What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5237517 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 5237517?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $81.37 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $590.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5237517?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5237517?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12237728-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5237517 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 5237517?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $81.37 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $590.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5237517?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5237517?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12237728-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5237517 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5237517 — net $698.37 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs	$590.00	Repairs
Lawns and Garden work	$81.37	Lawns and Garden work
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$698.37
Bond	$2,440.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$698.37

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5237517 — net $698.37 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs	$590.00	Repairs
Lawns and Garden work	$81.37	Lawns and Garden work
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$698.37
Bond	$2,440.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$698.37

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Kate Mclaren to pay [The landlord/s] $698.37 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,440.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Landlord $698.37 Kate Mclaren: $1,741.63

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by both the landlord and tenant. The tenancy has now ended, but there are disputes around various matters at the end of the tenancy. DescriptionLandlordTenant Repairs$590.00 Lawns and Garden work$81.37 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$698.37 Bond$698.37$1,741.63
Both parties appeared at the hearing, the landlord appeared in person, the tenant appeared by telephone.

BACKGROUND

We will discuss the relevant background more fully below. However, we note that the tenancy in this case commenced in December 2020 and the tenancy ended in April 2025.
Various matters arose between the parties which are now the subject of the claims before the Tribunal, and again we will address those further shortly.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

At the hearing, the landlord confirmed its claims are as follows: a. Repairs and painting. b. Garden and lawn costs. c. Exemplary damages for methamphetamine contamination.
We record for completeness that the landlord had initially filed a claim for cleaning costs, but that claim has been withdrawn.

TENANTS CLAIMS

At the hearing, the tenant confirmed her claims are: a. Bond release. b. Breach of quiet enjoyment. c. Discrimination.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

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

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

The Tribunal must consider a claim for exemplary damages.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the RTA.
Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the RTA.

ANALYSIS

We will consider the landlord’s claims then the tenants’ claims. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS Claim 1 – Repairs and painting
The landlord seeks compensation for remediation to the walls. The landlord seeks costs of $690.00 for the cost of undertaking that work. The landlord points to marks on the walls and a repair of the plaster patch from a cutout on an interior wall.
In response, the tenant states that the cutout was pre-existing, but had been hidden by a curtain. The tenant says she has lived in the premises for 4 ½ years, and this would fall within the category of fair wear and tear. The tenant says that she had advice from a personal advisor (not the landlord or tenancy services) about the screws in the wall, and whether she needed to have those removed, the advice was she did not. The tenant considers that the landlord’s claims are nitpicking, and she feels bullied about the state of her house. The tenant considers that any additional damage was fair wear and tear. The tenant considers that she should have been allowed to address any issues with the tenancy.
The landlord states that the tenant was given an opportunity to remedy any damage to the premises, but that was following the tenancy end date.

ANALYSIS

The question the Tribunal must determine, is whether the tenant is liable to pay for repairs and other remediation to the internal walls of the tenancy.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must first prove the damage is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional when a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
As we raised with the parties at the hearing, what the Tribunal must do is assess all of the information we have available and step back, then make the decision on whether the damages likely to have occurred during the tenancy, and whether it would be fair wear and tear. Having done that, our conclusion is that the majority of the marks on the wall, would have risen during this tenancy, and are beyond the level of fair wear and tear.
We have carefully considered the photographs that have been presented by both the tenant and landlord, and our assessment is that those photographs support a conclusion that the damage shown in the exit photographs, was not present prior, with one exception. The exception relates to an area of a cut out next to a window or door shown in the landlord’s photographs. The tenant’s position is that this area was obscured by a curtain when she moved in, hence it was missed. That is credible, and we accept it.
However, in relation to the rest of the damage, we recognise that the tenancy was for around 4 ½ years, but the extent of the damage to the walls is in our assessment, beyond what would reasonably be accepted in a tenancy of that duration.
Having considered the evidence, our conclusion is that the damage to the walls would comprise careless damage, meaning the tenant is liable for the remediation costs.
The landlord has claimed compensation of $690 for the repair of the walls. Given the extent of the damage to the walls, we consider that to be a fair amount for the repairs. We have determined that an order of $590 should be made, as we have noted above. We do not accept that the claim for the cut-out repair has been established, and we consider a fair deduction to remedy the cut out would be $100, so that is deducted from the claim.
One of the concerns raised by the tenant, is that she was not given an opportunity to go back to the premises and remediate any damage. As we explained that the hearing, the question is whether the premises were damaged when possession was returned to the landlord. For the reason set out above we find the premises were. The landlord is under no obligation once possession has been returned, to allow the tenant to return to the premises to undertake any further work. While often landlords will allow a tenant to go back and do anything needed, strictly speaking, the landlord is not required to in law.
The end result is that the tenant must pay the landlord $590 for the wall remediation costs. Claim 2 – Garden and lawn costs
The landlord seeks compensation for work to the exterior of the tenancy. The landlord states that there was a hedge, but at the end of the tenancy half the plants were missing, and the gardens was overgrown. The landlord states there was a patch of grass that needed to be reseeded. The landlord understands that the tenant has made $650.00 of payment but is now only claiming the balance of $81.37.
The tenant disputes that she had made any part payments for the gardens. The tenant says that it was in fact the landlord who trimmed the shrubs. The tenant states that the dirt patch was grass and would have regrown independently.
The landlord advised they were not seeking costs for the shrub.
At the hearing we discussed the dispute between the parties over whether the tenant had made any payments. The landlord confirmed nevertheless, they were only seeking the lesser amount that they understood to be owed, that is $81.37. We proceed on that basis.

ANALYSIS

This claim is in relation to the exterior of the premises, in short, the landlord’s position is that the grounds were not returned reasonably clean and tidy.
The RTA requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (s45(1)(a)), and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided/returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
In this case, the landlord claims $81.37 toward the cost of tidying the gardens. We have considered the photographs provided; the entry photographs show a tidy garden. At the end of the tenancy, the garden was clearly overgrown with weeds, and there were piles of grass clippings in the raised garden bed. In our assessment the garden was not reasonably tidy when it was returned to the landlord, so the tenant was responsible for the costs to remedy that situation. The gardeners’ invoice has been provided, and we are satisfied that the work to address just the raised garden bed would be at least $81.37, so that amount is ordered in full. Claim 3 – Methamphetamine contamination
The landlord states that at the start of the tenancy there was a routine test completed for methamphetamine, with none being detected. The landlord states that at the end of the tenancy another test for methamphetamine was undertaken and traces of methamphetamine were found. The landlord seeks exemplary damages for using the premises for an illegal purpose.
The tenant disputes that she has contaminated the premises with methamphetamine. The tenant cannot say whether someone in the premises may have caused the contamination, but she is adamant that she does not know anything about this.
In conclusion, the landlord notes that there were unapproved occupants in the premises, and at one time the tenant had the premises listed on Air BnB (but the tenant says she had no guests stay with her from her Air BnB listing).

ANALYSIS

The final claim from the landlord, is a claim for exemplary damages on the basis of the tenant using the premises for an illegal purpose. The landlord’s position is that there was the consumption of methamphetamine on the premises.
The landlord has provided a pre-Tenancy methamphetamine assessment report from ‘Meth Expert NZ,’ which relates to sampling from 3 December 2020. The samples were sent to Hill Laboratories for testing, and that report has been provided. The Hill Laboratories report confirms that multiple samples were provided, and they were tested as two composite samples (that means a number of individual swabs were combined so that only one test is then undertaken). The composite samples recorded that there was less than 0.02 μg in either of the two samples which is the default test level, in effect meaning that the laboratory could not confirm with its technology that any methamphetamine was present. But if there was methamphetamine at that level in one swap, the laboratory confirmed that the theoretical maximum would be 0.16 μg or 0.14 μg in the samples, respectively.
At the end of the tenancy the landlord had the premises tested again, using a different testing company, ‘Resultz’, and that testing occurred on 9 April 2025. A certificate of analysis was provided from ALS Food & Environmental NZ. Again, this was a test using two composite samples. One composite returned 0.08 μg and the second 0.02 μg. The theoretical maximum for those tests was 0.15 μg and 0.73 μg.
In 2010 the New Zealand Ministry of Health produced guidelines for the remediation of clandestine methamphetamine laboratories and determined that remediation was required if the environmental level of methamphetamine was 0.5 μg/100 cm 2 . While that related to laboratories, it is the case that the 0.5 level became the de facto level at which premises were considered to require decontamination.
In 2017 the level was increased when Standards New Zealand released Standard NZS 8510:2017 “Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine-contaminated properties”. At that time, this standard set the definitive levels at which properties which had methamphetamine contamination, required remediation. The Standard confirmed that: After seeking expert advice on exposure risk from Environmental Science and Research Ltd (ESR) and the Ministry of Health, and reviewing a large number of public comments on a draft of this standard, the committee has decided to set the maximum acceptable level of methamphetamine in an affected property at 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 after decontamination. While this level is greater than the Ministry of Health 2010 guideline value of 0.5 μg/100 cm 2 for properties used as clandestine laboratories, there are a number of reasons why the committee decided to adopt the single value of 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 in this standard.
In short, this standard confirmed that the level at which habitation of residential premises was considered safe, was a level of 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 . The expectation on landlords arising from this Standard, was to remediate premises contaminated with methamphetamine, to a level of less than 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 .
In more recent times, the Prime Minister’s then Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman determined that there was little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption (Report entitled ‘Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards,’ 29 May 2018). The report concluded that any levels below 15 μg/100 cm 2 were unlikely to present adverse effects: Taken together, these factors indicate that methamphetamine levels that exceed the NZS 8510:2017 clean-up standard of 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 should not be regarded as signalling a health risk. Indeed, exposure to methamphetamine levels below 15 μg/100 cm 2 would be unlikely to give rise to any adverse effects. This level still incorporates a 30-fold safety buffer on a conservative estimate of risk.
In the District Court judgment of Diamond Real Estate Limited v Allan [2017] NZDC 833, Judge Kellar considered a case in which remediation was undertaken in reliance on the 2010 Ministry of Health level of 0.5 μg/100 cm 2 . It is the case that following the remediation work the Standard NZS 8510:2017 was released, which as noted above increased the acceptable level to 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 . Judge Kellar records that when the premises were tested, the highest level recorded was in the toilet at 1.4 μg/100 cm 2 that “exceeded the Ministry of Health guidelines at the time.”
Currently there remains a New Zealand Standard of 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 , and also a current opinion from the former Chief Science Advisor that there is no evidence of risk below 15 μg/100 cm 2.
This matter has been considered by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947. Judge Kellar needed to determine which level should be applied. The Court discussed the conflict between the New Zealand Standard and Chief Science Advisors report, and confirmed: The Tenancy Tribunal was in a difficult position. The best state of knowledge of risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination available to the adjudicator was the Gluckman Report. It would have been bold for the adjudicator to have ignored that report in favour of the New Zealand Standard given that the Gluckman report represents the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination in dwellings.
I also note the more recent District Court decision of Eren Limited v Martin and Kukuruzsnak [2021] NZDC 15210, of Judge de Ridder. In that case the Court accepted that the tenants had contaminated the premises with Methamphetamine with the maximum level found to be 9.9 μg/100 cm 2 . The Court noted that the level applied by insurers and the testing industry was
5 μg/100 cm 2 . The Court noted that the approach that has been taken by the Tenancy Tribunal was to apply the level as set in the Gluckman report, also noting the above-mentioned Full Circle decision, with the Judge concluding: In this case there is no other evidence to counter the conclusions of the Gluckman Report. Thus it cannot be said that the Tribunal was wrong in the approach it adopted in dismissing the claim for compensation for these matters.
A third District Court decision of relevance is Acme Realty Limited v Hogg, Polotu and Coughlin [2021] NZDC 3231. Judge Harrison noted that “At issue is a short legal point, namely whether New Zealand Standard 8510:2017 has the force for law”. The appeal arose from a decision of the Tenancy Tribunal which applied the Gluckman report level of 15 μg/100 cm 2 . The Court concluded that: ...for the reasons I have given that standard has not been passed into the law of this country and consequently the Adjudicator was not bound by the level it prescribes in reaching her conclusion.
We have set out the relevant history, and the approach taken by the Tribunal and courts in order to demonstrate the prevailing level at which premises are deemed to be an inheritable, which is currently 15 μg/100 cm 2.
Returning to this Tenancy, the highest level of methamphetamine that has been detected, is 0.08 μg. Plainly that is a long way from the level of concern at 15 μg, but it is very close to the level at which the laboratory could not detect methamphetamine, which is 0.02 μg, which is also the presented level from the original pre-entry testing. In short, the levels of methamphetamine detected at the exit inspection, are vanishingly small, near the margin of error, and very close to the levels in the entry level test. In those circumstances, the Tribunal is not prepared to reach a finding that it is more likely than not that methamphetamine contamination has occurred during this tenancy. In order for us to have reached that conclusion, we would have required evidence from a scientific expert satisfying us that notwithstanding the trace level detected in the exit report, it would be representative of contamination during this tenancy. Even as lay people, we consider it must be a possibility that the results in the exit inspection would be within the margin of sampling error.
For that reason, we find this claim has not been established.
However, there is a further point we would make. The testing report is a composite test, which the New Zealand standard confirms is simply a screening test. The New Zealand standard emphasises that a composite test is not to be used for analytical purposes. Composite tests can be used to confirm whether methamphetamine is present or not, but that is the extent of that type of testing.
We also note that both reports present a theoretical maximum. We cannot base any decision-making on a theoretical maximum because that is not evidence of what is actually present in the tenancy. A theoretical maximum means that if there was a composite test, and the methamphetamine was found in only one of the multiple swabs, that would be the level that would be found on that one swab.
For the recent set out above, this claim has not been established and it is dismissed.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Claim 4 – Breach of quiet enjoyment

The tenant considers that her quiet enjoyment has been breached and gave the example of the landlord ‘nit picking’ around inspections, and requests around car parking following complaints from her neighbour that she considers were unreasonable. The tenant considers that the extent of the emails the landlord sent were unreasonable, and not at a level she should have needed to put up with.
In reply, the landlord states that they undertook inspections each three months, and the issues raised were largely around mould at the premises. The landlord states that the tenant would often provide responses that the landlord considered to be unreasonable which they did not respond to. When complaints from the neighbours were received, they were passed on if evidence was provided, such as photographs. The emails were reminder emails. There was one episode where an antisocial breach notice was served. The landlord confirmed the neighbour was not a tenant of the landlord. The landlord states that they were aware the tenant was not happy with them, so they generally tried to leave her alone. The landlord states that the tenant posted a range of messages on social media about the tenancy, which included naming her personally, which put her at risk. The landlord says that her head office needed to become involved and acted to have the posts removed. At the hearing, the landlord provided an example of a text message she received from an unknown landlord raising a particular post with her.

ANALYSIS

Section 38 of the RTA confirms that the tenant “shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord”, and further at subsection 2 that the landlord “shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.” The RTA further confirms that contravention of subsection 2 in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, is declared to be an unlawful act.
The term “harassment” is not in the RTA. It is defined in section 3 of the Harassment Act 1997 which deals with harassment in the context of either a criminal charge or the making of a restraining order against a person. However Judge Harland in MacDonald v Dodds (CIV-2009-019-1524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010), considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was more appropriate in the context of section 38(3) of the RTA, rather than the definition in the Harassment Act. The Court in that case adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or exhaust.” The Judge accepted that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person.
In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “harass” is defined as “torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation.” Further assistance can be obtained from the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary where harassment is defined as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
From these definitions, it seems that there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However, in Whatiura v Shoulder (Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987) the Adjudicator noted that “although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.”
Accordingly, in this case the question we must consider is whether the evidence supports that the landlord has harassed the tenant. Having considered the evidence, we find there is no evidence to support that situation for these reasons.
Firstly, we have considered the communications that the landlord has provided to the tenant, and we consider those to be entirely ordinary. They are the sort of communications that we would routinely see being sent from a property manager to a tenant. The communications are around cleanliness of the premises and parking, they are ordinary issues in a tenancy. Furthermore, we consider that the tone of the communications is very professional, there is nothing in those communications that strike us as being out of the ordinary, and they are in no way of a harassing nature.
Secondly, we have considered whether the content of those emails maybe unjustified, but we do not consider that to be the situation. The photographs provided at the end of the tenancy do support that there was some level of uncleanliness, which would not be out of keeping with any concerns the property manager raised around cleanliness of the premises during the tenancy. In terms of the parking, we accept that when the concerns were raised by the property manager after being contacted by the neighbour, they were genuinely held concerns, or to put that another way, there is no evidence to show that the property manager was raising it simply to harass the tenant.
For those reasons, we find there is no evidential foundation for a conclusion that the actions of the landlord have been unreasonable, or to use the term from the tenant, nit picking. Therefore, we find there is no evidence of harassment, so this claim is dismissed.
We conclude this claim with the following observation. It is very clear to us that the relationship between the landlord and tenant has significantly broken down. That is unfortunate, but that is the reality of this case. We are left however wondering whether there has been some contribution from the tenant with her own behaviour, such as posting pointed references toward the landlord in social media. That was very unwise. Claim 5 – Discrimination
The tenant states that since she moved in, her relationship with the property managers has been difficult, and she considers that given her health-related circumstances, and her history, she has found that challenging. The tenant considers that she has been picked on because she is different, she feels victimised. The Tribunal asked the tenant what it was that the landlord was doing to treat her differently because of her disability, to which Ms McLaren said it was ‘nit picking,’ and that there was nothing she could do to keep them happy. The tenant referred to the antisocial behaviour notice which related to behaviour of visitors to her premises.
The landlord states that her job was to consider the ongoing state of the tenancy, and that is what she did. The landlord considers she was simply raising attention to the mould and other things needed at the premises. The landlord considers that she has treated this tenant as she would with other tenants, some of which have their own disabilities. The landlord disputes this claim.

ANALYSIS

The tenant’s position is that the landlord has discriminated against her.
Discrimination in the RTA, which the Tribunal applies, has a limited definition. Section 12 confirms that discrimination is an unlawful act, and states.: (1) Each of the following is hereby declared to be an unlawful act: (a) discrimination against any person in respect of the grant, continuance, extension, variation, termination, or renewal of a tenancy agreement in contravention of the Human Rights Act 1993; ...
What can be seen from that section, is that for the purpose of the RTA, it is unlawful if there is discrimination relating to events such as starting a tenancy, continuing the tenancy, or ending the tenancy. However, that is not what the tenant has described in this case. The tenant has made no suggestion at the hearing today, that the landlord discriminated against her in granting her the tenancy, or how the tenancy came to an end. For that reason, the claim of discrimination must fail.
However, even if we were wrong in this assessment, we have seen no evidence that the landlord has treated the tenant any differently because of her health circumstances.
This claim must be dismissed.

FILING FEE

The landlord has been mostly successful in their claim before the Tribunal. We find it is reasonable therefore to award the filing fee paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The landlord has applied for name suppression; the tenant has not.
The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings. In this case the landlord has been substantially, and therefore suppression of the landlord’s name is ordered. R Woodhouse

At a glance

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

TENANTS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

ANALYSIS

ANALYSIS

ANALYSIS

ANALYSIS

TENANTS CLAIMS

ANALYSIS

ANALYSIS

FILING FEE

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

TENANTS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

ANALYSIS

ANALYSIS

ANALYSIS

ANALYSIS

TENANTS CLAIMS

ANALYSIS

ANALYSIS

FILING FEE

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions