What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5407949 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 5407949?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5407949?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5407949?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13708881-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5407949 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 5407949?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5407949?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5407949?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13708881-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5407949 — Mould & damp

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s names and identifying details.
The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the tenant’s claims.
The claims that the landlord failed to provide a tenancy agreement in writing, a Healthy Homes Standards compliance statement, and to lodge the bond are proven. However, no exemplary damages are awarded.
All other claims are dismissed.
There are no orders for reimbursement of the filing fee.

Reasons

The tenant filed claims against the landlord on 10 December 2025. The landlord challenged the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, claiming that the agreement was a flat sharing agreement. On 23 March 2026, the Tribunal heard evidence relating to jurisdiction. On 16 April 2026, the Tribunal determined that the parties had entered into a boarding house tenancy agreement. On 14 May 2026, the Tribunal heard the substantive claims.
The issue of jurisdiction is set out at paragraphs [4]– [43], and the hearing of the substantive claims at paragraphs [44]– [114].
On both occasions, the parties attended the hearing in person. The Tribunal was assisted by a Mandarin interpreter. Jurisdiction
The tenant claims that they entered into a residential tenancy boarding house agreement with the landlord and has made several claims that the landlord has failed to meet their obligations. The landlord challenges the jurisdiction of the Tribunal claiming that they have entered into a landlord / flatmate agreement.
The property has two levels. On the ground floor, there are eight bedrooms. Two of the rooms have their own bathroom. The occupants of the other six rooms share two bathrooms. One of the rooms with its own bathroom also has a kitchenette. All of the occupants on the ground floor have access to a shared kitchen. All occupants of the ground floor share the laundry facilities.
On the first floor, there are four bedrooms. Each pair of rooms share a bathroom and a kitchenette and have access to shared laundry facilities.
The ground floor and first floor are not connected by an internal stairway.
On 11 September 2025, the parties entered into an agreement under which the tenant occupied a room on the ground floor with shared facilities. The rent was $150.00 per week, including utilities. The landlord assigned the tenant’s room. The agreement was not recorded in writing. The landlord stated that the tenant was unhappy, and the parties agreed to terminate the agreement. The tenant vacated on 31 October 2025.
Between 11 September 2025 and 31 October 2025, seven of the rooms on the ground floor were occupied. One room was occupied by the landlord’s niece and another by the landlord’s mother. One room was occupied by two adults and a child. The landlord stated that, although typically only one person occupied each room, due to special circumstances, they had allowed a family of two adults and a five-year-old child to temporarily occupy one room. Three other rooms were each occupied by a single person. The eighth bedroom was empty.
Over the same period, each of the four rooms on the first floor was occupied by one person.
The landlord provided a document titled “Flat/house sharing agreements between landlord and other tenants are not covered by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986... This agreement is between the landlord and flatmate.” The document sets out the terms under which the flatmate and the landlord agree to share the premises. These terms include the start date, rent, bond, utilities, length of tenancy, notice period, and a clause stating that any disputes will be resolved in the Disputes Tribunal. The landlord stated that this agreement was provided to the other tenants and would have been provided to the tenant had they remained.
Although the parties agreed that occupants on each floor did not have the right to access the kitchen and bathroom areas on the other floor, the tenant stated that two of the first-floor occupants regularly went downstairs to use the laundry, with the landlord’s permission and knowledge. The tenant argued that, for this reason, the ground and first floors should be treated as a single boarding house property.
The landlord stated that if any of the first-floor occupants used the downstairs laundry, this was a matter between the occupants and not a right granted under their respective tenancy agreements.
The tenant called another former tenant as a witness, who occupied the property after the tenant vacated, from October 2025 to 6 January 2026. The witness stated that during their tenancy they witnessed, on one occasion, a first- floor occupant enters the ground level. On other occasions, they heard someone using the laundry. Although they did not see the person, they did not hear any movement through the house and believed the person must have entered from outside. They confirmed that the ground floor occupants did not have access to the facilities on the first floor, and vice versa. They also stated that the family of three moved out about one month after they moved in. Law
Section 77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (Act) provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the Act applies. Section 4 RTA provides that the Act applies to all residential tenancies unless specifically excluded.
Section 2(1) of the Act defines a landlord as the grantor of a tenancy under a tenancy agreement of residential premises. A tenant is the grantee of the tenancy. The terms ’residential premises,’ ‘tenancy,’ and ‘tenancy agreement’ are defined as: a. 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. b. 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. c. 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; and, where appropriate, includes a former tenancy agreement and any variation of a tenancy agreement.
Section 5 of the Act sets out a variety of circumstances where a tenancy is excluded from the Act.
Section 10 of the Act provides that, where a party to proceedings contends that the Act does not apply, they must establish the facts supporting their contention. In other words, they have the burden of proving the Act does not apply.
Section 5(1)(n) of the Act provides that the Act does not apply: “Where the premises, not being a boarding house, continue to be used, during the tenancy, principally as a place of residence by the landlord or the owner of the premises or by any member of the landlord’s or owner’s family:”
Section 8 of the Act provides that, where the Act is excluded, if the premises are used for residential purposes, the parties can contract back into some or all of the provisions of the Act.
When determining whether the Act is excluded, the Tribunal considers the substance of the agreement between the parties rather than the labels they have applied.
Part 2A of the Act deals with Boarding house tenancies.
Definitions for determining whether the tenancy is a boarding house tenancy and therefore subject to the provisions in Part 2A are set out in section 66B: 66B Interpretation for this Part In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires, — boarding house means residential premises— (a) containing 1 or more boarding rooms along with facilities for communal use by the tenants of the boarding house; and (b) occupied, or intended by the landlord to be occupied, by at least 6 tenants at any one time boarding house tenancy means a residential tenancy in a boarding house— (a) that is intended to, or that does in fact, last for 28 days or more; and (b) under which the tenant is granted exclusive rights to occupy particular sleeping quarters in the boarding house, and has the right to the shared use of the facilities of the boarding house boarding house tenancy agreement means a tenancy agreement (as defined in section 2(1)) relating to a boarding house tenancy. boarding room means a room in a boarding house that is used as sleeping quarters by 1 or more tenants of the boarding house, and that is for use only by a tenant whose tenancy agreement relates to that room. contact person means a natural person or an organisation. facilities mean the facilities provided by the landlord of a boarding house for the shared use by tenants of the boarding house, such as— (a) toilet and bathroom facilities: (b) cooking facilities: (c) general living, dining, or recreational areas: (d) laundry facilities: (e) lifts and stairways: (f) rubbish storage and rubbish disposal facilities: (g) appliances for heating or cooling premises: (h) communication facilities: (i) lawns, gardens, and outhouses: (j) any land or buildings intended for use for storage space or for the parking of motor vehicles premises means the boarding house, comprising the boarding rooms and all the facilities of the boarding house; and includes any part of any premises.
In the case of Karmarkar v Pendem [2018] NZHC 693, Justice Van Bohemen stated that the intention of the legislation must be the driving consideration, not whether the parties may have intended a particular outcome.
At para [34] and [35} His Honour stated: [34] In my view, it is possible to make sense of the definitions by asking the following questions: a) Does the house contain one or more bedrooms along with facilities for communal use by the tenants? b) Is the house occupied or intended to be occupied by 6 or more tenants? c) Is the tenancy intended to, or does in fact, last for 28 days or more? d) Are tenants granted exclusive rights to occupy particular bedrooms whether that occupancy is for single or shared use? e) Does the right to occupy a particular bedroom derive from the tenancy agreement between the individual tenant and the landlord rather than from a collective decision of the tenants? [35] If the answer to all those questions is “yes”, then the tenancy is a boarding house tenancy and the rest of the provisions of Part 2A apply. Analysis
The landlord and tenant entered into an agreement whereby the landlord granted the tenant the right to occupy a room and use of shared facilities in return for rent.
The issue is whether the tenancy agreement is one that is excluded from the provisions of the Act. The landlord argues that it is excluded under section 5(1)(n) on the basis the property continued to be used principally as a place of residence by their niece and mother.
The tenant argues that the agreement is a residential boarding house agreement, and although the property continued to be occupied by family members of the landlord (owner) the property was defined as a boarding house and therefore the agreement was not excluded from the Act.
The Court has held that when determining whether the Act is excluded, the Tribunal will consider the substance of the agreement between the parties rather than the labels they have applied.
The landlord bears the burden of proof to establish that more likely than not the property is not a boarding house. If the property is not a boarding house the exclusion in section 5(1)(n) will apply.
Applying the test in Karmarkar v Pendem:
The answer to (a) is yes, the premises contain one or more bedrooms along with facilities for the communal use by the tenants. This is not in dispute.
The answer to (b) is also yes.
Under Part 2, boarding house residential premises are defined as those containing one or more boarding rooms, along with facilities for communal use by the tenants of the boarding house, which are either occupied, or intended by the landlord to be occupied, by at least six tenants at any one time.
I accept the landlord’s argument that the ground floor and first floor are treated as separate premises, and that the occupants do not have rights under their agreements to use facilities on the other floor. However, between 11 September 2025 and 31 October 2025, the ground floor, treated as a separate premises, was occupied by six tenants: the tenant, a family of two adults and one child, and three others. This excludes the landlord’s niece and mother, whom I am not satisfied were tenants.
The answer to (c) is yes, the tenancy was intended to last for more than twenty- eight days.
The answer to (d) is yes, the tenants have exclusive rights to occupy particular bedrooms.
The answer to (e) is also yes, under the agreement the tenants are granted exclusive rights to occupy particular bedrooms which are allocated by the landlord. Decision
The landlord granted the tenant the right to occupy a room and shared facilities in return for rent. I am therefore satisfied that the parties have entered into a residential tenancy agreement.
The landlord has not established that the exclusion in section 5(1)(n) applies.
The ground floor meets the definition of a boarding house. It contained one or more rooms, along with facilities for communal use by the occupants of those rooms. At the relevant time, the rooms were occupied by six tenants. Although the landlord referred to the agreement as a landlord/flatmate agreement, the parties have in fact entered into a residential boarding house tenancy agreement.
Although the landlord’s family continued to use part of the ground floor as their place of residence, the agreement is not excluded under section 5(1)(n) because the premises operated as a boarding house.
The Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider the tenant’s claims. Tenant’s claims
The tenant’s application contains the following claims: i.The landlord failed to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards for ventilation, heating, insulation, and drainage and moisture ingress. ii.The landlord failed to comply with building regulations regarding overcrowding. iii.The landlord failed to comply with the smoke alarm regulations. iv.The premises are unlawful residential premises. v.The landlord misled the tenant about the number of occupants. vi.The landlord evicted the tenant without notice. vii.The landlord failed to provide a written tenancy agreement. viii.The landlord failed to provide a Healthy Homes Standards compliance statement with the tenancy agreement. ix.The landlord failed to lodge the bond within 23 working days of receipt.
The tenant is seeking a full rent refund of $3,050.00, a refund of the bond, and exemplary damages.
The tenant bears the burden of proof. The standard is the balance of probabilities, meaning the tenant must establish it is more likely than not that the landlord has breached the agreement or the Act. Failure to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards for ventilation, heating, insulation, and drainage and moisture ingress.
The tenant claims the property does not comply with the Healthy Homes ventilation standard. They state the kitchen extractor fan outlet was located on a wall next to their bedroom, expelling air into their window. The tenant provided a photograph taken from inside the kitchen looking out one of the windows. There are no photographs showing the exhaust outlet’s position. They also submitted a diagram indicating where they believe the exhaust fan is located.
The landlord denied that the property failed to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards. They stated that the kitchen had been renovated in 2021 and had obtained a code of compliance. They also stated that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the property did not comply with the ventilation standard. Law
Section 66(1) (bb) of the Act requires boarding houses 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.
Ventilation must be provided through openable windows or doors in all habitable rooms, and extractor fans vented to the outside. Analysis and decision
The tenant must prove that the property does not comply with the ventilation standard. There are no photographs showing the exhaust outlet’s location relative to the tenant’s bedroom window, and the diagram provided is insufficient for an objective assessment. I am not satisfied the property fails to comply, and the claim is dismissed. The landlord failed to comply with building regulations regarding overcrowding.
The tenant states that the property was overcrowded.
The tenant stated that the one fridge in the downstairs shared kitchen and the storage space were insufficient for the nine people who used the space.
The tenant claimed that thirteen people, nine downstairs and four upstairs, shared three washing machines and two bathrooms.
The tenant provided photographs showing some of the storage and inside the fridge taken toward the end of the tenancy.
The landlord denies the property was overcrowded. They state the kitchen area had been renovated in 2021 with added storage. They also stated that there are four bathrooms downstairs, with nine occupants residing downstairs having access to two full bathrooms and toilets.
The landlord provided photographs of the fridge showing it to be a large double door fridge / freezer.
The landlord provided a photograph of a second downstairs fridge used exclusively by two family members. Law
Section 66I(1)(c) of the Act stated that all boarding houses must comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises.
For residential tenancies, these requirements are set out in the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (HIR), which establish minimum standards for residential properties. These regulations remain in effect alongside the HHS.
Regulation 7(3) states that kitchens must have adequate space for the storage of food, which is placed, fitted, and ventilated so as to protect food from insects, dust, contamination, and direct sunlight.
Part Two of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (HIR) deals with overcrowding in houses.
Regulation 19(2) states that boarding houses must have one bathroom available for use by up to ten people, and two toilets where there are up to fourteen people. Analysis and decision
The property complies with regulation 19(2), and there are sufficient bathrooms and toilets for the tenants.
Adequacy of food storage requires an objective assessment. The tenant’s photographs show what appears available space for food storage in the fridge and sufficient general storage. I am not satisfied the property fails to meet the Housing Improvement Regulations for overcrowding or kitchen storage space. The landlord failed to comply with the smoke alarm regulations.
The tenant claims that the property did not comply with the smoke alarm regulations. The landlord provided photographs of smoke alarms installed throughout the property. The tenant alleged the landlord had only installed the alarms after the tenancy had ended. Law
Section 66I (1) (ba) states that landlords of boarding houses must comply with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 (Smoke alarm regulations).
Smoke alarms must be installed in every sleeping space or within 3 metres of every sleeping space. Analysis and decision
I accept the landlord’s evidence. The tenant’s photographs show a qualifying smoke alarm in the hallway within three metres of the tenant’s bedroom. I am not satisfied the property fails to comply with the smoke alarm regulations, and the claim is dismissed. The premises are unlawful residential premises.
The tenant states that the room occupied by the family of three had been unlawfully converted from a garage to a bedroom.
The tenant provided a photograph of the outside of the room concerned.
The tenant stated that they did not occupy or use the room, which was someone else’s bedroom, under their agreement.
The landlord provided a code of compliance indicating that in 2021 the carport was enclosed and converted to a bedroom with an ensuite. They stated the garage had previously been converted into a bedroom and included a ranchslider with a qualifying window.
The tenant questioned how the room could have been given consent as it did not have windows.
The landlord stated the tenant had provided a photograph of the wrong room. Law
Section 78A of the Act states: 78A Orders of Tribunal relating to unlawful residential premises. (1) This section applies in any matter where the Tribunal, on application by a party or otherwise on the evidence before the Tribunal in respect of any claim within its jurisdiction, determines or declares that the premises are, or were at any material time, unlawful residential premises. (2) For the purposes of this Act, unlawful residential premises means residential premises that are used for occupation for a person as a place of residence but— (a) 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 (b) 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.
Under section 78A (2) of the Act, unlawful residential premises are premises that are used as a place of residence but cannot legally be occupied for residential purposes by that person, either generally or for the specific residential use for which they are being occupied.
In the case of boarding house tenancies premises include the boarding rooms and all the facilities of the boarding house, as well as any part of any premises provided for use by tenants.
Section 66H(2)(c) states that at the commencement of the tenancy the landlord of a boarding house must ensure that there are no legal impediments to the tenant's occupation of their boarding house room. Analysis and decision
Section 78A of the Act appears to allow a tenant of a boarding house to make a complaint to the Tribunal if they believe that another tenant’s bedroom is unlawful. However, the issue in this case is whether the room concerned, which did not form part of the tenant’s tenancy, either as their boarding room nor facility, was in fact unlawful. The onus is on the tenant to establish more likely than not the room is unlawful. The landlord has provided documents indicating the room has a code of compliance, which means it is not unlawful. There is also some uncertainty as to which room the allegation relates. I am not satisfied to the required standard, and the claim is dismissed. The landlord misled the tenant about the number of occupants.
The tenant states that, during the property viewing the landlord said there would be a maximum of four occupants: the landlord’s mother, a tenant who was a classmate of the tenant, the tenant, and another person who would join later. The tenant stated that the landlord did not mention their niece. The landlord had mentioned the family but said they would have no interaction with the tenant.
The tenant stated that about a week after moving in, the other person referred to moved in. They also discovered the landlord’s niece living in one of the front rooms, and that the family consisted of three and that they also used the share kitchen facilities.
The tenant stated they are sensitive to noise and would not have entered into the tenancy agreement had they known the actual number of occupants at the property.
The landlord accepted that they had not mentioned their niece because she occupied a bedroom with an ensuite and did not use the shared kitchen. They stated they informed the tenant about the family and that they would also use the kitchen. The landlord denied stating that occupancy in the downstairs area was limited to four people. Law
Under section 78(1)(g) of the Act, where it appears that an agreement between the parties has been induced by misrepresentation, the Tribunal may make orders varying or setting aside the agreement, either wholly or in part.
In Gillies v Blackham and Co Real Estate Limited [2021] NZTT Timaru 4297433 at para [6], the Tribunal stated: “A misrepresentation is a false statement of fact made by one of the contracting parties to the other. Silence is not a misrepresentation unless the maker of the statement has a duty in law to speak.”
A tenant alleging that they were induced to enter an agreement by a misrepresentation must establish: a. That there has been a false statement of fact, b. That the statement was made by or on behalf of the landlord, c. That they relied on the misrepresentation, and d. That the misrepresentation caused a loss. Analysis and decision
The online advertisement for the room stated: “ ... sharing two bathrooms with three other female students, with an average of one bathroom for two people.”
The online advertisement does not accurately describe the actual occupancy of the property.
Between the initial contact on 03 September 2025, and the viewing on 08 September 2025, the only matters that appear to be discussed in the WeChat messages are the term of the tenancy, if fixed, whether the tenant could sublet the room, and that the tenant was sensitive to noise.
Although both parties have provided translations of the messaging, both sets of translations appear to differ.
I am satisfied the tenant was shown through the property, including the upstairs area. This suggests the tenant had an opportunity to observe the layout and occupancy before agreeing to the tenancy on 11 September 2025.
The issue therefore turns on what was said during the viewing on 08 September 2025. The tenant states the landlord made false statements of fact about the number of occupants. The landlord denies making those statements. There is a direct conflict in the evidence, and I am unable to prefer one party’s evidence over the others.
The tenant’s claim is based on alleged statements made during the hearing. There is no independent evidence of what was said. The onus is on the tenant to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the landlord made a false statement of fact about occupancy. I am not satisfied to the required standard that they have, and the claim is dismissed. The landlord evicted the tenant without notice.
The tenant stated that when they discovered the additional occupants on 21 September 2025, they told the landlord that they wished to move out, but did not give a date. They stated that on 22 September 2025, the landlord gave them two weeks’ notice to terminate the agreement. As they had nowhere to go, the tenant remained at the property before finally moving out on 31 October 2025.
The landlord stated that after receiving the tenant’s advice that they were unhappy and wished to move, they took this as notice and began arranging a replacement tenant for the room.
The landlord stated the tenant’s WeChat messages were incomplete and that their own messages provided a more accurate record. They stated they told the tenant to give them a fortnights’ notice and that the tenant initially gave the date of 09 October 2025 but later sought to extend that date. The landlord stated they had already arranged a replacement tenant and had agreed the tenant should leave by 24 October 2025.
The landlord stated that the tenant moved from the bedroom and set up a tent in the shared lounge before moving to another bedroom around 23 October 2025 and leaving on 31 October 2025. They denied terminating the tenancy and stated that a room remained available if the tenant had chosen to stay.
The tenant accepted that they had moved from the bedroom into the lounge. They stated that, in addition to the number of occupants downstairs, there was no sound proofing between floors, and they could easily hear the movements of those above. When the landlord advised they had found someone to take their room, the tenant felt constructively evicted. Law
Under section 66U(1)(d) of the Act a landlord of a boarding house may give at least 28 days’ notice to terminate a tenancy. The notice must be in writing. Under section 66V the tenant may give at least 48 hours’ notice. Unlike the landlord’s the tenant’s notice does not have to be in writing. Analysis and decision
From the WeChat messages, it appears that on 21 September 2025, the tenant advised they were unhappy and wished to move. They had not yet found alternative accommodation, and asked, if they could give 2 – 3 weeks’ notice when they did. The landlord replied that when the tenant found another property, they could give two weeks’ notice. On the same day, the landlord advised that someone would view the bedroom.
On 22 September 2025, the landlord advised that someone had agreed to take the room, stating, “You can move out in two weeks”. The tenant replied, “So I’ll probably move on the 9 th”. On 02 October 2025, the tenant asked if they could move out on 10 October 2025. The landlord agreed, provided the tenant vacated the room by 16 October 2025.
The tenant did not object when the landlord informed them on 22 September 2025 that another tenant would take the room in a fortnight. The tenant confirmed the date, which the landlord accepted, and then later agreed to extend the vacate date at the tenant’s request.
I am not satisfied that either party gave formal notice to terminate the tenancy; instead, there was a mutual agreement to end the tenancy. The claim for unlawful termination is dismissed. The landlord failed to provide a written tenancy agreement, HHS compliance statement, and failed to lodge the bond.
The tenant stated the landlord did not provide a written tenancy agreement, HHS compliance statement, or lodge the bond.
The landlord accepted they had not provided a written tenancy agreement, HHS compliance statement, or lodged the bond, arguing they believed they had entered into a flat sharing agreement falling outside the Act’s provisions. Law
Under section 13A of the Act, a tenancy agreement must be in writing and include an HHS statement of compliance.
Section 19(1) of the Act states that upon receipt of the bond (whether the amount is for the whole or part of the bond), the landlord must lodge it with the Bond Centre within 23 working days.
Breaching any of these three obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded.
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: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award Analysis and decision
The bond has been refunded.
Although the landlord has breached the provisions of the Act, and committed an unlawful act, considering the factors in section 109(3), I am not satisfied it would be just to award exemplary damages against the landlord.
As stated, the agreement between the parties was considered a boarding house tenancy agreement because, at the relevant time, six or more tenants occupied boarding house rooms. If the landlord had not allowed the family of three to stay in one of the rooms, the number of occupants would have been fewer than six, the individual agreements would have been excluded under section 5(1)(n) of the Act on the basis that the property continued to be used as a place of residence by members of the landlord’s family. Costs
Under section 102 (4), if the applicant has been wholly successful in their claim, the Tribunal must order the respondent to pay the applicant the filing.
If an applicant has been partly successful, the Tribunal has the discretion to order the respondent to pay the applicant the filing fee.
In this case, although the tenant has partly succeeded, I do not consider it just to award exemplary damages. For the same reasons, I am not satisfied it is fair and reasonable to order reimbursement of the filing fee. Name suppression
Both parties seek name suppression.
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
Assessed globally, I am of the opinion that both parties have been sufficiently successful in these proceedings. Accordingly, both are granted name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5407949 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5407949 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions