professionally cleaned. The landlord then indicated the premises was not clean enough, due to some cobwebs and dust on the skirting board. They attended to this themselves. They felt the landlord did not want to give them their bond back. Tenants’ application: 5043469 Unlawful entry
At the hearing, the tenants provided oral evidence in support of the claim that there was unlawful entry by the landlord on 11 October 2024. They say the landlord texted them the previous day, informing them that an extractor fan was to be installed, and an electrician was to come on 11 October 2024 at 2pm. They did not agree, as [Tenant 1] would not be home. He suggested an alternate day, on Monday 14 October 2024. However, the electrician attended on 11 October 2024, with the landlord letting him in anyway. They note there was no permission given.
In response, the landlord states that as part of the Healthy Homes requirements, he was getting an extractor fan installed in the bathroom, and smoke alarms installed. The electrician turned up early. He was at home that day and as he lived close by (in a neighbouring property) he let the electrician in.
The landlord relies on section 48(2)(ca) and (cb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA). He maintains he gave 24 hours’ notice before entering the premises. It was important that he comply with the smoke alarm requirements. A Healthy Homes inspection by Encore on 9 October 2024 had revealed the smoke alarms did not comply. The electrician had indicated he could not come back at
30pm. Backyard
The tenants state they did not have full use of the backyard, for 15 months, since the January 2023 floods. The council had placed a yellow sticker, indicating it was safe to live in the house but not the backyard. They described the area affected. Later, in April/May 2024, the landlord arranged for a construction company to do some retaining work. They were unclear about what work was happening, but it was noisy, and the house would shake from the vibrations. This lasted for a few weeks. One weekend they were awoken with construction noise.
The tenants seek the amount of $75.00 per week for 60 weeks, which equates to $4,200.00. They say the backyard was around 20% of the whole property. The premises has 2 bedrooms, one bathroom, living area and kitchen. The premises has its own land, separated from [The neighbouring address].
The landlord explained that on 27 January 2023, there was flooding and landslips. [The landlord’s address] (where he lived) was yellow stickered, but there was a white sticker placed on the premises at [The tenancy address], meaning it could be used, although there was damage/light damage. He emailed the tenants on 13 May 2024, the work started on 20 May 2024. Most of the work was done by [construction company]. A small retaining wall was built at the tenancy premises, and when the work was happening, the tenants would have been unable to use the backyard for 2 – 3 weeks. Most access was via their own property. A letter from [construction company] was provided.
In terms of the compensation being sought by the tenants, the landlord noted this was an unusual/freak weather event that no-one expected, which caused a lot of damage. He had done his best to remedy it. The tenants could have talked to him at the time about compensation.
In reply, the tenants say the [Council] representative had indicated it was safe to live at the house, but not to use the backyard. They do not accept that the backyard was levelled in 2 to 3 weeks time. Roof leak and mould
The tenants state that during the first few years of their 6-year tenancy, there were no issues with mould, apart from some mould during winter, which they cleaned. Then they noticed significant mould developing in 2021. They believe it was likely caused by a roof leak in the kitchen/living room area. They told the landlord about the leak, the builder came, around 2022, and looked at the roof. The leak in the kitchen area was fixed, but not the living area. When there is excessive rain, it leaks, and they told the landlord about it during an inspection in 2023. The landlord told them they needed to ventilate the premises. The issue of the roof leak in the living area had not been resolved by the end of the tenancy. Video evidence, taken on 23 December 2023, was provided.
In response, the landlord states he was not aware of the video until the hearing, and if there was ever an issue with mould, the builder was sent in to see what the problem was. If he had been informed, he did his best to do something straight away.
The landlord accepts that he was told about the roof leak in December 2023. He recalled telephoning the builder. He accepts that water leaks do cause mould. The problem was that the premises has a ceramic tile roof, so there is some movement with the tiles, allowing water to come through the ceiling, causing mould. The way to address it would be to put a silicon seal.
The tenants did not recall having any conversations with the landlord about what he had done to address the problem. It was still an issue when they left. Breach of quiet enjoyment
The tenants claim there has been a breach of their quiet enjoyment of the premises, due to the noise and inconvenience of having builders and other tradespeople come to the premises at short notice. They believe the noise from the builders doing the retaining work lasted around 5 weeks (not 2-3 weeks). This caused difficulties for them because they work from home.
The tenants state they gave notice ending the tenancy on 21 September 2024. Then, from 2 October 2024, “it all started”, with a builder coming to look at leaks. Further instances occurred on: • 6 October 2024: access for prospective tenants without adequate notice • 7 October 2024: access for prospective tenants with less than 48 hours notice • 8 October 2024: builders to install new doors • 10 October 2024: entry to the house without notice • 17 October 2024: prospective tenants, with less than 48 hours notice • 18 October 2024: plasterers came on the day they moved out, to finish the doors in the lounge.
In reply, the landlord says that for the majority of the time, he had a good relationship with the tenants. There had only been three rent increases since the start of the tenancy, and he did not pressure them during the tenancy for property inspections. He only conducted one property inspection per year. When the tenants gave notice, they asked him for a reference.
In response to the tenant’s evidence concerning the events, the landlord stated: • 2 October 2024: he gave over 24 hours notice. He only needed to give 24 hours notice as it was repair work. • 6 October 2024: the tenant said no, so he did not show anyone through • 7 October 2024: the tenants indicated they were fine by texting a “thumbs up” emoji • 18 October 2024: the plasterer was finishing up. In hindsight, maybe he could have arranged this on another day.
The landlord also said that around this time, he had to attend hospital for a medical event, so he was under pressure.
The tenants confirmed that they sought exemplary damages for the landlord breaches. Second hearing: further evidence and submissions Landlord’s evidence and submissions
The landlord, in written submissions, responded to the tenant’s claim about the bond, noting that he just wanted the property in the condition it was when the tenants first started their tenancy. He denied saying he would withhold the bond. Examples of texts sent to the tenants were provided. In terms of entry to the premises on 11 October 2024, permission was given by the tenant. The landlord clarified that he lived at [The landlord’s address].
The landlord provided evidence concerning the status of the premises following the floods. While the tenants believed it was yellow, it was in fact a white placard, as shown in the email from [Council]. There was also a letter dated 19 February 2025 from [The builder] concerning the roof leak. [The builder] detailed the work he carried out on the roof in December 2023.
The landlord submitted that whenever there was an issue, he tried to address it. He believed that, for the vast duration of the tenancy, there was a good working relationship with the tenants. The tenants had only emailed him 18 times, roughly three times per year. He provided examples of issues arising that he had dealt with promptly, for example, the hot water cylinder in September 2024. He noted that there had only been three rent increases for the duration of the six-year tenancy, and only five property inspections during the tenancy. He had provided a reference for the tenants. He had only received one message from the tenants about the noise in the backyard. All of this came about on the last day over the issue of cleaning. Then other issues arose.
The landlord states that on 10 January 2023, he received an email about the roof leak, and responded on the same day. He was verbally told on 13 January, emailed and said he would send a builder. He was under the impression there were no other problems. At the inspection on 23 December, he was informed that there was still a problem with leaks.
Regarding the backyard, the landlord believed the levelling would have been done within a 4-week timeframe, not far after 15 June 2024. On 25 August, the backyard had been levelled and was useable, although there was no grass.
Ms Govind said in evidence there were a number of other personal events they had been dealing with, and spoke about the impact of this. Tenants’ evidence and submissions
In response, the tenants state they notified the landlord about the roof leak in January and June 2023, and during the inspection in December 2023. The tenants provided evidence of emails sent to the landlord. They did not recall the builder coming, and were not aware of what had occurred.
Regarding the backyard, they had believed, from speaking to council staff following the floods, that it was not safe. They had seen cracks in the backyard. They agreed that the retaining work was likely completed within the 2-3 week timeframe stated by the landlord. However, they consider the levelling of the backyard was not finished until around August 2024.
The tenants state they had not contacted the landlord more frequently about the noise because they had been prepared to tolerate it, did not want to disturb the landlord and had just accepted it. However, they had to put up with a lot of machinery noise.
In terms of the cleaning, the tenants state they did what was required to clean the premises on the last day. They felt the landlord wanted to keep the bond. Legal framework: general principles
In this jurisdiction, the party making the claim has the onus of proving their claim to the required civil standard of proof, which is on the balance of probabilities. This means they must establish, with evidence, that their claim is “more likely than not.”
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. In general, when awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach.
Exemplary damages are penalties and can only be awarded for an unlawful act, as set out in various sections of the RTA and as listed in Schedule 1A of the Act. They are different from compensation and are designed to punish and deter, more like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion. Where one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act, before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the RTA. Analysis: Landlord’s application

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the RTA.
The tenant’s obligation is to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. This is not necessarily pristine, or to the standard a landlord considers acceptable for a new tenant. 1 The standard does not equate to being commercially clean 2 , spotless 3 , or hotel/motel standard of cleanliness. 4 Therefore, a landlord may have some additional work to bring the premises up to standard for a new tenant 5 and cannot claim excessive time to clean and tidy the premises. 6
In this case, I note the absence of photographic evidence of the condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy. The landlord’s oral evidence is that the premises was in a good condition. The property inspection report (which forms part of the tenancy agreement) provides a written record of the condition at the start of the tenancy, and was signed by both parties on 30 August 2018. This records there were some marks on the walls in the lounge, kitchen/dining, bathroom, and bedrooms 1 and 2. Some carpet stains were recorded in the lounge and bedroom 2. So, the written report indicates there were some marks and stains in certain areas of the premises at the start of the tenancy.
Both parties have provided photographic and oral evidence regarding the condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy. The tenants have also 1 Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV-2008-085-1441, 17 Dec 2008. 2 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd TT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009 3 Reardon v Fahey Property Management Ltd [2016] NZTT Auckland 3149 at 6. 4 Richards v Scally TT Christchurch TT 2043/98, 21 July 1998 5 Richards v Scally (above) 6 Falwasser v Armstrong [2011] NZTT Whakatane 523. provided evidence of additional cleaning they have had to do during the tenancy, due to dust from work done by the builder when installing a door.
Having considered the evidence and submissions, I am satisfied that the tenants have met the standard required at the end of the tenancy. Therefore, while acknowledging the landlord’s evidence of further cleaning being done after the tenancy ended, this may be counterbalanced by the additional cleaning the tenants did during the tenancy due to dust from building work. Furthermore, the landlord can expect that some further cleaning may be required to bring the premises up to standard for a new tenant. Therefore, this claim is dismissed.
As the landlord’s claim for payment from the bond for cleaning costs is unsuccessful, the bond is to be returned in full to the tenants. Analysis: Tenants’ application Unlawful entry
Under section 48 of the RTA, a landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections, and repairs and maintenance. 7 If a landlord enters the premises in contravention of section 48, this is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $1,500.00. 8
In this case, having considered the evidence and submissions of both parties, I find the tenants have established that the landlord has been in breach of his obligation under section 48. In making this finding, I acknowledge the landlord’s evidence about the reasons why he entered the premises on 11 October 2024, to give access for the electrician to install an extractor fan and smoke alarm.
As the landlord notes, Section 48(2)(ca) and (cb) of the RTA allows for entry by the landlord with 24 hours’ notice for reasons relating to compliance with the smoke alarms regulations or the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). However, the landlord’s notice, via text, indicated that he would be entering the premises at
30pm. As the text message from the tenant makes it clear, he wished to be present when the electrician attended, asking that the work be carried out when he was home. In the circumstances, this was a reasonable request. The fact that the electrician arrived early did not give the landlord a valid reason to enter the premises earlier than the agreed time, without the tenant’s consent. There is no evidence that the landlord sought and obtained the tenant’s permission. 7 See section 48(1) and (2) of the RTA 8 See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A of the RTA
In view of the overall circumstances, I consider it appropriate that the tenants are compensated. Taking into account the nature of the breach, the reasons for entry, noting that it was for a legitimate purpose (compliance with smoke alarm regulations and HHS), the effect for the tenants, and the surrounding circumstances, the amount of $75.00 is awarded in compensation.
The tenants also claim exemplary damages. For this to be awarded, the test for exemplary damages must be met. This is set out in section 109(3) of the RTA, and requires, as a precondition, that the person against whom the order is sought committed the unlawful act intentionally. An intentional act is a deliberate act, not a negligent or careless oversight, or incompetence. In this case, I find that the required intent for exemplary damages is not met, so there is no separate award for exemplary damages. Backyard
The January 2023 Auckland Anniversary weekend weather event saw heavy rain, widespread flooding and landslips over multiple locations, including the premises owned by the landlord. The landlord’s evidence shows that [The tenancy address] was issued with a white placard by [The council]. This was communicated to the tenants via email on 31 January 2023, and they were provided with the information concerning this designation. So, this means the building was safe to use. The tenants may have received contrary advice, but the landlord’s evidence on this issue is more reliable.
I agree with the landlord that this was an unusual weather event, and was unpredictable. It resulted in the landlord having to do work to the backyard because of damage from flooding. I accept that this work was disruptive for the tenants. While there appears to be agreement that the retaining work took around two to three weeks, the tenants have provided evidence regarding the duration of the levelling work, suggesting this was not completed until August 2024. Accepting the need for the work, this has resulted in a loss of amenity for the tenants when the retaining and levelling work was being carried out. While noting the tenants’ photographic evidence, the extent to which the backyard was unusable (for example, due to safety concerns), for the remainder of the time, is unclear.
Taking all these factors into account, I consider the tenants ought to be compensated in the amount of $500.00. Roof leak and mould
The landlord’s obligations are set out under section 45 of the RTA. This includes the requirement that the landlord provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises. 9 The landlord is also required to comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health, and safety.
The extent of the landlord’s obligation to repair was considered in the decision of Barfoot & Thompson v Casey. 10 The Court noted that there was no absolute liability/responsibility obligation, so the landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage. The tenant has to notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises, or of the need for repair. 11 Once notified, the landlord is obliged to repair within a reasonable time.
On the issue of mould, as noted by the Tribunal in Semmens v Wadman, 12 mould is commonly present throughout all residential dwellings in New Zealand to some degree. Adjudicator Woodhouse explained that simply having mould in the premises would not be sufficient to establish a breach on the part of the landlord for which compensation can be ordered: Rather, what a tenant must establish, is that there are defects with the premises which have caused mould to develop, or to be at a more extensive level than would otherwise be reasonably expected in a dwelling that meets the required building standards.
The evidence shows that while work to address the roof leak was done in 2022, there remained an issue with the roof leaking in the kitchen/living area. As the tenants have explained, when there is excessive rain, it leaks. They informed the landlord by email in January and June 2023, and during an inspection in December 2023. There is photographic evidence in support. The landlord has accepted that he was informed about it, and has explained the reason for the difficulty in addressing it, noting that as the premises has a ceramic tile roof, there was movement, allowing the water to come in.
In this case, I am satisfied that the tenants have established that the mould on the ceiling was most likely from the roof leak. Furthermore, while I accept that the landlord did attend to the initial repair, there was a need for further repairs to the roof, which were not undertaken in a timely way.
Overall, having regard to the nature and duration of the roof repair issue, the presence of mould, and the resulting effect for the tenants, the amount of $300.00 is awarded in compensation. 9 Section 45(1)(b) 10 CIV-2005-004-001762, 7 November 2007 11 Section 40(1)(d) 12 [2022] NZTT Manukau 310605 Breach of quiet enjoyment
Section 38(1) of the RTA states that the tenant is entitled to have “quiet enjoyment” of the premises without interruption by the landlord or anyone acting on the landlord’s behalf. This provision imposes a limited duty on the landlord not to do anything to interrupt the tenant’s use of the premises. 13 Section 38(2) of the RTA further provides that a landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises.
The right to ‘reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy’ is often described as the right to quiet enjoyment. In this context “quiet” means peaceful, not merely free from noise, and “enjoyment” means the right to full use and benefit of the tenancy property. 14 This right is commonly used in reference to the uninterrupted use of the premises, and can include the right not to have the tenancy significantly impaired by the actions of the landlord and/or the landlord’s agents.
Where this obligation has been breached in circumstances that amount to harassment, this is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, 15 up to a maximum of $3,000.00. 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." 16
The tenants claim there has been a breach of their quiet enjoyment of the premises, due to the noise and inconvenience of having builders and other tradespeople come to the premises at short notice. They believe the noise from the builders doing the retaining work lasted around 5 weeks. This caused difficulties for them because they work from home. They have given examples of multiple visits by tradespeople, from the time they gave notice, to the end of the tenancy. They have also provided evidence of their communication with the landlord during the relevant period, including communication regarding visits by prospective tenants and for house inspections.
This is a tenancy of long duration, lasting six years. Overall, it seems the parties had a good relationship, although this did change near the end of the tenancy. I acknowledge the landlord’s evidence that he was affected by the medical issues he was dealing with at the time. It is also apparent that, from the tenant’s perspective, there were numerous disruptions due to the attendance of tradespeople near the end of the tenancy. I also find that, on the last day of the tenancy, it was not appropriate for the landlord to arrange for tradespeople to be on site when the tenants were moving out. 13 ‘Residential Tenancies: The Law and Practice’ 4 th edition, D. Grinlinton (2012) 14 Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand S. Benson (2018) 15 See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A of the RTA 16 MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
Taking all these factors into account, I find there has been a breach of the tenants’ quiet enjoyment of the premises. This is because of the overall impact of the multiple events involving the landlord’s contractors at the premises, noise from the building/retaining work, and the presence of tradespeople on the day the tenants were moving out. I find this has resulted in a breach of the tenants’ right to the uninterrupted use of the premises. Accordingly, taking into account the nature of the breach, the duration of the breach, and its effect on the tenants, I consider the amount of $500.00 to be reasonable compensation.
While the landlord has been in breach, I do not find his actions amount to harassment. The landlord’s purpose does not appear to be malicious, and his conduct does not show a pattern of behaviour targeted at the tenants to trouble, worry, or cause distress. Therefore, as this breach does not amount to harassment, there is no unlawful act for which exemplary damages can be awarded. Filing fee and name suppression
As the tenants have been substantially successful with their claim, the landlord is to pay the tenants’ filing fee.
The tenants have requested name suppression, which is granted, since they have been substantially successful in the proceedings. The landlord does no seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5043469 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5043469 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions