What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4516530?

The tribunal order states: Ethan Sun and Jenny Lee must pay Jane Khushboo Kumar $2,095.44

How much money was awarded in case 4516530?

Property Damage: $2,075.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4516530?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4516530?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9579301-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4516530?

The tribunal order states: Ethan Sun and Jenny Lee must pay Jane Khushboo Kumar $2,095.44

How much money was awarded in case 4516530?

Property Damage: $2,075.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4516530?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4516530?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9579301-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

2/14 Beatrice Avenue, Hillcrest, Auckland 0627, Downstairs Tenancy Tribunal Case 4516530 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4516530 — net $2,095.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages	$2,075.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,095.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,095.44

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4516530 — net $2,095.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages	$2,075.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,095.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,095.44

Order

Ethan Sun and Jenny Lee must pay Jane Khushboo Kumar $2,095.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant is seeking exemplary damages from the landlord for breaches of the landlords’ obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (”the Act”). Specifically, the tenant claims are: •Failure to lodge the bond/failure to keep rent records •Failure to provide insulation of HHS information •Premises not compliant with the Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”) •No working smoke alarms •Unlawful entry to the premises •Invalid termination notice •Disposal of tenant goods DescriptionLandlordTenant Exemplary damages $2,075.00 Filing fee reimbursement $20.44 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $2,095.44
The tenant also seeks compensation for items that she says were damaged or by the landlord’s contractors following the flooding in Auckland on 27 January 2023. General Approach in Tribunal
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application (in this case, the tenant) to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
This is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular 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.
For the sake of brevity, I may not have referred to all the evidence presented; however, the parties can be assured that it has all been carefully considered. Background
This tenancy commenced on 17 October 2022 and was initially intended to be for a 12-month fixed term.
It is not disputed that the tenancy ended prematurely, following the significant flooding event that occurred in the Auckland region on 27 January 2023.
It is the way the tenancy came to an end that forms the background to these claims.
The tenant rented a self-contained downstairs unit within a larger premises. It may have been a garage that had at some point been converted into a living space.
It is unknown whether the premises were or are lawful in terms of their being a proper Council consent for multiple dwellings on this property. On the face of it the property records indicate there is only a consent for a single dwelling.
However, that issue was not raised by the tenant in their written claim, and I do not need to make a finding in relation to this. I do however strongly encourage the landlord to ensure that the relevant consents have been obtained. Summary of Tenant Evidence
The tenant said that she agreed to rent one of two downstairs units at the premises. Another tenant rented the upstairs part of the house, and there was another self-contained unit adjacent to the tenant’s unit.
The tenants in both the adjacent unit and upstairs unit apparently had physical access to the tenant’s unit, but there was a clear understanding that the doors were not to be used and no one was allowed into the unit.
The tenant had her own entrance, and her unit comprised a bedroom, bathroom, kitchenette, living room and laundry.
The tenant said that this was the first time she had rented, and she was naïve about her rights as a tenant.
She said there was no information about HHS or insulation in the tenancy agreement, and she felt that the premises were not likely to be compliant because it was very cold and damp.
The tenant said there was one small heater in the living room but that the unit was overall cold and damp. She said there was mould throughout. She said that because the unit was a garage conversion, she did not think it had been properly insulated.
The tenant said that the smoke alarm was not working. She said she told the landlord about this when he came to sort out other issues (leaking sink, electrical wires) on 20 January 2023, but nothing was done.
The tenant said that the general response when she raised issues or concerns or requests for repairs was that the landlord was in financial difficulty, had a large mortgage to pay and were first home buyers. She said there was a general attitude about everything being just too hard which was why they were not able to remedy things for the tenant.
In relation to the bond, the tenant said that the landlord had acknowledged the bond was not lodged when she had asked about it. She has provided emails which confirm this conversation.
In relation to the rent records, the tenant said that she had been asked to pay 2 weeks rent in advance and that she did not consider she had to do that. She also said that when she asked for rent records, she did not receive them.
On 27 January 2023 the Auckland region experienced a significant rainfall event that led to flooding for many people. The tenancy property was one of those affected.
The tenant said that there was significant water ingress inside the premises, and it became essentially uninhabitable at that time. She also said that the roof had been leaking even prior to this event.
The landlord came to look at what was happening and was able to provide some temporary alternative accommodation for the tenant and her children in Albany. The tenant moved that day and it is accepted that she never returned to live in the premises.
The property was assessed by the Council as part of its rapid assessment process on 3 February 2023. The premises were given a white sticker as part of that process and the tenant said that she communicated with the landlord about coming back. She said all her property was still inside the unit and she expected to return to the premises once any repairs had been completed. From her perspective, she believed the damage was not significant.
The tenant said that she continued to pay rent until 7 February even though she was not able to live in the premises. However, she accepted that no further rent was paid after that date.
The tenant accepted that on 11 February 2023, the landlord paid for her to move into a motel, for which she was grateful. However, she said her understanding was that she could move back to Beatrice Avenue - into the adjacent unit (that tenant having vacated) - while her unit was repaired and then she would be able to move back in.
She says that she considered the repairs would be able to be done while she was in situ and would work around it. She also said that she considered the flooding was actually worse in the other unit than in hers.
In relation to the claim of unlawful entry the tenant said this occurred after the flooding, and after she had temporarily relocated.
She said that on 1 March 2023 the upstairs tenant advised her that the landlord came into her premises via the internal upstairs door.
She emailed the landlord that day to express her concern about this. The landlord responded and apologised for not informing her and said that the builder had arrived without notice and needed to view the premises to take measurements for the next stage of repair works.
In relation to the invalid notice, the tenant said she believed that notice was given because she had emailed the landlord regarding the unlawful entry. She points out that she was given notice via email on 1 March 2023 at 7.18pm. This was the same day as the unlawful entry and the email.
The tenant has provided a copy of the email which was sent to her terminating the tenancy. Parts of the document seem to have been cut off in the digital format that was uploaded, but as best as can be seen, that email read: We are sorry to inform you that we wish to end the tenancy and will be giving you two weeks’ notice to vacate the premises. Therefore, the tenancy will end at 16-03-2023. There is a lot of building work, and it is not suitable for people to live in during the process. Please let me know if you have any questions.
For the reasons outlined above, the tenant says that she does not believe there was any valid reason for notice to have been given.
The tenant also says that even though she had been issued a termination notice giving her until 16 March 2023, the landlord (Ethan) continued to call her and was pressuring her to remove all her items before this date.
In relation to disposal of her goods, the tenant says that this occurred as a result of contractors entering the premises and disposing of things without her consent. She says that she was advised that any furniture that was soaked with water was thrown away into a skip bin.
The tenant accepts that some of the furniture that was on the ground or low to the ground may have been damaged by flood waters but said that did not give the contractors the right to throw things away.
She says that the items thrown away included drawers, bed, mattresses a sofa
As a result, items that were inside drawers, including important documents such as her passport and her children’s passports, were lost. Other things such as birth certificates, academic transcripts and marriage certificate, which are essential for her residency application, have also been lost. The tenant says that she cannot recover these items without taking a trip back to Fiji to request new copies of these items.
The tenant accepts that she did not take these important and valuable documents with her when she left the premises but says that at that point, she was in a rush to get out and had her two children with her and did not really think about those things. She says she packed only what was essential at that time.
The tenant also said that while the contractors were in the premises in the following days and weeks, they caused damage to her television, her brand new washing machine and fridge.
She accepted that she did not have any corroborating evidence regarding this damage but says that is what happened.
The tenant seeks compensation for the loss of the documents, cost of travel to recover them, and for damage to her items.
The tenant says that the tenancy ended on 16 March 2023 when she returned the key to the landlord. Summary of Landlord Evidence
The landlords say they purchased this property a few years ago. They say the previous owner did the conversions. They said that at the time of purchase there were already three separate tenancies. They also said that the previous owner told them everything was properly consented and that because they had been able to obtain a mortgage and insurance, they assumed everything must be legal.
They do accept that they have not checked with the Council and that they pay rates on the basis of the premises being a single dwelling.
The landlords say that they are new to the business of renting. As such, they acknowledge some mistakes have been made.
The landlords accepted that they did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre. They say that they did not know this was a requirement, but that they have fully refunded the bond to the tenant.
The landlords also acknowledge they did not keep proper rent records; again, this was because they were unaware that this was a requirement. They did however provide bank statements at the hearing that showed all rent payment made by the tenant, and showed the bond being refunded to the tenant.
In relation to the HHS, the landlords say that they were unaware that they needed to provide this information to the tenant.
They said that at the time the tenancy started they did not know what insulation was present, and they were not able to assess it because it was covered over by gib in the unit. They say that it was only after the flooding that they realised they needed to comply with HHS.
At the hearing, the landlords produced an HHS assessment from Trust Property Services. That assessment was done on 8 September 2023 (after the post-flood remediation) and shows the property is fully compliant.
In relation to the smoke alarms, the landlord said that there were working smoke alarms present, one in the kitchen and one outside the bedroom. The landlords say these were working when the tenant moved in, and that the tenant never told them that it had stopped working.
In relation to the unlawful entry, the landlords acknowledge that they did provide access to a contractor on the day in question.
However, they clarified that the tenant was not living there at the time and that the purpose of the entry was to allow a builder to take measurements/do an assessment for repairs after the flooding. They say the builder arrived unannounced.
The landlords said that on the day of the flooding, things were very urgent. They said they were concerned about their tenants and took the initiative. They went over to lend a hand and provided alternative emergency accommodation for their tenants between 27 January and 10 February. They said they did not ask for any further rent and also paid for 4 days in a motel from 11 February 2023.
They said that the premises were uninhabitable. Significant amounts of water had entered the premises, and everything was mouldy and unhealthy. There was a significant odour that remained even after things had started to dry out.
The landlords also said there were significant delays with their insurer, and a lot of back and forth between them to try and get approval for all the necessary repairs. They said in the end it took 2 months for everything to be approved before they could even begin the repairs. In the meantime, they said the tenant kept asking how long it was going to take and they felt under considerable pressure.
The landlords said that the tenant in the unit adjacent to this one simply moved out and gave them notice under section 59 of the Act, which relates to notice being able to be given if premises are so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable.
They said that after that, they decided they would give the tenant notice on the same basis. They called Tenancy Services to check and were advised that they needed to give the tenant 7 days’ notice but decided to give her an extra week.
The landlords deny that the notice was retaliatory. They do accept that they did not clearly state that the notice was given under section 59 of the Act and apologise for that. They are clear that notice was only given because they considered the premises to be uninhabitable.
In the end they say it took 7 months for all repairs to be completed and this would have meant the premises were not able to be occupied during that time.
In relation to loss of the tenant’s documents, the landlords say that on the day of the flooding, they told all the tenants to take any valuables, essentials or important documents with them. They were unaware that the tenant had left any important documents behind.
In relation to disposal of goods, they say that it was not their own contractor but rather the insurance contractors who did the clean up and threw away items that were damaged by the flooding. They also say that they telephoned the tenant to advise her that the contractors would be coming around, so she was aware of what was to happen.
In relation to any damage to the tenant’s property, the landlords say they are completely unaware of this and have not seen any evidence of any damage caused.
One of the landlords (Ethan) does accept that he called the tenant and asked her to remove her items prior to 16 March 2023; he said that at the time he made this phone call he was not aware that his wife (Jenny) had given 14 days’ notice to the tenant. However, once he realised, he waited until the end of the tenancy.
They landlords say they did not enter the premises to start any repair work until the keys had been returned to them on 16 March 2023. Findings
The landlords described themselves as new to the business of renting. Despite this, they appear not to have utilised the freely available resources on the Tenancy Services website, such as the standard “Residential Tenancy Agreement” which can be found here.
The tenancy agreement signed by the parties was a bespoke agreement. It appears that the landlords have constructed their own document which contained some of the relevant provisions from the Act along with other provisions of unknown origin.
There is no requirement for landlords to use a standard form, but the dangers in departing from the standard form are probably self-evident. In this case, it led to multiple problems for the landlord. Bond
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) of the Act.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1500.00.
In the standard tenancy agreement, it is made clear in multiple places that bond money must be lodged with the Bond Centre within 23 days.
Proper dealing with a bond is one of the fundamental obligations of being a landlord and failure to lodge the bond is a serious matter. The bond system is there for a reason. A bond is prima facie a tenant’s money and is not to be used by a landlord for general cash flow purposes. The bond system ensures that a landlord cannot act as their own judge and jury regarding potential claims on the bond.
The landlords here acknowledge not lodging the bond and say that is because they were unaware of the requirement.
I find they have committed an unlawful act. I will deal with the issue of damages below. Rent Records
A landlord must keep proper business records showing details of all rent payments and any bond paid by the tenant. See section 30(1) of the Act.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $350.00. See section 30(2) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
The landlord did not keep such records. I find they have committed an unlawful act. I will deal with the issue of damages below. Healthy Homes Standards/Insulation/Smoke Alarms
Section 13(1CA) of the Act requires a landlord to include in the tenancy agreement, a statement made and signed by the landlord that on and after the commencement of the tenancy the landlord will comply with the Healthy Homes Standards as required.
This is made very clear in the standard tenancy agreement.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13A(1F) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
Section 45(1)(bb) of the Act requires landlords to comply with the Residential Tenancy (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. In this case, the compliance date was 120 days after the commencement of the tenancy. Therefore, the HHS compliance date was 14 February 2023.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) of the Act.
Section 45(1)(ba) of the Act requires landlords to comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms made in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1)(A) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
A landlord must include a signed statement in the tenancy agreement that provides the following information: a. whether or not insulation is installed in any ceilings, walls and floors, and b. details of the location, type and condition of all insulation installed. See section 13A(1A) of the Act.
Alternatively, if the landlord is unable to provide some or all of the information required, they must include a statement explaining what information cannot be obtained, why it cannot be, and that all reasonable efforts have been made to do so. See section 13A(1B) and (1C) of the Act.
This is made very clear in the standard tenancy agreement.
Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(1F)(a) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. 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 reasonable condition.
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.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1)(A) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
In this case, the landlord acknowledged that they did not include the relevant insulation or HHS information, and I have sighted the tenancy agreement which clearly omits this information. The landlords say they were unaware that they needed to provide this information.
I find they have committed an unlawful act in failing to provide this information. I will deal with the issue of damages below.
In terms of actual compliance with HHS or the insulation regulations, I am not satisfied that the tenant has established that the premises were not compliant. I make this finding bearing in mind that the tenant has the burden of proof in this case.
While I accept there is a possibility that the premises were not compliant, the tenant has not supplied sufficient evidence to support the claim. For example, there is no independent assessment by an accredited healthy homes assessor. In addition, the compliance date was after the tenant had in fact moved out due to the flooding. This part of the claim is therefore dismissed.
In relation to smoke alarms, the tenant claims that the landlord has not complied with the regulations; the landlord says that they have.
Again, there is no independent evidence to support the tenant’s claims and as such, I cannot be satisfied that the claim is proved. This part of the claim is therefore dismissed. Unlawful Entry
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) of the Act.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48(4)(a) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
In this case, I accept that the landlord did not give the required notice under the Act for the entry that occurred on 1 March 2023. Accordingly, the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
However, given that the tenant was not residing at the premises at that date, given the challenging nature of dealing with post-flood remediation, and given the immediate acknowledgement and apology by the landlord, I am not satisfied that it would be just to award exemplary damages for this breach. Termination Notice
Section 59(1)(b) of the Act provides that where, otherwise than as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement, the premises are so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable, either party may give notice to the other terminating the tenancy.
If this section applies, a tenant must give 2 days’ notice and a landlord must give 7 days’ notice.
In this case, clearly the issues were not caused by any breach of the tenancy agreement; rather this significant rainfall event was beyond the control of either party.
The question then becomes: were the premises so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable?
The question of the Council red or yellow stickering the premises is not determinative of this issue. That is because the stickering process is part of the Council’s rapid safety assessment process, which is an initial safety check only. Usually, the assessment relates to the structural integrity of the building or surrounding land and whether there is a significant risk to health or life. The Council itself quite clearly states that “the building may have suffered little or no damage and can be used. However, it doesn’t necessarily mean the building is safe, there could be unseen damage.” 1
The stickering process then is quite clearly not an assessment of the general habitability of buildings.
In this case, there is no doubt that the premises were inundated with significant amounts of water, which may well have included sewage water.
There is evidence that there was mould growing in the premises and a bad odour throughout even after the premises had dried out; I accept the landlords’ evidence on this point.
I therefore find that the premises were uninhabitable and as such the landlords were entitled to give notice under section 59 of the Act.
I do not accept the tenants claim that the notice was retaliatory. That is because I am not persuaded that the giving of notice was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise by the tenant of any right under the Act.
I accept that the timing may have appeared suspicious to the tenant but given everything else that was going on at that time, I do not accept that the tenant’s reminder to the landlord about entry to the premises led to the notice being given. Rather, it was the realisation that the property was not habitable and that repairs were going to take a long time to be completed.
This claim is therefore dismissed. 1 Auckland Council, Advice for Aucklanders issued February 2023, found at https://www.aucklandemergencymanagement.org.nz Disposal/Damage of Goods
A landlord must not seize or dispose of any of the tenant’s goods, except where they are disposed of under sections 62 to 62C of the Act. See sections 33(1) and (4) of the Act.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 33(2) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
In this case, contractors who were at the premises at the behest of the landlords’ insurers appear to have disposed of some of the tenant’s goods. This was as a result of the items being damaged by floodwaters. Although the landlords themselves did not dispose of the goods, the contractors were effectively agents of the landlord.
I find that the landlords should not have allowed contractors to enter the premises and dispose of goods, even damaged ones, without the tenant’s consent.
I find that the landlords have committed an unlawful act.
I will deal with the issue of damages below.
In relation alleged damage caused by contractors to items such as the tenant’s television, brand new washing machine and fridge, I am not satisfied that the tenant has provided sufficient evidence to support this claim.
Such evidence might include photographs of similar. Instead, she makes a bare assertion that damage has occurred. Given that the tenant has the burden of proof in this case, I am not satisfied the burden has been met and this part of the claim is therefore dismissed. Damages
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal stated: 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.
In this case, for the reasons outlined above, I am satisfied that the landlord has committed a number of unlawful acts.
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) of the Act.
Intentional means that the party who has committed the breach must be aware of it. The focus of the intention however must be the act (or omission) and not the legal knowledge of the offending party. The District Court has confirmed that: Like all citizens... [the landlord is]... deemed to know the law and on that basis a failure to provide these fundamental documents is properly seen as intentional. Parliament’s intention would be subverted if landlords were able to escape consequences for the unlawful acts involved by claiming ignorance of the law. 2
I have determined that it is more likely than not that the established breaches were intentional. There has been a detrimental impact on the tenant and there is an important public interest in ensuring that landlords comply with their legal responsibilities.
I consider therefore that it would be just to make an order of exemplary damages. Taking into account the maximum for each breach and considering that the landlord has not been shown to have breached their obligations before this, I keep the amounts to a minimum. •Failure to lodge bond - $500.00 •Failure to keep proper rent records - $75.00 •Failure to provide insulation statement – 250.00 •Failure to provide HHS statement - $250.00 •Disposal of tenant goods - $1000.00
The total award of exemplary damages for all breaches is $2,075.00.
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee. J R Smith 30 October 2023 2 TMT NZ Ltd TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182, at para 37

Tenancy Tribunal case 4516530 — Exemplary damages at 2/14 Beatrice Avenue, Hillcrest, Auckland 0627, Downstairs

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4516530 — Exemplary damages at 2/14 Beatrice Avenue, Hillcrest, Auckland 0627, Downstairs

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions