What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5329967 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 5329967?

Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoym…: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Oven Rack: $70.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5329967?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5329967?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12810208-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5329967 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 5329967?

Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoym…: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Oven Rack: $70.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5329967?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5329967?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12810208-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5329967 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5329967 — net $130.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for failing to report damage to cupboards	$200.00		Compensation for failing to report damage to cupboards
Oven rack	$70.00		Oven rack
Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoyment - fence		$200.00	Breach of quiet enjoyment - fence
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond		$200.00	Failure to lodge bond
Total award	$270.00	$400.00
Net award		$130.00
Bond		$820.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$130.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5329967 — net $130.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for failing to report damage to cupboards	$200.00		Compensation for failing to report damage to cupboards
Oven rack	$70.00		Oven rack
Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoyment - fence		$200.00	Breach of quiet enjoyment - fence
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond		$200.00	Failure to lodge bond
Total award	$270.00	$400.00
Net award		$130.00
Bond		$820.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$130.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $130.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $820.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on the 28 November 2025.
This was a tenancy of some 7 years. The tenancy premises is a 3 bedroom, 26- year-old brick home with a large garden. The tenant lived at the property with her children and her cat and dog. She was permitted to keep those animals, and they were listed in the tenancy agreement.
There does not appear to have been any issues regarding the tenancy until 2023, when the tenant raised concerns about the landlord coming to the property to do pruning.
On the 12 August 2024 the landlord issued the tenant with a 90-day notice requiring the tenant to vacate the property pursuant to s51(2)(f) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 as it was at that time. 1
At the time the landlord issued the notice landlords were unable to give notice for no reason. When I asked the landlord what major refurbishment and renovations she planned to undertake, she told me that there was leak in the shower that needed investigation and as it transpired the landlord had to take out the shower and bathroom to repair the leak and remediate the bathroom. The landlord also said that the house was 26 years old, and it was time for general maintenance, she had planned on painting the roof as well. She said the roof painting had not been done because of the contractor’s unavailability. The landlord says that since the tenant has left, she has spent over $40,000 on the property.
The landlord acknowledged that due to previous concerns raised by the tenant about when tradespeople could come or not, she felt it was easier to give notice to terminate the tenancy and get all the work done without delay or disrupting the tenant.
The tenant says that she had always been worried about raising concerns with her landlord because she was a solo parent with pets, and she felt that if her landlord asked her to leave then it may be difficult to find another rental. She says that for this reason she did not raise concerns and tried to placate the landlord if an issue arose.
Soon after the landlord gave the tenant notice the tenant found another property and moved out and the tenancy ended on the 19 September 2024.
After the tenant moved out, a dispute arose about the condition that the tenant had left the property in. 1 The RTA has since been amended to allow for no reason 90 day terminations.
The landlord had inspected the property 2-3 times a year during the tenancy. The landlord never raised any issue with the tenant about the condition of the property during those inspections.

What are the claims about?

The landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the property reasonably clean and tidy and caused damage to the property and removed items that belonged to the landlord.
The tenant disputes the claims, she claims that the landlord has breached her quiet enjoyment and harassed her. She says that the landlord failed to lodge a bond increase paid by her with 23 working days and also gave her retaliatory notice. The burden of proof
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) their claim. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.”
A failure to meet the evidential standard does not mean that I consider that one party has lied and the other has told the truth. In many instances it is simply that each party recalls a different version of the same event. In the absence of any corroborating evidence such as emails or texts, then it may be that I simply do not know what version is correct, it is 50/50. In such instances the evidential burden will not be met because being more probable than not is something more than 50% certain.
Both parties have submitted many documents, included photographs and correspondence between them. I have considered all the evidence before completing this decision The landlord’s claims The relevant law.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The simple fact that an item is damaged during the tenancy does not mean the tenant is liable.
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. 2
Fair wear and tear is the decline in the condition of a property due to ordinary, everyday use and age. Dishwasher
The landlord says that the tenant removed the Blanco dishwasher that was installed in the property and installed it with an inferior model. The landlord says that she thought the dishwasher looked odd at an inspection in 2024, but did not raise it with the tenant. When the tenancy ended, she was alarmed to find the Blanco dishwasher in the garage under a sheet and the tenant’s dishwasher installed. The landlord says that she asked the tenant’s partner the day after the tenancy ended (He was at the property, the day after the tenancy ended to pick up firewood- left behind) to remove the dishwasher. She says that when she came back later that day, she found the tenant’s partner and some other men loading the dishwasher into their vehicle. She says she did not know how they got in the house as she was the only one with keys at that stage.
The tenant says that the landlord’s dishwasher started breaking down in or about early 2019, she said that she told the landlord this at an inspection and then also told her that her brother was removing a dishwasher from his house and they agreed that the tenant could remove the landlord’s dishwasher and install her brother’s old one. The tenant says that the two dishwashers look very different, and she says that this further proves her point that the landlord knew about the change because the landlord never raised it when she did any other inspections. Further, she said that the old dishwasher had been in the garage since 2019.
I am not satisfied that any damage to the dishwasher is greater than fair wear and tear, I say this for the following reasons: 2 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. a. The dishwasher is 26 years old, well outside its expended life span. I consider that it likely broke down because of its age not because of something that occurred. b. I further note that the dishwashers do look very different, and I would have expected that if the landlord was concerned about the dishwasher that she would have raised this concern after an inspection. The tenant was not hiding that the dishwasher was different, it was installed at the inspections and the old one was in the garage, albeit under a sheet. The kitchen cupboards.
The landlord is seeking payment for damage to the cupboards and the kickboards. The landlord says that the cupboards are off their hinges and the kickboards and cupboards show signs of damage and water ingress (they have swollen). The landlord produced photographs showing the cupboards that were off their hinges when open.
The tenants say that the cupboards were not damaged or off their hinges to the extent shown in the landlord’s photographs. She produced her own photographs showing that kitchen with the cupboards closed. She disputes that there was ever any flooding event that allowed the cupboards or kick boards to swell.
Having considered both parties evidence I am left with the view that three of the cupboards were probably off their hinges as shown in the landlord’s photographs. I say that because the photographs were taken shortly, day or two after the tenancy ended and show the cupboards open.
The tenants ‘closed door’ photographs also show those cupboards are out of alignment, although it is hard to tell from those photographs, the extent of the problem with the hinges.
I am unable to say what caused the cupboards to get to that state. There is no damage (such as the hinges being ripped from the interior or door) that would suggest a ‘one off’ event such as someone leaning heavily on them or pulling on them. I consider it is more than likely over time the hinges have loosen and due to the age and use of the kitchen the cupboards have come off their hinges.
I could not see any swelling in the kitchen kickboards that looked more than what might be expected for a kitchen of this age. I also do not accept the landlord’s submission that the tenants partner caused the swelling when he removed the dishwasher the day after the tenancy because the landlord accepted that she never noticed any water on the floor when she went back into the premises. I therefore draw the conclusion that the damage to the kitchen cupboards and kickboards is more than likely fair wear and tear.
I consider that the cupboards were probably difficult to open and close and off the hinges as shown in the landlord’s photographs and that the tenant had an obligation to report this damage to the landlord and should have done so.
However, I also would expect the landlord to open cupboards (especially cupboards under the sink) to check for water damage and cleanliness in routine inspections and the landlord confirmed that she had not done so, so it is difficult to assess exactly when and how the cupboards became that way.
I am satisfied that the tenant breached her obligation to the landlord in failing to notify the landlord of the damage to the hinges. I do not consider that this makes the tenant liable for the cost of remediating the damage, especially when the landlord took no steps to open cupboard doors in the inspections. I therefore award a nominal sum of $200 to the landlord as compensation for the tenant’s breach. The oven.
The tenant left the oven in a clean state and produced photographs of the oven. She accepted that she had accidentally taken the oven rack at the end of the tenancy and accepted that that landlord asked her for it multiple times and she should have given it back.
The landlord says that the oven was an expensive overseas model and to purchase the oven racks would have been expensive, and she would have had to pay for them to come from overseas. She said that she had made enquiries and understood that the cost of the oven trays were $35.00 plus freight.
The landlord says she tried to source the trays, but for reasons she did not make clear, she had not pursued obtaining new racks from the manufacturer. She had tried a number of other oven trays, but they did not fit properly and therefore she had purchased a new oven, The landlord seeks the cost of the new oven.
The tenant’s breach is failing to provide the oven rack (she says there was always only one). The landlord is entitled to compensation to restore herself to the position that she would have been in had the breach not occurred. This is the cost of the oven rack. It is not the cost of the oven. Landlords have an obligation to mitigate their loss, and the landlord should have obtained the replacement rack from overseas. If the landlord chooses to buy a new oven that is the landlord’s choice, but the tenant is not liable for that cost. As I do not have the exact price for the replacement rack plus shipping I consider that an award of $70 is reasonable. The carpet
The landlord says that at the end of the tenancy that the house smelt bad, she described the smell in an email to the tenant as smelling of dogs and feet. The landlord had the carpet cleaned, but the landlord said that made the smell much worse rather than better. The landlord then talked to an insurance assessor who was at the house for another issue, and he recommend that she use a company called Restore to do a special clean on the carpet that usually removed smells. Restore did a special clean but could not remove the odour. Restore then completed a report about the carpet in November 2024 saying.
The tenant says that the property did not smell, and she caused no damage to the carpets. She says her pets never toileted on the carpet. The tenant says that no one ever complained of the smell during the time that she was at the property. She kept the property clean and tidy and provided photographs taken during the tenancy and at the end of the tenancy, that showed the way she kept the property which was clean and tidy. The tenant provided inspection reports and letters from former landlord and her current landlord that said that she always kept her property in a clean and tidy condition and there were no concerns about her and her pets. The tenant also says that the smell could have been as a result of the shower leak, which had infiltrated the adjoining bedroom carpet.
Having considered the evidence I am unable to say with any probability what caused the smell at the property. The smell could have come from pets, the chemicals used in the first carpet cleaning, or the leak, or a combination of all three. The tenant is not liable for the carpet cleaning.
I am also not satisfied that the tenant’s pets damaged the carpet by urinating on the carpets, or from oils I say this for the following reasons: a. The carpet edge which had rusted, which Restore said in their report was caused by animal urination had been covered up during the tenancy by the tenant’s couch, there is no way an animal could urinated in the place that Restore said the carpet edge was damaged. b. There was no evidence about how oils from a dog had caused damage to the carpet. Restore did not attend the hearing to speak to why they had reached that conclusion. The tenant says that her dog never laid consistently in the areas which are stained. c. Restore do not give any reason in their report why they considered the staining could have only been caused by pet urination, not by other causes, such as spilling a drink or water. d. There was another tenancy before the tenants, where the staining could have occurred. Those tenants also had a pet dog.
The landlord’s claim for carpet cleaning and replacement are not proven and therefore dismissed. The locks
In 2019 the front door lock was changed. In 2023 there is a text which shows that the landlord was given a key to this lock. The landlord says that when she came to unlock the door at the end of the tenancy, her key did not work. The tenant had left her key on the table inside.
The landlord managed to get into the property through a window, she says that the tenant’s key and her key were very different, she says that the tenant must have got another lock installed. The tenant denies this.
I am left with two conflicting accounts about the keys. The tenant’s explanation about why the landlord’s keys may not have worked because the lock was ‘difficult’ is plausible, given the narration in the locksmith’s invoice that the lock was installed the wrong way. I do not consider that the tenant should have to pay for the locks being changed as she left her key for the landlord.
The landlord says that it was necessary to get new locks as on the 20 September the tenant’s partner somehow got into the house to remove the dishwasher. The tenant said she was unaware that her partner had gone into the house until the landlord told her, she said he did not have keys and he told her that the landlord had asked him to remove the dishwasher and left the door open.
I do not know how the tenant’s partner got into the house, but it was clear to me that the tenant had already left her key on the table which the landlord had found. The more plausible explanation is that the landlord must have left the house unlocked when she left, or perhaps the troublesome lock in the front door had not engaged properly. Damage in the garage
The landlord claims that the tenant damaged walls and the ceiling in the garage.
The tenant denies this she says that the damage was either preexisting or wear and tear.
The landlord said she had provided photographs of the damage, but out of all the photographs the landlord submitted there are no photographs of the damage in the garage.
The tenant provided a photograph of the inside of the garage taken as she left. There is no damage evident in that photograph.
The landlord has not proven that the tenant damaged the garage. The methamphetamine tests.
The landlord is seeking the cost of two methamphetamine tests done at the end of the tenancy. The landlord confirmed that both of the tests returned negative results.
Testing for substances is a landlord’s cost. The tenant is not liable for these costs. The vanity waste.
The landlord is seeking the cost of the replacement sink drain, which she says became discoloured during the tenancy. The landlord produced a photograph of the discolouration which shows the drain has discoloured to a greenish colour. This appears to be the result of oxidation or age. The landlord had the whole vanity replaced at the end of the tenancy as a result of the shower leak. The tenant is not liable for the cost of replacement drain as the cause of the damage is more likely age or wear and tear. Water blasting the deck.
The landlord says that at the end of the tenancy the deck was dirty with mould and grime.
The maintenance of the deck is the landlord’s responsibility and therefore the tenant is not liable for this cost. Beading of the laundry door.
The landlord has not proven that the tenant is responsible for this damage, there are no photographs that show me damage and therefore it is difficult to understand the nature of extent of the damage. Chattels that are missing
The landlord claims that the tenant has retained the axe splitter, 3x water timers, a hose and 2x waratahs at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant accepts that she accidentally took the axe splitter and waratahs. She has agreed to give those back on Monday 1 December by delivering those items to the landlord’s home.
The tenant denies taking the hose and timers.
The 3x timers are listed in the tenancy agreement as being present at the beginning of the tenancy (the items in the checklist at the beginning of the tenancy are in blue pen). The landlord says that they are missing at the end. It is not clear when these items were lost or missing and there were not any photographs of all of the taps showing the missing items. In the tenant’s garage picture taken at the end of the tenancy, there is tap without a hose or timer to the left, but there appears a hose/ irrigation device that can be seen through the internal garage door.
I am not satisfied that the timers were missing at the end of the tenancy, and if they were I am also not satisfied that the tenant is responsible for them as they may have broken in this 7-year tenancy. The tenant’s claims. The Bond.
The tenant claims that the landlord failed to lodge the additional bond top up paid on the14 September 2023, within 23 working days of receipt.
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 landlord accepts that they have not lodged the additional top up payment of the bond with the Bond Centre within 23 working days of receipt. The landlord says this was an oversight and when it was brought to their attention after the tenancy ended, they filed the payment with the Bond Centre immediately.
As the landlord accepted that they had breached s19(1) RTA by failing to lodge the top up, I find they have 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 interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord says it was an oversight that the bond top up was not lodged. She points that the original bond was lodged on time and that as soon as the situation was brought to her attention that she remedied it immediately.
In the case of TMT Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182 the Judge said: “Parliament's intention would be subverted if landlords were able to escape consequences for the unlawful acts involved by claiming ignorance of the law." [37]
I award the tenant exemplary damages of $200.00 for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond, this takes into account: •That the landlord has been a landlord for some time for more than one property and ought to be familiar with the laws relating to bonds. •That the landlord immediately paid the bond top up to the Bond Centre when told. •That it is in the public interest to deter landlord’s from failing to lodge any part of the bond. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the property?
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises (see s 38(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986).
In order to establish a breach of quiet enjoyment it must be more than a disagreement or a clash of personalities. In the case of Smith & Olmstead v Floris [1994] NZTT Auckland 1404/93 it was said: Quiet enjoyment effectively means the right not to have the quality of the tenancy significantly impaired by actions of the landlord and/or the landlord’s agents. Balanced against that however, one must bear in mind that the landlord/tenant relationship is between individuals and that will inevitably involve some interaction between them on a personal level. It is important not to allow a simple clash of personality to become the sole basis for a claim for a breach of this type.
When the landlord and tenant relationship breaks down there is bound to be some upset and a sense of grievance on both sides. Quiet enjoyment is the breach by the landlord by doing something overt to interfere with the way the tenant uses or enjoys the premises.
The tenant says that the landlord breached her quiet enjoyment in three ways: a) By making offensive comments to her when at the property, such as referring to the fact that she was a solo mother and calling her to a meeting to discuss the tenancy and talking about her health. b) By coming to the property to do work without telling the tenant that someone was coming. The tenant works two jobs, she works full time at home and occasionally does a night shift at the hospital. She says that she told the landlord this and asked them to tell her when they were coming to do maintenance so they could arrange a convenient time that did not interfere with her work or sleep. c) By erecting a fence that restricted what areas of the property that her dog could use.
Having considered the evidence, I find: a. The landlord did not breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the property by the way that she spoke to the tenant or by calling a meeting to try and ‘clear the air’. I have reviewed the correspondence that the parties provided in evidence, that shows that whilst the relationship broke down in in 2023 there was a genuine effort from both the landlord and the tenant to try and restore the relationship to the positive one it had been. The tenant referred to her landlord in positive terms twice in writing after the meeting. She said that she did that as she was ‘petrified’ of losing her tenancy if she was not nice to her landlord. If a tenant tells the landlord that they are a good landlord and speaks about them in a nice way, then the landlord is entitled to take those comments at face value, and neither the landlord nor the Tribunal should second guess them. b. Landlords are entitled to come to the outside of the property to do maintenance work. They do not need to give notice, nevertheless on most occasions the landlord did give the tenant notice and when the tenant asked them to reschedule, they largely complied. There were one or two occasions when they insisted on coming to the property at the times stated, they say this was because they could get tradespeople there at the time. It is difficult when a person works from home and the landlord comes around to do property maintenance. Parties should try and work together to find a convenient time for both of them. I understand that on one occasion that the tenant says she was most inconvenienced she says that she went outside to talk to the landlord and the contractors and ask what was going on. The tenant then said that she ‘gave up’ and went inside and pulled her curtains. If a tenant is aggrieved by the landlord’s actions, then they should make those concerns known at the time and should consider putting those concerns in writing in the form of a breach notice. I do not find a breach of quiet enjoyment in this instance because I am not satisfied that the tenant’s comfort and use of the property was breached. The landlord had a legal right to be at the property. c. That the landlord’s restriction of putting up a fence for the tenant’s dog was a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment because it sought to restrict her use of the property. For 5 years the tenant’s dog had free rein of the backyard, without any issues and the landlord then after the parties relationship started to deteriorate put up a fence that restricted the dog. I do not accept that the tenant agreed to this, I consider that the tenant did not really have a choice, I say this because the email dated 20 July 2023 from the landlord records that they want to come around and get measurements as they are thinking of putting up a fence on the west side for the dog. It appears a foregone conclusion. At this stage the relationship was deteriorating and I consider that the tenant may have felt that she had no other option but not to say anything. I do not think that there was any compelling reason, at the time to put up a fence to restrict the dog. The back yard has always been fully fenced.
The tenant claimed compensation and exemplary damages for this breach. I do not consider that the landlord’s conduct was harassment under s38(2) RTA and therefore I do not make any award for exemplary damages. I also note that when the tenant filed her claim it was more than 12 months after the breach and therefore exemplary damages are not available.
Compensation should restore the party to the position that they were before a breach. It can be hard to quantify what compensation, if any, should be awarded for a breach of quiet enjoyment. In this instance I have decided that only a nominal amount of $200 should be awarded this reflects the inconvenience that the tenant says she experienced but also recognises that the tenant did not complain about the issue at the time.

Was the notice given by the landlord retaliatory?

The tenant claims that the landlord’s notice for termination given on 12 August 2024 was retaliatory.
The law as it was at the time the notice was given provided that that a claim for retaliatory notice had to be raised within 28 working days of receipt of the notice. Section 54 RTA 3 provided: Within 28 working days after receipt of a notice terminating the tenancy, being a notice that complies with the requirements of section 51 (or, in the case of a boarding house tenancy, section 66U), the tenant may apply to the Tribunal for an order declaring that the notice is of no effect on the ground that, in giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercise by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or by this or any other Act or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy.
The tenant did not apply for a retaliatory notice claim until the 21 August 2025 - over a year after the notice was given. As the tenant’s claim was not filed within 28 working days of receipt of the notice, then this claim is outside of time and is struck out. Filing fee
As both parties have been both successful in some of the claims and unsuccessful in others, I do not award either of them the filing fee. Name suppression.
Both parties requested name suppression. The starting point is that unless a party has been wholly or substantially successful in their claims then their name is not suppressed. This is because there is public interest in knowing the names of parties who have been unsuccessful in bringing claims to the Tribunal or who have had orders made against them.
The tenant has been successful in defending almost all of the landlord’s claims and has also been successful in 2/4 of her claims. I consider that she has been substantially successful and grant her name suppression.
The landlord has likewise been partially successful in her claims and has defended 2/4 of the tenant’s claims. Whilst I would not consider her success to be ‘substantial’ I consider that there is good reason for suppressing the landlord’s name as well, mainly due to the fact that the landlord has undergone considerable personal stress this year for reasons she explained to the Tribunal but I do not need to mention here, and I do not consider it appropriate or proportionate to expose the landlord to further personal stress and hardship if this matter is in the media.
I consider that with the recent changes to the RTA regarding pets, there may be some interest in this type of case. I consider that the matter can fairly be reported on without the identities of the parties being published. Therefore, the parties’ names and the address of the property are suppressed. Observations.
This decision highlights the difficulties that both parties face when they do not deal with complaints against each other in a timely manner and that builds over time and leads to distrust with each other. If a party has a grievance then they should raise it with the other party, and if it is not resolved then bring it to the Tribunal quickly. The Tenancy Tribunal offers mediation for the parties in the first instance and a considerable number of disputes are resolved between the parties through mediation.
The RTA also makes it clear that a party must act to mitigate their loss. Landlords should inspect regularly and keep a record of those inspections, including photographs and written descriptions, they should open cupboards, and check garage doors are working and check for leaks. Tenants must notify the landlord about all damage. It can be difficult for both parties when the relationship is essentially a good one, to have conversations about how damage occurred. A landlord might need to understand the matter further to ensure that they have they right details for their insurance, and this questioning might be interpreted by the tenant as the landlord not believing them or trusting them it is often in these situations that the Tribunal sees a breakdown in the relationship. Landlords should not be too hasty to blame tenants for damage. In long term tenancies it is inevitable that chattels will break down over time and need replacement.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5329967 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5329967 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What are the claims about?

Was the notice given by the landlord retaliatory?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What are the claims about?

Was the notice given by the landlord retaliatory?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions