What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5352947 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 5352947?

Compensation: Invalid termination no…: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $375.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5352947?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5352947?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13652365-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5352947 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 5352947?

Compensation: Invalid termination no…: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $375.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5352947?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5352947?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13652365-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

303 The Parade, Island Bay, Wellington 6023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5352947 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5352947 — net $2,403.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Bond not lodged	$500.00	Bond not lodged
Exemplary damages: No written tenancy agreement	$375.00	No written tenancy agreement
Compensation: Invalid termination notice	$1,500.00	Invalid termination notice
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,403.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,403.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5352947 — net $2,403.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Bond not lodged	$500.00	Bond not lodged
Exemplary damages: No written tenancy agreement	$375.00	No written tenancy agreement
Compensation: Invalid termination notice	$1,500.00	Invalid termination notice
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,403.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,403.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $2,403.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord, Mr [The landlord/s], attended the hearing with Ms Lifang Shen, who is the owner of the premises. The tenant had a Mandarin interpreter, and the landlord had a Cantonese interpreter. Background
There have been three hearings. The hearing on 16 December 2025 proceeded as a case conference. The hearing on 29 January 2026 was convened solely for the purpose of determining whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the tenant’s claims. The Tribunal order dated 12 February 2026 (“the February order’) declared that the agreement between the parties in relation to the premises is a residential tenancy subject to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) with the applicant being the tenant and the respondent being the landlord.
The February order sets out the background to the tenancy. Therefore, I do not repeat it here. This order should be read together with the February order.
The tenant seeks a full refund of the bond paid and compensation/exemplary damages against the landlord as appropriate in relation to the following claims: a. Failure to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre; b. Failure to provide a tenancy agreement in writing; c. Overcharging rent and utilities; d. Failure to comply with Healthy Homes Standards; e. Unlawful termination of the tenancy; f. Discrimination.
Any party bringing a claim to the Tribunal has the burden of proving their claim. The Tenancy Tribunal applies a civil standard of proof, determining matters on the balance of probabilities. In other words, each applicant must prove that it is more likely than not that their alleged version of events took place. Further, the evidence should be reasonable with no probable defects such as inconsistency or improbability. The evidence should be supported by other acceptable evidence. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents such as emails, texts, and photographs are an important part of discharging the burden. Bond refund
Mr Tang, refunded part of the bond to the tenant when the tenancy ended. Both parties confirmed that the landlord refunded the remainder of the bond to the tenant on 18 February 2026. Therefore, this claim has been settled.

Did the landlord lodge the bond with the Bond Centre?

A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. 1 See section 19(1) RTA.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. 2
There is no dispute that Mr Tang did not lodge the Bond with the Bond Centre, and he held the funds in his personal account. At the end of the tenancy, he deducted $480 from the bond without the tenant’s consent or authority on the basis that the tenant allegedly owed this money for power, gas, and internet charges. He later refunded the bond in full to the tenant after these proceedings were issued.
Mr Tang maintains the same argument he advanced at the jurisdiction hearing: that he is not a landlord. He works as CEO/Manager of First Arrival Limited (FAL), a company that operates a Chinese restaurant. Ms Shen is a director of that company and owns the premises. FAL’s employees come from China and Mr Tang says that FAL, and in particular Mr Tang, help their employees find rental accommodation because they have little English language and understanding of tenancy law in New Zealand. The premises comprise of six rooms. He claimed that one of the employees (referred to as the main tenant) signed a tenancy agreement for the premises with Ms Shen as the landlord. Mr Tang says he facilitated the signing of this agreement. Then, Mr Tang claims he assisted the main tenant to find flatmates. Some of these flatmates were other employees of FAL. He says that the tenant in this case was just another flatmate. I rejected Mr Tang’s arguments, and the February order sets out the Tribunal’s reasons for finding that Mr Tang is the landlord in respect to a residential tenancy agreement with this tenant.
Mr Tang confirmed that he suggested that a bond be paid by the tenant because he (and other employees living at the premises) did not know him. A bond was not required to be paid by other flatmates because they were employees of FAL who they knew. The main tenant/employee who signed the tenancy agreement was also not required to pay a bond. I asked why the main tenant did not hold the bond if this was a flatmate arrangement. Mr Tang repeated that his role was to help and assist FAL’s employees with their accommodation and to help the main tenant find flatmates.
Mr Tang says that he did not think a bond needed to be lodged at the Bond Centre for a flatmate arrangement and that is why he did not lodge it. He also says that he is not a professional property manager/landlord so did not know the rules. 1 Section 19(1) RTA 2 Section 19(2) and Schedule 1A RTA
He and Ms Shen also advised that these premises had previously been rented through a professional property management company. Therefore, they both appear to have some understanding about bond obligations.
Having found that there is a tenancy and Mr Tang is the landlord, he has breached his obligations as a landlord by failing to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre. The breach is an unlawful act for which I may consider exemplary damages. Exemplary damages
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell 3 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 when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proved, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.
Exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act; b. The effect of the unlawful act; c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed; d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
The District Court has said the requirement of intention is not about whether the party was aware they were breaching the Act. Rather, it is about whether they acted intentionally i.e. whether they intended to do whatever it was they did or did not do. 4 .
I consider the landlord cannot plead confusion, lack of knowledge, or ignorance of the law. In TMT New Zealand Limited T/A Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl 5 , where the landlord claimed not to be fully aware of his obligations, the District Court held: 3 Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 4 Parton v Fifita TT 1815/00, DC Auckland,1/5/2001 5 TMT New Zealand Limited T/A Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182 Like all citizens, corporate or otherwise, he and his company are deemed to know the law and on that basis a failure to provide these fundamental documents is properly seen as intentional. Parliament’s intention would be subverted if landlords were able to escape consequences for the unlawful acts involved by claiming ignorance of the law.
In summary, 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 obligation they have failed to perform, ignorance of the law is no defence. They are 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.
I am satisfied that the matter of intention is proved in this case because Mr Tang collected a bond and held it in his own account. If he were simply an intermediary helping to find a flatmate, as he alleged, there would have been no reason for him to retain the bond rather than pay it to the main tenant. Given that he had some understanding that tenant bonds should be lodged with the Bond Centre, he could easily have obtained advice about this arrangement and checked his obligations. Having found that he is the landlord, he is expected to know his legal obligations as a landlord and ignorance of the law is no defence.
The effect on the tenant has been to cause stress and anxiety because Mr Tang was able to deduct funds from the bond without the tenant’s consent. The interest of the tenant has been prejudiced because the bond is the tenant’s money and until it is held by the Bond Centre he is in a compromised position if a dispute arises, as it did here. There is significant public interest in ensuring that tenant bonds are held by the Bond Centre securely as stakeholder and as intended by Parliament. Considering the factors in s109, I have determined that it is just to make an award of exemplary damages of $500 being 33% of the available maximum. The award is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware that the landlord has committed a breach of this nature previously. No written 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. 6
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. 7 6 Section 13 RTA 7 Section 13(4) and Schedule 1A RTA
There is no dispute that a written tenancy agreement was not provided and signed by the parties. The tenant says that the landlord advised him with words to the effect that “because we are all Chinese we do not need a written agreement.” The tenant says that the only information he received was that they could give 2 weeks’ notice to move out.
Mr Tang again maintains he was helping the main tenant to find a flatmate. He says the tenant was unable to say how long he would be staying and because he was just a flatmate he did not think an agreement was necessary. He says that he did not think this was a tenancy so did not understand his obligations.
Again, having found that there is a tenancy and Mr Tang is the landlord, he has breached his obligations to provide a tenancy agreement in writing. The breach is an unlawful act for which I may consider an exemplary damages award.
For the same reasons set out above [paragraphs 14-19] I am satisfied that the matter of intention is proved because the landlord did not prepare a tenancy agreement for signing by the parties before the tenancy started. Ignorance of the law and his legal obligations is no defence.
The effect on the tenant has been to cause stress and uncertainty about the terms of the tenancy. In these proceedings the tenant has raised issues about the rent agreed, the amount agreed for utilities; and the notice required to terminate the tenancy. The parties are in dispute over the terms of the tenancy and the lack of a written agreement has exacerbated the problem. There is significant public interest in ensuring that landlords comply with their obligations.
Considering the factors in s109 RTA, I award $375 being 50% of the available maximum. The award reflects the seriousness of failing to put the agreement in writing so that there was certainty of terms. I have not awarded a higher sum because I am not aware that the landlord has previously breached the RTA in this manner.

Has the tenant overpaid rent and utilities?

Tenant case

The tenant says that when Mr Tang showed him the premises he advised that rent for a smaller room was $200/week and $250/week for a larger room. Once he confirmed that he and his adult son would move into the larger room, the price changed to $280/week. He says that he has been overcharged by $30/week.
Later in the tenancy, the tenant’s wife moved in, and it was agreed that an extra $50/week was payable for rent to cover her occupancy.
The tenant stated at the hearing that utilities were to be charged at an extra $20/week per person. Therefore, the cost would be $40/week for the tenant and his son. Initially, utilities were for power and internet only.
Subsequently, the landlord installed gas at the property for the hot water and demanded the tenants pay extra for this. The tenant points to two extra one off payments made for utilities of $232 on 16 July 2024 and $80 on 18 July 2024. He seeks recovery of the overpayments. Landlord case
Mr Tang says he advised the tenant of a range of prices for the rooms from $200 to $320. The room the tenant chose for him and his son was $280.
FAL set up the utilities accounts and intended to pass the charges onto the 6 occupants. Mr Tang says that they were not sure how much the outgoings would be. So, they did not set the fee until after the first bill was received. On 13 July 2024, Mr Tang then messaged the tenant and his son confirming they would collect $20/week per person to cover power and internet, based on six occupants. However, he also advised that if the actual costs were significantly more, the tenants would need to make up the difference. Once gas was installed they did not increase the charge. Also, when the tenant’s wife moved in, they did not charge anything extra for utilities.
Nothing was charged for utilities for the first 7 weeks or so. The two payments of $232 and $80 on 16 and 18 July 2024 covered those first few weeks. Thereafter, the tenants paid $320/week, being rent of $280 and utilities of $40 for the tenant and his son. When the tenant’s wife moved in, payments were increased to $370/week for rent and utilities. Discussion and findings
Both the tenant and the landlord produced their bank records in evidence to show the payments made during the tenancy. They also produced WeChat messages between them about utilities.
I am satisfied that the bank records show that the tenant paid rent of $280 from the start of the tenancy. There is no other documentary evidence to suggest that the rent amount paid was not the amount agreed. Therefore, I find no evidence of overpaid rent.
The bank records also show that the tenant did not start paying a regular amount to cover both rent and outgoings of $320 until 24 July 2024 which is in keeping with the agreement both parties say was reached. From 28 May to 10 July (approximately 7 weeks), the tenant made weekly rent payments of $280 only. Therefore, I am satisfied that the payments of $232 on 16 July and $80 on 18 July was to cover the outgoings during the previous 7-week period. There is no other evidence to prove that the outgoings paid were not the amount agreed.
Later in the tenancy, Mr Tang advised that the utility bills were higher than the amount being collected and the actual costs must be shared by everyone. However, the tenant did not provide evidence of other payments made above what is shown in his bank statements. The amount Mr Tang deducted from the bond to cover extra outgoings has also been refunded to the tenant.
In summary, there is insufficient evidence to prove the overpayments, and the claims must be dismissed. Has the landlord complied with Healthy Homes Standards compliance & maintenance obligations?
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). 8 There are five standards regarding insulation; heating; ventilation, draught stopping, drainage, and moisture ingress.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. For this tenancy, the premises must comply within 120 days of the commencement date of the tenancy. Both parties agree that the tenancy started on 28 May 2024. Therefore, the HHS compliance date for this tenancy was 25 September 2024.
The tenant was unable to say which standards were breached but noted that there was mould on the ceiling in his bedroom from the start of the tenancy which the landlord promised to fix and never did. He also said that there were broken appliances in the house which the landlord did not fix.
The landlord provided an HHS assessment report for the property dated 12 October 2022 which records that the premises comply with the HHS.
There is insufficient evidence presented by the tenant to establish that the landlord breached any of the healthy homes standards or failed to maintain the premises in accordance with those standards. 32 The tenant could argue that the landlord has breached the obligation under s45(1)(b) RTA to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Landlords are liable for defects they have knowledge of. They must repair defects within a reasonable time once they acquire that knowledge. As the author of Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand explains: 9 The landlord’s obligation of repair is not absolute. A landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage.... A landlord therefore must repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair: 8 Section 45(1)(bb) RTA 9 Stewart Benson, Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (2018) Thomson Reuters at 6.18 “....the obligation of the landlord under s45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances and as to what that time is......depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be...” 10
Tenants have a duty to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs. 11
Landlords also have an obligation to repair things that are apparent from observation. 12 Notice from the tenant is not needed if the landlords knew of the need for repair, or the need for repair is apparent from observation. 13
The landlord disputes that there was any mould at the start of the tenancy and says mould present at the end of the tenancy was caused by the tenant cooking in his room creating steam and moisture.
The tenant has no evidence to show the condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy. Photos of mould on the ceiling in the bedroom were taken by the tenant near the end of the tenancy. Furthermore, the tenant has no documentary evidence that he notified the landlord of any maintenance issues with appliances during the tenancy. Therefore, I must dismiss the claims for lack of evidence.

Did the landlord unlawfully terminate the tenancy?

A landlord must not give notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so. 14
Breaching this obligation without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00. 15
The rules for terminating a periodic tenancy under the RTA are: a. A landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy for no reason by giving at least 90 days’ notice 16 ; b. A landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving shorter notice of at least 42 days’ notice in certain defined situations 17 ; 10 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Limited DC Wellington CIV 2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010 at [15] 11 Section 40(1)(d) RTA 12 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as LJ Hooker [2015] TT 2845 at [9] and [11] 13 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey, DC Auckland CIV 2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [47] 14 Section 60AA(1) RTA 15 Section 60AA(2) RTA 16 Section 51(1) RTA 17 Section 51(2) RTA c. A tenant may terminate a periodic tenancy in any case by giving at least 21 days’ notice. 18
On 19 September 2025, Mr Tang and the tenant’s son exchanged several WeChat messages. Mr Tang advised that he had calculated the electricity and gas bills for the month and each person’s share was $201.90. So, Mr Tang calculated that the total to be paid to cover the tenant and his family was $605.70 less the regular payments already received for the month of $160. He asked them to pay an additional $445.70.
The parties disagreed about the outgoings payable. The tenant believed that the expenses covered the period before other tenants moved out and the landlord should collect a proportion from those tenants. Mr Tang agreed to accept a payment of $360 for outgoings. However, the tenants did not agree, and the following messages were exchanged (all on 19 September 2025): Tenant to landlord: I’m sorry but we can only accept calculations starting from this month. You only notified us at the beginning of the month as well. Landlord to tenant: Well, I’ll just not rent it. This is completely unreasonable. Two weeks’ notice. Please move out by 3-10. Tenant to landlord: I have no objection to pursuing legal procedures. Landlord to tenant: No need. The lease has expired. It was also agreed that notice would be given two weeks in advance. I won’t accept payment for the electricity you use, and neither will I allow you to stay here. Tenant case
The tenant says this notice from the landlord placed significant pressure and stress on him and his family to find new accommodation. Fortunately, they found a new tenancy reasonably quickly and moved out of the premises on 30 September 2025. He realises now that the landlord was not entitled to end the tenancy on 2 weeks’ notice and he seeks compensation and/or exemplary damages for the unlawful termination and the stress and uncertainty it caused him and his family. Landlord case
Mr Tang repeats his claim that the tenant was a flatmate only, so he believed that the RTA did not apply. He says that the main tenant’s lease had ended, so he believed that this also ended the flatting arrangement. Furthermore, the landlord says that two weeks’ notice to terminate was discussed and agreed at the start of the tenancy. Mr Tang also referred to a WeChat message he sent the tenant’s son on 6 September 2025 which reminded the tenant about the notice required to end the arrangement. He stated: “Little Fish, let me explain something to you first. If you decide not to rent, it’s okay too. Everyone will 18 Section 51(2A) RTA notify each other two weeks in advance.” The tenant’s son replied: “Yeah, I know.”
When asked for evidence of the “main tenant” giving notice to end the tenancy, Mr Tang says he sent a text message on 20 September and moved out later. However, he did not supply a copy of the message and was not able to confirm that actual end date of that tenancy. Discussion and findings
I have found that there is a residential tenancy between the parties. In the absence of any fixed term agreement, it must be a periodic tenancy. Therefore, the landlord could only terminate the tenancy under s51 RTA. Furthermore, a tenant cannot waive their rights under the RTA 19 by, for example agreeing that a landlord can give them less than the required notice to terminate the tenancy.
I am satisfied that in the messaging between the parties, Mr Tang gave a 2- week notice to terminate the tenancy, which is a breach of s51 RTA.
The issue is whether Mr Tang terminated the tenancy knowing that he was not entitled to do so under s60AA RTA. In a recent case, the Tribunal held that the word knowing means something more than intention or mistaken belief 20 with the Adjudicator stating: The insertion by Parliament of the requirement that a landlord must give the notice knowing that he was not entitled requires consideration of what the landlord believed or understood at the time he gave notice. There are two elements that must be satisfied for a breach of s60AA, there must be an act which seeks to terminate, and the landlord must have the knowledge that what he was doing was wrong or invalid.
Mr Tang has maintained his position throughout the proceedings that he gave the tenant notice to leave because he did not think there was a tenancy subject to the RTA and believed that the tenant was a flatmate. It follows that he could not have known that he was not entitled to terminate a tenancy on 2 weeks’ notice, if he did not think one existed in the first place. The tenants’ claim that the landlord breached s60AA fails as I am not satisfied that the landlord gave notice knowing he was not entitled to do so.
However, the landlord has breached the provisions of s51 by giving an unlawful termination notice and I consider that the tenant is entitled to compensation for the emotional distress and impact of having to move at such short notice. I am not persuaded that the landlord gave the notice because the “main tenant” had ended his tenancy. The WeChat thread suggests that the notice was given as a 19 See section 11(3) RTA-- Any purported waiver by a tenant of any right or power conferred upon tenants by this Act shall be of no effect. 20 Landlord v Tenant [2026] NZTT 5309721,5308800 at [43-46] direct retaliatory reaction to the tenant disputing the utilities charges. In any event, I have found that the parties had a separate tenancy.
Tenants v Singh 21 provides useful guidance regarding damages for intangible loss falling within three bands as follows: a. At the lower end of the scale, where a breach causes inconvenience, frustration, annoyance, or disappointment: an award of $200.00 to $1,000.00. b. Where due to the breach, the party has endured more inconvenience and a higher level of mental distress such as worry, stress, tension, or anxiety: an award of $1,000.00 to $2,000.00. c. At the upper end of the scale, where the party has experienced hardship, insecurity, humiliation, intimidation, aggravation, or fear: an award of $2,000.00 and upwards.
Taking all matters into consideration, I consider that the inconvenience and mental distress suffered by the tenant here is aptly described in band b. Therefore, I order the landlord to pay the tenant $1,500 compensation for terminating the tenancy unlawfully.

Did the landlord discriminate against the tenants?

A landlord must not discriminate against a tenant in relation to the grant, renewal, variation, or termination of a tenancy, in contravention of the Human Rights Act 1999. 22
Section 21 of the Human Rights Act specifies the prohibited grounds of discrimination, which include sex, marital status, religious or ethical belief, race or ethnicity, disability, age, political opinion, employment status, family status, and sexual orientation.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $6,500.00. 23
The tenant says that the landlord treated him and his family differently to other occupants in the premises. For example, he says that other occupants were provided with heaters for their rooms, but the tenant was not; he believes that he was required to pay a larger share of the outgoings than the other tenants; and the landlord terminated their tenancy unfairly. The tenant says the landlord is Hong Kong Chinese and looked down on the tenant because he was from Mainland China. 21 Tenants v Singh [2022] NZTT 4315225, at [125] 22 Sections 12(1) and 109(3) RTA 23 Section 12(1) and Schedule 1A RTA
Any discrimination alleged must relate to the grant, renewal, variation, or termination of a tenancy. In this case, the question is whether the landlord terminated the tenancy because of the tenant’s nationality. I consider there is insufficient evidence to prove discrimination on those grounds. In my view, it is more likely (on the evidence) that the landlord terminated the tenancy because of the dispute about utilities charges. The discrimination claim is dismissed. Suppression and filing fee
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 24
The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. 25
While the tenant has not wholly or substantially succeeded with their claims, he has nevertheless succeeded with valid claims against the landlord. In those circumstances, I consider that there is no public interest in publishing the tenant’s details. Suppression orders are made.
As the tenant has partially succeeded, he is also entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5352947 — Exemplary damages at 303 The Parade, Island Bay, Wellington 6023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5352947 — Exemplary damages at 303 The Parade, Island Bay, Wellington 6023

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord lodge the bond with the Bond Centre?

Has the tenant overpaid rent and utilities?

Did the landlord unlawfully terminate the tenancy?

Did the landlord discriminate against the tenants?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord lodge the bond with the Bond Centre?

Has the tenant overpaid rent and utilities?

Did the landlord unlawfully terminate the tenancy?

Did the landlord discriminate against the tenants?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions