What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5341892 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 5341892?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5341892?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5341892?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13278674-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5341892 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 5341892?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5341892?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5341892?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13278674-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5341892 — 14-day notice

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
The balance of the tenants’ claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. This is the second hearing for the tenants’ application. The first hearing was adjourned part-heard as there was insufficient time to hear all the claims and evidence.
This tenancy began on 11 May 2024. The tenants have filed an application seeking exemplary damages on the basis that: • The landlord’s notice to end the tenancy was retaliatory. • Breach of quiet enjoyment, harassment • Breach of privacy • Discrimination • Harassment by neighbours.
The tenants also claim: • unlawful entry by the landlord on three separate occasions • lack of maintenance of the grounds, in breach of the tenancy agreement • failure to deal with stray cats on the property
The issue of retaliatory notice was determined following the first hearing and an order was issued on 19 November 2025. The Tribunal found that the landlord’s notice to end the tenancy was not retaliatory. Consequently, the claim was dismissed. The tenants have lodged an appeal of this decision. They advise that they are still awaiting the outcome of the appeal, and that the tenancy has now come to an end.
The balance of the tenants’ claims are considered below. Legal framework: general principles
In this jurisdiction, the party making the claim has the onus of proving their claim to the required civil standard of proof, which is on the balance of probabilities. This means they must establish, with evidence, that their claim is “more likely than not.”
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. In general, when awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach.
Exemplary damages are penalties and can only be awarded for an unlawful act, as set out in various sections of the RTA and as listed in Schedule 1A of the Act. They are different from compensation and are designed to punish and deter, more like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) 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. Where one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act, before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the RTA. Breach of quiet enjoyment
The tenants claim the landlord has breached their quiet enjoyment. They state their neighbours have been harassing and intimidating them, and there has been surveillance. They felt discriminated against, and expressed concern at the landlord’s inaction. The tenants wrote to the landlord on 26 October 2025 requesting that this cease, and sent a 14 day notice on 4 November 2025 telling the landlord to require the neighbour take down both security cameras.
The tenants have described incidents involving the neighbour, [The neighbour], who lives at a property next to the block of flats where their premises is located. There is disagreement as to whether [The neighbour] is the property manager or the person responsible for the lawnmowing and gardening. The tenants have written to [The neighbour] expressing their concerns on 21 October and 4 November 2025. Legal framework
Section 38(2) of the RTA provides that a landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. The right to ‘reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy’ is often described as the right to quiet enjoyment.
The right to ‘reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy’ is often described as the right to quiet enjoyment. In this context “quiet” means peaceful, not merely free from noise, and “enjoyment” means the right to full use and benefit of the tenancy property. 1 This right is commonly used in reference to the uninterrupted use of the premises, and can include the right not to have the tenancy significantly impaired by the actions of the landlord and/or the landlord’s agents.
Where this obligation has been breached in circumstances that amount to harassment, this is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded. 2 Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person." 3 Analysis
As previously noted, the Tribunal only deals with disputes between landlords and tenants, and does not have jurisdiction over disputes between tenants and neighbours (unless the neighbour is also a tenant of the same landlord). So, a 1 Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand S. Benson (2018) 2 See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A of the RTA 3 MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010. landlord is not generally responsible for the actions of neighbours who are not their tenants.
In terms of the issues that come within the landlord’s responsibilities, having considered the evidence and submissions, I do not find the landlord has breached the tenants’ right to quiet enjoyment in their use of the tenancy premises. My reasons for this finding are set out below.
The tenants have provided video evidence claiming this establishes [The neighbour] assaulted [Tenant 1], and this was witnessed by [Tenant 2]. However, having viewed this video, and taken into account the other evidence, including the written statement from [The neighbour], I find it is unclear. There is also a photograph, and [Tenant 1] states there was a bruise on her cheek which became evident a week later. Given the delay between the event and the appearance of the bruise, and the lack of any medical evidence in support, it is uncertain whether this injury was sustained during this event. The tenants state the police were called, they attended and spoke to [The neighbour], but no further action was taken. The landlord notes the tenants have trespassed [The neighbour]. He has provided a written statement, stated to be from [The neighbour], which describes some of the events.
At the second hearing, the tenants noted they did not agree with the comment in the first Tribunal order that they had incorrectly believed [The neighbour] is the property manager. They pointed out that there was a text from the landlord referring to [The neighbour] as the property manager. The landlord explained that he had replied to the tenants’ text, where they had referred to [The neighbour] as the property manager.
Overall, I am not persuaded that [The neighbour] is the property manager, and that his role was limited to doing lawnmowing and gardening. The landlord states [The neighbour] has the permission of all unit owners to do this work. As [The neighbour] is not the property manager, he was not acting in the capacity of the landlord’s agent. The rules of entry set out in section 48 of the RTA do not apply when [The neighbour] is doing gardening and lawnmowing on the land. I am also not persuaded, from the evidence, that [The neighbour] interfered with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment when undertaking this work.
The tenants also expressed concerns about security cameras, which they found to be intrusive. They also object to a security light that was shining onto their property. The tenants claim the neighbour has been spying on them. According to the tenant’s evidence, two of the security cameras and lights were located at the neighbouring property, and there was another camera located at the block of flats where they live. The landlord’s evidence is that the cameras are for the security of the neighbouring property, and the one located at the block of flats has been there for years, and he did not install them.
In this case, it is clear the landlord has not installed these security cameras, or security lights and, in the absence of further evidence, it is unlikely the landlord can be held responsible. As noted above, as [The neighbour], the neighbour with the security camera, is not a tenant of the landlord, the landlord has no direct obligation to intervene.
Other issues that have arisen during the tenancy have been described in the application and at the hearing. The tenants spoke about having issues with residents of one of the neighbouring units. While these events have been upsetting for the tenants, there has been insufficient evidence provided to show a breach on the part of the landlord.
Because the premises is one of four units, the tenants will from time to time interact with the other residents. The Tribunal generally takes the approach that a personality clash or a difference of opinion does not of itself amount to a breach of quiet enjoyment. 4 While it can affect the tenant’s reasonable peace and comfort, more is needed to prove the landlord is liable for the breach.
Accordingly, this claim is dismissed. Unlawful entry
The tenants claim the landlord failed to give sufficient notice before entering the premises. They state this occurred on 15 December 2024, 6 June 2025, and 8 June 2025.
Under section 48 of the RTA, a landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections, and repairs and maintenance. 5 If a landlord enters the premises in contravention of section 48, this is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded. 6
For the purposes of section 48, “premises” does not include land or facilities 7 . “Facilities” is defined in section 2 of the Act as including: all facilities provided by the landlord for the non-exclusive use and enjoyment of the tenant, otherwise than as part of the premises that are the subject of the agreement, such as ... (a) any land or buildings intended for use for storage space or for the parking of motor vehicles:... ...(j) lawns, gardens, and outhouses.” 4 Smith v Olmstead v Floris Auckland TT 1404/93, 9 March 1993 5 See section 48(1) and (2) of the RTA 6 See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A of the RTA. 7 Section 48(7) of the RTA
This means the rules as to entry only apply to the premises and not the land or facilities.
In this case, the evidence regarding the first incident on 15 December 2024 shows that the landlord asked the tenants permission to enter the premises. The tenants state that following this request, they had indicated this was not convenient. The tenants accept that the landlord did not come to the premises on that day. They asked him to come later, on 21 December 2024.
The landlord has explained that the tenants had requested some net curtains, and he had wanted to install these, hence his communication to the tenants. The tenants accept that the landlord came on 21 December 2024 as arranged.
Having considered the evidence of both parties, I do not find there has been any breach by the landlord on this occasion, since another date was arranged when the proposed date was not convenient for the tenants. The landlord had asked if he was able to call in that day and when the tenants declined permission, he did not enter the premises. A landlord can enter the premises with the tenants consent freely given, at or immediately before the time of entry, as provided in section 48(1)(a). There is no breach under the RTA. In this case the landlord was responding to a request from the tenants for curtains and appeared to be acting promptly to provide them in accordance with their request.
In terms of the incident on Friday 6 June 2025, the text exchange shows that the landlord asked whether the tenants were at home that day. The tenants indicated it would not be convenient for him to come that day or over the weekend. The tenants asked whether they could be contacted next week to arrange a time. Again, there was no unlawful entry, since the landlord did not enter the premises on this day. The landlord did ask permission to come on the day he contacted them, and when this request was declined, arranged another time.
Requesting permission to enter the premises on the day of the request is not a breach of the RTA. Again, as noted earlier, a landlord can enter the premises during the tenancy with the consent of the tenant freely given at or immediately before the time of entry.
In terms of the claimed unlawful entry on 8 June 2025, the texts show that the landlord asked the tenants, on Sunday 8 June at 7.12pm, whether he could come to the premises the following day (on Monday 9 June). The tenants responded that they would be home from 4:30pm. The tenants confirmed at the hearing that the landlord came on Monday 9 June 2025, around 4:30 or 5:00pm. They state this was less than 24 hours’ notice. It is unclear as to the purpose of the visit. The tenants were not able to provide further details, and the landlord is unable to recall.
In terms of the landlord’s entry to the premises on Monday 9 June 2025, while technically there was less than 24 hours’ notice from the time of the text the previous day, it does appear that this time was agreed. If the purpose of the visit was to carry out repairs or maintenance, this is a technical breach, with the landlord falling short by two hours, since the general rule is that 24 hours notice is required. While it is arguable that this was a follow up text from the one sent on Friday, indicating that the tenants were aware, from Friday, that the landlord wished to visit the premises, the purpose of the visit is unclear from these texts, and from the parties’ oral evidence.
In the context of the landlord’s and tenants’ interaction during this tenancy, if there was a breach, the failure is minor. In the circumstances, compensation would not be appropriate.
The tenants also claim exemplary damages. For this to be awarded, the test for exemplary damages must be met. This is set out in section 109(3) of the RTA, and requires, as a precondition, that the person against whom the order is sought committed the unlawful act intentionally. An intentional act is a deliberate act, not a negligent or careless oversight, or incompetence. In this case, I find that the required intent for exemplary damages is not met, so there is no separate award for exemplary damages. Other issues
The tenants claim the neighbour’s dog barks at them. There were also stray cats dirtying the property, which caused them concern. They had called the SPCA. I do not find these issues to be the responsibility of the landlord
Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for the lawns and gardens. From the evidence provided, I am not able to find the landlord to be in breach of this responsibility, and note that this issue was not part of the tenants’ original application. Filing fee and name suppression
There is no reimbursement of the filing fee since the tenants have not been substantially successful with their claims.
The tenants seek name suppression, which is granted. In granting suppression for the tenants, the Tribunal has had regard to the interests of the parties, and the public interest. The landlord does not request name suppression.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. This is the second hearing for the tenants’ application. The first hearing was adjourned part-heard as there was insufficient time to hear all the claims and evidence.

This tenancy began on 11 May 2024. The tenants have filed an application seeking exemplary damages on the basis that: • The landlord’s notice to end the tenancy was retaliatory. • Breach of quiet enjoyment, harassment • Breach of privacy • Discrimination • Harassment by neighbours.

The tenants also claim: • unlawful entry by the landlord on three separate occasions • lack of maintenance of the grounds, in breach of the tenancy agreement • failure to deal with stray cats on the property

The issue of retaliatory notice was determined following the first hearing and an order was issued on 19 November 2025. The Tribunal found that the landlord’s notice to end the tenancy was not retaliatory. Consequently, the claim was dismissed. The tenants have lodged an appeal of this decision. They advise that they are still awaiting the outcome of the appeal, and that the tenancy has now come to an end.

The balance of the tenants’ claims are considered below. Legal framework: general principles

In this jurisdiction, the party making the claim has the onus of proving their claim to the required civil standard of proof, which is on the balance of probabilities. This means they must establish, with evidence, that their claim is “more likely than not.”

The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. In general, when awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach.

Exemplary damages are penalties and can only be awarded for an unlawful act, as set out in various sections of the RTA and as listed in Schedule 1A of the Act. They are different from compensation and are designed to punish and deter, more like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) 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. Where one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act, before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the RTA. Breach of quiet enjoyment

The tenants claim the landlord has breached their quiet enjoyment. They state their neighbours have been harassing and intimidating them, and there has been surveillance. They felt discriminated against, and expressed concern at the landlord’s inaction. The tenants wrote to the landlord on 26 October 2025 requesting that this cease, and sent a 14 day notice on 4 November 2025 telling the landlord to require the neighbour take down both security cameras.

The tenants have described incidents involving the neighbour, [The neighbour], who lives at a property next to the block of flats where their premises is located. There is disagreement as to whether [The neighbour] is the property manager or the person responsible for the lawnmowing and gardening. The tenants have written to [The neighbour] expressing their concerns on 21 October and 4 November 2025. Legal framework

Section 38(2) of the RTA provides that a landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. The right to ‘reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy’ is often described as the right to quiet enjoyment.

The right to ‘reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy’ is often described as the right to quiet enjoyment. In this context “quiet” means peaceful, not merely free from noise, and “enjoyment” means the right to full use and benefit of the tenancy property. 1 This right is commonly used in reference to the uninterrupted use of the premises, and can include the right not to have the tenancy significantly impaired by the actions of the landlord and/or the landlord’s agents.

Where this obligation has been breached in circumstances that amount to harassment, this is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded. 2 Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person." 3 Analysis

As previously noted, the Tribunal only deals with disputes between landlords and tenants, and does not have jurisdiction over disputes between tenants and neighbours (unless the neighbour is also a tenant of the same landlord). So, a 1 Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand S. Benson (2018) 2 See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A of the RTA 3 MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010. landlord is not generally responsible for the actions of neighbours who are not their tenants.

In terms of the issues that come within the landlord’s responsibilities, having considered the evidence and submissions, I do not find the landlord has breached the tenants’ right to quiet enjoyment in their use of the tenancy premises. My reasons for this finding are set out below.

The tenants have provided video evidence claiming this establishes [The neighbour] assaulted [Tenant 1], and this was witnessed by [Tenant 2]. However, having viewed this video, and taken into account the other evidence, including the written statement from [The neighbour], I find it is unclear. There is also a photograph, and [Tenant 1] states there was a bruise on her cheek which became evident a week later. Given the delay between the event and the appearance of the bruise, and the lack of any medical evidence in support, it is uncertain whether this injury was sustained during this event. The tenants state the police were called, they attended and spoke to [The neighbour], but no further action was taken. The landlord notes the tenants have trespassed [The neighbour]. He has provided a written statement, stated to be from [The neighbour], which describes some of the events.

At the second hearing, the tenants noted they did not agree with the comment in the first Tribunal order that they had incorrectly believed [The neighbour] is the property manager. They pointed out that there was a text from the landlord referring to [The neighbour] as the property manager. The landlord explained that he had replied to the tenants’ text, where they had referred to [The neighbour] as the property manager.

Overall, I am not persuaded that [The neighbour] is the property manager, and that his role was limited to doing lawnmowing and gardening. The landlord states [The neighbour] has the permission of all unit owners to do this work. As [The neighbour] is not the property manager, he was not acting in the capacity of the landlord’s agent. The rules of entry set out in section 48 of the RTA do not apply when [The neighbour] is doing gardening and lawnmowing on the land. I am also not persuaded, from the evidence, that [The neighbour] interfered with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment when undertaking this work.

The tenants also expressed concerns about security cameras, which they found to be intrusive. They also object to a security light that was shining onto their property. The tenants claim the neighbour has been spying on them. According to the tenant’s evidence, two of the security cameras and lights were located at the neighbouring property, and there was another camera located at the block of flats where they live. The landlord’s evidence is that the cameras are for the security of the neighbouring property, and the one located at the block of flats has been there for years, and he did not install them.

In this case, it is clear the landlord has not installed these security cameras, or security lights and, in the absence of further evidence, it is unlikely the landlord can be held responsible. As noted above, as [The neighbour], the neighbour with the security camera, is not a tenant of the landlord, the landlord has no direct obligation to intervene.

Other issues that have arisen during the tenancy have been described in the application and at the hearing. The tenants spoke about having issues with residents of one of the neighbouring units. While these events have been upsetting for the tenants, there has been insufficient evidence provided to show a breach on the part of the landlord.

Because the premises is one of four units, the tenants will from time to time interact with the other residents. The Tribunal generally takes the approach that a personality clash or a difference of opinion does not of itself amount to a breach of quiet enjoyment. 4 While it can affect the tenant’s reasonable peace and comfort, more is needed to prove the landlord is liable for the breach.

Accordingly, this claim is dismissed. Unlawful entry

The tenants claim the landlord failed to give sufficient notice before entering the premises. They state this occurred on 15 December 2024, 6 June 2025, and 8 June 2025.

Under section 48 of the RTA, a landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections, and repairs and maintenance. 5 If a landlord enters the premises in contravention of section 48, this is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded. 6

For the purposes of section 48, “premises” does not include land or facilities 7 . “Facilities” is defined in section 2 of the Act as including: all facilities provided by the landlord for the non-exclusive use and enjoyment of the tenant, otherwise than as part of the premises that are the subject of the agreement, such as ... (a) any land or buildings intended for use for storage space or for the parking of motor vehicles:... ...(j) lawns, gardens, and outhouses.” 4 Smith v Olmstead v Floris Auckland TT 1404/93, 9 March 1993 5 See section 48(1) and (2) of the RTA 6 See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A of the RTA. 7 Section 48(7) of the RTA

This means the rules as to entry only apply to the premises and not the land or facilities.

In this case, the evidence regarding the first incident on 15 December 2024 shows that the landlord asked the tenants permission to enter the premises. The tenants state that following this request, they had indicated this was not convenient. The tenants accept that the landlord did not come to the premises on that day. They asked him to come later, on 21 December 2024.

The landlord has explained that the tenants had requested some net curtains, and he had wanted to install these, hence his communication to the tenants. The tenants accept that the landlord came on 21 December 2024 as arranged.

Having considered the evidence of both parties, I do not find there has been any breach by the landlord on this occasion, since another date was arranged when the proposed date was not convenient for the tenants. The landlord had asked if he was able to call in that day and when the tenants declined permission, he did not enter the premises. A landlord can enter the premises with the tenants consent freely given, at or immediately before the time of entry, as provided in section 48(1)(a). There is no breach under the RTA. In this case the landlord was responding to a request from the tenants for curtains and appeared to be acting promptly to provide them in accordance with their request.

In terms of the incident on Friday 6 June 2025, the text exchange shows that the landlord asked whether the tenants were at home that day. The tenants indicated it would not be convenient for him to come that day or over the weekend. The tenants asked whether they could be contacted next week to arrange a time. Again, there was no unlawful entry, since the landlord did not enter the premises on this day. The landlord did ask permission to come on the day he contacted them, and when this request was declined, arranged another time.

Requesting permission to enter the premises on the day of the request is not a breach of the RTA. Again, as noted earlier, a landlord can enter the premises during the tenancy with the consent of the tenant freely given at or immediately before the time of entry.

In terms of the claimed unlawful entry on 8 June 2025, the texts show that the landlord asked the tenants, on Sunday 8 June at 7.12pm, whether he could come to the premises the following day (on Monday 9 June). The tenants responded that they would be home from 4:30pm. The tenants confirmed at the hearing that the landlord came on Monday 9 June 2025, around 4:30 or 5:00pm. They state this was less than 24 hours’ notice. It is unclear as to the purpose of the visit. The tenants were not able to provide further details, and the landlord is unable to recall.

In terms of the landlord’s entry to the premises on Monday 9 June 2025, while technically there was less than 24 hours’ notice from the time of the text the previous day, it does appear that this time was agreed. If the purpose of the visit was to carry out repairs or maintenance, this is a technical breach, with the landlord falling short by two hours, since the general rule is that 24 hours notice is required. While it is arguable that this was a follow up text from the one sent on Friday, indicating that the tenants were aware, from Friday, that the landlord wished to visit the premises, the purpose of the visit is unclear from these texts, and from the parties’ oral evidence.

In the context of the landlord’s and tenants’ interaction during this tenancy, if there was a breach, the failure is minor. In the circumstances, compensation would not be appropriate.

The tenants also claim exemplary damages. For this to be awarded, the test for exemplary damages must be met. This is set out in section 109(3) of the RTA, and requires, as a precondition, that the person against whom the order is sought committed the unlawful act intentionally. An intentional act is a deliberate act, not a negligent or careless oversight, or incompetence. In this case, I find that the required intent for exemplary damages is not met, so there is no separate award for exemplary damages. Other issues

The tenants claim the neighbour’s dog barks at them. There were also stray cats dirtying the property, which caused them concern. They had called the SPCA. I do not find these issues to be the responsibility of the landlord

Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for the lawns and gardens. From the evidence provided, I am not able to find the landlord to be in breach of this responsibility, and note that this issue was not part of the tenants’ original application. Filing fee and name suppression

There is no reimbursement of the filing fee since the tenants have not been substantially successful with their claims.

The tenants seek name suppression, which is granted. In granting suppression for the tenants, the Tribunal has had regard to the interests of the parties, and the public interest. The landlord does not request name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5341892 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5341892 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions