What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5341263 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 5341263?

Compensation: Breach Of HHS: $680.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failing to provide cop…: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Refund: $1,514.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5341263?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5341263?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12635631-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5341263 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 5341263?

Compensation: Breach Of HHS: $680.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failing to provide cop…: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Refund: $1,514.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5341263?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5341263?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12635631-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

133 Douglas Street, Whakatane, Whakatane 3120 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5341263 — Healthy homes

Tenantcheck Insights

133 Douglas Street, Whakatane, Whakatane 3120 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5341263 — Healthy homes | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5341263 — net $6,672.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Failing to provide copy of tenancy agreement	$250.00	Failing to provide copy of tenancy agreement
Exemplary damages: Failing to lodge bond	$300.00	Failing to lodge bond
Exemplary damages: Breach of HHS	$2,400.00	Breach of HHS
Compensation: Breach of HHS	$680.00	Breach of HHS
Exemplary damages: Retaliatory termination notice	$1,500.00	Retaliatory termination notice
Rent refund	$1,514.00	Rent refund
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,672.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$6,672.00

Claims and awards for application 5341263 — net $6,672.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Compensation: Failing to provide copy of tenancy agreement

Amount: $250.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failing to provide copy of tenancy agreement

Exemplary damages: Failing to lodge bond

Amount: $300.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failing to lodge bond

Exemplary damages: Breach of HHS

Amount: $2,400.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Breach of HHS

Compensation: Breach of HHS

Amount: $680.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Breach of HHS

Exemplary damages: Retaliatory termination notice

Amount: $1,500.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Retaliatory termination notice

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Exemplary damages Filing Fee

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Ron Quinn must pay [The tenant/s] $6,672.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionTenant Compensation: Failing to provide copy of tenancy agreement$250.00 Exemplary damages: Failing to lodge bond$300.00 Exemplary damages: Breach of HHS$2,400.00 Compensation: Breach of HHS$680.00 Exemplary damages: Retaliatory termination notice$1,500.00 Rent refund$1,514.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$6,672.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant$6,672.00
The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing with a support person.
The landlord did not attend the hearing.

SERVICE

The tenant did not have a copy of the tenancy agreement (as she said the landlord did not give her a copy) therefore I have no information about the landlord’s address for service. The landlord was emailed to the email address the landlord used to serve the termination notice on the tenant and was served by post to his known address, this being an address that the tenant had hand delivered a 14-day notice on the landlord during the tenancy, which was acknowledged by the landlord. In addition, the tenant provided a text message from the landlord dated 18 October 2025 which confirms he was aware of the hearing.
The landlord was also phoned at the commencement of the hearing twice. The phone calls rang and then went to voice mail.
I was satisfied that all reasonable efforts were made to serve the landlord with notice of the hearing in accordance with the RTA and proceeded with the hearing on the basis that the steps taken would likely have brought the notice of the hearing and application to the attention of the landlord. 1

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced in February 2023. During the tenancy the tenant raised several concerns about the premises. In August 2025, the tenant served the landlord with a 14-day notice to remedy various breaches. Shortly thereafter the landlord served the tenant with a 90-day notice to terminate the tenancy. Before the final date of the tenancy the tenant found alternative accommodation and served the landlord with a 21-day notice to terminate the tenancy.
The tenant now claims: a. Exemplary damages as she says the landlord did not provide her with a copy of the tenancy agreement, b. Exemplary damages for failure to lodge the bond, c. Exemplary damages and/or compensation for a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards, 1 See section 136 and 91B of the RTA. d. That the termination notice was retaliatory, and e. A rent refund for rent paid following an unlawful rent increase.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations: That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy 2 , 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. Compensation
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities under the RTA. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 3 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party. Exemplary damages 2 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. 3 Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell 4 the Court of Appeal said: “Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.”
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. Before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, the Tribunal must take into account the following factors set out in section 109 of the RTA: a.the intent of the person in committing the unlawful act, b.the effect of the unlawful act, c.the interests of the landlord or the tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed, d.the public interest, e.whether it is just to make the award. 5
Intention is proved where the party turns their mind to the unlawful act and deliberately sets out to commit the act. It is unnecessary to prove that the party intended to act unlawfully, it is enough that they intended to commit the act which is in fact unlawful. The same principle applies where the party fails to carry out a legal requirement. Even if the party is unaware of the particular obligation they have failed to perform, confusion, lack of knowledge or ignorance of the law is no defence. A party is deemed to know the law, and therefore failure to perform the obligation is considered intentional. Also, if the party is wilfully blind to the factual circumstances that give rise to an unlawful act, this may also be sufficient to prove they acted intentionally.
Exemplary damages must be ordered on a global basis, rather than for each and every separate breach under the same provision of the RTA. 6 The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered are set out in Schedule 1A of the RTA. 4 Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732(Cooke P) 5 Section 109 of the RTA. 6 Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment v Hillis Shearing Limited [2024] NZDC 27583
The Tribunal’s usual approach to exemplary damages is to award one third of the maximum unless there are aggravating or mitigating factors in play. 7
Finally, I note that even if the Tribunal finds an act to be an unlawful act, but decides not to award exemplary damages, it can still award compensation for the breach. 8

THE CLAIMS

Did the landlord fail to provide the tenant with a copy of the tenancy agreement?

A landlord must ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing, signed and a copy provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing. 9
The tenant said she executed a tenancy agreement with the landlord and despite requests for a copy he did not provide her a copy throughout the tenancy. Her claim is supported with oral evidence and corroborated with email correspondence and the 14-day notice she served on the landlord.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. 10
The tenancy commenced in February 2023. The application was filed in September 2025. A party may not apply for exemplary damages later than 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act. 11 Therefore the claim for exemplary damages is dismissed as I consider it should have been claimed within 12 months of the commencement of the tenancy.
However, I consider I may make an order for compensation to reflect the impact of the breach on the tenant. The tenant has been at a disadvantage during her tenancy without a copy of the tenancy agreement. I consider an order for compensation of $250.00 to reflect the breach is reasonable and appropriate and it is ordered accordingly.

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

7 Wellington Property Management Ltd v Hardie [2022] NZTT 4399281 4374781. 8 Cavanagh v Kainga Ora [2022] NZDC 7003 at [65]-[68] 9 See section 13 RTA. 10 See section 13(4) and Schedule 1A RTA. 11 See section 109(2) RTA. This time limit does not apply to a claim in respect of the duties of a landlord in respect of the bond.

A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. 12
The tenant said the landlord did not lodge the Bond with the Bond Centre. I have enquired with Tenancy Services and confirmed that no bond was ever lodged in respect of this tenancy.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. 13
In having regards to the factors set out in section 109 of the RTA I note: a. The landlord did not attend the hearing; therefore, I was unable to ask the landlord why he did not lodge the bond. b. However, the tenant did raise with the landlord that the bond should be lodged shortly after the tenancy commenced and served the landlord with a 14-day notice in August 2025 to have him attend to the lodging of the bond. I find that the landlord is required to know that he must lodge the bond and the tenant reminded him the bond should be lodged, therefore I find it likely the landlord intentionally did not lodge the bond. c. The tenant said she felt ignored and dismissed when raising concerns about the tenancy. d. There is a public interest in ensuring landlords lodge tenant’s bonds. The bond belongs to the tenant, and it is therefore important that it is protected at the Bond Centre so that it can be paid out by agreement or automatically by way of a Tribunal order. The obligation to lodge the bond is mandatory. e. It is in the tenant’s interest to receive exemplary damages for the unlawful act committed against her. f. The landlord has mitigated the breach by refunding the full bond to the tenant.
In having regards to the above factors, I consider an award of exemplary damages less than a third of the maximum is just and I make an order for exemplary damages of $300.00. 12 See section 19(1) RTA. 13 See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A RTA.

Did the landlord breach the Healthy Homes Standards?

The Law: Healthy Home Standards:

The RTA requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS) 14 The HHS provides for a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies in relation to heating, insulation, ventilation, draught stopping, and moisture ingress and drainage. Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: All private rentals must comply within 90 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021, with all private rentals complying by 1 July 2025. Heating standard:
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS. The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/ . The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances. Insulation standard:
The Insulation standard requires that the premises have qualifying insulation in the ceiling cavity, and under the floor if the floor is a suspended floor. To be considered ‘qualifying insulation’ the insulation must meet a minimum R value. The minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3. The insulation must also be in a reasonable condition. The HHS does provide an exemption to the required for insulation in specific circumstances for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated. Ventilation standard:
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. 14 See Section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA Draught Stopping Standard:
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances. Moisture Ingress and Drainage Standard:
The moisture ingress and drainage standard require 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. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances. HEALTHY HOMES STANDARDS – THIS CASE
The tenant did not make a claim in respect of the heating, insulation or draught stopping standards. Ventilation standard
The tenant says the premises did not comply with the ventilation standard as the bathroom did not have an extractor fan. A photograph of the bathroom and oral evidence was provided in support of the claim. There is no extractor fan in the bathroom visible in the photographs provided by the tenant. Moisture ingress and drainage
In this case the tenant said one of the downpipes discharged directly onto the ground and into the garage, that the front downpipe lacked a drain, causing water to run down the path and lawn and the rear downpipe was broken, resulting in boggy ground.
The tenant provided photographs and oral evidence to illustrate that the premises did not have effective moisture ingress and drainage systems. The tenant provided photographs showing that water would drain into the garage and that two down pipes had no drains. The tenant provided communication she had with the landlord to corroborate the claim. The tenant said these issues affected her health and comfort and limited her use of the garage due to the flooding.
I find the tenant has proven that it is likely that the premises breaches the HHS in respect of the moisture ingress and drainage and ventilation standards.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act. Exemplary damages
The tenant claims exemplary damages in respect of the HHS breaches. The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered is $7,200.00. 15
In having regards to the relevant factors set out in section 109 of the RTA I note: a. A landlord is expected to know the law and the HHS requirements. The tenant also informed the landlord of the HHS. I find that the landlord has acted intentionally in not ensuring the HHS are met. b. The effect of the non-compliance with the HHS was that the tenant lived in an unhealthy home. c. There is a public interest in ensuring landlords comply with the HHS. d. It is in the tenant’s interests to receive exemplary damages for the unlawful act committed against her and that is a just outcome.
Having regards to the above factors I consider an award of exemplary damages of a third of the maximum is just and make an order of exemplary damages of $2,400.00. Compensation
The tenant also claimed compensation. In assessing a fair level of compensation, I consider the following factors are relevant: a. I consider the tenant has experienced inconvenience during the tenancy having a home that was not fully healthy home compliant. The impact of this would have been moderate. In particular, she would have had to ensure the bathroom window was open frequently to ventilate the bathroom and she did not get full use of the garage. b. The tenant was paying for a home that was required to be healthy home compliant but was not getting what she paid for. c. The tenancy commenced in February 2023 and ended in September 2025 (and was for a period of 136 weeks and 4 days). I have reached the conclusion that it would be fair for the landlord to compensate the tenant $680, which is effectively $5 per week for 136 weeks. 15 See Schedule 1A of the RTA. See section 45 (1A) of the RTA.

Was the notice terminating the tenancy a retaliatory notice?

The tenant claims the 90-day termination notice served on her on 25 August 2025 is a retaliatory termination notice. The tenant seeks exemplary damages in respect of this claim. The Law – retaliatory termination notices
Section 54 of the RTA relates to retaliatory notices. It states: 54Tribunal may declare notice retaliatory (1)This section applies in relation to a notice given by a landlord 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). (2)The tenant may apply to the Tribunal for an order declaring that the notice was retaliatory on either or both of the following grounds: (a) 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: (b)that, in giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or performance, or proposed exercise or performance, by the chief executive or any other person of any power or function conferred on the person under this or any other Act in respect of the tenancy or premises. (3)If the tenant makes the application within 28 working days after receiving the termination notice, the tenant may at the same time apply for an order declaring the notice to be of no effect. (4)If the Tribunal is satisfied that either or both of the grounds in subsection (2) apply, the Tribunal must declare the notice to be retaliatory and, if an order is applied for under subsection (3), of no effect. (5)However, the Tribunal need not declare the notice to be retaliatory and of no effect if the Tribunal is satisfied that, in the case of subsection (2)(a), the purported exercise by the tenant of any such right, power, authority, or remedy, or the making by the tenant of any such complaint, was or would be vexatious or frivolous to such an extent that the landlord was justified in giving the notice. (6)The giving of a notice terminating a tenancy is an unlawful act if the notice is declared under subsection (4) to be retaliatory.
The essential element of a retaliatory notice is the issuing of it in response to a tenant asserting a right or making a complaint, but it need not be the sole motivation, provided the landlord was partially motivated by the tenant asserting the right or making a complaint.
The Tribunal in Easton v Marks 16 considered the meaning of the verb “motivate”. It considered the Webster’s dictionary definition “to furnish with a motive or motives; to give impetus to; to insight; to impel” and held that the landlord was not incited or impelled by the tenant’s actions. The Tribunal in that case noted that: “It is one thing to say that an owner of a property has grown somewhat tired of his property being tenanted to persons, it is another thing to say that the tenants gave impetus to, or incited, or impelled the owner to give the notice to quit.”
A notice of termination given for only genuine and fair reasons will not be considered retaliatory. 17 In addition, the Tribunal must also be careful to ensure that Parliament’s intention to allow landlords to terminate a periodic tenancy without reason on 90 day written notice is upheld. That said, the Tribunal must consider every case on its individual facts. This case:
There are four issues to consider: a. Does the termination notice comply with section 51 of the RTA? b. If so, was the application made within 28 working days of the notice being served? c. Has the tenant proved that, in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any enactment, or by any complaint against the landlord? d. If so, was the landlord justified in giving the notice because the tenant’s issue or complaint was frivolous or vexatious?

Does the termination notice comply with s 51 RTA?

16 Easton v Marks Auckland TT 229/87, 27 May 1987 17 Kerr v Woodman DC Porirua MA244/88, 3 November 1988

There is no suggestion the termination notice did not comply with the RTA therefore for the purposes of section 54 (1) of the RTA I find the notice complies with the technical requirements of section 51.

Was the application made within 28 working days of the notice being served?

The tenant has applied within 28 days of receiving the termination notice, accordingly there is jurisdiction to declare the notice of no effect if it is declared retaliatory. There would be no practical relevance of this now that the tenant has vacated. Has the tenant proved that, in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any enactment, or by any complaint against the landlord?
The tenant says she raised concerns about the tenancy throughout the tenancy but formally by way of a 14-day notice dated 13 August 2025 which was hand-delivered to the landlord’s address.
The tenant says that shortly thereafter, on 25 August 2025, she was served by email with the 90-day termination notice.
Given the short time between the tenant’s complaints about the premises and the termination notice being issued there is an inference that the landlord is at least partly motivated by the tenant’s complaint. This then puts an evidential onus on the landlord to show that he was not motivated, even in part, by the tenant exercising a right to make a complaint. 18
The landlord did not attend the hearing to give evidence in relation to the claim.
However I consider it likely that in giving the notice (to use the words of section 54) the landlord was at least partly motivated by the exercise of a right, power, authority or remedy that the tenant had in relation to the tenancy, or a complaint by the tenant in relation to the tenancy, because during the tenancy the landlord has emailed the tenant saying he was thinking of putting the property on the market (which would thereby end of the tenancy) in response to the tenant asserting her right to receive notice from the landlord of his intended entry. This corroborates the tenant’s position that the landlord would end the tenancy if the tenant raised any concerns or complaints or asserted her rights as a tenant.
I am therefore confident in concluding that the landlord’s decision to issue the termination notice was in part because of the tenant’s complaints about the premises and asserting of her rights. I find that the termination notice is retaliatory. 18 McIntyre v Just Junction 2017 NZTT 4067876. Was the landlord justified in giving the notice because the tenant’s issue or complaint was frivolous or vexatious?
I do not consider the tenant’s complaint was frivolous or vexatious. Exemplary damages
The tenant seeks exemplary damages.
The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered for a landlord giving a retaliatory notice of termination is $6,500.
In taking into out the relevant factors set out in section 109 of the RTA I note: a. Landlords are required to know the law. The landlord is expected to know that issuing a termination notice shortly after receiving a complaint will create an inference that the termination notice is retaliatory. I consider the landlord has acted intentionally. b. The effect of the unlawful act is that the tenant was advised the tenancy will end, which I accept would have caused her stress and worry, given the difficulty in securing another rental property. c. It is in the tenant’s interest to receive exemplary damages for the unlawful act committed against her. d. There are strong interests for tenants and the public generally, that when termination notices are given, they are not in retaliation to a tenant asserting their rights. e. I consider it would be just to make an order for exemplary damages. f. I consider an award of exemplary damages of less than a third of the maximum is fair, given the tenant was able to promptly find a new tenancy and was able to give 21 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy.
Accordingly, the amount ordered for exemplary damages is $1,500.00.

Was the rent increase unlawful and should the tenant be credited rent?

The tenant says the landlord increased the rent by $50 per week effective 12 February 2025 unlawfully. The tenant says the notice was served on her on 19 January 2025, and it did not meet the required 60-day notice period. The tenant says she paid the increased amount of rent but now seeks a rent refund of $50 per week × 31 weeks, with the total claimed of $1,550
Section 24 of the RTA relates to rent increases. The relevant provisions say: 24Rent increases (1)The rent payable in respect of any tenancy may be increased by the landlord provided all of the following conditions are complied with: (a)the landlord shall give the tenant notice in writing of the increase; and (b)that notice shall specify the amount of the increased rent and the day upon which the increased rent shall become payable; and (c)the day upon which the increased rent shall become payable shall be not less than 60 days (or, in the case of a boarding house tenancy, not less than 28 days) after the date on which that notice is given; and (d)the rent must not be increased within 12 months after the date of the commencement of the tenancy; and (e)the rent must not be increased within 12 months after the date on which the last increase took effect; and (f)[Repealed] (g)... ...(3) A notice of an increase in rent lawfully given under this section shall, unless it is withdrawn by the landlord, have the effect of varying the tenancy agreement in accordance with the terms of the notice.
The undated written notice of the increased rent from the landlord said: I am just dropping you a note to let you know that I have to increase your rent. I always try to keep the rent lower than the market rate. Your new rent is $550.00 a week starting the week of February 10 th . Please change your auto payment for that week. Thank you.
I find that the landlord did not give the required notice in writing to the tenant of the increase and did not specify the day upon which the increased rent shall become payable. I therefore find that the rent remained at $500 per week until the end of the tenancy. The tenant provided bank statements as evidence of the increased rent payments she made. I find the tenant is to be reimbursed $1514 which reflects the period of 30 weeks and an adjustment for the shorter final week of the tenancy, as discussed at the hearing.

OTHER CLAIMS

The tenant’s application and the notice of hearing raised additional claims. The tenant did not pursue a claim in respect of a failure by the landlord to provide a HHS statement, in respect of a breach of quiet enjoyment or a breach of the landlord’s rights of entry. The claim for a work order was withdrawn. Accordingly, these claims are dismissed.

FILING FEE

The tenant has been partly successful with the claim, therefore I have reimbursed the tenant the filing fee of $28. 19

SUPPRESSION

The tenant seeks name suppression and has she has been substantially successful in the claim name suppression is granted. 20

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5341263 — net $6,672.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Failing to provide copy of tenancy agreement	$250.00	Failing to provide copy of tenancy agreement
Exemplary damages: Failing to lodge bond	$300.00	Failing to lodge bond
Exemplary damages: Breach of HHS	$2,400.00	Breach of HHS
Compensation: Breach of HHS	$680.00	Breach of HHS
Exemplary damages: Retaliatory termination notice	$1,500.00	Retaliatory termination notice
Rent refund	$1,514.00	Rent refund
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,672.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$6,672.00

Claims and awards for application 5341263 — net $6,672.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Compensation: Failing to provide copy of tenancy agreement

Amount: $250.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failing to provide copy of tenancy agreement

Exemplary damages: Failing to lodge bond

Amount: $300.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failing to lodge bond

Exemplary damages: Breach of HHS

Amount: $2,400.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Breach of HHS

Compensation: Breach of HHS

Amount: $680.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Breach of HHS

Exemplary damages: Retaliatory termination notice

Amount: $1,500.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Retaliatory termination notice

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Exemplary damages Filing Fee

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Ron Quinn must pay [The tenant/s] $6,672.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionTenant Compensation: Failing to provide copy of tenancy agreement$250.00 Exemplary damages: Failing to lodge bond$300.00 Exemplary damages: Breach of HHS$2,400.00 Compensation: Breach of HHS$680.00 Exemplary damages: Retaliatory termination notice$1,500.00 Rent refund$1,514.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$6,672.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant$6,672.00
The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing with a support person.
The landlord did not attend the hearing.

SERVICE

The tenant did not have a copy of the tenancy agreement (as she said the landlord did not give her a copy) therefore I have no information about the landlord’s address for service. The landlord was emailed to the email address the landlord used to serve the termination notice on the tenant and was served by post to his known address, this being an address that the tenant had hand delivered a 14-day notice on the landlord during the tenancy, which was acknowledged by the landlord. In addition, the tenant provided a text message from the landlord dated 18 October 2025 which confirms he was aware of the hearing.
The landlord was also phoned at the commencement of the hearing twice. The phone calls rang and then went to voice mail.
I was satisfied that all reasonable efforts were made to serve the landlord with notice of the hearing in accordance with the RTA and proceeded with the hearing on the basis that the steps taken would likely have brought the notice of the hearing and application to the attention of the landlord. 1

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced in February 2023. During the tenancy the tenant raised several concerns about the premises. In August 2025, the tenant served the landlord with a 14-day notice to remedy various breaches. Shortly thereafter the landlord served the tenant with a 90-day notice to terminate the tenancy. Before the final date of the tenancy the tenant found alternative accommodation and served the landlord with a 21-day notice to terminate the tenancy.
The tenant now claims: a. Exemplary damages as she says the landlord did not provide her with a copy of the tenancy agreement, b. Exemplary damages for failure to lodge the bond, c. Exemplary damages and/or compensation for a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards, 1 See section 136 and 91B of the RTA. d. That the termination notice was retaliatory, and e. A rent refund for rent paid following an unlawful rent increase.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations: That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy 2 , 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. Compensation
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities under the RTA. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 3 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party. Exemplary damages 2 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. 3 Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell 4 the Court of Appeal said: “Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.”
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. Before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, the Tribunal must take into account the following factors set out in section 109 of the RTA: a.the intent of the person in committing the unlawful act, b.the effect of the unlawful act, c.the interests of the landlord or the tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed, d.the public interest, e.whether it is just to make the award. 5
Intention is proved where the party turns their mind to the unlawful act and deliberately sets out to commit the act. It is unnecessary to prove that the party intended to act unlawfully, it is enough that they intended to commit the act which is in fact unlawful. The same principle applies where the party fails to carry out a legal requirement. Even if the party is unaware of the particular obligation they have failed to perform, confusion, lack of knowledge or ignorance of the law is no defence. A party is deemed to know the law, and therefore failure to perform the obligation is considered intentional. Also, if the party is wilfully blind to the factual circumstances that give rise to an unlawful act, this may also be sufficient to prove they acted intentionally.
Exemplary damages must be ordered on a global basis, rather than for each and every separate breach under the same provision of the RTA. 6 The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered are set out in Schedule 1A of the RTA. 4 Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732(Cooke P) 5 Section 109 of the RTA. 6 Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment v Hillis Shearing Limited [2024] NZDC 27583
The Tribunal’s usual approach to exemplary damages is to award one third of the maximum unless there are aggravating or mitigating factors in play. 7
Finally, I note that even if the Tribunal finds an act to be an unlawful act, but decides not to award exemplary damages, it can still award compensation for the breach. 8

THE CLAIMS

Did the landlord fail to provide the tenant with a copy of the tenancy agreement?

A landlord must ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing, signed and a copy provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing. 9
The tenant said she executed a tenancy agreement with the landlord and despite requests for a copy he did not provide her a copy throughout the tenancy. Her claim is supported with oral evidence and corroborated with email correspondence and the 14-day notice she served on the landlord.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. 10
The tenancy commenced in February 2023. The application was filed in September 2025. A party may not apply for exemplary damages later than 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act. 11 Therefore the claim for exemplary damages is dismissed as I consider it should have been claimed within 12 months of the commencement of the tenancy.
However, I consider I may make an order for compensation to reflect the impact of the breach on the tenant. The tenant has been at a disadvantage during her tenancy without a copy of the tenancy agreement. I consider an order for compensation of $250.00 to reflect the breach is reasonable and appropriate and it is ordered accordingly.

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. 12
The tenant said the landlord did not lodge the Bond with the Bond Centre. I have enquired with Tenancy Services and confirmed that no bond was ever lodged in respect of this tenancy.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. 13
In having regards to the factors set out in section 109 of the RTA I note: a. The landlord did not attend the hearing; therefore, I was unable to ask the landlord why he did not lodge the bond. b. However, the tenant did raise with the landlord that the bond should be lodged shortly after the tenancy commenced and served the landlord with a 14-day notice in August 2025 to have him attend to the lodging of the bond. I find that the landlord is required to know that he must lodge the bond and the tenant reminded him the bond should be lodged, therefore I find it likely the landlord intentionally did not lodge the bond. c. The tenant said she felt ignored and dismissed when raising concerns about the tenancy. d. There is a public interest in ensuring landlords lodge tenant’s bonds. The bond belongs to the tenant, and it is therefore important that it is protected at the Bond Centre so that it can be paid out by agreement or automatically by way of a Tribunal order. The obligation to lodge the bond is mandatory. e. It is in the tenant’s interest to receive exemplary damages for the unlawful act committed against her. f. The landlord has mitigated the breach by refunding the full bond to the tenant.
In having regards to the above factors, I consider an award of exemplary damages less than a third of the maximum is just and I make an order for exemplary damages of $300.00. 12 See section 19(1) RTA. 13 See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A RTA.

Did the landlord breach the Healthy Homes Standards?

The Law: Healthy Home Standards:

The RTA requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS) 14 The HHS provides for a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies in relation to heating, insulation, ventilation, draught stopping, and moisture ingress and drainage. Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: All private rentals must comply within 90 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021, with all private rentals complying by 1 July 2025. Heating standard:
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS. The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/ . The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances. Insulation standard:
The Insulation standard requires that the premises have qualifying insulation in the ceiling cavity, and under the floor if the floor is a suspended floor. To be considered ‘qualifying insulation’ the insulation must meet a minimum R value. The minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3. The insulation must also be in a reasonable condition. The HHS does provide an exemption to the required for insulation in specific circumstances for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated. Ventilation standard:
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. 14 See Section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA Draught Stopping Standard:
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances. Moisture Ingress and Drainage Standard:
The moisture ingress and drainage standard require 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. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances. HEALTHY HOMES STANDARDS – THIS CASE
The tenant did not make a claim in respect of the heating, insulation or draught stopping standards. Ventilation standard
The tenant says the premises did not comply with the ventilation standard as the bathroom did not have an extractor fan. A photograph of the bathroom and oral evidence was provided in support of the claim. There is no extractor fan in the bathroom visible in the photographs provided by the tenant. Moisture ingress and drainage
In this case the tenant said one of the downpipes discharged directly onto the ground and into the garage, that the front downpipe lacked a drain, causing water to run down the path and lawn and the rear downpipe was broken, resulting in boggy ground.
The tenant provided photographs and oral evidence to illustrate that the premises did not have effective moisture ingress and drainage systems. The tenant provided photographs showing that water would drain into the garage and that two down pipes had no drains. The tenant provided communication she had with the landlord to corroborate the claim. The tenant said these issues affected her health and comfort and limited her use of the garage due to the flooding.
I find the tenant has proven that it is likely that the premises breaches the HHS in respect of the moisture ingress and drainage and ventilation standards.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act. Exemplary damages
The tenant claims exemplary damages in respect of the HHS breaches. The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered is $7,200.00. 15
In having regards to the relevant factors set out in section 109 of the RTA I note: a. A landlord is expected to know the law and the HHS requirements. The tenant also informed the landlord of the HHS. I find that the landlord has acted intentionally in not ensuring the HHS are met. b. The effect of the non-compliance with the HHS was that the tenant lived in an unhealthy home. c. There is a public interest in ensuring landlords comply with the HHS. d. It is in the tenant’s interests to receive exemplary damages for the unlawful act committed against her and that is a just outcome.
Having regards to the above factors I consider an award of exemplary damages of a third of the maximum is just and make an order of exemplary damages of $2,400.00. Compensation
The tenant also claimed compensation. In assessing a fair level of compensation, I consider the following factors are relevant: a. I consider the tenant has experienced inconvenience during the tenancy having a home that was not fully healthy home compliant. The impact of this would have been moderate. In particular, she would have had to ensure the bathroom window was open frequently to ventilate the bathroom and she did not get full use of the garage. b. The tenant was paying for a home that was required to be healthy home compliant but was not getting what she paid for. c. The tenancy commenced in February 2023 and ended in September 2025 (and was for a period of 136 weeks and 4 days). I have reached the conclusion that it would be fair for the landlord to compensate the tenant $680, which is effectively $5 per week for 136 weeks. 15 See Schedule 1A of the RTA. See section 45 (1A) of the RTA.

Was the notice terminating the tenancy a retaliatory notice?

The tenant claims the 90-day termination notice served on her on 25 August 2025 is a retaliatory termination notice. The tenant seeks exemplary damages in respect of this claim. The Law – retaliatory termination notices
Section 54 of the RTA relates to retaliatory notices. It states: 54Tribunal may declare notice retaliatory (1)This section applies in relation to a notice given by a landlord 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). (2)The tenant may apply to the Tribunal for an order declaring that the notice was retaliatory on either or both of the following grounds: (a) 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: (b)that, in giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or performance, or proposed exercise or performance, by the chief executive or any other person of any power or function conferred on the person under this or any other Act in respect of the tenancy or premises. (3)If the tenant makes the application within 28 working days after receiving the termination notice, the tenant may at the same time apply for an order declaring the notice to be of no effect. (4)If the Tribunal is satisfied that either or both of the grounds in subsection (2) apply, the Tribunal must declare the notice to be retaliatory and, if an order is applied for under subsection (3), of no effect. (5)However, the Tribunal need not declare the notice to be retaliatory and of no effect if the Tribunal is satisfied that, in the case of subsection (2)(a), the purported exercise by the tenant of any such right, power, authority, or remedy, or the making by the tenant of any such complaint, was or would be vexatious or frivolous to such an extent that the landlord was justified in giving the notice. (6)The giving of a notice terminating a tenancy is an unlawful act if the notice is declared under subsection (4) to be retaliatory.
The essential element of a retaliatory notice is the issuing of it in response to a tenant asserting a right or making a complaint, but it need not be the sole motivation, provided the landlord was partially motivated by the tenant asserting the right or making a complaint.
The Tribunal in Easton v Marks 16 considered the meaning of the verb “motivate”. It considered the Webster’s dictionary definition “to furnish with a motive or motives; to give impetus to; to insight; to impel” and held that the landlord was not incited or impelled by the tenant’s actions. The Tribunal in that case noted that: “It is one thing to say that an owner of a property has grown somewhat tired of his property being tenanted to persons, it is another thing to say that the tenants gave impetus to, or incited, or impelled the owner to give the notice to quit.”
A notice of termination given for only genuine and fair reasons will not be considered retaliatory. 17 In addition, the Tribunal must also be careful to ensure that Parliament’s intention to allow landlords to terminate a periodic tenancy without reason on 90 day written notice is upheld. That said, the Tribunal must consider every case on its individual facts. This case:
There are four issues to consider: a. Does the termination notice comply with section 51 of the RTA? b. If so, was the application made within 28 working days of the notice being served? c. Has the tenant proved that, in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any enactment, or by any complaint against the landlord? d. If so, was the landlord justified in giving the notice because the tenant’s issue or complaint was frivolous or vexatious?

Does the termination notice comply with s 51 RTA?

16 Easton v Marks Auckland TT 229/87, 27 May 1987 17 Kerr v Woodman DC Porirua MA244/88, 3 November 1988

There is no suggestion the termination notice did not comply with the RTA therefore for the purposes of section 54 (1) of the RTA I find the notice complies with the technical requirements of section 51.

Was the application made within 28 working days of the notice being served?

The tenant has applied within 28 days of receiving the termination notice, accordingly there is jurisdiction to declare the notice of no effect if it is declared retaliatory. There would be no practical relevance of this now that the tenant has vacated. Has the tenant proved that, in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any enactment, or by any complaint against the landlord?
The tenant says she raised concerns about the tenancy throughout the tenancy but formally by way of a 14-day notice dated 13 August 2025 which was hand-delivered to the landlord’s address.
The tenant says that shortly thereafter, on 25 August 2025, she was served by email with the 90-day termination notice.
Given the short time between the tenant’s complaints about the premises and the termination notice being issued there is an inference that the landlord is at least partly motivated by the tenant’s complaint. This then puts an evidential onus on the landlord to show that he was not motivated, even in part, by the tenant exercising a right to make a complaint. 18
The landlord did not attend the hearing to give evidence in relation to the claim.
However I consider it likely that in giving the notice (to use the words of section 54) the landlord was at least partly motivated by the exercise of a right, power, authority or remedy that the tenant had in relation to the tenancy, or a complaint by the tenant in relation to the tenancy, because during the tenancy the landlord has emailed the tenant saying he was thinking of putting the property on the market (which would thereby end of the tenancy) in response to the tenant asserting her right to receive notice from the landlord of his intended entry. This corroborates the tenant’s position that the landlord would end the tenancy if the tenant raised any concerns or complaints or asserted her rights as a tenant.
I am therefore confident in concluding that the landlord’s decision to issue the termination notice was in part because of the tenant’s complaints about the premises and asserting of her rights. I find that the termination notice is retaliatory. 18 McIntyre v Just Junction 2017 NZTT 4067876. Was the landlord justified in giving the notice because the tenant’s issue or complaint was frivolous or vexatious?
I do not consider the tenant’s complaint was frivolous or vexatious. Exemplary damages
The tenant seeks exemplary damages.
The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered for a landlord giving a retaliatory notice of termination is $6,500.
In taking into out the relevant factors set out in section 109 of the RTA I note: a. Landlords are required to know the law. The landlord is expected to know that issuing a termination notice shortly after receiving a complaint will create an inference that the termination notice is retaliatory. I consider the landlord has acted intentionally. b. The effect of the unlawful act is that the tenant was advised the tenancy will end, which I accept would have caused her stress and worry, given the difficulty in securing another rental property. c. It is in the tenant’s interest to receive exemplary damages for the unlawful act committed against her. d. There are strong interests for tenants and the public generally, that when termination notices are given, they are not in retaliation to a tenant asserting their rights. e. I consider it would be just to make an order for exemplary damages. f. I consider an award of exemplary damages of less than a third of the maximum is fair, given the tenant was able to promptly find a new tenancy and was able to give 21 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy.
Accordingly, the amount ordered for exemplary damages is $1,500.00.

Was the rent increase unlawful and should the tenant be credited rent?

The tenant says the landlord increased the rent by $50 per week effective 12 February 2025 unlawfully. The tenant says the notice was served on her on 19 January 2025, and it did not meet the required 60-day notice period. The tenant says she paid the increased amount of rent but now seeks a rent refund of $50 per week × 31 weeks, with the total claimed of $1,550
Section 24 of the RTA relates to rent increases. The relevant provisions say: 24Rent increases (1)The rent payable in respect of any tenancy may be increased by the landlord provided all of the following conditions are complied with: (a)the landlord shall give the tenant notice in writing of the increase; and (b)that notice shall specify the amount of the increased rent and the day upon which the increased rent shall become payable; and (c)the day upon which the increased rent shall become payable shall be not less than 60 days (or, in the case of a boarding house tenancy, not less than 28 days) after the date on which that notice is given; and (d)the rent must not be increased within 12 months after the date of the commencement of the tenancy; and (e)the rent must not be increased within 12 months after the date on which the last increase took effect; and (f)[Repealed] (g)... ...(3) A notice of an increase in rent lawfully given under this section shall, unless it is withdrawn by the landlord, have the effect of varying the tenancy agreement in accordance with the terms of the notice.
The undated written notice of the increased rent from the landlord said: I am just dropping you a note to let you know that I have to increase your rent. I always try to keep the rent lower than the market rate. Your new rent is $550.00 a week starting the week of February 10 th . Please change your auto payment for that week. Thank you.
I find that the landlord did not give the required notice in writing to the tenant of the increase and did not specify the day upon which the increased rent shall become payable. I therefore find that the rent remained at $500 per week until the end of the tenancy. The tenant provided bank statements as evidence of the increased rent payments she made. I find the tenant is to be reimbursed $1514 which reflects the period of 30 weeks and an adjustment for the shorter final week of the tenancy, as discussed at the hearing.

OTHER CLAIMS

The tenant’s application and the notice of hearing raised additional claims. The tenant did not pursue a claim in respect of a failure by the landlord to provide a HHS statement, in respect of a breach of quiet enjoyment or a breach of the landlord’s rights of entry. The claim for a work order was withdrawn. Accordingly, these claims are dismissed.

FILING FEE

The tenant has been partly successful with the claim, therefore I have reimbursed the tenant the filing fee of $28. 19

SUPPRESSION

The tenant seeks name suppression and has she has been substantially successful in the claim name suppression is granted. 20

At a glance

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

SERVICE

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

THE CLAIMS

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

Did the landlord breach the Healthy Homes Standards?

Was the notice terminating the tenancy a retaliatory notice?

Does the termination notice comply with s 51 RTA?

Was the application made within 28 working days of the notice being served?

Was the rent increase unlawful and should the tenant be credited rent?

OTHER CLAIMS

FILING FEE

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

SERVICE

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

THE CLAIMS

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

Did the landlord breach the Healthy Homes Standards?

Was the notice terminating the tenancy a retaliatory notice?

Does the termination notice comply with s 51 RTA?

Was the application made within 28 working days of the notice being served?

Was the rent increase unlawful and should the tenant be credited rent?

OTHER CLAIMS

FILING FEE

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions