What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5384903?

The tribunal order states: Colliers New Zealand Limited must pay Lars Rene Dobbertin-King $1,028.00

How much money was awarded in case 5384903?

Compensation: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5384903?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5384903?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13609938-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5384903?

The tribunal order states: Colliers New Zealand Limited must pay Lars Rene Dobbertin-King $1,028.00

How much money was awarded in case 5384903?

Compensation: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5384903?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5384903?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13609938-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

1A Thornton Terrace, Waiouru, Waiouru 4826 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5384903 — Healthy homes

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5384903 — net $1,028.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages HHS compliance	$500.00	Exemplary damages HHS compliance
Compensation loss of amenity	$500.00	Compensation loss of amenity
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,028.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,028.00

The tenant appeared. Mr Van Helsdingen appeared for the landlord. Both appeared by video link.

The tenancy commenced on 29 September 2025 and is periodic. On 10 November 2025, the tenant filed an application with the Tribunal.

The tenant’s claims are as follows: i. The property was not compliant with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) at the commencement of the tenancy. ii. The landlord failed to provide the property in a reasonable state of cleanliness. iii. The landlord failed to maintain the property in a reasonable condition. iv. There has been a breach of the tenants’ reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy.

The tenant primarily seeks an acknowledgement from the landlord that they failed to meet their obligations, and secondly exemplary damages. Health Homes standards – draught stopping, drainage and moisture ingress, insulation.

The tenant stated that the pre-tenancy inspection report had not been provided with the tenancy agreement. On 29 September 2025, the tenant sent a comprehensive report, including photographs, detailing defects with the property. On 30 September 2025, the landlord replied to the report, recording their responses on it.

The tenant reported that the draught seals around the windows had not been completed properly, the moisture barrier underneath the house had become displaced, and sections of the underfloor insulation had fallen down and did not meet the required thickness standard. The tenant then checked the ceiling insulation and discovered that it was not as described in the tenancy agreement and was not sufficiently thick.

The landlord responded that the ceiling insulation had been compliant on 29 September 2022 but may have settled since then. They added that they would have it tested and topped up if required. The landlord stated that the underfloor insulation was compliant and that they would arrange for any loose panels to be reinstated. The landlord also advised that they would arrange for the draught- stopping issues and the moisture barrier to be addressed.

The tenant stated that the draught stopping was addressed on or about 10 October 2025.

Contractors attempted to address the moisture barrier on or about 6 October 2025 but were unsuccessful. The barrier was finally repaired on or about 20 November 2025, when the underfloor insulation was repaired.

The ceiling insulation was removed and replaced in February 2026.

The landlord stated that there was a three-tier property management structure involving the landlord, themselves as property manager, and a principal maintenance subcontractor, which either completed the work itself or engaged another subcontractor to complete the work.

The landlord stated that the property’s remote location posed challenges in securing contractors, which regrettably contributed to delays.

The landlord stated that they had, in fact, noted some of the issues raised by the tenant prior to the tenancy and that some repairs had already been scheduled.

The landlord stated that, as the tenant had raised concerns regarding possible asbestos contamination in the ceiling, there was a further delay while the matter was investigated. Once it was determined that there was no contamination, the ceiling insulation was replaced.

The landlord’s Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) compliance statement was prepared based on an HHS report dated 4 March 2020, which identified areas of non-compliance that had subsequently been addressed. A further certificate of compliance, dated 22 September 2022, stated that the property complied with the HHS.

The landlord commissioned another HHS assessment in February 2026, which confirmed that the property was HHS compliant.

The landlord stated that draught stopping had been completed as part of routine maintenance in July 2025. When the tenant raised concerns in September 2025 that the work may not have been completed satisfactorily, the subcontractors reopened the matter and addressed it in October 2025.

The tenant raised concerns regarding the ceiling insulation and possible asbestos contamination on 29 September 2025. Asbestos testing was carried out on 06 October 2025, and the tenant was notified of the results on or about 31 October 2025.

The tenant noted that, during the testing, the contractor had also measured the insulation thickness. The tenant assumed that this confirmed their concerns and resulted in a recommendation for replacement. The landlord stated that the tenant had also reported the presence of mould, which was also investigated and contributed to further delay.

The tenant denied that there had been any issue with allowing contractors access, stating that contractors had attended dozens of times and that only one visit could not be accommodated.

The landlord stated that all issues raised by the tenant on 29 September 2025, and any possible defects identified, were referred to the maintenance contractor immediately.

The landlord stated that the moisture barrier was resecured on 06 October 2025, when the underfloor insulation was reattached. The tenant denied that the moisture barrier had been properly addressed on that date. The tenant stated that, on 12 November 2025, the landlord advised that the moisture barrier had been addressed and provided photographs taken by the subcontractor. On the same date, the tenant sent photographs to the landlord showing that the issue had not been resolved, noting that one of the photographs supplied was not even of the property. The tenant stated that the moisture barrier was finally addressed on 20 November 2025.

In addition to the oral evidence of both parties, the Tribunal has also been provided with the tenant’s report dated 29 September 2025, which includes photographs and includes the landlord’s initial responses to the matters raised, the tenancy agreement , which includes a HHS compliance statement, a pre tenancy inspection report dated 18 September 2025, a HHS report dated 04 March 2025 , a HHS compliance certificate dated 22 September 2022, a record of messages sent by tenant to landlord, a HHS report dated 27 February 2026 , and the landlord’s evidence in reply to the claims. The tenant also provided additional material at the hearing.

The tenant stated that between the commencement of the tenancy and 4 March 2026, they spent a limited amount of time at the property and did not sleep there. The tenant stated they commuted daily from a nearby city, occasionally staying in motels or sleeping in their vehicle.

The tenant stated that the property was linked to their employment, although it was not a service tenancy. They said they were initially shown a different nearby property and, shortly before the commencement of their employment, were advised that the tenancy related to a different property of a similar style and age, which they had not viewed. The tenant stated that they requested to view the new property but were declined. The tenant stated as their employment was due to commence shortly thereafter, they felt compelled to accept the tenancy.

The landlord stated that the tenant’s employer had shown the tenant the wrong property. The landlord further stated that the tenant was entitled to view any property prior to entering into an agreement and believed there may have been a miscommunication.

The landlord stated that they had accepted that some aspects of the management of the tenancy had been less than ideal and had offered the tenant compensation equivalent to four weeks’ rent ($270.00 x 4). Law

Section 45(1) (bb) requires the landlord to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 (HHS), which set out the minimum requirements for heating, insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage, and draught stopping for residential rental properties.

Landlords must also ensure there are no unreasonable gaps (exceeding 3mm) or holes in walls, ceilings, windows, floors, or doors that cause noticeable draughts.

The property must have effective drainage systems to remove storm and ground water from the tenancy building, and a ground moisture barrier if there is an enclosed subfloor space, unless it is not reasonably practicable to install one.

The HHS require all rental properties to have adequate ceiling and underfloor insulation meeting minimum R-values. The underfloor and ceiling insulation must be maintained in a reasonable condition. The value required for this property is R3.3 ceiling and R1.3 for under floor.

Failure to comply with the HHS under section 45(1) (bb) is a breach for which compensation may be awarded. Where loss cannot be quantified the Tribunal may award compensation for loss of amenity. A breach of section 45(1) (bb) is also an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $7,200.00 may be awarded. Analysis and decision

The onus of proving these claims rests with the tenant. The standard required is the balance of probabilities. The tenant must establish that it is more likely than not that the landlord has breached the terms of the agreement or the provisions of the Act.

In reaching my decision I have considered all evidence placed before the Tribunal, even if I do not specifically refer to it.

The HHS compliance statement attached to the tenancy agreement states that the property complies with the draft stopping standard. However, the landlord’s pre tenancy inspection report records the draft stopping as poor with the property manager noting, “Only kitchen was complete during my visit. Person on site advised he needed to return with the correct product as had incorrect one supplied.”

I am satisfied that more likely than not the property did not comply with the HHS draft stopping standard at the commencement of the tenancy on 29 September 2025. The draft stopping was completed on or about 10 October 2025.

The HHS compliance statement attached to the tenancy agreement records that the property does not comply with the HH drainage and moisture ingress standard. While the box indicating that it complies has been ticked, in the description alongside is the comment: “A compliant ground barrier is installed. No.”

The pre tenancy inspection report records the moisture barrier as “bunched up and remedial required.”

I am satisfied that more likely than not the property did not comply with the HHS drainage and moisture ingress standard at the commencement of the tenancy on 29 September 2025. Work on the moisture barrier was completed on 20 November 2025.

Concerning the insulation compliance, I will deal with the underfloor and ceiling separately. The HHS compliance statement provided with the agreement states that the property complies with the HH underfloor insulation standard.

The tenant’s photographs included in their report dated 29 September 2025 shows that sections of the insulation are hanging loose.

I am satisfied that more likely than not the property did not comply with the HHS underfloor insulation standard at the commencement of the tenancy on 29 September 2025 because the insulation was not in a reasonable condition. Work on the underfloor insulation was completed on 20 November 2025.

The HHS report dated 04 March 2020 describes the ceiling insulation as wool with an R value of R2.8 and states that the insulation will require a top up to R3.3.

The certificate of compliance dated 22 September 2022, on which the HHS compliance certificate has relied on, states that the ceiling insulation is wool with a value of R3.3.

In the HHS compliance statement, the ceiling insulation is described as batts overlaid with teased wool fibre which exceeds the required value of R3.3 with a value of R3.6.

The two photographs of the ceiling insulation provided by the tenant appear to show the insulation as being wool. The tenant has provided just the one photograph of a tape measure being used to indicate the depth of the insulation in one relatively small area which is shown to be significantly less than the minimum required 120cm.

In their report the tenant refers to “... existing documentation found on property shows asbestos suspected present.” In the pre tenancy inspection report dated 18 September 2025 the landlord has noted “asbestos suspected”.

The tenant believes the fact that the landlord replaced the wool with batts is evidence that the insulation was non-compliant.

The issue regarding the ceiling insulation is whether, on the balance of probabilities, it complied with the HHS, namely, whether it met the required R value and was in a reasonable condition.

In this case, while I am satisfied that the insulation had the required R value, the area of insulation shown in the tenant’s photographs was not in a reasonable condition, as it was less than the required depth. Damages

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 must 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

If there are multiple breaches of an obligation under the same section (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.

The pre tenancy report shows the landlord knew that at the commencement of the tenancy the property more likely than not did not comply with the draught stopping standard and the drainage and moisture standard.

However, this is not a case where the entire moisture barrier was missing, or where a significant portion of the insulation was non-compliant. The extent of the draught stopping noncompliance cannot be accurately determined.

The property had previously complied with the HHS standards. Compliance with HHS standards is in both the parties and the public’s interest. I am satisfied that the landlord acknowledges this and takes these obligations seriously.

In my view, based on the evidence, while there has been a breach, I assess the degree of seriousness as lower than where there has been no effort to comply, and the property is entirely without any insulation. Although the tenant chose to spend time away from the property until it was HHS compliant, I am not satisfied that this was necessarily a response proportionate to the breach.

The draught stopping took approximately two weeks to complete, and the moisture barrier and underfloor insulation issues were addressed by 20 November 2025. Although there was a delay in addressing the ceiling insulation, the landlord was obliged to complete testing before any work could be undertaken. I am satisfied that this contributed to the delay. I also note that the breaches occurred over the spring period into summer. Taking these factors into account, I award the tenant $500.00 in exemplary damages. Failure to provide the property reasonably clean and tidy.

The tenant claims that the property was not provided in a reasonably clean condition, describing it as a “work in progress.” The tenant stated that subcontractors working on the property had left items behind. The tenant also claimed that there were three stains on the carpet, one in the master bedroom and two in the living room, which smelt like urine. The tenant speculated that a subcontractor had allowed a dog inside the property, which had urinated on the carpet. The tenant included this issue in their report dated 29 September 2025. The landlord acknowledged the stains but stated that no further action would be taken, without providing any explanation. The tenant stated that they deodorised the area and that the stains and odour faded over a few days.

The landlord stated that the stains referred to were recorded in the pre-tenancy inspection report completed on 18 September 2025. The landlord stated that the property manager did not note any smell. The landlord also stated that they had confirmed with the subcontractors that no animals had been allowed inside the property. The landlord believed that the property had been provided in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. Law

Section 45(1)(a) of the Act states that at the commencement of the tenancy a landlord must provide the property in a reasonably clean condition.

The provision does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and inspection reports and photographs.

The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises: the newer the premises, the higher the standard. Surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly painted surfaces. Analysis and decision

The property appears to have been constructed in the late 1960s or early 1970s. It has fibro cement cladding. There are three bedrooms, a lounge/dining room, kitchen, bathroom, toilet, laundry, and garage. Although the property has been refurbished, it retains most of its original fixtures and fittings. The pre-tenancy photographs show that the property has wear and tear relative to its age. It falls into the category of an older property.

There is insufficient evidence relating to the items said to have been left behind by the contractors. There is a direct conflict of evidence about the nature of the stains and any odour. There is no evidence to corroborate either party’s position. The onus is on the tenant. Based on the pre-tenancy inspection report, it is my assessment that the property was provided in a reasonably clean condition. The claim is dismissed. Failing to provide and maintain the property.

The tenant stated that they identified mould in the bathroom and on some windowsills and raised these issues in their report dated 29 September 2025. The landlord acknowledged that some of these areas required attention and arranged for cleaning, which the tenant believed may have been carried out on 10 October 2025. The tenant stated that some areas had been cleaned, but others remained outstanding.

The tenant stated that there were areas of staining on the ceilings and walls consistent with water damage. In their response dated 30 September 2025, the landlord noted the issue and stated that no action would be taken, describing the staining as historic damage and not evidence of any ongoing water ingress.

The tenant stated that the wiring in the garage appeared to be dangerous. The tenant stated that an electrical contractor visited in early October 2025 and conducted an inspection of both the garage and the house. The tenant stated that the contractor confirmed that the wiring was safe and repaired a damaged bathroom light switch.

The tenant stated that there was graffiti throughout the house and on a concrete block wall in the garage. The tenant stated that the graffiti in the garage was painted over in November 2025, but that the remaining graffiti shown in the photographs, consisting of small hearts drawn in pen, remains.

The tenant’s report included photographs of an area of rotted window frame and a lower section of exterior garage cladding that had been damaged. The landlord responded that the issues would be addressed. The window was repaired in October 2025; however, the cladding has not been addressed.

The tenant’s report included photographs of a rusted hinge and a close-up photograph of a security stay missing a wing nut. The landlord replied that the wing nut would be replaced, and the hinges oiled. The tenant stated that the wing nut was replaced, and the hinges oiled.

The tenant’s report included photographs of two marks on the wall in the toilet. The landlord replied that the marks would be removed and the wall repainted. The marks were removed in October 2025, but the wall was not repainted.

The tenant’s report included photographs of a broken door handle and internal doors with marks and chips. The landlord replied that they would replace the door handle. The handle was not replaced.

The tenant’s report included photographs of two internal doors that the tenant stated had become discoloured. In their reply, the landlord noted the matter and stated that no action would be taken.

The tenant’s report included four photographs of walls with minor surface damage. The landlord noted the damage but described it as cosmetic.

The tenant’s report included photographs of cracking where the bath meets the wall behind it, an area of skirting board damage, and damage to the tiles at the front of the fireplace. The landlord noted the damage and stated that the area around the bath would be sealed, but that no other action would be taken. The tenant stated that contractors attempted to seal the crack in February 2026 but had run out of sealant.

The tenant’s report included two photographs showing small sections of carpet with minor damage. The landlord noted the damage and stated that no action would be taken.

The tenant’s report included photographs of small sections of vinyl flooring in the bathroom showing a chip, and a small area of minor damage to the flooring in the toilet. The landlord noted the damage, stated that the vinyl flooring in the kitchen would be replaced, and queried the location of the damage in the toilet. The tenant stated that the vinyl flooring in the kitchen was replaced.

The tenant’s report included a photograph of paint damage to a window and flecks of grey paint on a cream-coloured wall. The landlord noted the damage and stated that no action would be taken.

The tenant accepted that some of the issues would be considered cosmetic but stated that they were indicative of the general condition of the property.

The tenant’s report included a photograph of the inside rear of the laundry tub cabinet, which had been patched with cardboard. The tenant stated that this was repaired in November 2025.

The tenant’s report included photographs of a post in the garage, which the tenant stated showed signs of borer, photographs of water damage to the interior, and of a small derelict shed. The tenant also stated that the garage roller door was damaged. The tenant stated that the shed was removed within a few days, but that no one had inspected the garage.

The landlord stated that subsequent to the application there had been ongoing discussions about the work in which the tenant had expressed that they were generally happy with the landlord’s response but viewed the water damage to the ceiling, possible mould in the ceiling cavity, the chimney flue, and the lining around the bath as outstanding issues. The landlord believed that the tenant wished to focus on these areas, and the tenant’s position during the hearing had been at odds with recent discussions.

The landlord believed there was insufficient evidence of generalised moisture and mould issues, and that any reported mould or dampness had been appropriately investigated.

Where issues raised concerned functionality, these had been addressed. Issues considered cosmetic were noted but no further action would be taken.

The landlord stated that issues affecting health, safety, and functionality of the property were prioritised over those considered cosmetic. Cosmetic damage would be addressed but given a lower priority.

The landlord stated that sealing around the bath would be revisited.

Between 02 October 2025 and 05 November 2025, a significant amount of work was carried out on the windows.

The landlord stated that the garage had been tested for asbestos and had been scheduled for works. The landlord accepted that the garage formed part of the property but considered that the defects did not pose a risk to the tenant and were therefore given a lower priority.

The landlord believed that the broken door handle had been repaired.

The landlord stated that work orders had been issued for the matters raised and that they believed the work had been completed. Law

Under section 45(1)(b) of the Act, the landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises.

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 provide and maintain the property in a reasonable condition under section 45(1)(b) is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $7,200.00 may be awarded. Analysis and decision.

The mould was addressed within a reasonable period. There is no evidence of any ongoing concerns.

The property is over 50 years old. There is no evidence that the house is structurally unsound. It is, however, showing signs of fair wear and tear relative to its age.

I accept the landlord submission that, while all maintenance matters should be addressed, that issues relating to the structural integrity and health and safety of the tenant should be given priority over those deemed less significant or cosmetic. This is consistent with the approach taken in Collins and Bertoni v Professionals Hutt City Limited.

The stains on the wall and ceiling are the result of historic water damage. They do not affect the use of the premises and are cosmetic in nature.

The wiring in the garage and the light swich in the bathroom were investigated and addressed within a reasonable period.

The graffiti in the garage was addressed within a reasonable period, the other graffiti is cosmetic.

The security stay wing nut was replaced. The hinges are not damaged and show signs of wear and tear.

The damage to walls and internal doors is minor, does not affect the use of the premises, and is cosmetic.

The damage to the vinyl flooring in the bathroom and toilet is minor and does not affect the use of those two areas.

While the repair to the laundry cupboard was poor, it did not affect the use of the tub.

Of all the maintenance matters raised, it is the garage where I find the landlord has failed to meet their obligations. This was reported in September 2025, and to date, has not been properly addressed. While the garage is not a habitable space, it nevertheless forms part of the premises, which the tenant has been unable to use for its intended purpose.

Turning to exemplary damages, apart from the garage issue, I am satisfied that the landlord responded appropriately. I am not satisfied that an award of exemplary damages is justified in the circumstances. However, concerning the garage, I am satisfied that the tenant has suffered a loss of amenity because they have not received something they bargained for under the agreement. I award compensation of $500.00. Conduct amounting to interference.

Under section 38(2) of the Act, a landlord must not cause or permit and interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises.

In the case of Smith v Floris, Auckland TT 1404/93, 9 March 1994 at 6, the Tribunal stated: “Quiet enjoyment means effectively the right not to have the quality of the tenancy significantly impaired by actions of the landlord and/or the landlord’s agents....”

Under section 39(3) an interference that also amounts to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $3,000.00 may be awarded.

Harassment is not defined in the Act. In the case of MacDonald v Dodds, CIV- 2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010, the Court considered harassment to mean "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person”.

Whether interference has occurred will depend on the proven facts and an objective assessment of whether the act in question exceeds what a tenant could reasonably be expected to endure under the circumstances. Analysis and decision

The tenant is clearly someone who maintains and expects high standards. They have been frustrated with the landlord’s response to the HHS and maintenance issues. There is, however, no evidence before me to suggest that the landlord has conducted themselves in such a manner that could be considered an interference with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy or harassment.

At the commencement of the hearing, the tenant stated that they wanted an acknowledgment from the landlord. The landlord acknowledged that the circumstances leading up to the commencement of the tenancy, including the HHS compliance issues had been less than ideal, and that they had offered compensation equivalent to four weeks’ rent by way of acknowledgement.

During the hearing, the landlord stated that the location of the property sometimes posed challenges arranging for suitably qualified contractors.

During the hearing, the landlord also suggested that any delays may have been due to difficulties accessing the property. I do not accept that this was the case, and it appears that the tenant accommodated contractors on all but one occasion, where there was a miscommunication. Costs

As the tenant has been partly successful, I order reimbursement of the filing fee. 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 their name or identifying particulars of that party 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.

Neither party seeks name suppression.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5384903 — net $1,028.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages HHS compliance	$500.00	Exemplary damages HHS compliance
Compensation loss of amenity	$500.00	Compensation loss of amenity
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,028.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,028.00