What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5395650 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 5395650?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5395650?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5395650?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13642640-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5395650 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 5395650?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5395650?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5395650?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13642640-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5395650 — Property damage

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
Blue Fern Property Management Limited As Agent For Ronald Goodwin must pay [The tenant] $10,127.96 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,380.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, which was held by video over MS Teams.
The landlord has made an application for rent arrears, water rates arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant made a cross application for compensation, general damages, exemplary damages, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the termination of the tenancy.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Evidential burden
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary damages
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded.
Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional. Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA. However, section109(2)(b) of the RTA, bars a party from applying for exemplary damages for a breach of the RTA 12 months or more after the date of commission of the unlawful act. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 2 November 2025. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy and the tenant agreed that she owes the amounts claimed.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish and that the tenant did not return all the keys provided to her by the landlord and/or the keys the three occupants must have had.
The tenant disproved not having returned the one key issued to her after the lock had been changed during the tenancy and that this was the only key that the tenant, her boarder and her partner ever used or had access to. Additionally, the landlord could not produce the entry inspection report and photographs. The tenant stated she returned the premise in a better condition than she received it, although she accepted the oven did require cleaning at the end of the tenancy.
There was insufficient evidence produced by the landlord to prove on the balance of probabilities the premise was not left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and/or in a worse condition than the tenant received it at the start of the tenancy. Therefore, the landlord’s claim for reimbursement of $420.50 cleaning cost is dismissed.
The tenant disproved the need for the landlord to change the locks as she was not evicted and had returned the only key issued to her. Therefore, the landlord’s claim for reimbursement of $200.00 lock replacement cost is dismissed. TENANT’S CLAIMS

Did the landlord terminate the tenancy without lawful grounds?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 60AA of the RTA.
Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which compensation for costs incurred because of the breach and general damages.
Where a party has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may also award exemplary damages of up to a maximum of $6500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986, where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant’s rent summary records show a history of recidivist rent breaches with rent not being paid in full and/or on time.
The landlord had initially obtained a mediators’ conditional termination order (“Order 1”) in March 2025 and by the time it tried to enforce Order 1, in mid- August 2025, it had been more than 90 days since the first rent breach, making the Order unenforceable.
The landlord made a subsequent application to the Tribunal for rent arrears and a further mediator’s conditional termination order was issued on 3 September 2025 (“Order 2”). Order 2 contained several errors. Firstly, the Rent ledger shows that on 3 September 2025, the rent arrears were $745.00, but Order 2 records the rent arrears as $1,530.00 as at 10 August 2025 (a date in the future). Secondly, the rent records prove that on 10 September 2025, the rent arrears were still $745.00. At no time during the tenancy does the rent ledger show arrears of $1,530.00. Thirdly, Order 2 records a term that says the tenant must pay $190.00 on or before Thursday 11 August 2025, a date that had already passed at the date Order 2 was entered into by the parties. This meant the tenant was in breach of Order 2 before it was signed off by the mediator. Notably, 11 August 2025 was a Monday and not a Thursday suggesting this was a typographical error not addressed by the parties at the time they received Order
Lastly, Order 2 lays out an agreed repayment plan of $595.00 rent to be paid in full and on time each week and an additional $100.00 per week to be paid to reduce the incorrectly recorded rent arrears debt. Order 2 goes on to state that if the tenant fails to make a payment of $190.00 within one day of 11 August 2025 and a payment of $695.00 each week within one day of the due dates, from 11 September 2025 until the rent arrears debt is fully repaid, the tenancy shall terminate immediately, vacant possession will return to the landlord, and the remaining debt will be due immediately.
On 31 October 2025, the landlord met with the mediator over the phone. The tenant was not present and was not informed of the meeting. After this brief meeting, Order 3 was issued and sealed by the tenancy Tribunal. This sealed mediator’s Order 3 corrected the date the first payment of $190.00 was due to be paid to Thursday 11 September 2025, but that date was still in the past on the date Order 3 was drafted and sealed. The incorrect rent arrears amount was not corrected. Order 3 also states that if the tenant fails to make a payment of $190.00 within one day of 11 August 2025 and a payment of $695.00 each week within one day of the due dates, from 11 September 2025 until the rent arrears debt is fully repaid, the tenancy shall terminate immediately, vacant possession will return to the landlord, and the remaining debt will be due immediately.
Both Order 2 and 3 state “All money paid will go first to current rent and then to arrears”. Given the Orders both relate solely to rent arrears, the definition of arrears in these Orders can be taken to mean “rent” arrears.
On 17 October 2025, the tenant made a payment of $95.00 that the landlord’s administration/accounts team allocated to water rates arrears instead of rent arrears. This accounting error led to the tenancy being terminated for breach of the terms of Order 3, specifically that the tenant had not paid the $695.00 rent/rent arrear repayment for the week commencing 16 October 2025 and ending 22 October 2025.
On 29 October 2025, the landlord issued the tenant a formal notice informing her that she had breached the terms of Order 3 because she had not paid $695.00 the previous week. This notice confirms Order 3 allows for immediate termination of the tenancy but gives the tenant until 3 November 2025 to vacate the premise.
The tenant and the landlord engaged in a series of text messages and emails on 29 October 2025, after the issuance of the formal termination notice. In these communications the landlord discusses the tenant being in $52.00 rent arrears, when the rent record show that she was in $287.00 rent arrears at the start of 29 October 2025 and $85.00 rent arrears at the end of 29 October 2025 (not taking into consideration the incorrectly journaled $95.00 rent arrears payment made on 17 October 2025).
It was not clear to me or the tenant where the landlord got the $52.00 rent arrears amount from or the balance of $55.00 after the $52.00 was paid by the tenant.
The communications show the tenant is confused as she did not think she had breached Order 3, she had not received a rent summary to show her how the $52.00 debt had been calculated or to prove she had not made the full $695.00 payment the week prior. As such she blindly accepted that the landlord’s rent records were accurate and sought a second chance to pay the $52.00 immediately and not have her tenancy terminated. The landlord made it clear that because the tenant was in breach of Order 3, when she failed to pay and additional $95.00 the week prior, no second chance would be given, and her tenancy would be terminated on or by 3 November 2025.
The tenant stated she was distraught, stressed and anxious at finding herself in a position where she had 4 days to find emergency accommodation for herself and her vulnerable/disabled elderly boarder and that she had to find money to pay moving and storage costs, on top of emergency housing costs. The tenant and her boarder are beneficiaries and did not have savings to allow them to pay these unforeseen costs.
On 29 October 2025, the landlord applied for an eviction warrant. The application incorrectly records that the breach of Order 3 occurred on 23 November 2025, a date that was in the future.
The landlord withdrew the eviction warrant application after the tenant voluntarily moved out on 2 November 2025, making an eviction warrant unnecessary.
I am satisfied the landlord gave the tenant notice terminating the tenancy when it did not have grounds to do so, and that the property manager should have provided the tenant with a copy of the rent summary, showing her the alleged breach the landlord was relying on, prior to blindly relying on the conditional termination clause in Order 3 to end the tenancy without fully investigating whether the breach had occurred.
Had the property manager sent the tenant the rent summary prior to invoking the conditional termination clause in Order 3, it is reasonably likely the error in the journalling of the $95.00 payment made on 17 October 2025 would have been identified by the tenant, preventing the unlawful termination of her tenancy.
The property manager stated that she relied on the rent summary and was under the reasonable belief on 29 October 2025 that she had the legal right to rely on the conditional termination clause in Order 3. She also stated that the accounts team had allocated the $95.00 to water rates arrears, as this was the oldest debt owed by the tenant on 17 October 2025. Lastly, the property manager claimed the tenant had not coded the $95.00 payment as being for rent arrears. In fact, there was no coding reference on the payment at all.
Under New Zealand tenancy law, rent arrears must strictly cover the oldest outstanding rent debt first. Money a tenant pays cannot be applied to current rent or future rent while any past rent from previous weeks remains unpaid. A landlord cannot allocate rent payments to non-rent debts like water bills without the tenant's explicit agreement. All payments must go toward rent until the current rent is fully up to date. Water charges should be billed and tracked separately from rent. A landlord cannot use a 14-day Notice to Remedy or standard eviction processes for unpaid water unless the water debt has been specifically ruled on by the Tenancy Tribunal. In this case, water rates arrears were not part of any terms or conditions set out in Order 3. Paragraph 4 of Order 3 was very clear that “All money paid will go first to current rent and then to (rent) arrears”. Additionally, the property manager confirmed the accounting/administration team had access to Order 3, on the tenants file, that set out the terms for accounting for all debt repayments made by the tenant.
I find the landlord gave the tenant notice terminating the tenancy when it did not have grounds to do so due to its inaccurate record keeping and poor accounting practices but that it did not do so intentionally. Therefore, the tenant’s claim for exemplary damages for this proven breach are dismissed for lack of evidence to prove breach was intentional.
I find it would be it would be just to require the landlord to pay the tenant compensation for the following losses she directly incurred because of the breach as follows: a. $750.00 for emergency accommodation costs: sign on and relocation costs (the tenant had to borrow of her ex-husband under urgency); b. $4,583.57 for additional rent paid by tenant (being the difference between $595.00 per week she was paying and $750.00 per week she is now paying under her new tenancy from 31/1/26 (date the new tenancy commenced) to 26/8/26 (date the next rent review would have been due under her old tenancy); and c. $1,757.14 for the additional $100.00 per week rent the tenant had to pay for her emergency accommodation, being the remainder of the 7 months she of her contract with the emergency housing provider (for the period 31/01/26 to 03/06/26). Note the period 03/11/25 to 30/01/26 the tenant was paying $100.00 rent per week has not been included as she was not paying more rent that she would have been, but for the breach, during this period.
I also find it would be it would be just to require the landlord to pay the tenant $2,000.00 general damages for the stress, loss of amenity and inconvenience she suffered because of the breach and the additional costs she incurred for moving twice (into temporary accommodation and then her new tenancy) and having to store her belongings while she was in temporary accommodation.

Did the landlord enter the premises unlawfully?

[The tenant] claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice on 17 September 2024.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded for intentional breaches up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant produced evidence that proves on 17 September 2025, a property manager, acting on behalf of the landlord, scaled a fence that was padlocked and entered the premise using the landlord’s key, after having issued a lawful notice of a routine property inspection within the statutorily required timeframe. The tenant had sent a text message to the landlord earlier that day saying it was not suitable for her for the property inspection to go ahead as scheduled that day. She says she sent this text message as she was at home ill with a migraine. She did not disclose the reason she was seeking the inspection be rescheduled in her text message.
The property manager stated she sent a reply text asking for the reason, as the property managers are required to carry out inspections every three months or the owner’s insurance is invalidated, and the property managers schedules are tightly managed, with numerous properties for them to manage. This makes it challenging for the property managers to change inspection dates at the last minute. The property manager states she received no response to her text message and decided that she could not accommodate the change without good reason being given.
The tenant’s usual female property manager had asked a male colleague to undertake her routine inspections that day. She informed him the tenant had tried to delay the inspection, but had not given any justifiable reason, and asked him to continue with the scheduled inspection.
When the male property manager came to the property, he found the tenant had unlawfully padlocked the gate, blocking entry to the premise. The tenant had not obtained consent for the lock, nor had she provided the landlord with a key to it. She stated the lock had been installed for security purposes. Despite having a valid reason for installing it, she had not followed her obligations not to “add to or remove from the premises any lock or similar device, without the consent of the other party given at the time that, or a reasonable time before, the alteration, removal, or addition is carried out” (Refer to s46(2) of the RTA). In adding this padlock to the gate, the tenant had committed an unlawful act for which the landlord could have sought exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00 (Refer to s46(3) and Schedule 1a of the RTA).
The tenant was in bed resting when she heard the male property manager enter the lounge and call out that he was there to undertake to property inspection. The tenant’s partner was also at home in bed in the spare room at the time and heard the tenant get up and confront the male property manager that was inside the house. He heard her say “what the fuck are you doing in my house”, “I have never seen you before” and “I did not given consent for you to enter”. He also heard the altercation move outside where the property manager asked her to unlock the padlock in the gate so he could exit, and she refused. The property manager was then forced to re-climb the gate to exit the property. The tenant confirms this is what happened. The tenants’ neighbour gave a witness statement to confirm seeing the property manager scale the gate/fence to enter the property. The male property manager also gave a witness statement that is silent about whether he actually went inside the premise or simply opened the door and called out, corroborates the tenant and her partner’s evidence about the incident.
The property manager had given lawful notice of the routine property inspection and was entitled to access the premise for that purpose unless the tenant had given him a justifiable reason for having to reschedule the inspection. Had she done so he must have given reasonable consideration to her request to reschedule the inspection. The tenant did not give a reason, she simply stated that it was no convenient for her to have the inspection that day.
While this entry was not unlawful in terms of s48 of the RTA, a landlord cannot force entry for an inspection if the tenant has explicitly refused entry, even without a stated reason. Doing so breaches the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of the property and can be considered an unlawful act under s38 of the RTA.
The landlord, under these circumstances, could have issued the tenant a 14-day notice for the tenant’s failure to allow access and for installing a lock without consent as asking the tenant to remedy these breaches. If the tenant had failed to allow access after the 14-day notice and/or had refused to remove the lock on the gate or give the landlord a key to the lock, the landlord’s only egal recourse is to apply to the Tenancy Tribunal for an access order.
I find that the landlord did not breach its access rights, but I am satisfied that in scaling the locked gate and opening the door to the premise, when the tenant had expressly refused access and was ill/in bed asleep with a migraine, was a breach of s38 of the RTA being a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment and privacy. I will address the remedy for this breach in the next section of this Order below. Breach of privacy and quiet enjoyment
[The tenant] claims the landlord has harassed her and breached her privacy and quiet enjoyment of the premise.
Section 38 of the RTA confirms that the tenant “shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord”, and further at subsection 2 that the landlord “shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.”
The RTA further confirms that contravention of section 38(2) in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, is declared to be an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The term “Harassment” is not defined in the Act. It is defined in s 3 of the Harassment Act 1997 which deals with harassment in the context of either a criminal charge or the making of a restraining order against a person. However, Judge Harland in MacDonald v Dodds (CIV-2009-019-1524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010), considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was more appropriate in the context of s 38(3), rather than the definition in the Harassment Act. The Court in that case adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or exhaust”. The Judge accepted that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person.
In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “harass” is defined as “torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation”. Further assistance can be obtained from the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary where harassment is defined as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
From these definitions, it seems that there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However, in Whatiura v Shoulder (Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987) the Adjudicator noted that “although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.”
The tenant confirmed that the basis for this claim was: a. The property manager entering her home on 17 September 2025, after she had explicitly withdrawn consent for him to enter because she was in bed with a migraine and her partner was asleep in the spare room; b. Consistent threats of her tenancy being terminated and her being evicted by a bailiff when she was in rent arrears, specifically in the period 11 to 13 August 2025, in response to her alleged breach of Mediator Order 1 made on 1 April 2025 and the alleged breach of Mediator Order 3, raised with the tenant on 29 October 2025 and thereafter.
In this case, I am not of the view that the actions of the property manager/landlord informing the tenant of her intention to end the tenancy based on the alleged breaches of Mediator Orders 1 and 3, including the potential use of bailiff services to evict her if she refused to vacate the premise voluntarily, can be deemed to be harassment based on the definitions above. Because I do not consider these to be situations of harassment, exemplary damages cannot be ordered for these two claims. The evidence proves on the balance of probabilities the property manager acted under the reasonable belief on 11 to 13 August 2025 and post 29 October 2025, that the tenant had breached the terms of the applicable Mediator Order and that she was legally entitled to start the eviction process if the tenant did not move out after being informed the landlord was invoking the conditional termination terms set out in the application Mediator’s Order.
The tenant has proven that the incident with the male property manager entering the house without consent on 17 September 2025 was a breach of the tenant’s privacy and quiet enjoyment. For the reasons set out in paragraphs [55] to [63] above, the tenant’s claims for exemplary damages for breach of her quiet enjoyment is upheld.
I find the landlord committed an unlawful act when its property manager entered the premise on 17 September 2025 by scaling a locked gate/fence and opening the door of the premise, whether or not he entered the lounge or not.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay $1,500.00 in exemplary damages for this breach because: a. The landlord knew the tenant had expressly withdrawn her consent for the property manager to carry out a property inspection that day despite the locked gate and text message requesting the inspection be rescheduled, he entered the property and unlocked the front door an called out. In doing so, he traumatised the tenant, who found a man she did not know and was not expecting, had scaled the locked gate and opened her front door when she needed to have a safe space to recover from her migraine; b. The tenant and her partner suffered distress, fear, worry and loss of privacy/quiet enjoyment of the premise she was paying for; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the distress, fear, worry and loss of privacy/quiet enjoyment of the premise she was paying for; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their quiet enjoyment obligations.
I have set the quantum at 50% of the maximum as this is a one off breach but one that caused the tenant and her partner considerable distress.

OTHER CLAIMS

Tenant’s costs associated with preparation and attendance at Tribunal hearing

The tenant seeks orders for compensation for her time spent preparing for and attending the Tribunal hearing.
There is no provision in the RTA which I can see, nor which the tenant has identified, from which this claim can be based.
Because I cannot make any orders around time related costs for preparation and attendance at a Tribunal hearing, this claim must be dismissed. Misrepresentation of enforcement authority, misapplication of rent payments and improper bond deductions
The tenant seeks orders for compensation for misrepresentation of enforcement authority, misapplication of rent payments and improper bond deductions
No deductions have been made from the tenant’s bond. It is normal procedure for the Bond Centre to hold the bond until any dispute filed in the Tribunal has been resolved by the parties or by a Tribunal Order.
There is no provision in the RTA which I can see, nor which the tenant has identified, from which the claims for separate compensation for misrepresentation of enforcement authority or misapplication of rent payments can be based. These issues have been addressed in the unlawful termination of tenancy claim section of this Order.
Because I cannot make any orders around these three claims they must be dismissed. Reimbursement of filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because both parties have substantially succeeded with their claims, I must reimburse the filing fees. Name suppression
Both parties apply for non-publication of their names and identifying details.
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.
The parties have both substantially succeeded in their proceedings. I do not consider publication of the tenant’s name is in the public interest or justified because of the tenant’s conduct but consider the landlord’s breaches to be intentional or because of poor property management practices such that persons seeking to rent premises from it in the future should be aware of the landlord’s conduct and circumstances of this case.
Non-publication of the tenant’s name and identifying details is ordered.
The application for non-publication of the landlord’s name an identifying details is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5395650 — Property damage

Tenancy Tribunal case 5395650 — Property damage

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Did the landlord terminate the tenancy without lawful grounds?

Did the landlord enter the premises unlawfully?

OTHER CLAIMS

Property management

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Did the landlord terminate the tenancy without lawful grounds?

Did the landlord enter the premises unlawfully?

OTHER CLAIMS

Property management