What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5321180 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants claims for Work Orders, compensation, damages, exemplary

How much money was awarded in case 5321180?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5321180?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair, Smoke alarms, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Mould & damp, Leaks, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5321180?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12854148-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5321180 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants claims for Work Orders, compensation, damages, exemplary

How much money was awarded in case 5321180?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5321180?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair, Smoke alarms, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Mould & damp, Leaks, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5321180?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12854148-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

388 Swanson Road, Ranui, Auckland 0612 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5321180 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 10 December 2025. [The party] attended on behalf of both tenants and has produced an authority from Mrs Heke for him to act on both of their behalf at this hearing.

The tenants have applied for work orders, compensation, damages, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee.

Allan Heke has provided documentary evidence that suggests he may subscribe to the anti-government ideology, commonly referred to as “sovereign citizens”. In his evidence he contends he does not have a legitimate contract with Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities (a government agency) and that it has somehow tried to trick him into believing he has entered a contract with it that he claims does not exist. He repeatedly claimed his sovereignty in the hearing and made it clear that he does not surrender his sovereignty and therefore the law and the tenancy agreement cannot be enforced against him.

Allan Heke also submitted documents in evidence that suggest he also subscribes to dual personality theories that essentially contend that people have two separate and distinct entities: a natural or corporeal form; and a fictitious, legal personality. The theory has been explained in these terms 1 : The basis of the split person argument is that there are natural individuals and some sort of “artificial” or corporate or fictive legal personality. Adherents believe that every person is an individual sovereign. Because every person has inalienable natural rights, governments assert their authority over natural or “flesh and blood” persons to make them subjects. Governments do that, for example, when a birth certificate, bank account, drivers licence or government identity is issued. Those actions create an “artificial” person- a legal person, personality, corporation or “strawman” over whom the government and its agencies, which are parallel corporate forms, have jurisdiction. The crucial aspect is that the nature or living ma or woman is freed from government subjection when they assert their status, claim it and prove it.

This theory has been rejected consistently by the New Zealand Courts as lacking any legal foundation. In Niwa v Commissioner of Inland Revenue, Ellis J observed that attempt to employ such concepts to avoid, defeat any state regulation, regulatory, contract or family or other obligations recognised by the law “will inevitably be an abuse of process”. 2

It follows that there is no legal basis for Allan Heke’s claim he can dissociate himself from his legal persona so as to remove himself from the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and from the obligations he has under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) and the tenancy agreement he freely entered into with Housing New Zealand Corporation, more recently known as Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Evidential burden

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 1 Stephen Young, Harry Hobbs and Joe McIntyre The growth of pseudo law and sovereign citizens in Aotearoa New Zealand Courts [2023] NZLJ 6 at 8. 2 Niwa v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2019] NZHC 853, [2019] NZAR 1104. 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.

In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.

The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary damages

The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded.

Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional. Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA. TENANT’S CLAIMS Do the tenants have a written tenancy agreement with Kāinga Ora–Homes And

Communities, and if not is it legally their landlord?

The tenants claim they have never received a new or amended tenancy agreement from Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities for 388 Swanson Road, Ranui, Auckland. The only tenancy agreement they have been provided is from Housing New Zealand Corporation dated 8 June 2013, when their tenancy commenced. Further, they say they have never received a notification of successor to landlord nor a change of address for service or the name of the staff member responsible and his/her contact details.

Section 13 and 13A of the RTA confirm the landlord must ensure that the tenancy agreement is in writing, signed by both parties and provided to the tenant before the tenancy commences. It must contain, among other things, the full name and contact address of the landlord, the landlord’s address for service, contact mobile telephone number (if any); and contact email address (if any).

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Section 15 of the RTA confirms: (1) Where, during the term of any tenancy, the landlord’s or tenant’s interest passes to some other person, that other person shall, within 10 working days thereafter, cause the other party to the tenancy to be notified of— (a)the full name and contact address of that person; and (b) an address for service, being the address at which notices and other documents relating to the tenancy will be accepted by or on behalf of the person. (1A) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), the following must be notified with the person’s contact address: (a) the person’s contact mobile telephone number (if any): (b) the person’s contact email address (if any).

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 15(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

[The party] stated during the hearing that the tenants refuse to recognise Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities as their landlord, as they have never received a new tenancy agreement from it, nor have they seen a transfer of tenancy letter from it or Housing New Zealand Corporation. Additionally, the tenants refuse to recognise the landlord’s representative without seeing legal and written authority as they have never been informed of who the staff member responsible for their tenancy is since Sila Aperaamo ceased being that person. The tenants confirmed they have been dealing with Tangi Tuaivi and at the hearing, they did not want to deal with a new representative they do not know and have not dealt with before.

In 2019, Housing New Zealand Corporation, HLC, and Kiwibuild merged to form Kāinga Ora Homes and Communities with expanded responsibilities: to: a. Manage the public housing portfolio; b. Lead government urban development projects; c. Provide homeownership support to first home buyers; and d. Deliver key government housing initiatives.

All Housing New Zealand Corporation tenancy agreements were automatically transferred to the new public housing portfolio agency, being Kāinga Ora Homes and Communities. No new tenancy agreements were deemed necessary as it was a change in agency name only. The rest of the original terms and conditions set out in the Housing New Zealand Corporation tenancy agreements still applied to the tenancies managed by the new agency name.

Kāinga Ora Homes and Communities stated that it did notify its customers of this change in name at the time of the change but did not produce any evidence to prove that the tenants were notified of the name change of their landlord and that it was the same government agency with the same customer service phone number and address for service. The tenants confirm they have never received any such communication. Housing New Zealand Corporation, when its name changed to Kāinga Ora Homes and Communities, remained the same Crown entity for the purposes of the Crown Entities Act 2004, albeit with a different name and wider mandate. Therefore, the landlord’s interest did not pass to some other person/legal entity and there has been no breach of sections 13,13A or 15 of the RTA.

The tenants’ claim is dismissed for lack of evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. Has the landlord breached its section 45(1)(b) of the RTA obligations to the tenant?

The tenants claim that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(b) the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).

Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 3

There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.

A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 4 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 5 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 6 .

There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 7 .

The extent of the landlord’s obligation to repair was considered in the decision of Barfoot & Thompson v Casey. 8 The Court noted that there was no absolute liability/responsibility obligation, so the landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage. The tenant has to notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises, or of the need for repair.5 9 Once notified, the landlord is obliged to repair within a reasonable time. The Court stated: “... the obligation of the landlord, under s.45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances; and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem may be”.

Breaching this s45(1) of the RTA obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00, if the breach(es) was intentional. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants. Drainage

The tenants claim that the landlord has not addressed a significant drainage issue at the premise. The tenants want the problem fixed. 3 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 4 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 6 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31]. 8 CIV-2005-004-001762, 7 November 2007. 9 RTA, section 40(1)(d).

The landlord accepts that when there is very heavy rain, due to the layout of the site, water runs off the driveway and front yard and pools along the left-hand side of the drive and that this has been an ongoing problem since the 2023 Auckland extreme weather events that caused widespread flooding across the city in January and May 2023.

The landlord’s documentary evidence from the Senior Housing Support Manager proves its contractors have investigated the drainage issue and have confirmed it requires new subsoil drainage and channel drains to remedy the issue.

The Senior Housing Support Manager’s documentary evidence proves that on 5 May 2023, the landlord raised a work order to get the drainage issue remedied and the landlord had arranged for work to start on the drainage issue at the property on 12 July 2023. Allan Heke has repeatedly denied access to the landlord’s drainage contractors and has threatened to trespass its employees. For these reasons the drainage issues have still not been completed.

The parties have also confirmed that Allan Heke has purchased stones several times in June and July 2023, which he has placed around the whole front yard and around the house to try and address the flooding. He requested reimbursement of work/ truck deliveries for these stones, but was denied compensation because he did not seek permission from the landlord to purchase and lay these stones. On 25 July 202,3 due to the increased reports of multiple truck deliveries the Housing Support Manager emailed Allan Heke to stop delivering stones as this was not resolving the flooding issues.

Allan Heke has informed the Tribunal that he has had troubling experiences with government agencies in the past as a very young person and has a distrust of the government and government agencies as a result. These experiences were not of his making and make it hard for him to feel safe when contractors or the landlord’s staff try to enter his home without a business card that informs him that they are who they say they are and who they work for. The landlord confirms that its staff and contractors don’t carry business cards, and that Allan Heke has informed the landlord that he will not accept photographic identification in place of business cards as the photographic identification does not confirm who they work for and does not have their contact details. The landlord states it always contacts the tenants before contractors or Kāinga Ora Homes and Communities employees go to the house. It says this should be sufficient information for Allan Heke as he is informed who is coming and who they work for.

I am satisfied that there are significant drainage issues that need to be addressed and have not been addressed in a reasonable timeframe. However, the landlord has proven it wants to address the drainage issues, has made many attempts to get the drainage issues fixed but cannot remediate the drainage problems when its employees have been trespassed and its contractors are denied access.

I find that there has not been a breach of the landlord’s repair and maintenance obligations as it has proven that it investigated the drainage issues in a timely manner once it was made aware of them and it has taken all reasonable steps to get the remediation work completed. In all the circumstances, it has met its obligations. Until Allan Heke finds a way to feel safe enough to allow access to the landlord’s drainage contractors and its employees to allow the work to be undertaken, the status quo will continue. There is no justifiable reason for me to grant the tenants a work order for this work to be completed when but for access issues it would have and still would be completed promptly. Condensation/Ventilation

The tenants claim there is constant condensation on their windows and that this is due to a lack of ventilation in the house and because of issues with the windows. Allan Heke has requested that aluminium windows be installed so as to stop the water ingress that causes the condensation.

The landlord states that condensation on windows is a common occurrence in all houses during the colder months of the year and is not because there is anything wrong with the windows in the tenants’ home. The tenants have been advised by the landlord to wipe down windows and air out the house whenever possible as the landlord has not been able to identify any maintenance issues with the windows.

The tenants have complained about mould in a bedroom, but the landlord submits that when the Housing Support Manager visited the property, it was not considered to be black mould and the tenants were advised to clean it.

The tenants have not produced any evidence that proves on the balance of probabilities that there is a water ingress issue with the windows. The landlord states that it has been denied access recently but would look at this issue again to confirm whether any water ingress issues have arisen since they were last investigated if the tenants will grant the landlord’s contractors and/or employee access to carry out the investigation. This claim is dismissed. Kitchen tap

The tenants raised an issue with the kitchen tap on 30 September 2024 and the mixer at was making the tap leak was fixed on 1 October 2024.

I find that this was a reasonable timeframe to identify the leak issue and remediate it and that there was insufficient evidence to prove that there was a breach of the landlord’s repair and maintenance obligations in all the circumstances. This claim is dismissed. Carpet

The tenants claim the carpet in much of the house is worn and in places has been damp from leaks and needs to be replaced.

The landlord confirmed on 19 March 2025, the tenants complained about a leaking hot water cylinder and asked for the carpet to be replaced. When the Housing Support Manager phoned [The party] she told them she was unaware of any leak and asked that the Housing Support Manager wait for the next annual inspection to visit (the next annual inspection was due in July 2025. The Housing Support Manager confirmed that he viewed the carpet and the hot water cylinder on 28 April 2025 and there was no evidence of a leak or damp carpet.

The landlord also confirms there was an earlier hot water cylinder leak in January 2023, which was fixed at the time. Further, it states the carpet in the downstairs hallway was replaced on 10 October 2024 and while the other carpet in the house is worn, it is not at the level of requiring replacement.

The tenants have produced photographs that prove the carpet is well worn and may need to be replaced soon, but it does not appear to be in need of replacement for any health and safety reasons, more for aesthetic reasons.

I find that there has not been a breach of the landlord’s repair and maintenance obligations in relation to the hot water cylinder or the carpet as the landlord has proven that it investigated these issues in a timely manner and addressed the 2023 leak and has not found any evidence of further issues in 2025.This claim is dismissed as the tenants have failed to prove the claim on the balance of probabilities. Uneven kitchen floor

The tenants say the floor in the kitchen is significantly uneven and that if you roll a marble down the floor near the fridge the degree to which it is not even is extremely evident. They are concerned that this is an indicator of there being potential structural integrity issues with the house that they want investigated and remediated. They say the cause of the sagging/slopping floor could be issues with the foundations shifting or sinking, moisture damage causing warping wood, or rot or other structural problems such as rotting joists, pest damage or aging materials. Further, they say that the landlord has not bothered to investigate the cause of the slopping floor so how can it be certain there are no significant issues with the structural integrity of the house.

The landlord says this issue has never been raised with it before at any previous visits. However, it confirmed that Kāinga Ora would not consider expenditure on rebalancing the floor unless there is a proven health and safety issue. The landlord does not believe there are any structural integrity issues with the house such as the piles failing or the like.

The tenants have produced evidence that the floor is slopping but has not produced evidence of raising this with the landlord. A landlord cannot fix what it does not know about. The tenants have a statutory obligation to raise with the landlord any repair and maintenance issues as soon as practicable after they become aware of them.

There is sufficient evidence to prove there is a slopping floor, the cause of which has not been investigated by the landlord as it was not raised with it. Because there is no evidence this issue has been raised by the tenants and not addressed by the landlord in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances, this claim is dismissed for lack of evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities.

This is an issue that I recommend the landlord have investigated to ascertain the cause of the slopping floor and whether it is necessary to remediate the issue. Shed

The tenants have produced a significant amount of evidence that proves the shed has rotten facia boards, gaps in the guttering, broken guttering, rotten window frames and mould around the facia boards and window frames. They have not produced evidence to prove that these issues have been raised with the landlord and these issues do not appear on the Senior Housing Support Manager’s documentary evidence of maintenance on the property.

The landlord acknowledged this issue and stated that there may be many more repair issues it does not know about as it has been denied access to the property and stated that its records show 32 instances of denied access. The tenants deny this and say their records disprove this claim. If the tenants grant access, the landlord confirms it will have the condition of the shed investigated and a remediation plan put into place.

There is sufficient evidence to prove there are multiple issues with the shed that has led to damage of the tenants’ personal belongings due to water ingress issues. The cause has not been investigated by the landlord as the issues have not been raised with it. Because there is no evidence these issues have been raised by the tenants, and not addressed by the landlord in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances, this claim is dismissed for lack of evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. Work Orders

Under section 45(1)(a) - (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain certain standards and to comply with applicable requirements.

Where the Tribunal finds the landlord has failed to comply with any of these obligations, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

If the work order is not being made by consent of both parties, the Tribunal must also make a monetary order as an alternative to compliance with the work order. This provision does not apply to any work order, or part of a work order, in relation to smoke alarms, insulation, a failure to comply with a standard of fitness under section 120C Health Act 1956, or a failure to comply with any health or safety legislative requirement. See sections 78(2) and 78(2AA) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

A work order may also authorise the tenant to undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of doing the work, if the landlord should fail to comply with the work order and alternative monetary order. A monetary limit must be imposed by the Tribunal on the amount of costs that can be charged. These costs can be set off by the tenant against rent payable. See sections 78(2AAB) and 78(2AAC)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenants have applied for work orders for the drainage and shed issues. I have found that there has been no breach by the landlord in relation to these issues and the landlord has confirmed it will have these issues investigated and remediated as soon as it is granted the access it needs to have this work carried out. As such, the landlord is willing and able to carry out this work. I find that issuing a work order will not facilitate the work being completed. If the tenants grant access to the landlord’s employees and/or contractors the work will get done in a reasonable timeframe, taking the upcoming Christmas closedown period into account.

The tenants’ application for work orders is dismissed. Failure to meet healthy homes standards

The tenants claim that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).

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 tenancy commenced on 8 June 2013. Therefore, the landlord to comply with all of the healthy homes’ standards, by 1 July 2024. The tenants claim the premise was not compliant by that date and that there were major drainage issues and ventilation issues on that date that prove the premise did not meet the ventilation standard or the moisture ingress and drainage standard by 1 July 2024.

There has been no third party independent detailed healthy homes assessment and report produced by either party. A. Ventilation

The tenants claims that the landlord has failed to comply with the ventilation standard because of the amount of condensation on the windows of the premise. They claim the condensation is caused by lack of ventilation in the premise.

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.

The tenants confirm the doors and windows are openable and the kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.

The landlord states the condensation is caused by the tenants not airing the house out sufficient in the colder months and that this is not a healthy homes standards breach.

I find that there is insufficient evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities that there has been a breach of the ventilation standard. I therefore dismiss this claim. B. Moisture Ingress and Drainage

The tenants claim that the landlord has failed to comply with the moisture ingress and drainage standard.

The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space if it is reasonably practical to do so.

The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.

The tenants have proven that there is a drainage issue that needs addressing and that it has been known to the landlord since July 2023 an was not fully remediated by 1 July 2024. Therefore, I find that the landlord has breached the moisture ingress and drainage standard.

Section 109(2)(b) of the RTA places a limit on the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to award exemplary damage in that this provision states that the tenants cannot apply for exemplary damages for any breach where that application is made more than 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act. Any such breach, if proven, would have occurred from 1 July 2024 and therefore the tenants would be statutorily barred from applying for exemplary damages for this breach from 2 July 2025. The tenants made their application on 7 August 2025, one month past the statutory timeframe to bring this claim.

Additionally, the landlord has proven it would not have breached the moisture ingress and drainage standard if the tenants had granted access to its contractors and/or employees on 12 July 2023 to commence the drainage remediation work.

For these reasons, I dismiss the tenants claim for exemplary damages for breach of the moisture ingress and drainage standard.

OTHER CLAIMS

Reimbursement of the filing fee

Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.

Because the tenants have not wholly or substantially succeeded with their claim, I dismiss their application for reimbursement of the filing fee. Name suppression

The tenants apply for non-publication of their name and identifying details.

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.

The tenants have not wholly or substantially succeeded in these proceedings. I consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenants ongoing refusal to allow entry to the premise for the purposes of carrying out investigations into repair, maintenance and healthy homes compliance issues and for remediation of any identified repair, maintenance and healthy homes compliance issues.

The tenants’ application for name suppression is dismissed.

Reasons