What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5284666 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 5284666?

Compensation: Emotional Distress: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Refund of fixed water…: $101.07 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5284666?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5284666?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13196636-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5284666 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 5284666?

Compensation: Emotional Distress: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Refund of fixed water…: $101.07 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5284666?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5284666?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13196636-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 10 Stanley Avenue, Milford, Auckland 0620 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5284666 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5284666 — net $3,878.07 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Refund of fixed water charges	$101.07	Refund of fixed water charges
Exemplary damages: failure to provide required compliance information in tenancy agreement – s13A(1CA	$250.00	failure to provide required compliance information in tenancy agreement – s13A(1CA
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond	$500.00	Failure to lodge bond
Exemplary damages: Breach of landlord obligations s45	$2,500.00	Breach of landlord obligations s45
Compensation: Emotional distress	$500.00	Emotional distress
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,878.07
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,878.07

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5284666 — net $3,878.07 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Refund of fixed water charges	$101.07	Refund of fixed water charges
Exemplary damages: failure to provide required compliance information in tenancy agreement – s13A(1CA	$250.00	failure to provide required compliance information in tenancy agreement – s13A(1CA
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond	$500.00	Failure to lodge bond
Exemplary damages: Breach of landlord obligations s45	$2,500.00	Breach of landlord obligations s45
Compensation: Emotional distress	$500.00	Emotional distress
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,878.07
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,878.07

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant name and identifying details.
Josephine O'connell and Peter O'connell must pay [The tenant/s] $3,878.07 immediately.

Reasons

The tenants attended the hearing. There was no appearance by the landlords. The hearing continued in their absence. Background
The tenancy started on 14 December 2024 and ended on 31 May 2025.
The premises consist of a typical 1970’s style, two level brick and tile unit with two bedrooms and an internal garage downstairs.
The parties signed an undated Tenancy Agreement in respect of the above tenancy address. The tenants say they would have signed the agreement around the same time they paid the bond on 20 November 2024. Issues
The issues the Tribunal must decide are these: a. Did the landlord commit any unlawful acts? If so, Should the Tribunal award the tenant exemplary damages? b. Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation? Relevant law
Section 13A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out what is required to be contained in a tenancy agreement. Section 13(1CA) requires a landlord to sign a statement that on, or after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord with comply with the HHS, and a statement that includes the information prescribed by regulations made under section 138B(5) RTA – information relating to the HHS.
A failure by a landlord to comply with these requirements is an unlawful act in each case – section 13A(1F) RTA and section 45(1A) RTA.
Section 12(1) RTA provides discrimination to be an unlawful act.
Section 19(1)(b) RTA sets out the obligations of a landlord in respect of bond money.
Section 38 RTA sets out the obligations of a landlord in respect of a tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment.
Section 45 RTA sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them is the requirement that a landlord comply with the HHS.
Section 85 RTA provides: 85 Manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised (1)Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. (2)The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. Other legal considerations
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: a. The nature of the breach; b. The duration of the breach; and c. The effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.
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 RTA. Those factors are: a. The intention of the person; b. The effect of the unlawful act; c. The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and d. The public interest. Discussion
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Healthy Homes compliance statement
The tenant claims that the tenancy agreement, at the start of the tenancy, did not contain a HHS statement of compliance.
Because of the date of commencement of the tenancy, the agreement was required to have a statement of compliance with the HHS – section 13A(1CA) RTA.
There is no statement of intent that has been signed by the landlord (required since 1 July 2019), the tenancy agreement the tenant produced contained no signed statement of compliance.
These statements are important as they allow a tenant to make an informed choice about whether to accept the tenancy.
The tenants provided a copy of the signed tenancy agreement with their application. It is clear from the agreement provided that no compliance statement was included.
I find that the landlord has acted with intent by not providing this critical statement. I allow the tenants claim and award exemplary damages of $250.00 in respect of this breach. Breach of ventilation standard
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
The tenants say that there were gaps in the windows and a gap under the door and no extractor fan above the stove. They say that it was cold and draughty and could see through the gap in the door.
The tenants did not mention this to the landlord at the time. The tenants did not request a HH assessment report from the landlord, nor did they ask whether the unit complied with HHS.
The tenants also claim that it lacked proper insulation but do not have evidence in support of this claim. The tenants claim that many of their belongings were damaged by the damp conditions. They provided photos of their camera and black camera bag, and other belongings on or about March 2025 showing signs of mould.
The photographic evidence provided by the tenants clearly show the absence of a kitchen rangehood or extractor fan. The tenants allege that the landlord has failed to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards by not installing a kitchen extractor fan as required under the RTA (Healthy Homes Standards Regulations 2019).
The landlord did not appear at the hearing and has not produced evidence confirming that an exception applies to these premises in this regard.
Despite the landlord’s obligations to ensure that the kitchen is fitted with an extractor fan vented to the outside to meet the prescribed ventilation standard, no such installation has been completed.
In this case I have determined that this omission constitutes a breach of the landlord’s statutory duties, and the tenants seek appropriate remedies to ensure compliance and address the impact of this failure. Failure to provide premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition
The tenants also claim that the landlord did not provide the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The tenants provided photographic evidence taken on 14 December 2024, the day they moved in. They called the landlord straight away to advise them of the condition of the unit. The (male) landlord came over to look at the property and dismissed the tenant’s complaint regarding the condition of the property.
The tenants provided photographic evidence confirming the state of the oven, with a filthy oven tray left inside. Other areas included the bath and various light switches.
Other areas of the unit were either dirty or covered in dust. The tenants provided a photo of a dustpan which contained debris swept up by the tenants on the day they moved in.
The tenants also provided a photograph of the kitchen lino flooring near the stove clearly showing that the floor was not clean.
When questioned by the Tribunal during the hearing whether they noticed the condition of the premises at the initial viewing, the tenants responded by stating that the premises were not clean at the time however the landlord assured them that they would arrange a professional cleaner before they moved in. The tenants say this was not done.
Based on the evidence before me I am satisfied that the landlord has breached their obligations in respect of the Healthy Homes (ventilation) requirements and by failing to provide the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
Having sighted the photographic evidence provided by the tenants in support of this claim I am entirely satisfied that the premises were not reasonably clean and tidy at the start of the tenancy.
I find Josephine O'connell and Peter O'connell committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
Having considered the section 109 factors, I have determined that exemplary damages should be ordered for these reasons i. I consider the breach was intentional and I consider the landlords decision making was likely to be intentional. ii. The effect for the tenants was a home that was not reasonably clean at the start of the tenancy and a home with poor ventilation. iii. There were strong interests for the tenant in having premises compliant with the HHS. iv. There is a strong public interest that tenancies are ventilated and comply with necessary obligations in relation to the building. v. It would be just to make an order.
Parliament intended breaches of the HHS to be taken seriously by providing for exemplary damages up to $7,200.00 for this unlawful act – the highest amount of exemplary damages. Parliament’s intention when enacting the HHS was to ensure that rental premises were warm, ventilated, and draught free.
I find that the section 109 RTA criteria are met in this case. The premises did not comply with the HHS. That was an intentional act given the information available to the landlord (and its presumed knowledge of the HHS requirements); it was against the tenant’s interests; it had an effect on the tenant; and it was against the public interest.
Landlords are expected to comply with their statutory responsibilities as a matter of public interest.
Considering those factors, I have determined that the landlord’s actions were intentional and accordingly I determine that global exemplary damages of $2,500.00 are appropriate in all the circumstances in respect of the breaches under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond within the required timeframe?

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants claim that the landlord did not lodge the bond of $1000.00 which was paid on 20 November 2024.
The tenants phoned Tenancy Services where it was confirmed that the landlord had not lodged the bond. The tenants confirmed during the hearing that the landlord returned the bond money in cash on the day they moved out on 31 May 2025. a. For the purposes of this provision, the bond is considered to be lodged with the Chief Executive, by lodging the bond with the Bond Centre. b. Section 19(2) of the RTA confirms that failure to lodge the bond in accordance with the section 19 requirements, is declared to be an unlawful Act, and therefore could be the subject of an order of exemplary damages. c. There is no dispute that the bond was never lodged with the bond centre. d. I am satisfied that the landlord has breached their obligations because the bond was not lodged within 23 working days “after the payment [was] made”. The bond money does not belong to the landlord, there was no right for them to hold it. e. I consider exemplary damages should be ordered for these reasons: i. I consider it likely the failure to lodge the bond was intentional. Landlords by now should be well aware of the obligations in this regard. ii. The effect for the tenant is that their bond was not secure in the Bond Centre. iii. There is a strong interest for landlords, tenants and the public generally that the bond system be robust, and of course that means landlords lodging tenants bond money as they are required to do. iv. It would be just to make an order.
The maximum level of exemplary damages for failing to lodge the bond is $1,500.00. For similar reasons as set out above, I order one third of the maximum, that is $500.00 exemplary damages to be paid to the tenants. Did the landlord breach the tenants’ quiet enjoyment?
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenants claim that the landlord on two occasions turned up and knocked on the door. On one occasion the landlord’s husband knocked on the door with some letters from the letterbox. He then proceeded to ask the tenants for their landline number.
The tenants further claim that on another occasion the landlord knocked on the door with his son-in-law wanting to fix the garage door remote control. The tenants were not expecting him to attend and had received notice that he would be attending. This caused the tenants a degree of stress and anxiety.
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their right to quiet enjoyment by attending the premises on at least two occasions and knocking on the door without prior notice.
While the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 requires landlords to respect the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment and to provide appropriate notice before entering the premises, not every attendance or minor breach will amount to a significant interference with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy.
In this case, the landlord’s conduct was limited to two or three instances of knocking on the door, without any entry or further disturbance.
I am not satisfied that this conduct reaches the threshold of a breach of quiet enjoyment under section 38 of the Act.
Accordingly, the tenant’s claim for breach for quiet enjoyment is dismissed.

Did the landlord discriminate against the tenants?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord discriminated against them.
A landlord must not discriminate against a tenant in relation to the grant, renewal, variation or termination of a tenancy, in contravention of the Human Rights Act 1999. See sections 12(1) and 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Section 21 of the Human Rights Act specifies the prohibited grounds of discrimination, which include sex, marital status, religious or ethical belief, race or ethnicity, disability, age, political opinion, employment status, family status, and sexual orientation.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 12(1) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants say that the premises were not clean at the start of the tenancy. The carpet was full of bits and pieces and the floor was sticky, with stains and hair. There were spider webs on the door, the lamp shade and mould on the wall and curtains.
Most of the surfaces had dust on them. The carpet in the large bedroom and living room was stained. They say the place was filthy and disgusting. The bathtub was not clean with some stains able to be removed with a finger. All the switches were very dirty.
The tenants phoned the landlord to see if someone could attend so that they could point out what had not been cleaned. The tenants reminded the landlord that they promised them a cleaner.
The landlord advised the tenants that it should have been all good. The landlord stated to the tenant that she was there yesterday, and the carpet was clean.
The landlord stated that her husband would come to have a look. The tenant moved his car in front of the other unit which was currently empty, so that the landlord’s husband could park in front of their unit.
The tenant says that the landlord’s husband appeared to be upset as soon as he got out of the car and reprimanded the tenant for parking there, then he said. “I have a suggestion for you, actually it is not a suggestion.” The husband entered the room, did not ask any questions, did not want to see anything and said with anger: “My wife wants you out of this house. We don’t want you to move in. Take your stuff and get out. Go where you came from. “
The tenants replied by stating that they did not have anywhere to go. They say they gave notice to their old place to move out.
The tenants say that the landlord’s husband stated “Me and my wife do not want you here. You clearly do not like this place, maybe it is not a place for you, it is an old house. “
On the balance of probabilities, I am not satisfied that the landlord has discriminated against the tenants on the basis of their race or ethnicity in respect of the tenancy. Whilst the landlord’s comments are most inappropriate I cannot be satisfied that the comment “go where you came from” is meant to suggest the tenants should go back to their country of origin.
Upon careful consideration of the evidence, I am satisfied that the landlord’s comment may have been in reference to the tenant’s previous tenancy address, rather than to their ethnic or national origin or any other protected characteristic under section 12 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and the Human Rights Act 1993.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the landlord’s statement was motivated by, or directed at, any prohibited ground of discrimination.
Accordingly, I find that the landlord’s conduct does not amount to unlawful discrimination, and the tenant’s claim is dismissed. Compensation for time in attendance preparing Tribunal application
The tenants claim $500.00 for time spent gathering evidence, writing statements, filing paperwork and coordinating between parties.
A tenant cannot claim compensation specifically for the time taken to prepare and lodge an application with the Tenancy Tribunal. The Tribunal does not generally award compensation for a party’s time or effort in preparing their case or for administrative tasks related to filing an application.
Compensation is typically only awarded for actual losses suffered as a result of a breach of the Residential Tenancies Act or the tenancy agreement, or for proven emotional distress or other specific damages.
Accordingly, the claim has not been established. Compensation for fixed water charges
Under section 39(4) RTA a tenant is only liable for payment of the supply of water on the basis of consumption. A landlord cannot request payment from a tenant for the fixed water charge component of an invoice.
The tenants say that the landlord demanded they pay the Watercare invoices in full, including the fixed charges. The tenants provided evidence in the form of Watercare invoices confirming the fixed charges paid.
Having sighted the evidence provided by the tenants I am satisfied that they should be reimbursed the amount of $101.07 for the fixed charges paid.
I have also carefully considered whether exemplary damages should be awarded in respect of this claim. There is no evidence before me which confirms that the landlords acted intentionally and with the knowledge that they were not entitled to claim fixed charges.
Accordingly, I allow the claim for reimbursement but decline to award exemplary damages. Compensation for damage to personal belongings
The tenants claim $1500.00 for damage to their personal belongings.
The tenants provided photographs of various personal belongings. One of the items was a camera and case.
The tenants claim compensation for damage to personal belongings allegedly caused by mould and dampness in the premises. However, in order to award compensation, the Tribunal must be satisfied that there is credible evidence of actual loss or damage suffered by the tenant as a direct result of a breach of landlord obligations.
In this case, the tenant has not provided any evidence to establish the nature or extent of any damage to their belongings, nor any proof of the value of items allegedly affected.
In the absence of such evidence, I am unable to make an award of compensation.
Accordingly, the tenant’s claim has not been established. Compensation for emotional distress
The tenants claim $5000.00 for emotional distress.
Compensation for emotional distress may be awarded where a party has suffered significant upset, humiliation, or anxiety as a direct result of the other party’s unlawful actions or breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
To succeed in a claim for emotional distress, the applicant must provide credible evidence demonstrating the nature and extent of the distress suffered, and establish a clear causal link between the respondent’s conduct and the emotional harm experienced.
The Tribunal will consider the seriousness of the breach, the impact on the applicant, and whether it is just and reasonable to make an award in the circumstances. Mere inconvenience or minor annoyance will not generally be sufficient to warrant compensation for emotional distress.
Compensation for emotional distress may be justified where a tenant or landlord suffers significant upset, humiliation, or anxiety as a direct result of the other party’s unlawful actions or serious breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Examples of situations where compensation for emotional distress has been awarded include: a. Persistent and serious interference with quiet enjoyment: For example, where a landlord fails to take reasonable steps to prevent other tenants from harassing or disturbing the applicant, resulting in ongoing distress and loss of amenity (see Tenant v Kainga Ora-Homes and Communities NZTT 4291558). b. Unlawful entry or repeated intrusions: Where a landlord enters the premises without proper notice or consent, causing the tenant to feel unsafe or violated in their home. c. Retaliatory or threatening behaviour: Where a landlord threatens eviction or takes retaliatory action after a tenant exercises their rights, causing significant anxiety or fear. d. Failure to address serious maintenance or health and safety issues: Where a landlord’s neglect leads to conditions that cause the tenant distress, such as persistent dampness, mould, or lack of heating, especially if the tenant’s health is affected.
It is important to note that minor inconvenience or annoyance is not sufficient; the distress must be more than trivial and must be supported by credible evidence of the impact on the affected party.
The Tribunal will consider the seriousness of the breach, the duration and impact of the conduct, and whether it is just and reasonable to make an award in the circumstances.
On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that the actions of the landlord would have caused the tenants a degree of emotional distress. I come to this conclusion having found the landlord breached several of their obligations in respect of this tenancy. I am also satisfied that the landlord’s behaviour was retaliatory and threatening on more than one occasion when issues were raised by the tenants.
As a result of the landlords’ behaviour the tenants were understandably on tenterhooks while living there. For example, the tenants, in their written timeline of events state as follows:
“[the tenant] made a phone call to our landlord. The wife picked up. [the tenant] was saying that we have 3 letters from the water company, and we need to pay what we used up. How is it going to work. The fixed charges should be paid by the landlord. The instant respond was, “look if you don’t want to pay, that is ok, we will get someone who will pay for it.” [the tenant] said it is not that we don’t want to pay, we want are happy to pay for it, I just want to ask you about the fixed charges. She said: “Look, if you don’t want to pay for the water, it’s ok, you are welcome to leave, we will put somebody else in there who will pay for it. We are too old to bother with water and all our tenants paid it. If you don’t want to pay for it, well then just give us notice and we will get somebody else.” [the tenant] has referred them to the tenancy website. She than asked how much it is. That it is not a lot, and she continued saying if we don’t want to pay for it, we can move out. It felt like we were under threat. I could hear Peter in the background asking what it is about, when Josephine was responding to him “they don’t want to pay for the water”
I find that the repeated suggestions from the landlord that they move out would have caused these tenants a significant degree of stress and anxiety during their tenancy.
I allow the tenant’s claim for compensation in this regard and assess level of compensation payable at the lower end of the scale. The tenants claim of $5,000.00 for emotional distress however is not supported by the evidence filed with the application.
Accordingly, I award reduced compensation of $500.00 for emotional distress which I find is an appropriate amount based on the evidence.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
The tenant applied for a name suppression order. The tenant is entitled to name suppression as the application has been substantially successful.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5284666 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 2, 10 Stanley Avenue, Milford, Auckland 0620

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5284666 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 2, 10 Stanley Avenue, Milford, Auckland 0620

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond within the required timeframe?

Did the landlord discriminate against the tenants?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond within the required timeframe?

Did the landlord discriminate against the tenants?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions