Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5164771 — Mould & damp at 149 Smart Road, Hillsborough, RD 2, New Plymouth 4372
Decided 23 Jun 2025 · Published 23 Jun 2025 · Application 5164771
Tenant favoured
- Mould & damp
- State of repair
- Cleanliness
- Healthy homes
- Leaks
Order
- No suppression orders apply to the publication of this decision.
- The tenant’s claim that the premises are unlawful residential premises is dismissed.
- The tenant’s claims for compensation for failure to maintain is dismissed in relation to the ceiling, shower, kitchen sills, carport, kitchen blind, heat pump and back door.
- The estate of Robert John Anderson (Sandra Charlton and Shaun Gifford as executors) must pay the sum of $650.00 to Mary Irene Foradori immediately as compensation relating to guttering, foliage and carpet.
Reasons
- The Tribunal must hear a tenant application for compensation that the premises she rented were unlawful and various allegations that the landlord failed to maintain the premises.
- The tenancy has now ended. Mr Anderson, the landlord, has passed away. Because of this the claim has been made against his estate. The executors of his estate are Mr Gifford and Ms Charlton. They both attended the hearing. The tenant also attended the hearing with a support person.
- Mr Shaun Gifford was added to the application given his position as an executor. Civil burden of proof
- 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 to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case the tenant must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood.
- I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
- 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: “like 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.”
- For the sake of brevity, I have not referred to all the evidence presented, however, the parties can be assured that it has all been carefully considered. Unlawful premises
- The tenant lived in a flat in what could be described as a lifestyle block or rural section with Mr Anderson. Mr Anderson lived in the main house and the tenant lived in a self-contained flat that was separate (but linked via garaging) to the main house.
- I heard how the tenancy began on 19 December 2022 and ended on 28 February 2025. The rent was $300 per week including power.
- The flat was described as having a kitchen, shower/bathroom, toilet and 2 other rooms. The tenant says she meant to stay for only a while but she then had health issues so stayed on.
- Mr Anderson passed away in mid-April 2024 and the parties agree that the tenant lived alone on the section for around six months until, the landlord says, they put a non-paying ‘caretaker’ resident into the main house for security purposes (including for the security of the tenant given that she was alone on a rural section).
- The tenant says the flat is not consented and also raised factual issues which may point to whether the occupation of a property had change of use to be a separate dwelling (such as not having her own council bin and not having her own mailbox).
- Section 78A of the RTA gives the Tenancy Tribunal power to make a range of orders if the evidence before the Tribunal establishes that the premises are, or were at any material time, “unlawful residential premises”.
- “Unlawful residential premises” is defined as (s78A, RTA): Residential premises that are used for occupation for a person as a place of residence but – (a) That cannot be lawfully occupied for residential purposes by that person (whether generally or whether for the particular residential purposes 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) has caused the occupation by that person to be unlawful or has contributed to that unlawful occupation.
- Section 36 of the RTA states that the landlord shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that, at the commencement of the tenancy, there is no legal impediment to the occupation of the premises for residential purposes.
- Section 45(1)(c) of the RTA provides that the landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises.
- The public policy behind the introduction of s 78A was to discourage landlords from renting out properties that were, for example, unconsented or unlawful and had therefore never been subject to the need to meet legal requirements to ensure their safe and healthy occupation by tenants.
- The “step one” of determining whether premises are unlawful is there needs to first be a finding that the property cannot lawfully be occupied for residential purposes. This first step involves making a finding that the whole property has some sort of regulatory failure which means it cannot be occupied as a residential dwelling.
- The Tribunal has on numerous occasions now considered whether or not premises are unlawful for the purposes of s 78A of the RTA. For example, unconsented premises - premises where there has been no building consent or resource consent for the premises at all such as a rental of a caravan located on a rural property, an unconsented cabin or premises where an abatement notice or dangerous and insanitary building notice has been issued by Council. Other cases involve garages, basement conversions or parts of premises being used as a larger household unit have been converted and then used as a separate household unit, without Council consent as to the change of use. This is where the premises themselves may have had the necessary building consents but there is no council approval for the use of the premises as a separate household unit. These broad categories are not of course exhaustive (and nor should they be) but they helpfully highlight the sorts of factual situations where the Tribunal has previously found premises to be unlawful for the purposes of the RTA.
- It is relevant to briefly discuss the statutory framework regarding separate household units/change of use as this came up during the hearing.
- The Building Act 2004 provides a process relating to change of use.
- Section 114 provides: 114 Owner must give notice of change of use, extension of life, or subdivision of buildings (1) In this section and section 115, change the use, in relation to a building, means to change the use of the building in a manner described in the regulations. (2) An owner of a building must give written notice to the territorial authority if the owner proposes— (a) to change the use of a building; or (b) to extend the life of a building that has a specified intended life; or (c) to subdivide land in a manner that affects a building.
- Section 115 of the Building Act 2004 provides: Code compliance requirements: change of use An owner of a building must not change the use of the building,— (a) in a case where the change involves the incorporation in the building of 1 or more household units where household units did not exist before, unless the territorial authority gives the owner written notice that the territorial authority is satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that the building, in its new use, will comply, as nearly as is reasonably practicable, with the building code in all respects; and (b) in any other case, unless the territorial authority gives the owner written notice that the territorial authority is satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that the building, in its new use,— (i) will comply, as nearly as is reasonably practicable, with every provision of the building code that relates to the following: (A) means of escape from fire, protection of other property, sanitary facilities, structural performance, and fire-rating performance: (B) access and facilities for persons with disabilities (if this is a requirement under section 118); and (ii) will,— (A) if it complied with the other provisions of the building code immediately before the change of use, continue to comply with those provisions; or (B) if it did not comply with the other provisions of the building code immediately before the change of use, continue to comply at least to the same extent as it did then comply.
- This means that under the Building Act 2004, building consent is required for a “change of use” of an existing building. For instance, a cabin may be a sleep- out (for which there is a building consent), but if washing and cooking facilities are added, there is a change of use of the sleep-out.
- However, these requirements relate to change of use that took place after the Building Act 2004 come into effect.
- Prior to that legislation, s 46 of the Building Act 1991 (in force from 1 July 1992) required an owner to formally notify any change of use of a building to the territorial authority so that it would be assessed against the building code provisions for means of escape from fire, protection of other property, sanitary facilities, structural performance and fire-rating performance. While the 1991 Act has since been repealed, it similarly required that buildings undergoing a change of use comply with applicable building standards.
- Prior to the Building Act 1991 the building control system was governed mainly by bylaws administered by local authorities under various older statutes. Discussion
- The landlord asserted that the burden of proof lies with the tenant, and I accept that position.
- While the Tribunal does have broader powers in cases involving unlawful premises, meaning it is generally expected that the landlord should respond to inquiries raised about dwellings from the Tribunal (it would be unwise not to, as otherwise adverse inferences may be drawn), I accept that this does not shift the burden of proof to the landlord in the context of a tenant application.
- Where a tenant initiates an application of this kind, I accept that the responsibility to prove the claim remains with the tenant.
- An email provided by the tenant from the Council sets out that there is an absence of consents. It is not clear from the email if the Council means the flat or the overall property but, the context of the response to the enquiry makes it more likely than not that the writer is referring to the flat.
- The writer records in the email that they have been to the premises and notes that the work done is consistent with the construction of the property overall, which “possibly pre-dates 1992”. The writer explains that there is a general lack of consents on file for properties such as this one due to transfers/amalgamations between councils.
- This email is consistent with a discussion Ms Charlton says she had with the Council. In her written submissions she records that the Council told her they do not hold copies of plans back given the age of the house.
- A very brief email, provided by the tenant. from Mr Anderson’s son records that in the past a workshop was changed to an office and, so far as he is aware, it was never meant to be a living-quarters. However, there is no information about when this was done or what consents may, or may not, have been obtained.
- In relation to the allegations, the executors submitted that the absence of any documents on the council file should not be taken as proof of non-consent. As set out above, Mr Gifford pointed to the fact that this was for the tenant to prove and that the proof that the Council has provided in the email sets out that is not uncommon for consents to have been lost for older properties.
- While there may have been a change of use at some point, the Building Act 2004 (or Building Act 1991) requirements relate to change of use after those acts came into effect. No one can say for sure when the tenant’s flat was created. The evidence of the Council in its email is that construction is possibly prior to 1992. The photographs before me suggest a premises overall built in the late 1970s or early 1980s. This is well prior to the enactment of the Building Act 1991 or the Building Act 2004.
- No submissions were made as to the applicable statutory framework at the relevant time relating to change of use.
- I cannot make a finding that it was more probable than not that the premises were constructed after 1992 (or 2004) and nor do I have any evidence or submission of any breach of regulation or statute that may have applied prior to then.
- After carefully considering the totality of the evidence and submissions in this case I am not satisfied that there is sufficient evidence in this case that leads to a finding that it is more likely than not that the premises could not be lawfully occupied by the tenant either on the basis of the Council stating that they do not hold a consent or on the basis of change of use.
- The tenant has failed to convince me that the premises cannot be lawfully occupied for residential purposes by that person.
- This part of the claim is dismissed.
- In any event, had I had made a finding that the premises were unlawful, I would not have been minded to make a significant rent deduction pursuant to section 78A(4) RTA in this case.
- The tenant sought a full refund of all rent paid for the duration of the tenancy being in the region of $33,000. The sum sought was not at all realistic given all the circumstances of the case.
- The tenant says she was motivated to bring this claim after speaking to Tenancy Services who suggested she investigate the situation. This discussion took place when she contacted them following the death of Mr Anderson concerned about who her landlord was. The tenant lived at the property for just over two years after previously living in a house bus, which she said she chose to do as a lifestyle choice. She says that when she heard about the flat, through an acquaintance who lived there and was moving out, she wanted the chance to try living somewhere new. I am unconvinced that the property did not meet her needs during the tenancy or that it contributed to any health issues (there was no evidence of this). There was also a period of around 6 months, after the landlord died, where the main house was not occupied at all, and she was the only person living on the section. The inside of the property as evidenced by the landlord’s photographs overall show a reasonable unit with a rural outlook.
- Had the tenant been successful in proving her case my order would have likely been limited to a maximum of a 5% rent refund. Failure to maintain the premises
- The tenant says that the landlord failed to maintain the property in relation to the following: a) Mould on the sliding doors at back b) Mould and no underlay on the carpet by the front door c) Ceiling in lounge needed fixing d) Shower – Rotten and rusty e) Kitchen sill – Rotten f) Mouldy kitchen blind g) Foliage on roof needed cutting back h) Carport leaking i) Guttering blocked j) Heat pump not working
- I have considered the law relating to these claims and then have considered each claim individually below. Failure to maintain – The Law
- The landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain certain standards and to comply with applicable requirements. A 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 (s 45(1)(b), RTA).
- It is well settled that, the landlord’s obligation under s 45 RTA is to investigate and repair a defect brought to their attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be. A tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.
- However, I concur with the opinions of the Tribunal in Marks v Godfrey 15/01390, HN 25/08/2015 and [Suppressed] [2021] NZTT 4293251 to the effect that all properties should be checked regularly and maintained as required. There should be preventative maintenance as well as repair. This is implicit in the requirement in s.45(1)(b) RTA that the landlord provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
- Section 40 of the RTA sets out the tenant’s responsibilities, and that includes an obligation to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after the discovery of the need for repairs to the premises.
- The RTA also provides a mechanism for tenants to raise work required at the premises more formally with the landlord, and if the landlord does not comply with that notice, to escalate the matter to the Tenancy Tribunal for orders.
- In particular tenants are able to provide the landlord with a breach notice (a 14- day notice and if work is not completed in a timely way, tenants can seek a work order from the Tenancy Tribunal which would require the landlord to remedy the breach. That is consistent with section 49 which places a duty to mitigate on the parties, that provision holds: Where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of this Act, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract. Principles relating to compensation
- The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has breached the RTA or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. In general, when awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach.
- Appellate Courts have advised of the need to adopt a global approach when considering compensation awards. They have repeatedly emphasised that the assessment of the proper amount of compensation is a question of fact in each case; it is not an exact exercise and a common-sense approach is required; that there are no general or absolute rules for calculating the amount of compensation but that the primary purpose of awarding compensation is to reflect the extent of the loss actually and reasonably suffered by the injured party.
- I now turn to the individual claims. Ceiling
- The ceiling in the lounge is tiled with older style ceiling tiles. The tenant provided photographs to show a section of the ceiling where the tiles had been taped up and then with the tape removed showing there were a number of holes underneath that tape. The tenant says the ceiling was like this from the start of the tenancy. The tenant also says there was a crack not very far from those tiles which was there at the start of the tenancy.
- The tenant says she raised the issue of the ceiling with the landlord a few months into the tenancy and her grandson also raised this with Mr Anderson.
- Ms Charlton says she saw the tiles taped up on an occasion when she discussed other tenancy matters with the tenant (such as the back door which is considered below) and that this discussion was in June/July 2023. She does not know what the ceiling was like at the start of the tenancy and there is no probative evidence. The landlord says that the crack is located above an area in the ceiling where a heat lamp had been located in the ceiling space. A photograph of the lamp, after it was removed, was provided. The tenant did not provide an explanation in relation to this allegation.
- Overall, I am satisfied that the tenant has proven that there was a failure to maintain in relation to the ceiling because the landlord should have realised that there was a problem with the ceiling from at least the time Ms Charlton saw the ceiling taped up on her visit in June/July 2023.
- I find this alone is enough to satisfy the claim that there has been a failure to maintain because I cannot be satisfied that taped up holes, like that pictured, over ceiling tiles amounts to a ceiling that is reasonably maintained.
- However, that said, the tenant did not take any formal steps to get the issue remedied to mitigate her loss and it is not clear to what extent the issue caused her concern or impacted her tenancy or use of the dwelling. The issue appears to be cosmetic and I did not hear submission or evidence otherwise. I therefore decline to award compensation. This part of the claim is dismissed. Shower and kitchen sills
- The tenant says the shower was not maintained because the wood around it was rotten and there was rust on a catch on the shower door.
- The tenant also says the kitchen windowsill is rotten.
- The landlord says there is nothing wrong with the sill or the shower, but Ms Charlton says that when she visited the premises in June/July 2023 the shower needed a clean and she showed the tenant how to do this.
- I am not satisfied that the evidence provided establishes a failure to maintain in relation to these issues – the evidence only establishes a minor or cosmetic issues.
- These claims are dismissed. Carport
- The tenant says the carport leaked. She provided a photograph showing a wet spot she says was taken during the course of the tenancy.
- Ms Charlton says that the day before the hearing, in weather that I accept was extremely wet, she went to the carport and observed no leaks. A photograph was provided of the roof during this extreme rain.
- Given the conflicting accounts, the limited evidence and the nature of the leak complained of, I am not satisfied that the tenant has sufficiently proven this claim and it is dismissed. Kitchen blind
- The tenant says the kitchen blind was mouldy when she moved in. She says she took the blind down. She says she did mention a few things to the landlord but he ‘spun out’ about her asking and she did not want to deal with that.
- She has a photograph she says she took at the start of the tenancy and it shows some mould on a blind.
- The landlord says the blind is missing and that the tenant painted over other blinds.
- I accept that the evidence shows that a blind had some limited mould on it. I have no reason to doubt the fact that the tenant took this photograph when she moved in.
- Even if a failure to maintain was established, this is not a breach for which I would award compensation given the limited nature of the breach and the fact that the tenant decided to remove the blind herself rather than pursue the issue with the landlord. I am not satisfied she has established a loss.
- The claim is dismissed. Heat pump
- The tenant says the property’s heat pump did not work properly and the landlord should have maintained this. She says she told the landlord and he came and pressed it and he said it did work. The tenant says she then chose to use an oil heater and she does not really like heat pumps. The tenant’s power was included in her rent.
- The landlord was limited in the information that could be provided in the light of the passing away of Mr Anderson. It had no reason to consider the heat pump did not work but the remote was missing at the end of the tenancy.
- I am not satisfied that the tenant has proven that the heat pump was not working so that there has been a failure to maintain in respect of this or that she has suffered a loss in any event.
- This claim is dismissed. Overgrown greenery on roof
- The tenant says that the landlord failed to cut back foliage that was overhanging on her roof. She provided a photograph she says was taken just before the greenery was cut back and she says that the property was like this for about a year or 14 months before the maintenance was done but she could not say precisely when that was.
- She says that she raised it a couple of times with the landlord but nothing was done for a period until a maintenance man did come and cut it back – she thought the Mr Anderson liked the purple flowers that were on it.
- Ms Charlton says she recalled Mr Anderson stating to her that he wanted to do this work, but that the tenant had stopped him saying that she liked the flowers there.
- I am satisfied that it was the landlord’s obligation to maintain this foliage. I accept there has been a failure to maintain because the foliage, prior to it being cutback, was at an excessive level and it should have been maintained by the landlord. The tenant’s roof should not have had foliage to this extent on it.
- Regardless of whether a tenant wants work done or not if a property needs maintenance work doing to keep it in a reasonable condition it should be undertaken. However, I accept that if a tenant expresses that they do not want the work to be done then this can cause difficulties in the relationship between the parties and sometimes careful management is needed.
- Given the extent of the foliage and the fact that the landlord clearly knew about it, I find there has been a failure to maintain. However, the tenant did not take any steps to mitigate her loss such as by issuing a 14-day notice or seeking a remedy in the Tribunal.
- The tenant did not set out how this breach impacted on her tenancy although I consider that it follows that it would have, more likely than not, increased the leaves and other debris that would have fallen onto her roof – and therefore would have impacted the debris in her guttering.
- I have therefore accounted for compensation in relation to this breach when making my compensation award that relates to the guttering below. Guttering
- The tenant says her guttering was not maintained because it had leaves in it causing rain to flow out of the guttering. She says she had to clean it herself when she moved in. She says she told Mr Anderson about her doing this and he had replied ‘good on you’.
- She says her attempt did not do much and the gutters were soon overflowing again. There was no evidence that she raised this with Mr Anderson again. She provided evidence by way of a photograph she says was taken in August or September 2024 of the rain overspilling the guttering at the back of the property.
- Despite the tenant not raising the issue with Mr Anderson again I consider that preventative maintenance should have occurred here – especially when the landlord would have been aware of the foliage on the roof as referred to above. I find that there has been a failure to maintain.
- The tenant says that the guttering issue caused mould. However, the landlord says that this was a cleaning and ventilation issue. This is considered further below.
- Overall, while I have not accepted that the tenant has proven that the guttering issue has caused mould (see below), I consider that there would have been some loss of amenity for the tenant. On this basis, I award the tenant compensation limited to two week’s rent being $600 – in making this award I have considered that the tenant could have raised this issue later in the tenancy with the landlord (either formally or informally) to mitigate her loss, or bought the matter to the Tribunal, but did not, and because the extent of the problem would have varied throughout the tenancy (depending on the season). Further, in making this award I have also taken into account the failure to maintain in relation to the foliage that I have referred to above. Back door – Mould
- The tenant says that there was a failure to maintain the premises and relies on mould occurring on the sliding doors at the back of the home. The doors are older in style (in keeping with the likely age of the home (see above)) and single glazed.
- The tenant says that she told the landlord about this about 2 or 3 months after she moved in. She says that he had not been happy about this but Ms Charlton had visited on behalf of the landlord. She says her grandson also spoke to Mr Anderson about the issue when he visited her from Australia in 2023. An email from the tenant’s grandson was provided setting out some basic details but he did not appear before the Tribunal as a witness. The tenant says she got sick of looking at the mould, so she got black paint and painted over the mould about 2 months into the tenancy. Photographic evidence was limited.
- Ms Charlton says that she was asked to visit the tenant by Mr Anderson when the tenant raised this issue and that she visited in June/July 2023. She knew this date because this was when Mr Anderson got sick. Ms Charlton says she would help the landlord with issues from time to time as he became unwell. Her evidence is that she considered this to be a cleaning issue for the tenant. She said there was dirt and pebbles in the drainage track to the door which blocked the vent and once these were removed the door was okay as it drained. She says she could see it was not cleaned and she could see dead flies and dust and she suggested to the tenant that it needed a good clean.
- Ms Charlton says that the tenant did not ventilate the premises – she would keep curtains all closed. The tenant disagrees with that.
- Many houses produce mould. Mould is usually eradicated by wiping with an appropriate cleaner. Mould will grow in a home where humidity remains high, but has difficulty surviving in low humidity. There are two ways to reduce humidity: by heating and ventilation. Responsibility for mould problems can rest with the tenant, if the tenant fails to air and heat the premises properly.
- Given the conflicting evidence about the cause of the mould, I am not satisfied that the tenant has established there has been a failure to maintain in relation to the mould on the backdoor. I have considered it, but I am not satisfied there is a sufficiently proven causative link between the mould on the sliding door and the guttering referred to above.
- This claim is dismissed. Carpet by front door
- The tenant says that the landlord has failed to maintain the carpet by the front door, and that there was no underlay under it and that it was mouldy. She says it was like this from the start of the tenancy.
- The tenant provided photographs of the carpet she says were taken at the end of the tenancy. As set out above she says that she raised the mould with the landlord at the start of the tenancy and the issue was also raised by her grandson, although she says nothing came of that.
- The landlord says that the carpets have become rotten due to the door track being blocked in the way described above. In other words, the moisture was due to the lack of ventilation and the track not being kept clean. Ms Charlton says, with reference to her visit in June/July 2023, that the carpet did get wet, but it dried out and there was no mould. It was however acknowledged that the carpet was threadbare and needed to be replaced.
- I am satisfied that the carpet was not reasonably maintained because it is threadbare in part, and this would have been ongoing for some time – Carpet does not suddenly go threadbare. Therefore, this is something that the landlord should have been aware of. That said, the threadbare area, as proven, is in isolated patches by the door.
- I am not satisfied that the tenant has proven that the mould as pictured (at the end of the tenancy) was there throughout the tenancy or that it was caused by a landlord’s failure to maintain. I have considered it, but I am not satisfied there is a sufficiently proven causative link between the mould on the carpet and the guttering referred to above. I have no reason to prefer this analysis over the landlord’s position that the cause is the moisture from the door tracks which needed to have been kept clean so they could drain.
- The landlord says there was underlay. I also do not consider that it is sufficiently proven that there was no underlay and even if there was, in any event, in these circumstances, I am not satisfied that an absence of underlay would amount to a failure to maintain the premises.
- Given the extent to which this claim is proven and the very limited extent of the proven threadbare areas, and the lack of the tenant taking steps to mitigate her loss, I award the tenant compensation of $50 for this breach. Summary
- After careful consideration of all of the above claims the landlord is to pay the tenant $650. Suppression and filing fee
- The tenant has had some limited success in her application overall given the extent of her claims and the sum she sought. I decline to award the filing fee.
- Neither party wanted suppression of their identifying details, so I have not awarded this.