What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5309721 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 5309721?

Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5309721?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5309721?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13530430-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5309721 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 5309721?

Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5309721?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5309721?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13530430-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5309721 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5309721. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 20 August 2025	$1,200.00		Rent arrears to 20 August 2025
Exemplary damages: Breach of quiet enjoyment		$1,200.00	Breach of quiet enjoyment
Total award	$1,200.00	$1,200.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5309721. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 20 August 2025	$1,200.00		Rent arrears to 20 August 2025
Exemplary damages: Breach of quiet enjoyment		$1,200.00	Breach of quiet enjoyment
Total award	$1,200.00	$1,200.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details including the address of the property.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The landlord breached s19(2) RTA and s38(2) RTA.
The tenants are liable for rent from 30 July to 20 August 2025.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

On the 12 February 2026, I found that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear this case.
This dispute between the parties has a long and complex history not confined to the Tenancy Tribunal. In my order of 12 February, I set out the relevant detail and background to this tenancy and dispute. I do not need to cover that information again here. The order of the 12 February 2026 should be read in conjunction with this order. Procedural issues.
Both parties attended the hearing held on the 1 April 2026.
After the hearing I confirmed that I would be reserving my decision and stressed to the parties that it was important that during that time that they did not file further evidence. Despite that the landlord filed evidence with the Tribunal on the 2 April. I asked the registry to send this evidence to the tenants. The tenants, justifiably, were concerned about the fairness of the landlord filing evidence that they had not had a chance to address or respond to. I therefore reconvened a short hearing this morning to address that evidence and to ensure that the parties had an opportunity to address me on the evidence and whether they considered there had been any procedural unfairness.
Both parties confirmed that they did not think that until the landlord filed the evidence on the 2 April that there had been any procedural unfairness.
At this morning’s hearing the tenant made the following submissions in respect of evidence submitted by the landlord on the 2 April: a. That it was largely irrelevant. b. That the quote for the remediation of the land was obtained 8 months after the tenant’s left and that the work had not been done. c. That the landlord’s evidence in respect of the electricity claims, appears to show that the landlord is likely to seek further amounts from the tenants. The tenants have asked me to disregard this evidence as the landlord has not filed a claim seeking reimbursement for electricity.
The landlord says that he filed this evidence because he thought it was relevant to the claims that he was defending and that he is still becoming familiar with the property, including the circuitry for electricity.
Given, that both parties have now had an opportunity to address me on the evidence, I have taken that evidence into account when completing this decision.
I observe that I have taken into account the landlord’s evidence with regards to the electricity as a defence to the tenant’s claim, not as a separate claim by the landlord. The claims.
The claims that I need to determine are: Tenant’s claims. i. That the landlord failed to provide a tenancy agreement. (s13) ii. That the landlord failed to lodge the bond. (s19) iii. That the landlord breached their quiet enjoyment by harassing them with emails and making threats. (s38) iv. That the landlord purported to unlawfully terminate the tenancy. (s60AA) v. That the landlord allowed other occupants to use the electricity paid for by the tenants (s39 and s38). vi. That the landlord failed to comply with Healthy Homes Standards. (s45(1)(bb)). vii. The filing fee. Landlord’s claims. i.Rent for the period 30 July until the end of the tenancy. (3 weeks), (s40(1)(a)) ii.Compensation for the damage to the property from the removal of the shipping containers. (s40 (2)). iii.That the tenants refused to provide ID that allowed him to complete the tenancy agreement. (s137(1)(b)) iv.That the tenants kept pets at the property without permission. v.The filing fee. General observations
This a case where both parties have both positioned themselves as the aggrieved party. The landlord’s narrative is that because of the tenant’s failure to give clear instructions on when they would leave the premises after a period of having an occupation licence, that he had no choice but to offer up a tenancy. The tenants’ narrative is that they would have been excellent tenants, and it was only the landlord’s failure to give them the tenancy agreement that ‘broke’ the relationship between them, and that when the landlord asked them to leave, it placed them under enormous stress.
Each posit themselves as the entirely reasonable party characterising the other as being unreasonable, not wanting to resolve matters and being difficult and stressful to deal with.
Both parties have filed voluminous evidence on what should have been rather straightforward claims. This evidence, particularly the correspondence between the parties is telling; it is plain to any outsider reading that correspondence, that both parties are equally at fault at prolonging and making this dispute more difficult and larger than it needed to be.
I say this because for both parties’ sake this continued litigation between them needs to stop. I have had at least four hearings with the parties, and my observations of the parties, are that they are nice people to deal with, they both present as genuine and I consider that they both presented their cases honestly. I say this because it is important that the parties understand that any findings, I make in this decision are not a reflection on them personally but rather on the merits of their case.
My overall observation from the evidence was a case where the landlord willingly offered the tenants a tenancy and was receiving rent for the property; and these were tenants who having lived at the property for many years as previous owners knew exactly what the situation was before getting into the tenancy. They knew more about the property than the landlord did. Neither party was forced to enter into a tenancy. They did so willingly and with their eyes open. It is within that context that I have determined these claims.

Did the landlord fail to provide a written tenancy agreement?

The tenant claims that the landlord did not provide them with a tenancy agreement. The landlord says that he asked for the tenants’ identification and that the tenants refused to provide that identification and therefore he was unable to draft a tenancy agreement.
The tenants say that the landlord was aware of their legal names as he had previously taken proceedings against them in the High Court and had entered into an agreement for sale and purchase with them. The tenants say that their refusal to provide their identification was just a convenient excuse for the landlord to not draft up the tenancy agreement and to then try and remove them from the property.
When a party enters into a tenancy agreement it is usual for the tenants to provide some form of identification that proves who they are. This is so their legal names can be entered into the tenancy agreement as the tenants. Both parties should be aware of who they are contracting with. If the name entered into the tenancy agreement is different to their legal name, and there is a breach of the agreement, for instance by not paying rent, then the landlord would find it hard to enforce any order against the tenants.
Section 13A RTA sets out what information should be in a tenancy agreement. S13A(1)(b) includes the ‘full name’ of the tenant.
Whilst the tenant says that the landlord knew their legal names, this is not correct, he had not been provided with a copy of the tenant’s identification as requested. He made it plain in the correspondence on the 26 May @3.09pm that he needed the identification in order to complete the tenancy agreement. He confirmed this in correspondence on the 30 May, and 3 June.
The landlord made a claim against the tenants in the High Court pursuant to the agreement for sale and purchase and therefore had to use the names on the agreement for sale and purchase as those were the contracting parties to that agreement. He had no way of verifying whether those names or the spelling of those names were correct or not and this easily illustrated by the various names and spellings that appear for the tenants on the different documents the Tribunal. In Tribunal proceedings the male tenant’s name has been spelt at least 2 different ways and the female tenant has been referred to both her married name and what I assume is her maiden name.
Another reason why a legal name is necessary is to ensure that the contracting party has capacity, for instance if a tenant is an undischarged bankrupt then they cannot enter into the tenancy agreement.
I consider that the landlord’s request for identification to be entirely reasonable in this instance. Even at the hearing, the tenants could give me no other reason, other than “he had taken proceedings against us in the High Court therefore he knew who we were.” The tenants were unmoving in their position that they did not have provide their identification. This was ill-advised and raised suspicion with both the landlord and quite frankly with the Tribunal as well.
The dispute that arose after that date about the tenancy agreement, giving rise to the landlord seeking to end the tenancy largely had its genesis in the tenants’ decision not to provide their identification. If they had done so, then the landlord would have been required to meet his obligation to provide a written agreement.
The Tribunal takes a contextual approach when considering the claims of the parties. Section 85 Residential Tenancies Act sets out the manner in which the Tribunal should exercise its jurisdiction it says: 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. 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.
I consider that the refusal of the tenants to provide their identification meant that the landlord could not complete the written tenancy agreement as he did not know the full (legal) names of the contracting party. I consider it would be highly unfair (on the merits and justice) to require the landlord to provide a written tenancy agreement to the parties when they were not prepared to verify for the landlord their correct legal names supported by identification.
The tenants’ claim for failure to provide a written tenancy agreement is not proven and therefore dismissed.

Did the tenants breach s137 RTA by failing to provide their ID?

The landlord has claimed that the tenants’ refusal to provide Identification was a breach of s137(1)(b) RTA because it had the purpose of or having the effect of, in any way, whether directly or indirectly, defeating, evading, or preventing the operation of any of the provisions of the RTA.
Whilst the failure to provide the identification when asked for the purposes of completing the tenancy agreement was ill-advised, I do not consider that the tenants acted with any intent to evade the provisions of the RTA and therefore I find no breach of s137(1)(b) RTA. It was clear from the emails between the parties that the tenant wanted a tenancy agreement, even if they were not prepared to provide the identification.
The landlord’s claim pursuant to s137 is not proven and therefore dismissed.

Did the landlord unlawfully terminate the tenancy under s60AA RTA?

The tenant’s refusal to provide identification and the landlord’s refusal to draft a written agreement without it, made it unworkable and untenable for the tenancy to continue. It was a tenancy relationship, that was from that point doomed.
With the issue of the provision of identification / provision of the tenancy agreement effectively going around in circles the landlord said in an email of the 5 June 2025: I have tried to accommodate you till now, asking for IDs is a legitimate process of Tenancy and you are taking it as a threat. We have now decided to take over the property. Your last date to leave the property is 11/06/2025 and balance funds you have paid will be credited back to you upon leaving the property in a tidy manner. In a gentle manner, I want the property vacated on 11/06/2025 and my Manager will come and do the final inspection of the property.
At this stage the tenants had only been in occupation for one week. Had the landlord done what he said he would in this email and made the tenant’s leave on the 11 June and disputed the legitimacy of the tenancy with the Tribunal, then he may have had good grounds for doing so, but he did not. Despite the landlord saying that the tenants had to move on the 11 June, he took no further steps (such as applying to the Tribunal to evict the tenants as squatters, and continued to receive and retain rent from them). In other words, his actions did not mirror his stated intention in the email.
The tenants provided evidence that on the 9 June that they had contacted Tenancy Services about this ‘eviction’. I record this as it shows me that the tenants understood that the landlord could not make them leave the property on the 11 June.
The tenants disputed the landlord’s ability to give notice and there was further correspondence between the parties regarding this.
It appears from the correspondence that the landlord’s reasons for termination changed during this time. On the 21 July he wrote: On 05/6/2025 a notice was issued to you to vacate the property for the reason being the property is not in habitable condition and not meeting the definition of "Fit to Live".
This was plainly incorrect; the email communication of the 5 June mentions nothing about the house not being fit to live in. On the 11 June the landlord told the tenant that his family were intending on moving into the property
The landlord issued trespass notices to the tenant on or about the 17 July 2025. The tenants filed their claims in the Tribunal on the 19 July. One of those claims related to the validity of the landlord’s notice for termination.
Whilst the tenants disputed the landlord’s ability to give notice; nevertheless, they started looking for a place to live and moved from the tenancy on the 20 August 2025.
They say that having to move caused them considerable stress, they had to find a property that was big enough to accommodate their storage containers and was suitable for them and their dogs.
A landlord can only terminate a tenancy if it has grounds under the s51. This includes a 90 day no reason termination or shorter time frames if the landlord gives a reason that meets with the requirements of the Act. Section 60AA says: A landlord commits an unlawful act if they give or purport to give a notice to terminate to the tenant or apply or purport to apply to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy knowing that they are not entitled, under this Act, to give the notice or to make the application.
The landlord tells me that he told the tenants to leave because he did not regard them as having a valid tenancy at the time, as they would not provide him with their identification. The landlord has maintained this position both during the tenancy in correspondence with the parties and throughout these proceedings.
I do not consider that the landlord breached s60AA because he did not terminate the tenancy knowing that he was not entitled. I consider that the word knowing denotes something more than intention or a mistaken belief as discussed in the paragraphs below when assessing exemplary damages.
The insertion by Parliament of the requirement that a landlord must give the notice knowing that he was not entitled requires consideration of what the landlord believed or understood at the time of he gave notice. There are two elements that must be satisfied for a breach of s60AA, there must be an act which seeks to terminate, and the landlord must have the knowledge that what he was doing was wrong or invalid.
The landlord clearly had the position that he did not have a tenancy agreement at that stage, he could not have known that he was not entitled to terminate a tenancy, if he did not think one existed in the first place.
The tenants’ claim that the landlord breached s60AA fails as I am not satisfied that the landlord gave notice knowing he was not entitled. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment?
The tenant claims the landlord has harassed them.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises (see s 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 s 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA).
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest (see s 109(3) 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).
Black’s Law Dictionary defines harassment 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.
These definitions suggest 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 [1987] NZTT Palmerston North TT 12/87, 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.
The tenant claims that the landlord breached their quiet enjoyment in the following ways: a. Constant emails from the beginning of the tenancy asking them to provide ID and then from 5 June threatening termination. b. Appointing a property manager, when they thought that they would be dealing with the landlord directly. c. Issuing trespass notices against them.
I do not consider that the emails asking for ID were harassment or the appointment of the property manager was a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment as those were lawful actions that the landlord was entitled to take, and he was simply asserting his legal rights.
I am satisfied that the landlord breached s38(2) RTA by the constant emails he sent threatening to terminate the tenancy and the issuance of trespass orders against the tenants whilst their tenancy was still in place.
I say this because the landlord made threats to end the tenancy and evict the tenants even after the tenants disputed his right to do so. I consider that a prudent landlord who was in dispute with the tenants at this point over whether he had the legal authority to evict should have filed a claim with the Tribunal for determination on the status of the tenancy, and whether the tenancy could end- not forged ahead with trespass orders. The issuing of trespass notices was a fundamental breach of the tenants right to quiet enjoyment and was harassment, as it was designed to tire, weary and scare the tenants into compliance.
Even after the tenants sent a strongly worded email on the 18 July telling the landlord that he was breaching their quiet enjoyment by constantly telling them to leave and issuing them with trespass notices and that they would be filing in Tribunal, the landlord continued to state that the tenants had to leave and confirmed that the ‘Police Department’ had been aware of this.
I consider that the issue of the trespass orders and the reference in the email of the 21 July to the Police being made aware of the trespass notices were harassment of the tenant.
The landlord says that he was not acting with intention to commit a breach of the Act (because he had a genuine belief that no tenancy agreement was in place and therefore, he was able to simply ask the tenants to leave) and therefore he cannot be liable for exemplary damages.
The District Court has considered the meaning of intentionally in a number of decisions which refer to this excerpt from a Tribunal decision. “The Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act, evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it [emphasis added].” 1
This phrase, on the face of it, requires an offending party to deliberately set about to breach the Act. But that is not how later decisions on appeal to the District Court have interpreted that statement. The District Court 2 addressed how intention should be addressed when a party claims ignorance of the law 3 it said: “The obligation to provide these documents are fundamental obligations of which it appears Mr Hu was not fully aware despite their being included in the Act since 2016 and 2019 respectively. Like all citizens, corporate or otherwise, he and his company are deemed to know the law and on that basis a failure to provide these fundamental documents is properly seen as intentional. Parliament’s intention would be subverted if landlords were able to escape consequences for the unlawful acts involved by claiming ignorance of the law.” 4
In Rawstone v Westside Management Limited T/A Quinovic 5 the District Court had to address whether the landlord had acted intentionally when discriminating against a tenant on the basis of her pregnancy. The landlord argued that it had genuine mistaken belief that it was entitled to act in the manner it had and therefore could not be held to have acted intentionally. The District Court disagreed and said (having referred to the High Court’s decision in Noble v Simons [2019] NZHC 3242) Quinovic’s mistaken belief was irrelevant. The Court found that Quinovic had unlawfully discriminated against the tenant due to her pregnancy. Quinovic had a legal duty not to discriminate and ignorance of the law or a mistaken belief was no excuse. 1 Edmondson v Walls North Shore [1993] NZTT, 548/92, 29 June 1993 at para [38] 2 TMT Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182 3 This breach was for a failure to provide statements in the tenancy agreement. The court held that this obligation was a statutory duty which required strict compliance. 4 TMT Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182 [37] 5 Rawstone v Westside Management Limited T/A Quinovic [2021] NZDC 14114.
I find that the landlord acted with intention, the actions of obtaining trespass notices serving them and notifying the Police are deliberate actions that were designed to ‘make’ the tenants leave the property.
I award the tenants $1200 for this breach this takes into account the following: a. The seriousness of the breach. The issue of trespass orders falls well outside reasonable behaviour of the landlord. b. That the tenants felt unsafe in their own home and were frightened to leave for fear that they would be ‘locked out’. c. That the tenants brought a security system to ensure that no one else was coming onto the property. d. I accept that these actions were extremely stressful an upsetting for the tenants.

Did the landlord fail to lodge the Bond?

The landlord accepts that the tenant paid a bond, and he accepts that he did not lodge it within 23 working days. He says that he lodged the bong shortly after the tenants filed their claims and a day before he filed his claim. The bond was lodged on the 28 July 2025.
The landlord says he did not lodge the bond, as it was his position at the time that he did not have a tenancy agreement with the tenants. He maintains that he has always accepted that this was the tenant’s bond, and this is clear from the correspondence between the parties.
The 23 rd working day after the tenancy began on the 28 May 2025 was the 4 July (note that Kings Birthday Monday 2 June and Matariki – Friday 20 June are public holidays).
I am satisfied that the landlord did not lodge the bond on time and therefore breached s19(2) RTA, however, I do not award any exemplary damages for this breach because: a. I do not consider that the landlord intended of depriving the tenant of their bond. The correspondence between the parties shows the landlord consistently acknowledging that the tenants had paid a bond and that the bond was the tenants’ money. The landlord lodged the bond with the Bond Centre soon after the tenants filed their claims. b. The breach was minor and soon rectified. c. The tenants have not suffered any loss.

Did the landlord breach Healthy Homes Standards?

All residential tenancies were required to meet Healthy Homes standards by 1 July 2025.
However, pursuant to Regulation 30 of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019, the property is exempt from complying with the Healthy Homes Standards for a period of 12 months from the beginning of the tenancy if the tenants are the immediate former owners of the property, as they are here. Therefore, the landlord was not required to ensure that the property was Healthy Homes compliant until May 2026. As the tenancy ended before that date, then there was no breach by landlord and the tenant’s claim is dismissed. Did the landlord charge the tenant for electricity that they did not use.
The tenant says that electricity that they paid for included electricity for the pump, which pumps water from the bore to both their cottage, outside taps at the main house and a neighbouring property. The tenants claim that the landlord should reimburse them for electricity because it as used for the pump which was not their ‘sole use’.
It was clear to me at the hearing that the tenants, having lived in the property for a number of years and being the previous owners of the property before the landlord were far more aware of the way that the electricity was circuited and what lines feed off what circuits.
Whilst usually a tenant would only be liable to pay for electricity that they actually use themselves. 6 This claim was not raised until the relationship had irrevocably broken down. There are two ways of looking at this – the first is that the tenants knew what they were getting into when they agreed to pay $400 per week plus doing some outside maintenance for rent, in other words paying for the pump was part of the ‘total package’, the second way is strict and saying that tenants were being expected to pay for something that they solely did not benefit from.
Given the unique circumstances in this case, I consider that it is fairer to apply the first scenario. The tenants during the period of occupation after selling the property to the landlord and living in the cottage rent free-before the tenancy had been paying for the electricity without complaint. I consider that, in these very unique circumstances it was part and parcel of the rent deal that they struck with the landlord. They could have been very specific when negotiating with the landlord at the beginning and said “we don’t want to continue to pay for electricity” but they did not do so. 6 S39 RTA
Even if I am wrong, and I apply s39(3) RTA strictly and found that tenants were paying for electricity used by someone else because others used the bore water and therefore benefitted from the electricity paid for by the tenant. I would then have to consider what usage was the tenants and what was someone else’s. This is near impossible, as the tenants drew their water from the same pump that the electricity was used for (and which others benefited from), it allowed them to obtain water. If the landlord had paid for this electricity and water, he would have been entitled to seek a fair compensation back form the tenants. In other words, it is likely that the tenants would have paid for this electricity and water anyway.
The tenants claim for compensation under this s39 RTA fails. Did the tenants keep pets at the property without the landlord’s permission?
The short answer to this is no, the landlord knew all along that the tenants had two dogs, and this is proven by text messages between the landlord and the tenant.
The landlord’s claim that the tenant kept pets at the property without permission is not proven and is dismissed.

Did the tenants damage the property?

The landlord says that the tenants damaged the property when they removed the containers. The tenants remediated the land after removing the containers and claimed this as a consequential loss of the landlord giving notice without grounds.
Tenants must remove all their goods from the property 7 at the end of the tenancy and must not carelessly or intentionally damage the premises. 8 Premises in these sections also covers the facilities, which includes the land and gardens. 9
Having considered the evidence provided by both parties I am not satisfied that tenants damaged the property. The tenants’ photographs and evidence clearly showed that they remediated the area. I also note that the landlord has not suffered any loss. The photographs of the land provided by the tenants and landlord, show an area that is not currently utilised and is overgrown, the landlord has not actually done the work to ‘remediate’, he has provided one 7 S40(1)(e)(ii) RTA. 8 S40(2)(a) RTA 9 S40(5) RTA. quote that was submitted long after the tenancy ended. The landlord has not proven this claim and therefore it is dismissed.

Is rent owed?

The tenants did not pay rent for the last weeks that they stayed in the property. They say that this is because they needed the funds to pay bond and rent elsewhere.
At the very heart of any residential tenancy, a tenant pays rent in consideration of possession. If a tenant has possession, then they are liable for rent. As the tenants had possession until the 20 August 2025 the tenants are liable for rent from the 30 July to 20 August.
The landlord is awarded three weeks ($1200) rent. Filing fee
Neither party has been completely successful in their claims and therefore each will bear their own costs of filing. Name suppression.
Both parties seek name suppression.
The starting point for all decisions in the Tribunal is that they are published in full, including the party’s names. There is public interest in knowing landlords and tenants who bring claims to the Tribunal and how the Tribunal conducts its business and makes findings. A party who is successful in their claim must have their name supressed if they request that.
Neither party has been wholly or substantially successful in their claims. There is no automatic right to name suppression.
Section 95A(4) gives the Tribunal discretion to grant suppression. The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
In other jurisdictions, where Parliament has considered that Courts or Tribunals should conduct its business in public, the bar to name suppression is high, parties need to show that they would suffer extreme hardship to them or undue hardship to their family, or such other grounds like a prejudice to a fair trial.
I have considered the applications by the parties and consider by the finest of margins that name suppression should be granted to both parties in this instance because of the following: a. The decision refers to another dispute between the parties which has been resolved, and I am unsure, what, if any, suppression details relate to that dispute. b. I consider that the nature of the proceedings means that they parties may face media scrutiny which would have the effect of aggravating the grievances between the parties at a time when the dispute has now been resolved. It is not in the Public Interest to further prolong or aggravate the dispute, which would have the effect of ongoing litigation. c. I do not consider that there is any public interest in knowing the identity of the parties beyond mere curiosity. The dispute has been confined to the parties and there is no allegation or indication that the matters claimed against each of them form a pattern of behaviour in other tenancies. d. The publication of the decision without the names of the parties, will fulfil the public interest in knowing how the Tribunal conducts its business and how claims are resolved. e. That there are new tenants in the premises and publication of the address may expose them to unwarranted intrusion.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5309721 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5309721 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to provide a written tenancy agreement?

Did the tenants breach s137 RTA by failing to provide their ID?

Did the landlord unlawfully terminate the tenancy under s60AA RTA?

Did the landlord fail to lodge the Bond?

Did the landlord breach Healthy Homes Standards?

Did the tenants damage the property?

Is rent owed?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to provide a written tenancy agreement?

Did the tenants breach s137 RTA by failing to provide their ID?

Did the landlord unlawfully terminate the tenancy under s60AA RTA?

Did the landlord fail to lodge the Bond?

Did the landlord breach Healthy Homes Standards?

Did the tenants damage the property?

Is rent owed?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions