What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5402589 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 5402589?

Cleaning: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Purchase to tenant's f…: $120.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5402589?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5402589?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13237559-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5402589 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 5402589?

Cleaning: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Purchase to tenant's f…: $120.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5402589?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5402589?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13237559-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5402589 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5402589 — net $2,278.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$120.00		Carpet Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning: Insurance excess for carpet	$650.00		Carpet Cleaning: Insurance excess for carpet
Compensation: Purchase to tenant's fridge		$120.00	Purchase to tenant's fridge
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond		$1,500.00	Failure to lodge bond
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Refund bond (withheld and not lodged with Bond		$1,400.00	Refund bond (withheld and not lodged with Bond
Total award	$770.00	$3,048.00
Net award		$2,278.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$2,278.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5402589 — net $2,278.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$120.00		Carpet Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning: Insurance excess for carpet	$650.00		Carpet Cleaning: Insurance excess for carpet
Compensation: Purchase to tenant's fridge		$120.00	Purchase to tenant's fridge
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond		$1,500.00	Failure to lodge bond
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Refund bond (withheld and not lodged with Bond		$1,400.00	Refund bond (withheld and not lodged with Bond
Total award	$770.00	$3,048.00
Net award		$2,278.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$2,278.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
Allan and Donna Russell must pay [The tenant] $2,278.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant applied for a refund of rent overpayment, compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlords did not make a counterclaim, but during the hearing they challenged the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear the tenant’s claims, because they say this is short term travellers accommodation and not a residential tenancy, based on the short term rental agreement the parties signed. This agreement was for an 8-week period, from 25 March to 20 May 2022. It rolled over numerous times until the tenancy ended on 1 September 2025. The landlords confirmed they owe the tenant $120.00 for the fridge they agreed to purchase from her and have not yet paid her for because of the money they say she owes them. They claim the costs of the $120.00 cost of carpet stain cleaning and insurance excess of $650.00 from the tenant’s bond. The tenant disputes owing these amounts.

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.

JURISDICTION

Relevant Law

The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear disputes between landlords and tenants provided the dispute relates to a tenancy to which the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 applies.
The onus of proving that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction falls on the party asserting that the Tribunal does not have Jurisdiction (see section10 RTA). In this case, that onus falls on Allan and Donna Russell.
Section 77 and 82(1) RTA, gives the Tenancy Tribunal sole originating jurisdiction to determine in accordance with the RTA all disputes arising between landlords and tenants in relation to any tenancy to which the RTA applies.
Section 2 RTA sets out the following material definitions: landlord, in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, means the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement tenant, in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, means the grantee of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent; and includes any tenancy of residential premises implied or created by any enactment; and, where appropriate, also includes a former tenancy residential premises means any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence, whether or not the occupation or intended occupation for residential purposes is or would be unlawful Premises is defined as including: a. Any part of any premises; and b. Any land and appurtenances, other than facilities; and c. Any mobile home, caravan, or other means of shelter placed or erected upon any land and intended for occupation on that land. tenancy agreement, in relation to any residential premises, means any express or implied agreement under which any person, for rent, grants or agrees to grant to any other person a tenancy of the premises;
Section 4 RTA provides that the RTA applies to every tenancy for residential purposes, except as specifically provided.
The exceptions to the RTA are contained in section 5. Section 5(1)(n) specifically excludes arrangements where the premises are being used for residence by the landlord or family. This section envisages owners of a home renting out their spare rooms in a flatmate or boarding type situation.
Section 5(1)(k) of the RTA provides an exclusion to premises intended to provide temporary or transitory accommodation (such as a hotel or motel), ordinarily provided for less than 28 days at a time. Features of motels and hotels are: a. They provide transient accommodation; b. They have onsite staff; c. They have self-contained premises with tea and coffee making facilities, own bathroom and toilet and made-up beds with all bedding supplied; d. Guest only carparks allocated to the specific motel/hotel room with no shared carparking; e. Free cleaning, water and electricity.
Premises are not a motel or hotel when: a. A tenant is not on holiday, is passing through, and has not rented the premise for holiday purposes; b. A tenant has rented the premise because he/she is on a working holiday but not occupying the premise for holiday purposes; and c. The tenant has exclusive access to a self-contained premise and occupies the premise for six months or more.
The s5(1)(k) of the RTA exclusion does not apply to repurposed temporary accommodation that is being used for longer-term accommodation, such as motel units let as accommodation for periods of six months or more or a caravan or fixed unit in a caravan park where the tenancy is for longer than six months.
The District Court in Adams v Massey University Palmerston North TT 43/94, 10 October 1994, stated that to give effect to the RTA’s true intent and meaning, the exemptions in section 5 should be interpreted strictly and not liberally.
In Holler & Rouse v Osaki [2016] NZCA 130, the Court of Appeal stated that the RTA is “consumer protection legislation”. Where there is any uncertainty as to whether any particular arrangement falls within the scope of the RTA, consideration of this consumer protection aspect of the RTA ought to weigh in favour of bringing the arrangement under the umbrella of the Act and giving the tenant (and the landlord) access to the remedies that the Tenancy Tribunal can provide.
Section 11 of the RTA confirms: “Any agreement or arrangement, or any provision of any agreement or arrangement, entered into in respect of a tenancy to which this Act applies, that is inconsistent with any of the provisions of this Act, or that purports to exclude, modify, or restrict the operation of any such provision, shall be of no effect unless— (a) the inconsistency, exclusion, modification, or restriction is expressly permitted by this Act; or (b) the Tribunal is satisfied that, having regard to the nature of the tenancy, the provisions of the tenancy agreement, the interests of the parties, and all other relevant circumstances of the case, the inconsistency, exclusion, modification, or restriction should be permitted”. Analysis
In the circumstances of this case and the living arrangements as outlined by both parties at the hearing, I find that Donna and Alan Russell meet the definition of a landlord, in that they leased residential premises (albeit unlawful residential premises) to [The tenant/s] in consideration of rent for a period of 41 months 1 week or 3 years, 5 months and 1 week.
[The tenant/s] falls within the definition of being a tenant, given that she is the grantee of unlawful residential premise. [The tenant/s] had the exclusive right to occupy the self-contained unit on the basis of the payment of rent. No other person occupied the self-contained unit or was entitled to occupy that area.
There was a written agreement, for a period of 8 weeks, that describes the nature of the tenancy as a “short term rental agreement”. The parties confirmed they intended the tenancy to be a longer-term arrangement than the initial 8 week stay.
The landlords confirmed the unit complex used to be solely for temporary/transitory accommodation and was zoned for that purpose by the local council at the time the tenant rented unit 2.
The landlords confirmed that they were aware that they were not legally allowed to rent the premise out as a residential premise because the local council rule/regulations did not provide for the premise to be used for anything other than temporary/transitory accommodation, of the type provided for in s5(1)(k) of the RTA. They had applied to the local council to have this changed as their intention was to rent these units out for longer-term residential tenancies. After the landlords application had been approved, around July 2025, they offered the tenant a periodic tenancy agreement that better reflected the real nature of the relationship, but because she had not been offered a rollover of her last short term rental agreement, she had made the decision to start looking for more secure long term accommodation and did not accept it.
The tenant stated that at no time did she or the landlords intend for the tenancy to be short term or transitory/temporary and the sole reason for the landlord offering her the short-term rental agreement was to comply with the local council regulations. The landlords confirmed the local council knew they were renting the units out for residential purposes, and not holiday/temporary accommodation purposes, but chose to turn a blind eye to the landlord’s breach of the regulations because the landlord had applied for the zoning/categorisation of the units to residential.
While the parties intent is not determinative of the nature of the relationship, it is one of the factors I can take into account when determining the true nature of the relationship.
The intention of the parties was clearly to commit to a longer-term residential tenancy relationship, but to use a series of short-term rental agreements to circumvent the local council regulations and the RTA, until the units were reclassified as residential. Prima facie, the landlord considered that it could be seem to be complying with the regulations and to be covered by the s5(1)(k) of the RTA exemption. They made a conscious decision not to issue the tenant with a residential tenancy agreement, because they knew this was unlawful. The evidence proves this was not a risk the landlords were willing to take, as the recording the unlawful residential tenancy would have been seen as an overt and blatant disregard for the council regulations. Instead, they chose a more covert way to disregard the law, based on their confidence the local council would not try to enforce its regulations on them.
The tenant confirmed the unit was self-contained and she had exclusive access to its facilities, but there were no laundry facilities at the property. She used the local laundromat. Power and gas were included in the weekly rent, as there was no separate metering systems for all the units. The tenant was required to keep the unit reasonably clean and tidy during her tenancy. The landlord did not clean the unit free of charge each week, the tenancy was for far longer than six months and the tenant was not on holiday for the 3 years, 5 months and 1 week she lived at the premise.
I find that there was a residential tenancy of the self-contained unit 2 to which the RTA applies. This was not a temporary or transitory housing arrangement. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is not excluded by section 5(1)(k) RTA. THE TENANT’S CLAIMS

Was rent overpaid by the tenant?

The tenancy ended on 1 September 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove there was no rent overpayment owing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant had paid a week’s rent in advance at the beginning of the tenancy and thought she would get this back at the end of the tenancy. Rent records prove that there was a period where rent was not paid and that additional week’s rent used to bring the rent ledger up to date.
Given the tenant often paid her rent late, it would have been confusing for her to reconcile her bank statements with rent periods. However, I am satisfied the landlord’s rent records are accurate.

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond within the required statutory timeframes?

[The tenant] claims the landlords have not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlords confirmed that they knew that bonds for residential tenancies have to lodged with the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received and that they had not done so because: a. This was not a legal residential tenancy, which is why the parties only ever signed short term rental agreements that rolled over for 3 years, 5 months and 1 week; b. The short-term rental agreement terms were clear that “The bond will be held in the Trust Account of Russell Hardie Limited” and the tenant signed the Agreement which confirmed she accepted that term along with the other express terms contained within it; and c. They were unable to lodge the bond because of the Bond Centre’s requirement for the landlord to provide a copy of the signed tenancy agreement as part of the bond lodgement process.
The RTA is clear, all landlords must lodge the tenant’s bond or bond top-up payment with Tenancy Services/the Bond Centre. A tenant can also pay their bond directly to Tenancy Services, but only with the landlord’s approval.
The only information required to lodge a bond is: a. The address of the rented property; b. Details of the dwelling, such as tenancy start date, weekly rent, total $ bond and whether the rental premise is a room, boarding house, bedsit/flat/self- contained unit, house, townhouse or apartment; c. Landlord name and contact details; d. Tenant/s name and contact details; e. Addresses for service for the landlord and tenant parties; and f. Tenant/s and landlord/s signatures and dates the bond form was signed/ lodged.
Tenancy Services has confirmed it only requires a copy of the tenant’s signature from the tenancy agreement to be provided to it as part of the application to have the bond released. It uses this signature to cross check the tenant’s signature on the original bond lodgement form. Parties have lodged bonds with Tenancy Services without a signed tenancy agreement or with a flat sharing agreement or other such rental agreements.
The only time a bond does not have to be lodged with Tenancy Services is if: a. it is a boarding house tenancy, and the bond is 1 week’s rent or less; or b. the tenancy is not covered by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
This tenancy meets the RTA definitions and tests to be deemed to be a residential tenancy to which the RTA applies and the fact the landlords knew it would be found to be an unlawful residential tenancy, if the tenant challenged the real nature of the relationship, and that is why they used an Agreement that did not reflect the real nature of the relationship for a prolonged period and did not lodge the bond with Tenancy Services. By not recognising the real nature of the relationship with a proper residential tenancy agreement and lodging the bond, the landlords have intentionally chosen to breach their obligations under the RTA to keep up the pretence this tenancy was short term/temporary/transitory holiday accommodation when they knew it was not. They chose to use the council regulations as an excuse to try to contract out of the RTA and to deny the tenant her rights to the protection of the RTA. In doing so the landlords have failed to: a. Provide a proper and lawful tenancy agreement that contains all the statutorily required information about heathy homes compliance, compliance with the smoke alarm regulations and insurance, among other things (refer to s45(1)(ba) and (bb) of the RTA); b. Take all reasonable steps to ensure that, at the commencement of the tenancy, there was no legal impediment to the occupation of the premises for residential purposes (refer to s36 of the RTA); c. Ensure that the parties did not enter into an unlawful residential tenancy. Section 78A(2) defines an unlawful residential premises as: “a residential premises that are used for occupation for a person as a place of residence but that cannot lawfully be occupied for residential purposes by that person (whether generally or whether for the particular residential purposes for which that person is granted occupation) and where the landlord’s failure to comply with the landlord’s obligations under section 36 or 45(1)(c), or section 66H(2)(c) or 66I(1)(c), as relevant, has caused the occupation by that person to be unlawful or has contributed to that unlawful occupation”.
I find that the landlords have intentionally committed an unlawful act when they failed to lodge the bond with Tenancy Services Bond Centre within 23 working days from the date they received the bond, being 26 March 2022.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages 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.
Landlords are required to understand their responsibilities to tenants and I am satisfied the landlords should have reasonably known that the bond had to be submitted to the Bond Centre within 23 days after their receipt of it. The obligations placed on a landlord to put the bond into the Bond Centre on trust for the tenant is an obligation the Tribunal takes seriously. The bond is owned by the tenant, until the parties agree that all or part of the bond can be paid to the landlord to cover proven debts.
I find it would be just to require the landlords to pay a sum of $1,500.00 in exemplary damages (the maximum penalty available) because: a. The landlords intentionally held on to the bond and did not submit it to the Bond Centre for over 3 years, 5 months and one week during the tenancy and for a further three months since the tenant’s application to the Tribunal; b. The tenant is entitled to rely on the Bond Centre protecting the bond money that has been placed in it on trust for the tenant’s benefit, unless it is proven the tenant owes the landlord a debt that both parties agree can be paid by the Bond Centre to the landlord or on order from the Tribunal. The tenant’s money was not protected by the Bond Centre (a third independent party) for a total period of 47 months, 1 week, and 1 day between 25 March 2022 and 5 March 2026 (nearly 4 years) and it should have been; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the landlord’s breach; and d. it is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations pay the bond received into the Bond Centre promptly for the protection of both parties interests.
I have also factored into the quantum, the primary reason the landlords did not lodge the bond, being that they knew they could not lawfully rent the unit as a residential premise so decided to behave like the RTA did not apply to the relationship at all, when they confirmed they are experienced landlords and knew that proper protections have to be applied to tenants that are not just letting temporary/transitory accommodation while they are enjoying a holiday.
This intentional disregard for the RTA and the protections it affords tenants warrants the maximum penalty available to the Tribunal. Did the landlord breach the terms of the tenancy agreement and/or s45(1)(b) of the

RTA?

A landlord must comply with the terms of the tenancy agreement, or in this case the enforceable terms of the short-term rental agreement. Specifically, the requirement to provide the gas to power the hot water to the unit.
Section 45(1)(b) of the RTA requires landlords to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, which implies ensuring that essential services like water, electricity, and gas are connected and functional.
The tenant says the landlords failed to ensure the unts never ran out of gas and that all of the units shared a two-tank gas system for hot water production. She states that there were multiple times the gas ran out for two to three days and she did not have access to hot water. Further, she had to shower at a friend’s house at these times and that cost her time and money. She also claimed that she was part way through a shower when the gas ran out and that left her in a precarious position.
The tenant was unable to give me times and days of these alleged breaches of the tenancy agreement and the RTA.
The landlords gave evidence that they always ensured that the units had gas, that the two gas bottle system allowed for a backup and that they ordered refills as soon as one of the two bottles ran out. They acknowledged that sometimes tenants did not follow the right processes and did not inform the landlords when they had moved over to the second bottle. They confirmed that as soon as they were informed that the gas was low or out, they immediately ordered a refill of the bottles under urgency. They accepted that sometimes the gas provider may not have delivered more gas the same or next day if they had made the request of a weekend.
I am satisfied that the landlords took all reasonable steps to ensure the gas did not run out and if it did, they took prompt steps to get a gas delivery as soon as practicable. I find the tenant has not provided sufficient evidence to prove her claims on the balance of probabilities. I therefore dismiss the tenant’s claim for general and /or exemplary damages for failure to ensure the premise had reliable access to gas to heat the hot water. Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises that should be deducted from her bond?
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlords, in their defence to the tenant’s bond refund claim, proved the tenant had caused careless damage to the carpet with some fake blood that fell from one of her boxes when she was moving. Further, they proved a professional carpet cleaner was unable to remove the fake blood stain, so the landlords made an insurance claim for the carpet in the unit to be replaced.
I am satisfied that the carpet damage was caused during the tenancy and that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlords’ insurance has covered the remediation of the damage and has also proven they had to pay $650.00 excess for this approved claim.
The insurance excess amount ordered is proved.
I have considered betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. 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 [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
The tenant applies for non-publication of her name and identifying details during the hearing.
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 tenant has substantially succeeded in her proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5402589 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5402589 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

JURISDICTION

Was rent overpaid by the tenant?

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond within the required statutory timeframes?

RTA?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

JURISDICTION

Was rent overpaid by the tenant?

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond within the required statutory timeframes?

RTA?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions