What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5414308 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Eves Realty Limited As Agent For Willetts Family

How much money was awarded in case 5414308?

Cleaning: $270.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $62.24 awarded to landlord; Hole In Door: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $311.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5414308?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5414308?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13105395-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5414308 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Eves Realty Limited As Agent For Willetts Family

How much money was awarded in case 5414308?

Cleaning: $270.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $62.24 awarded to landlord; Hole In Door: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $311.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5414308?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5414308?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13105395-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

18 Kea Street, Katikati, Katikati 3129 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5414308 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5414308 — net $771.74 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 20.1.26	$62.24	Rent arrears to 20.1.26
Water rates to 20.1.26	$311.50	Water rates to 20.1.26
Carpet Cleaning	$270.00	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: hole in door	$100.00	Repairs: hole in door
Carpet Cleaning	$28.00	Carpet Cleaning
Net award	$771.74
Bond	$2,500.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$771.74

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5414308 — net $771.74 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 20.1.26	$62.24	Rent arrears to 20.1.26
Water rates to 20.1.26	$311.50	Water rates to 20.1.26
Carpet Cleaning	$270.00	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: hole in door	$100.00	Repairs: hole in door
Carpet Cleaning	$28.00	Carpet Cleaning
Net award	$771.74
Bond	$2,500.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$771.74

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Eves Realty Limited As Agent For Willetts Family Trust $771.74 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,500.00 (6487688-006) immediately apportioned as follows: Eves Realty Limited As Agent For Willetts Family Trust: $771.74 [The tenant/s]: $1,728.26
The balance of the claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy commenced on 22 March 2024 and ended on 20 January 2026. The tenant has vacated.
The landlord has applied for: a. rent arrears, b. water rates, c. compensation, d. payment of the bond, and e. reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant’s claims are as follows: a. the termination notice served on her by the landlord is retaliatory, b. the premises did not comply with the Healthy Homes Standards, c. the breach notices served on her are without grounds and should be declared invalid, d. the landlord failed to maintain the awning, e. reimbursement of the filing fee, f. the tenant seeks compensation and exemplary damages where appropriate. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, 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 1 , in practical terms this means that: 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. ... [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. Compensation
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities under the RTA. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety. In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 2 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the nature, duration and effect of the breach when deciding to award compensation. Exemplary damages
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell 3 the Court of Appeal said: “Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.”
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. Before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, the Tribunal must take into account the intent of the person in committing the unlawful act, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the landlord or the tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed, the public interest, and whether it is just to make the award. 4 Tenant’s claims 2 Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667. 3 Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732(Cooke P) 4 Section 109 of the RTA.

Was the termination notice retaliatory?

The tenant claims the landlord’s notice of 22 October 2025 to terminate the tenancy is retaliatory. The Law – Retaliatory termination notice:
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any relevant law, or by any complaint against the landlord. 5
The notice given by the landlord terminating the tenancy must also comply with the requirements of section 51 of the RTA which provide for prescribed notice periods and requirements for the termination notice. 6 If the tenant makes the application within 28 working days after receiving the termination notice, the tenant may at the same time apply for an order declaring the notice to be of no effect. 7 The Tribunal need not declare the notice to be retaliatory and of no effect if the Tribunal is satisfied that, the purported exercise by the tenant of any such right, power, authority, or remedy, or the tenant’s complaint, was or would be vexatious or frivolous to such an extent that the landlord was justified in giving the notice. 8
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. 9
The essential element of a retaliatory notice is the issuing of it in response to a tenant asserting a right or making a complaint, but it need not be the sole motivation, provided the landlord was partially motivated by the tenant asserting the right or making a complaint.
The Tribunal in Easton v Marks 10 considered the meaning of the verb “motivate”. It considered the Webster’s dictionary definition “to furnish with a motive or motives; to give impetus to; to insight; to impel” and held that the landlord was not incited or impelled by the tenant’s actions. The Tribunal in that case noted that: “It is one thing to say that an owner of a property has grown somewhat tired of his property being tenanted to persons, it is another thing to say that the tenants gave impetus to, or incited, or impelled the owner to give the notice to quit.” 5 See section 54(1) – (2) RTA 6 See section 54(1) RTA. 7 Section 54 (3) RTA 8 See section 54 (5) RTA. 9 See section 54(2), (6) and Schedule 1A RTA.. 10 Easton v Marks Auckland TT 229/87, 27 May 1987
A notice of termination given for only genuine and fair reasons will not be considered retaliatory. 11
There are four issues to consider: a. Does the termination notice comply with section 51 of the RTA? b. If so, was the application made within 28 working days of the notice being served? c. Has the tenant proved that, in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any enactment, or by any complaint against the landlord? d. If so, was the landlord justified in giving the notice because the tenant’s issue or complaint was frivolous or vexatious?
The termination notice in this case complied with section 51 RTA.
The termination notice was served on the tenant on 22 October 2025 and the tenant filed her application on 15 December 2025. Therefore, the time for filing a claim for a declaration that the termination notice is of no effect had expired by the time the application was filed.
The tenant said that she believed the landlord terminated her tenancy as when the owner and property manager attended at the property shortly before issuing the termination notice, the home was not clean and in a good condition for an inspection. The tenant was aggrieved that the landlord did not give her further time to vacate the premises.
The landlord said the tenancy was terminated as a family member would be moving into the home. This was undisputed by the tenant, although it is noted that the property is now to be sold. I consider the landlord’s reason for giving notice to terminate the tenancy was genuine.
The tenant has not proven that the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising any right under any relevant law or the tenancy agreement or in relation to any complaint by the tenant.
Because the tenant has not proven the termination notice was retaliatory the claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord fail to comply with the healthy homes standards?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations as it relates to the Healthy Homes Standards. 11 See Kerr v Woodman DC Porirua MA244/88, 3 November 1988
The RTA requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS) 12 The HHS provides for a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies in relation to heating, insulation, ventilation, draught stopping, and moisture ingress and drainage.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. For private rentals, if the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy or if the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
Heating standard: The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS. The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Insulation standard: The insulation standard requires that the premises have qualifying insulation in the ceiling cavity, and under the floor if the floor is a suspended floor. To be considered ‘qualifying insulation’ the insulation must meet a minimum R value. The minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3. The insulation must also be in a reasonable condition. The HHS does provide an exemption to the required for insulation in specific circumstances for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
Ventilation standard: The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Draught Stopping Standard: The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an 12 See Section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Moisture Ingress and Drainage Standard: The moisture ingress and drainage standard require that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Insulation prior to HHS compliance date - From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard which is required under the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 (the SAI Regulations). The SAI Regulations require ceiling and underfloor insulation. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in a reasonable condition. Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3. There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated. This case
In this case the HHS compliance date was 20 July 2024.
The landlord provided an HHS certificate of compliance dated 7 August 2025 from “Beta Property compliance” (the BPC certificate) which confirmed the property fully complied with the HHS as at that date. It appears only part of the report, including a summary, was provided. I was not provided with the full and detailed assessment of the premises HHS compliance.
The tenant referred to a healthy homes assessment undertaken by Te Whatu Ora Healthy Homes Program Assessor/Coordinator (the Te Whatu Ora Assessment) in December 2024. The landlord provided the Te Whatu Ora Assessment (an email) as the tenant had not submitted it in evidence. That email says the recommendations are “Landlord Friendly” BOPDHB Healthy Homes Program recommendations and are not an “enforcement notice”. I am unclear as to the qualifications the Te Whatu Ora Assessor has and whether the Te Whatu Ora Assessment has used the HHS as a standard. The tenant did not arrange for the Te Whatu Ora Assessor to give evidence at the hearing. Heating standard
The tenant said that the premises was non-compliant with the heating standard.
The landlord confirmed that additional heating was required, and this was attended to on 26 July 2024.
It appears that the compliant heater was installed 6 days after the HHS compliance date. I understand a heat pump was in place prior to this but it was not compliant. In the circumstances I find the property was non-compliant with the heating standard for 6 days. Insulation standard
The tenant says the premises did not comply with the insulation standard at the commencement of the tenancy until 7 August 2024 and also suggests the insulation was non-compliant when the Te Whatu Ora Assessor assessed the property in December 2024.
The HHS compliance certificate from the commencement of the tenancy records that the ceilings insulation was compliant with the HHS, that there were partial bats but that they required top up and also says the underfloor insulation was compliant with the insulation standard
The BPC certificate records compliance with the insulation standard.
The tenant did not provide any information about when the insulation was topped up prior to the BPC assessment in August 2024 or evidence of specific non-compliance before that date.
The Te Whatu Ora Assessment refers to the need to insulate part of the ceiling, however there is no information about whether there is already insulation and its R-value and why this recommendation is being made.
I consider insufficient evidence has been provided for me to find that the insulation is non-compliant with the HHS, or the SAI Regulations and this claim is dismissed. Ventilation standard
The tenant said the premises did not comply with the ventilation standard. The tenant did not provide any evidence, by way of photographs or independent assessments to show there was non-compliance with the ventilation standard.
The landlord’s HHS compliance statement from the commencement of the tenancy and from August 2024 and report from BPC confirm the property was compliant with the ventilation standard.
The tenant has not proven that the premises did not comply with the ventilation standard, and this claim is dismissed. Draught Stopping Standard
The tenant said the property did not comply with the draught stopping standard as there were unreasonable gaps and holes. The Te Whatu Ora Assessment refers to a need to adjust the driveway entry door for proper/full closure on draft/weather seals. The landlord says the property was compliant with the draught stopping standard.
I consider there is a lack of evidence around the driveway door, such as a photograph or information about the nature of the potential draught and because there is insufficient evidence in support of this claim it is dismissed, Moisture Ingress and Drainage Standard
The tenant said the property did not comply with the moisture ingress and drainage standard. The HHS compliance statement from the start of the tenancy and the HHS compliance statement from August 2024 confirm that the property has gutters and down pipes that efficiently drain stormwater, surface water and groundwater to an appropriate outfall and that there are no enclosed subfloor spaces. The Te Whatu Ora Assessment refers to there being a need for a correct/ complete full ground coverage of a ground moisture barrier, However I'm unclear whether this recommendation has been in accordance with the HHS.
I therefore find that there is insufficient evidence that the premises does not comply with the moisture ingress and drainage standard, and this claim is dismissed. Outcome
It appears that there was non-compliance with the HHS heating standard for 6 days. I consider that the tenant had heating during this period and the effect of the non-compliance would be minimal for this short period of time particularly as the tenant contributed to the delay. Accordingly, I make no order for compensation.
A party may not apply for exemplary damages later than 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act or no later than 12 months after the termination of the tenancy if the breach relates to the landlord’s obligations in respect of the bond and record keeping. 13 The tenant is time-barred from a claim for exemplary damages in respect of the HHS heating standard.
All other claims in respect of the HHS are dismissed as they are unproven.

Should I make any declaration or orders with respect to the breach notices?

13 Section 109 2 RTA.

The tenant seeks a declaration that the landlord’s breach notices and notices of antisocial behaviour (the notices) are invalid. The landlord has not applied for termination in reliance of the notices. I consider therefore that the issue of whether the tenant has breached her obligations is now a moot issue.
The Tribunal does not make orders in matters that are moot 14 The High Court in The Trustees of the Link Trust No 1 v BC has said: [20] First, the Tribunal proceeded in the manner required of it in dismissing a claim on this basis because it no longer had any practical significance for the participants. It is not the role of the Tribunal to make declarations on matters that have no such significance. Rather it must address disputes between them, and it must do so in light of both the principles of law and the substantial merits and justice of the case. If upholding a claim is not consistent with the substantial merits and justice of a case, and it does not resolve a real and practical dispute between the parties, then it would not be appropriate for the Tribunal to grant the relief sought. To do so would be unfair and unjust to the other parties to the suggested dispute.
The Court in that case was referring to the requirement of the Tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which the RTA applies and determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. 15
In my view any declaration as sought by the tenant would be of no effect.
There would in my view be no utility in determining the claim given the tenancy has terminated and even if successful, nothing would change. The tenant claimed compensation in relation to the notices, however the landlord is entitled to serve the tenant with breach notices, and this cannot be considered a breach of the RTA or the tenancy agreement for which the tenant might be entitled to compensation.
I am not satisfied the orders the tenant seeks are orders the Tribunal can make therefore the claim in respect of the breach notices is dismissed. 14 see Memelink v BC 68792 [2021] NZDC 11664 and The Trustees of the Link Trust No 1 v BC 68792 [2022] NZHC 151 15 See section 85 RTA.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair by removing and not replacing an awning.
The landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes. 16 Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7200.00. 17
The tenant claimed compensation for the removal of the awning. The awning was removed 6 weeks before the end of the tenancy. A photograph of the black awning was provided by the landlord in an inspection report. There is no evidence provided to me that the tenant asked for the awning to be reinstalled, or a 14-day notice served on the landlord in respect of the awning.
The landlord says the awning was not included as a chattel as it was left by the previous tenant.
I asked the tenant why she should be compensated for the removal of the awning, and she was unable to answer this. I consider the tenant has not proven she has suffered any loss by the removal of the awning and this claim is dismissed.
The tenant did not make any claim in respect of the dishwasher and stove. Landlord’s claims

How much is owed for rent arrears?

The tenant must pay the rent as and when it is due and payable under the tenancy agreement. 18 The tenancy ended on 20 January 2026. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $62.24 and this is ordered accordingly.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenant is responsible for water consumption charges. 19 The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $311.50 and this amount is ordered accordingly. Cleaning and damage claims 16 See section 45 (1)(b) RTA 17 See section 45 (1A) RTA and Schedule 1A RTA. 18 See section 40 (1)(a) of the RTA. 19 See section 39 RTA. The Law – tenant’s obligations at the end of the tenancy
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must remove all his or her goods from the premises, leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. 20 The Law - Tenants responsibility for damage
A tenant must not intentionally or carelessly cause damage or permit any other person to damage the premises. 21
Where a landlord is claiming compensation for damage 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. 22
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. 23
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). 24 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). 25 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 26
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. 27 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. 28
In assessing a claim for compensation, I must take into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would 20 See section 40(1)(e) of the RTA. 21 See s 40 (2)(a) of the RTA. 22 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 23 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA). 24 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 25 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 26 See section 49B(3A) (a) RTA. 27 See section 49B (1) RTA. 28 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

Is the tenant responsible for the carpet cleaning cost?

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean. The landlord had to clean carpet stains in a number of places. The tenant disputed the claim but accepted that some stains may have occurred during the tenancy.
The landlord provided a carpet cleaning invoice and pre-tenancy and post tenancy photographs in support of the claim. The amount ordered of $270 is proved

Is the tenant responsible for damage to a door?

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: A door was damaged. The landlord provided an oral estimate of the cost to have their internal maintenance person repair the door. A photograph was provided in support of the claim.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amount ordered of $100 is made by consent.

What should happen with the bond?

The bond is to be distributed between the parties in accordance with the amounts ordered.

What orders should be made with respect to costs?

Because the landlord has been successful in their claim, I have ordered that the tenant pay the landlord the application filing fee. 29
The tenant has not been successful with her claim; therefore I do not order the landlord reimburse her the filing fee.

What orders should be made with respect to suppression?

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. 30
The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying 29 See section 102 of the RTA. 30 See section 95A (1) RTA. particulars of any witness or party not be published and may attach any conditions to that order the Tribunal considers appropriate. 31
The landlord did not seek name suppression.
The tenant sought name suppression however as she has been unsuccessful in defending the landlord's claim and unsuccessful in her claim name suppression for the tenant is declined.

At a glance

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Was the termination notice retaliatory?

Did the landlord fail to comply with the healthy homes standards?

Should I make any declaration or orders with respect to the breach notices?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

How much is owed for rent arrears?

How much is owed for water rates?

Is the tenant responsible for the carpet cleaning cost?

Is the tenant responsible for damage to a door?

What should happen with the bond?

What orders should be made with respect to costs?

What orders should be made with respect to suppression?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Was the termination notice retaliatory?

Did the landlord fail to comply with the healthy homes standards?

Should I make any declaration or orders with respect to the breach notices?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

How much is owed for rent arrears?

How much is owed for water rates?

Is the tenant responsible for the carpet cleaning cost?

Is the tenant responsible for damage to a door?

What should happen with the bond?

What orders should be made with respect to costs?

What orders should be made with respect to suppression?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions