What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5370863 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and

How much money was awarded in case 5370863?

Advertising: $64.25 awarded to landlord; Compensation: loss of amenity breach…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Rent: $3,800.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit 09 November 2025 - 13 No…: $271.43 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5370863?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5370863?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12795867-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5370863 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and

How much money was awarded in case 5370863?

Advertising: $64.25 awarded to landlord; Compensation: loss of amenity breach…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Rent: $3,800.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit 09 November 2025 - 13 No…: $271.43 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5370863?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5370863?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12795867-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5370863 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5370863 — net $1,842.82 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent to 04 January 2026	$3,800.00		Rent to 04 January 2026
Advertising	$64.25		Advertising
Compensation: loss of amenity breach HHS		$500.00	loss of amenity breach HHS
Exemplary damages: breach HHS		$1,000.00	breach HHS
Exemplary damages: failure to provide HHS and		$250.00	failure to provide HHS and
Rent credit 09 November 2025 - 13 November 2025		$271.43	Rent credit 09 November 2025 - 13 November 2025
Total award	$3,864.25	$2,021.43
Net award	$1,842.82
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,842.82

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5370863 — net $1,842.82 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent to 04 January 2026	$3,800.00		Rent to 04 January 2026
Advertising	$64.25		Advertising
Compensation: loss of amenity breach HHS		$500.00	loss of amenity breach HHS
Exemplary damages: breach HHS		$1,000.00	breach HHS
Exemplary damages: failure to provide HHS and		$250.00	failure to provide HHS and
Rent credit 09 November 2025 - 13 November 2025		$271.43	Rent credit 09 November 2025 - 13 November 2025
Total award	$3,864.25	$2,021.43
Net award	$1,842.82
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,842.82

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,842.82 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,842.82 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the balance of the bond of $57.18 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy commenced on 28 March 2025 and is for a fixed term ending 28 March 2026. On 22 October 2025, the tenant filed a claim seeking an order allowing them to end the fixed term with 21 days’ notice, which they had given on 20 October 2025.
The notice was given on the basis that the property failed to meet the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) relating to heating and moisture ingress (absence of ground moisture barrier), resulting in the property being cold and suffering from excessive moisture and dampness, which caused mould. The tenant also claims that the landlord failed to provide an HHS statement, a statement concerning the insurance status of the property with the tenancy agreement, unlawfully entered the property, and changed the locks, barring the tenant entry.
In addition to an order ending the tenancy, the tenant also seeks compensation of $688.75 (a 5% reduction of the rent of $475.00 per week for the 29 weeks of the tenancy) and exemplary damages.
On 12 November 2025, the landlord filed a claim alleging that the tenant had abandoned the property. The landlord claims rent to the end of the fixed term of $7,125.00, costs of advertising the property for rent of $64.25, and $250.00 for a builder’s report prepared to defend the tenant’s claims that the property suffered from excessive moisture and dampness. Failing to provide an HHS statement with the tenancy agreement
There is no dispute that an HHS statement was not provided with the tenancy agreement. The landlord states that they purchased the property in 2018/2019 and, between May 2024 and March 2025, conducted renovations before entering into the tenancy agreement with the tenant. Despite failing to provide a statement, the landlord believed that the property complied with the HHS standards. Law
Pursuant to section 13(1CA) of the Act the landlord must include a signed statement in the tenancy agreement that provides the following information: a. That, on, or after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”) as required by section 45(1) (bb). and b. Including any information (if any) prescribed by regulations under section 138B (5), which relate to heating, insulation, moisture ingress, draught stopping and drainage.
Failing the comply with section 13(1CA) of the Act is an unlawful act for which under section 13(1F) (a), section 109(3) and Schedule 1A exemplary damages of up to $750.00 may be awarded. Decision
By failing to provide a HHS statement, the landlord has breached the provisions of the Act and committed an unlawful act. I will return to the issue of whether exemplary damages are warranted. Failure to provide insurance details.
The tenant claims that the landlord failed to provide insurance details with the tenancy agreement.
The parties used a standard form tenancy agreement provided by Tenancy Services. Under the heading “Required statements – insurance statement,” the agreement records: “There is no insurance for this rental property that is relevant to the tenant’s liability for damage to the premises.” The landlord states that the agreement had been prepared by the other landlord and that the statement is incorrect, as they do have insurance, although they are unsure what it covers or what the excess is. They state that they discovered the error for the first time at the hearing. Law
Section 13(2) of the Act requires that every tenancy agreement must include a statement by the landlord about whether the premises are insured, and if so, provide details about the insurance that is relevant to the tenant’s liability for damage to the premises. If the premises are not insured, the landlord must state that fact in the agreement. A failure to comply with section 13(2) is an unlawful act under 13(1G) for which exemplary damages of up to $750.00 may be awarded. Decision
The landlord’s statement is incorrect, the landlord does have insurance. The landlord was therefore obliged to disclose how the insurance applied to any liability for damage by the tenant. On that basis I am satisfied that the landlord has breached the provisions of the act and committed an unlawful act. As with the claim that the landlord has failed to provide a HHS statement, I will return to the issue of whether exemplary damages are warranted. Failing to meet the HHS standards Heating
The tenant claims that there was no approved heating in the main living room. The tenant states while there is a heat pump, it is located in the hallway, and there is a door between the hallway and the main living room. This issue was not raised with the landlord during the tenancy and was only brought up for the first time when the tenant gave notice to end the tenancy.
The landlord states that the heat pump was already in place when they purchased the property and that it has an output of 5.75 - kilowatts. The landlord stated they knew that the property required heating to be located in the living room, and had at the commencement of the tenancy purchased a 2.4 - kilowatt heater which could be mounted or was movable. They state the tenant had wanted to defer mounting the heater until they had decided on the placement of their furniture. The landlord stated that no heating issues had been raised during the tenancy and as with the HHS statement had been raised for the first time with the tenant’s termination notice.
The tenant accepted that they had discussed the placement of the heater with the landlord and accepted the kilowatt output claimed by the landlord. However, the tenant stated that they had used the Tenancy Services online HHS tool to calculate the heating requirements and had determined that the living room required a heating source of at least 4.74 kilowatts. The tenant added that they had not used the additional heater citing efficiency and cost issues. Moisture and dampness
The tenant states that on 18 October 2025, they had discovered a damp patch on the bathroom floor. The male tenant states they are a builder. The property has what is described as a suspended floor, meaning that the floor is suspended above the ground beneath resting on piles as opposed to being on a concrete foundation. The tenant states they looked under the house and noted that there was no moisture barrier, and that the ground was damp. They also noted that moisture was making its way up some of the wooden piles and that some of the piles were attached to the floor but not sitting on the ground, raising doubt as to their structural integrity. The tenant has produced photographs of the piles and of what they claim is mould on joists under the bathroom.
The tenant states that at the end of the tenancy, while moving furniture, they discovered mould forming on the bed base closest to the wall at the head of the bed. The tenant stated that the bed had been purchased shortly before the commencement of the tenancy. They also state that the floor beneath the affected area was damp.
The tenant states that in August they had moved their bed and discovered mould forming on the wall behind. They cleaned the area, but did not raise the issue with the landlord.
The tenant produced photographs of one of the windows in the master bedroom showing condensation forming on the inside. The photograph was taken in the early hours of the morning before sunrise. The tenant also produced another photograph of the same window, taken a few days later, showing what they claim is mould growing in the join between the window and the window frame. The tenant states they had cleaned the window a couple of days before.
The landlord states that the first time any issues concerning moisture were raised was when they received the tenant’s termination notice on 20 October 2025.
The landlord stated that upon receiving the advice they visited the property and spoke with the tenant but felt that they could not enter as the tenancy was still current. They asked if the tenant would agree to a builder visiting the property, which they did. On 23 October 2025, a licenced builder visited the property. The tenant was not present. On 24 November 2025, the builder provided the landlord with a brief report contained in an email. The report has been provided to the tenant at the hearing. Over the morning tea adjournment, the tenants considered the report.
The builder reported that they had tested the shower for leaks, but none were found. The floor tiles showed no signs of moisture. The builder noted that the use of two different coloured grouts gave the appearance of wet tiles when they were not. Regarding the area underneath the house, they stated that the floor sat about one metre off the ground and was well ventilated. The builder removed the underfloor insulation and did not detect any signs of moisture, noting that the area was completely dry with no signs of damage. They stated that the joists and bearers showed no sign of mould or moisture. The builder stated, “There is little sign of water around the base pile but still very solid. In summary, all is dry and solid with no further action required.”
The builder was not called by the landlord to give oral evidence.
The landlord stated that they entered the property on 12 November 2025 for the first time after the tenant vacated and did not find any evidence of moisture or mould. Law
Section 45(1) (bb) requires the landlord to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards Regulations 2019 (HHS), which set out the minimum requirements for heating, insulation, ventilation, drainage, and draught stopping for residential rental properties. The HHS applied to this tenancy from 01 July 2025.
Regulation 8 of the HHS states Landlords must ensure the main living room has a fixed heater capable of heating the room to 18°C, with specific requirements for the type and capacity of the heater, as set out in the 2019 regulations.
Under Regulation 11, if a rental property has a suspended floor and it is reasonably practicable, a ground moisture barrier must be installed. The barrier must meet certain specifications and cover as much of the subfloor area as possible.
Under section 45(1)(c) of the Act, a landlord must comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health, and safety, such as those contained in the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (HIR).
Regulation 6 of the HIR states every living room shall be fitted with a fireplace and chimney or other approved form of heating.
Regulation 15 of the HIR provides that every house shall be free from dampness.
In Collins and Bertoni v Professionals Hutt City Limited, DC Wellington CIV 2009 085-001431, 24 February 2010 the Court stated: “I consider that the obligation of the landlord, under section 45, is to investigate and repair the defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”.
Whether the landlord has failed to meet their obligations will involve an objective assessment of the evidence.
Failure to comply with the HHS under section 45(1) (bb) and meet obligations under section 45(1)(c) is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $7,200.00 may be awarded. Decision
The heat pump is not located in the main living room. However, provided that the door between the hallway and the main living room is left open, it will likely provide some heat to the living area. The landlord does not challenge the tenant’s heating calculation for the main living room. The additional heater provided, whether fixed or movable with the ability to be fixed, did not meet the required heating capacity for the space. No heating exemptions apply. Knowing that they were required to provide an additional heating source, a prudent landlord would have familiarised themselves with the heating regulations, ensured that the heater met the requirements, and that it was fixed in place. It is unwise for the landlord to provide a heater and then leave it to the tenant to install it.
The property has an enclosed subfloor space. From 1 July 2025, the property was required to have a moisture barrier. The property sits off the ground with sufficient space to install one, noting that there is underfloor insulation installed, and there appear to be no exemptions applying.
I am satisfied that the landlord has breached both obligations.
Dealing with compensation and exemplary damages. Having determined that there has been a breach of the HHS, the next issue is the extent to which the tenant has suffered a loss of amenity for the purposes of compensation, and whether exemplary damages are warranted in the circumstances.
Although the tenant claims that the property suffered from excessive moisture and dampness, the photographic evidence provided does not support a finding that the property did. It is not unusual for condensation to form on the inside of windows, walls, and from time-to-time on furniture or other items placed against walls. The fact that it has does not necessarily mean that the property suffers excessive moisture and dampness. Unless hermetically sealed it is common knowledge that most property’s will from time to time experience some degree of moisture and dampness.
The tenant states that the substance on the joists beneath the bathroom is mould, however, the builder appears to hold a different view. Although the tenant notes that the builder’s report does not deal with HHS, which is accepted, there is no challenge to the reliability of their statement. This leaves the Tribunal to make an objective assessment. Although there is some staining on the joists, it is unclear whether the substance is in fact mould, while there is discolouration consistent with water staining on the piles it is unclear whether it has made its way to the floor above. The builders evidence suggests there is no issue.
As stated, while the heat pump was not located in the main living room, it would have nevertheless provided an indirect source of heat. The landlord provided an additional heater which, although alone was under capacity, the tenant chose not to fully utilise, citing cost.
The onus of proving these claims, and any resulting loss, rests with the tenant and is on the balance of probabilities. The builder’s report clearly casts doubt on the tenant’s assertion that the property suffers from excessive moisture and dampness.
While there has been a breach of the HHS, on the evidence I am not satisfied that the loss of amenity was to the extent claimed by the tenant. In this case I award the tenant compensation of $500.00 for loss of amenity.
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 proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109(3) of the Act.
In awarding exemplary damages, the Tribunal shall consider: i. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. ii. The effect of the unlawful act. iii. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. iv. The public interest; and v. Whether it is just to make the award
Under section 45 of the Act, if there are multiple breaches of an obligation (multiple instances of unlawful acts) that could otherwise individually be the subject of an exemplary damages order, only one order of exemplary damages may be made for a breach of a particular section.
This approach was confirmed by the District Court in Manage My Rental v Baxter NZDC 12011, and MBIE v Hillis Shearing Limited NZDC 27583, which held that the correct approach is a global approach, meaning one order to a single maximum, irrespective of the number of breaches of a section.
Both unlawful acts fall under section 45 of the Act. The starting point is that the landlord should be aware of the relevant provisions of the Act and any applicable regulations, such as the Healthy Homes Standards, and ensure compliance. It is in the interests of both the parties and the public that residential tenancies meet minimum standards. In this case, the matters were not raised until the tenant gave notice to terminate the tenancy. While the tenant suffered a loss of amenity, I am not satisfied that it was to the extent claimed. Taking these factors into account, I award exemplary damages of $1,000.00.
Returning to the matter of exemplary damages for failing to produce an HHS statement with the agreement and failing to provide details of the insurance held. Both of these unlawful acts fall under section 13 of the Act. As with the failures to comply with the HHS, the starting point is that the landlord should be aware of the relevant provisions of the Act and ensure compliance. I award exemplary damages of $250.00.
During the hearing, the tenant sought to raise a claim that the landlord had failed, under section 45(1AC) of the Act, to provide upon request, any information they may have possessed regarding the HHS status of the property. Although a request was made after the notice of termination was given, this issue has not been included as a claim in the application, and I decline to amend the application. Reducing fixed
The tenant submits that the breaches of the Act and the condition of the property are grounds to reduce the fixed term. Law
The usual legal position with a fixed-term agreement is that the term will be applied strictly, and it is only in limited circumstances that a court or tribunal will interfere with it.
Section 66(1) of the Act states: 66 Reduction of fixed-term tenancy (1) On application by a party to a fixed-term tenancy, the Tribunal may make an order reducing the term of the tenancy by a period stated in the order, and making such variations in the terms of the tenancy as are necessary because of the reduction of the term, where it is satisfied that, because of an unforeseen change in the applicant's circumstances, the severe hardship which the applicant would suffer if the term of the tenancy were not reduced would be greater than the hardship which the other party to the tenancy would suffer if the term were reduced.
The unforeseen change must relate to the tenant’s circumstances, not simply to the property itself. However, if a defect in the property could not reasonably have been discovered with due diligence at the start of the tenancy, but is discovered later, it may amount to an unforeseen change in the tenant’s circumstances, provided it can be shown that the defect has caused the tenant to suffer unforeseen physical or mental hardship. Decision
There is no evidence that the tenant has suffered unforeseen physical or mental hardship. This ground for reducing the fixed term is declined. Ending tenancy for breach
In the alternate the tenant argues that the breaches of the HHS are so seriousness that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. Law
Under section 56(1) of the Act, the Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach were, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate.
Where the breach is capable of remedy the party claiming the breach must first serve a notice on the other requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the other party has failed to do so.
Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the party is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the other party to remedy the breach, although the Tribunal may consider whether a warning should have been given when determining whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. Decision
As stated, no 14-day breach notices were issued by the tenant. The issues were first raised only after the tenant gave notice to end the tenancy. The alleged breaches were clearly matters that could have been investigated and remedied if needed. On the evidence, as I have found, they were not so serious that the landlord would have been unable to remedy them. On that basis, termination of the tenancy under this provision is also declined. Landlord’s claims
The landlord claims the tenant has abandoned the property and seeks rent to the end of the fixed term on 28 March 2026.
The landlord states that on or about 17 September 2025, the tenant purchased their own home. The landlord agreed to start advertising the property for rent, noting that the tenant would remain liable for rent until a new tenant was found. These are standard terms for parties agreeing to end fixed-term tenancies. The landlord listed the property online. The landlord states that on 29 September 2025, the tenant advised that they would be settling on 24 October 2025. On 20 October 2025, the tenant expressed frustration at the delay. Later that day, the tenant gave 21 days’ notice terminating the tenancy on the basis that the landlord had failed to meet the HHS, and that the property suffered from excessive moisture and dampness. This was the first time these matters had been raised. The tenant filed their application on 28 October 2025.
On 9 November 2025, the tenant messaged the landlord stating that 9 November 2025 was their last day, as per their notice, and that they had vacated the property, leaving the keys in a lock box outside. The landlord stated that they visited the property on 12 November 2025, conducted an inspection, took the keys, and changed the combination to the lock box. The landlord advised the tenant of some minor issues.
The landlord states that the property is close to ski fields and that demand for rental properties and Airbnb was high over the winter period but slackened over summer. The landlord states that, for this reason, and so as not to have to compete with Airbnb properties being offered for rent, they favoured fixed-term tenancies, which offered more certainty. While there had been hundreds of online viewings, only two people had expressed an interest, and both were unsuitable. The tenant stated that they had referred to the listing on their own social media site but had not made any actual assignment referrals to the landlord.
In their application the tenant referred to section 43A of the Act, which provides that a landlord must respond to any request to re assign a tenancy. to trigger this section the tenant must first provide names and details of prospective tenants. There is no evidence of this occurring.
The tenant states that the delay in finding a replacement tenant has been unreasonable. The tenant opposes the landlord’s claim and states that they should only be liable for rent to either 09 November 2025 when they left the property, or 13 November 2025, the end of the rent week they had paid up to.
The tenant also questioned when the tenancy had actually ended. Although they clearly stated in a text message on 9 November 2025 that their notice period had expired and they were vacating the property, they had paid rent on 7 November 2025 (the beginning of the rent week), which covered them until 13 November 2025. After receiving advice from the landlord about some minor post-tenancy issues, the tenant attempted to return to the property to address these matters but was unable to gain entry because the lock box combination had been changed. The tenant therefore claims that the landlord had unlawfully entered the property on 12 November 2025 and, by changing the lock box combination, denied them entry. Law
Under section 61 of the Act, the Tribunal may terminate the tenancy where the premises have been abandoned and rent is in arrear at the hearing date.
A tenancy is abandoned where the tenant leaves the premises without reasonable excuse, not intending to return or to meet their obligations, and fails to notify the landlord.
A fixed term tenancy cannot be terminated by unilateral notice.
Section 50(1)(d) of the Act provides that parties to a tenancy, periodic or fixed term, may bring a tenancy to an end where the tenant surrenders the tenancy or offers up vacant possession with the landlord’s written consent.
The Tribunal may award damages for losses arising from a breach that are reasonably foreseeable.
Under section 49 of the Act, if a party to a tenancy agreement suffers a loss due to a breach of the agreement or the Act, they must take all reasonable steps to mitigate (reduce) that loss. If they do not, the Tribunal may reduce the amount of compensation or damages awarded to reflect what could have been avoided by taking reasonable steps.
Section 48(1)(a) of the Act states a landlord may enter the premises during the tenancy only with the tenant’s consent, or under section 48(1)(b) in specific circumstances as set out in section 48(2) – (3) (such as for inspections, repairs, or to show the property to prospective tenants or purchasers).
Section 46 of the Act provides that locks cannot be changed by either the landlord or the tenant during the tenancy without the other’s consent, except in emergencies. If locks are changed, the other party must be given a key immediately. Decision
The tenant advised the landlord that they intended to break the fixed term. Although their “notice” to do so was invalid it was nevertheless advice that notified the landlord of their intention. On the material before me there was no meeting of the minds as to the terms of any agreement whereby the tenant would surrender the tenancy and what liability may follow, in particular any liability for rent until a replacement tenant was found.
The tenant has breached the agreement. By default, they are liable for rent from the date they left until the end of the fixed term or the landlord entering into a new agreement. However, this is subject to section 49 of the Act.
Despite the position taken at the hearing, the evidence clearly establishes that on 9 November 2025, the tenant regarded the tenancy as having ended. The rent payment did not extend the tenancy past the end date already given. The landlord had reasonable grounds to believe that the tenant had ended their occupation on 9 November 2025. At the end of the tenancy the landlord regains possession and is entitled to enter without giving notice or seeking permission. The landlord has not unlawfully entered the property, nor have they unlawfully changed the locks; they were entitled to do both. Having paid rent up to 13 November 2025, results in a rent credit of four days, amounting to $271.43.
Dealing with the landlord’s claim for rent until the end of the fixed term in March 2026.
The property is located close to a well-known ski field, and the area is more popular in winter. I accept that this likely has an impact on the property’s rental desirability.
The tenant states that a well-known real estate sales and rental website suggests that the average time to find a tenant in the area is around 52 days.
The landlord has advertised the property on only the one website, and it may be prudent to place an advertisement on others.
I decline to award rent to the end of the tenancy. Taking section 49 of the Act and the factors mentioned above into account, and considering section 85(2) of the Act, which states that the Tribunal shall act in a manner that is fair and just and shall have regard to the substantial merits and justice of the case, I award the landlord rent of $3,800.00 from 9 November 2025 to 4 January 2026, less the rent overpayment of $271.43.
The landlord should not be unjustly enriched at the expense of the tenant. If the landlord subsequently finds a new tenant before 4 January 2026, they are only entitled to rent up to the date the new tenancy begins. The landlord cannot receive double rent for the same period and must not recover more rent than they are entitled to.
If the landlord enters into a new tenancy before 4 January 2026, either party may apply to the Tribunal to have the order varied or set aside to reflect the actual loss suffered by the landlord. If such an application is made, the matter will be referred to me.
I award the landlord the advertising costs of $64.25. I decline to award the builder’s inspection report fee of $250.00, as it does not flow from a breach of the agreement by the tenant but rather from a claim made against the landlord.
Any award made to one party is offset against that awarded to the other. Costs
Under section 102 (4) of the Act, the Tribunal has the discretion to reimburse the filing fee of a party that has been partly successful with their claim.
As both parties have been partly successful, any reimbursement to one would be cancelled by the award to the other. No orders are made. Name suppression
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the parties name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
Globally assessed both parties have been substantially successful either bringing or defending the claims. Both are granted name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5370863 — Healthy homes

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5370863 — Healthy homes

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions