What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5336484?

The tribunal order states: Shirley Carse must pay Yucheng Zeng $1,088.00 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5336484?

Compensation: Internet: $10.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: s 38 RTA breach of qui…: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5336484?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5336484?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13346168-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5336484?

The tribunal order states: Shirley Carse must pay Yucheng Zeng $1,088.00 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5336484?

Compensation: Internet: $10.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: s 38 RTA breach of qui…: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5336484?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5336484?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13346168-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

62 Te Hono Street, Maungatapu, Tauranga 3112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5336484 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5336484 — net $1,088.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: s 13 RTA -tenancy agreement	$250.00	s 13 RTA -tenancy agreement
Compensation: Internet	$10.00	Internet
Exemplary damages: s 48 RTA- unlawful entry	$500.00	s 48 RTA- unlawful entry
Compensation: s 38 RTA breach of quiet enjoyment	$300.00	s 38 RTA breach of quiet enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	ordered that the landlord reimburse the filing fee paid for the application of $28. 23 SUPPRESSION
Net award	$1,088.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,088.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5336484 — net $1,088.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: s 13 RTA -tenancy agreement	$250.00	s 13 RTA -tenancy agreement
Compensation: Internet	$10.00	Internet
Exemplary damages: s 48 RTA- unlawful entry	$500.00	s 48 RTA- unlawful entry
Compensation: s 38 RTA breach of quiet enjoyment	$300.00	s 38 RTA breach of quiet enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	ordered that the landlord reimburse the filing fee paid for the application of $28. 23 SUPPRESSION
Net award	$1,088.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,088.00

Order

Shirley Carse must pay Yucheng Zeng $1,088.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held over three days.
The tenant was assisted with a mandarin interpreter
The first hearing was in respect of jurisdiction and on 28 October 2025 I made a finding that there was a residential tenancy between the parties and the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) applies.
This dispute relates to a tenancy where the tenant resided in a granny flat attached to the landlord’s home. There was no written tenancy agreement between the parties. The tenant now claims the landlord has breached a number of obligations.
The tenant advised at the outset of the hearing that the bond had been refunded and no further claim was made with respect to any issue with the bond and the tenant withdrew the claim in respect to a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards. However, at the second hearing the tenant raised additional claims which were recorded in the order following the hearing. At the last hearing the tenant asked to amend the claim to include exemplary damages for the bond not being lodged. I declined to hear this claim as it was not raised at the two previous hearings or before this hearing.
The tenancy commenced on 7 July 2025 and ended on 8 September 2025.

ISSUES

The issues for determination are: a. Did the landlord fail to provide a tenancy agreement? b. Did the landlord unlawfully increase the bond? c. Did the landlord interfere with the tenant’s internet service? d. Did the landlord unlawfully enter the premises? e. Did the landlord cause or permit interference with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort or privacy in his use of the premises, and if so, did this amount to harassment? f. If any breaches are proven, should compensation and/or exemplary damages be ordered? g. Should the tenant be reimbursed the filing fee? h. What, if any, orders should be made with respect to suppression?

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. 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. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... “[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” Exemplary damages
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell 1 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. 2
Intention is proved where the party turns their mind to the unlawful act and deliberately sets out to commit the act. It is unnecessary to prove that the party intended to act unlawfully, it is enough that they intended to commit the act which is in fact unlawful. Lack of knowledge of a particular obligation they have failed to perform or ignorance of the law is no defence. 3
Exemplary damages must be ordered on a global basis, rather than for each and every breach separately under the same provision of the RTA. 4 The Tribunal’s usual approach to exemplary damages is to award one third of the maximum unless there are aggravating or mitigating factors in play. 5 1 Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732(Cooke P) 2 Section 109 of the RTA. 3 TMT New Zealand Limited T/A Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182 4 Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment v Hillis Shearing Limited [2024] NZDC 27583 5 Wellington Property Management Ltd v Hardie [2022] NZTT 4399281 4374781. 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 6 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the nature, duration and effect of the breach when deciding to award compensation.

FAILURE TO PROVIDE A TENANCY AGREEMENT

The tenant claims the landlord has not ensured the tenancy agreement is in writing and/or did not sign the tenancy agreement and provide a copy to the tenant.
A landlord must ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing, signed and a copy provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing. 7
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. 8
The landlord did not provide a tenancy agreement. I find they have committed an unlawful act. The landlord says that following a discussion around whether a tenancy agreement would be entered into the parties agreed that they would not enter a tenancy agreement due to the uncertainty in the tenant’s plans. This is not an acceptable reason for the absence of a tenancy agreement.
Given the Tribunal has found that this was a residential tenancy there is an obligation on the landlord to provide a tenancy agreement and have the tenant signed the tenancy agreement before a tenancy commences. The tenant raised during the tenancy that this was a residential tenancy therefore in my view the landlord should have provided a tenancy agreement.
I turn now to the relevant factors to consider when deciding to award exemplary damages.
Intent: The landlord acted intentionally by not ensuring that the tenancy agreement was in writing and signed.
Effect: The effect of the agreement not being in writing is that there was much uncertainty as to the nature and terms of the agreement. The lack of a tenancy agreement had an impact on the tenant as he was not aware of his entitlements and obligations in relation to this tenancy, however I consider 6 Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667. 7 See section 13 Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 8 See section 13(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. there is insufficient evidence that he requested one at any time, despite him saying he did so in the application form.
Interests of the tenant: It is in the tenant’s interest to receive exemplary damages for the unlawful act committed against him.
Public interest: It is in the public interest that landlords ensure that tenancy agreements are in writing as verbal agreements and text messages with only some of the required information create uncertainty.
In considering these factors I find it just to make an award of $250.00 exemplary damages, being a third of the maximum.

UNLAWFUL BOND INCREASE

The tenant claims the landlord requested a bond of more than four weeks rent.
A landlord must not require a bond of greater than four weeks rent. 9
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. 10
Rent was $440 per week. The tenant paid a bond of $400.
The tenant says the landlord unlawfully required more bond money by email of 18 August 2025. The tenant says that he did not respond to the request and the landlord came to his property asking him why he had not responded. The tenant responded that he required all future correspondence by text or emails because he was feeling pressured with the face-to-face communication. The tenant did not pay a further bond and the landlord did not pursue the matter.
The landlord says the request for one weeks rent to be paid in advance and says the tenant did not pay rent in advance.
On my reading of the landlord’s email, she was asking for one weeks rent to be paid in advance. The tenant did not pay the one weeks rent in advance. I accept that the way the landlord has phrased the email that she would hold that one weeks rent in advance with the cleaning bond has added confusion, but I am not satisfied she has asked for any further bond money. Accordingly, I am not satisfied the landlord has breached any obligation or committed an unlawful act in relation to the bond. The claim in respect of the bond is dismissed.

INTERFERING WITH SERVICES

The tenant claims the landlord has interfered with the services to the premises by disrupting the internet connection. 9 See section 18(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 10 See section 18(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord must not interfere with the supply of gas, electricity, water, telephone services, or other services to the premises, except where the interference is necessary to avoid danger to any person or to enable maintenance or repairs to be carried out. 11 Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. 12 In Ross v Miller 13 the Tribunal provided useful guidance on the meaning of the term “interfere with” and said: The Act does not define “interfere with”. In the Oxford Desk Dictionary and Thesaurus, American Edition, its meanings include “get in the way of, impede, hamper” and “intrude, interrupt, barge in, pry, meddle”. Section 45(2) does not use the words “cut off”, “stop”, or “end” the service. The meaning of interfere is clearly wider than that. I conclude that Mr Miller's actions in changing the nature of the plan “got in the way of” or “meddled with” the supply of internet services to Ms Ross, albeit she still had a supply of up to 5G per month. An unlawful act has therefore been committed.
The tenant says that he was at home for two days studying and he required the internet. He says that the internet had been disconnected by the landlord as opposed to something at the internet providers end because the Wi-Fi could not be seen on his mobile. He says given the landlord had gone away and because the Wi-Fi stopped immediately after she left that she must have turned it off.
The landlord says that she was away and as soon as she was notified of the issue with the internet, she contacted the Internet provider. The landlord said she she confirmed to the tenant the next day that the issue should have been resolved. In reviewing the evidence I’m not satisfied that the tenant has proven that the landlord has taken any specific step disconnect the Internet, for example by turning off the Internet router. Given the landlord promptly attended to rectifying the issue I am not satisfied that the landlord has committed an unlawful act of interfering with the internet service and this claim is dismissed.
However, the internet was provided with the tenancy, and the tenant appears to have had no internet for approximately a night and day (not several days as he said in his evidence). I consider he should be compensated for this, and I consider $10 reasonably compensates the tenant for the lack of internet over this short time.

UNLAWFUL ENTRY

11 RTA, S 45 (2). 12 RTA, s s 45 (2) (A) and Schedule 1A RTA. 13 Ross v Miller (TT 15/01233, Tauranga, 15 April 2016) at para 56.

The tenant claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice. 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. 14 Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. 15 Unlawful entry – this case
The tenant says the landlord entered the property unlawfully on two occasions without his consent and with notice. I note that the previous order in relation to jurisdiction said the landlord only went into the property when invited by the tenant however it was clarified at this hearing that was not the case.
The first occasion was on 9 July 2025, three days after the tenancy commenced. The landlord acknowledged entering the premises but says that she explained to the tenant that she had recently had the shower installed and was concerned that there was an issue with the plug and was concerned that the shower would not drain. She told the tenant she would enter the property to check whether it required repair by the builder. She says that she gave the tenant notice that she would enter the property in the next few days and that she entered on one occasion. She says the tenant acknowledged her intention to enter and did not raise any concern.
The landlord advised the tenant after entering the property that she had done so, therefore I consider she was transparent about entering the property. However, she did not have consent as consent of the tenant must be freely given at, or immediately before, the time of entry. 16
On the second occasion being 26 August 2025, the landlord entered the premises but did not notify the tenant beforehand that she would be entering the premises. The landlord acknowledged entering the premises and says she went into the property very briefly to assess the smell as she was trying to make some decisions as to what to do with the property when the tenant, who had already given notice, had left.
The landlord says she opened a window but disputes leaving the door open. The landlord was transparent about entering the premises on this occasion. I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
I turn now to the relevant factors to consider when determining to make an order for exemplary damages. 14 See section 48(1) and (2) RTA. 15 See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA. 16 See s 48 (1)(a) RTA.
Intent - The landlord intentionally entered the premises on two occasions and without giving the proper written notice or having proper consent. The landlord however believed she had the general agreement to do so on the first occasion.
Effect - The tenant’s privacy was impacted by the landlord entering the premises when he was not home.
Interests of tenant - It is in the interest of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the unlawful act committed against him
Public interest -There is a public interest to deterring landlord’s from breaching their obligations with respect to entry to tenant’s homes.
I consider it is just to award exemplary damages. I consider a third of the maximum of $500 is appropriate in the circumstances and that is the amount ordered.

BREACH OF QUIET ENJOYMENT

The tenant claims the landlord has breached his quiet enjoyment to a level that amounts to harassment. The Law – breach of quiet enjoyment
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. 17 Quiet enjoyment means effectively the right not to have the quality of the tenancy significantly impaired by actions of the landlord and/or the landlord’s agent. 18 Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. 19
The term “Harassment” is not defined in the Act. It is defined in s 3 of the Harassment Act 1997 which deals with harassment in the context of either a criminal charge or the making of a restraining order against a person. However Judge Harland in MacDonald v Dodds 20 , considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was more appropriate in the context of s 38(3), rather than the definition in the Harassment Act. The Court in that case adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or exhaust”. The Judge accepted that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person. In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “harass” is defined as “torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation”. Further assistance can be obtained from the 17 See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 18 Smith v Floris Auckland TT 1404/93, 9 March 1994 at [6]. 19 See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA. 20 MacDonald v Dodds CIV-2009-019-1524, (District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010 definition in Black’s Law Dictionary where harassment is defined as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose. From these definitions, it seems that there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However, in Whatiura v Shoulder 21 the Adjudicator noted that “although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.” Breach of quiet enjoyment – this case
The tenant’s concerns in this case are as follows: Rubbish arrangements
The tenant said that the landlord required him to take out the rubbish unfairly because his rent included rubbish handling. The tenant said the landlord unreasonably expected that he use specific bags for the food scrap waste. The tenant said the landlord moved the rubbish bin away from his premises during the last week of the tenancy.
The tenant said that the dispute in relation to the rubbish was only a minor issue but reflects the landlord generally increasing his responsibilities unlawfully.
The landlord explained that the tenant asked if he could help with anything and she asked if he could assist with the rubbish, and while he did so a couple of times during the tenancy, it was not shared. The landlord said she would generally use biodegradable bags to reduce the mess of food scraps in the food scrap bin. She said that she arranged to put in a paper bag into the food scrap waste when the tenant used a plastic bag that resulted in the Council not taking their food scrap bin.
The landlord said that the bin was left further from the tenant’s home in his last week which appears to have been a convenience at the time.
I consider the tenant should have anticipated sharing the task of taking out the rubbish. The tenant is responsible for his rubbish. I consider the advertisement indicated that the cost of rubbish was include in the rent, not the handling of the rubbish.
I consider the tenant is responsible for taking out a rubbish bin and in this case given there was one set of bins for both the landlord and the tenant it was not unreasonable for the landlord to discuss with the tenant how he might assist 21 Whatiura v Shoulder Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987. with taking out the rubbish and how he might use a certain bag to assist with sorting the rubbish and reduce any need for bin cleaning.
I consider it likely the landlord largely dealt with the rubbish and I consider it was not unreasonable for the landlord to have the rubbish bin near her premises which was a matter of convenience when she brought the bins in shortly before the tenancy ended. There is no evidence to suggest that she was stopping the tenant from using the rubbish bin.
The disputes and differences around the rubbish do not in my view amount to the landlord breaching the tenants quite enjoyment of the property. For these reasons this aspect of the claim is dismissed. Cleaning shower
The tenant said the landlord had a specific requirement of how he was to wipe the shower door and that the landlords’ instructions on how to clean the shower created greater obligations on him.
The landlord explained that the shower had recently been installed and had been treated to prevent watermarks and when the tenant moved in she explained the instructions for washing the shower in line with the treatment (that is with a squeegee that she provided and dishwashing liquid only).
I am not satisfied that the landlord explaining how the shower was meant to be cleaned would amount to a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises and this aspect of the claim is dismissed. Landlord’s presence outside
The tenant says that following raising his concerns about her actions on 18 August 2025 and him giving notice the landlord more frequently was outside his premises going to and from a shed near his premises.
The landlord disputed changing how often she was present outside the tenant’s home but acknowledges she parks her car nearby and would have to go to the shed near his flat from time to time. The landlord says the tenant would greet her frequently. She says if anything she avoided the tenant near the end of the tenancy.
I consider the landlord lives on the property in the larger home adjacent to the tenants’ premises. She is entitled to use the shared exterior of the property and the tenant has not provided sufficient evidence in terms of specific days and times or documentary evidence for me to find there was an issue that the landlord was persistently outside the tenant’s premises to a level that would amount to a breach of quiet enjoyment. This aspect of the claim is dismissed. Windows and blinds / Ventilation
The tenant complains that the landlord told him that she required him to ventilate the premises more than necessary or reasonable.
The tenant says the landlord was persistently advising him to use the extractor fan and open all windows when cooking. The tenant also said the landlord would tell him to put the blinds down to stop the sun coming through so that the sun would not leave a mark on the wall. He has submitted one email in which the landlord referred to ventilating the home dated 15 August 2025.
In that email the landlord said: Also just a friendly reminder about airing the house thoroughly every day so cooking smells don’t accumulate. Please use the rangehood on full and open the doors and windows as much as possible when cooking and close the bedroom door while cooking to avoid smells going into that room. During the day when you are at the school, please leave the bathroom and kitchen windows fully open and pull up the blind in the kitchen a bit to allow the air to get in. Each day, unless it is raining heavily, please open all the windows and doors, including your bedroom window, for a good while to allow the house to air thoroughly and get rid of any cooking smells please. The bathroom window should be opened after showering to avoid mould. It’s really important cooking smells are out each day, otherwise this smell starts to get into the furnishings, blinds and walls. My last tenants were not very good at doing this and had to pay for the repainting of the flat when they left, at a cost to them of $600. I don’t want to go through that again and I’m sure you don’t want that either.
The landlord acknowledges that she reminded the tenant that he needs to open windows and use the extractor fan when cooking. The landlord acknowledged that she may have been repetitive. The landlord said that she and the tenant would speak in passing given they lived in such proximity.
The landlord disputed asking the tenant to leave the blinds down.
On balance, I consider the tenant did not provide sufficient information about days and times in respect of the landlord making verbal comments about ventilation. I also consider it unlikely that the landlord would have told the tenant to leave his blinds down which does not align with his evidence that she wanted the premises to be well ventilated. I consider it likely that the tenant has misunderstood what the landlord told him about the blinds.
However, I consider the third paragraph of the landlord’s email was inappropriate. I consider it was unnecessary for the landlord to tell the tenant that the previous tenants were liable for repainting following the last tenancy and implying she might charge him the same. Concerns around smells and cleanliness are more appropriately dealt with through a proper inspection process and an inspection report being provided to the tenant. I consider this email would have been unsettling to the tenant and I consider the tenant should be compensated for this breach of his quiet enjoyment of the premises. I will address compensation below. Power
The tenant says that the landlord caused him stress by unfairly invoicing him for half the power which included approximately 1 week when he was not in the premises.
The landlord says it was agreed at the start of the tenancy that power would be shared equally. The landlord explained that the premises had a separate meter however she did not check it at the commencement of the tenancy and she suggested they share the costs. When the tenant challenged this she said for him to not worry about it. The landlord was prepared to accept a nominal fee for the power for the tenancy duration, despite her view that his consumption was high. The parties ultimately agreed to the tenant paying $200 of the power bill.
The landlord incorrectly calculated or estimated the tenants’ power liability, however I am not satisfied that a dispute about the power costs, that was properly and promptly resolved in a reasonable manner by the landlord amounts to a breach of quiet enjoyment of the tenant’s use of the property and this aspect of the claim is dismissed. Outcome:
I find that the landlord has not committed an unlawful act because I do not consider the behaviour alleged to be harassment. However, I do consider that the tenant has proven a breach of his quiet enjoyment of the tenancy by way of the email he received from the landlord on 15 August 2025.
I consider compensation in the sum of $300 reasonably compensates the tenant for this breach. I accept the tenant would have been alarmed by this one email however I consider the overall impact would not have been significant.

OTHER MATTERS

The tenant has applied for the landlord to email him a written apology. This claim was withdrawn at the second hearing. There is no jurisdiction in the RTA in any event to make such an order and this claim is dismissed. 22
The landlord had a witness give evidence in relation to the cleaning undertaken at the end of the tenancy. This evidence was disputed by the 22 See section 78 RTA. tenant but I consider it was of little value in aiding me with determining these matters in any event.

FILING FEE

Because the tenant has been partly successful in the claim, I have ordered that the landlord reimburse the filing fee paid for the application of $28. 23

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. 24
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 particulars of any witness or party not be published and may attach any conditions to that order the Tribunal considers appropriate. 25
The tenant did not seek name suppression.
The landlord applied for name suppression; however, she has not been substantially successful in defending the tenant’s claims, both in respect of jurisdiction and the breaches of the RTA and the public interest favours publication, therefore name suppression is declined.

At a glance

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

ISSUES

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

FAILURE TO PROVIDE A TENANCY AGREEMENT

UNLAWFUL BOND INCREASE

INTERFERING WITH SERVICES

UNLAWFUL ENTRY

BREACH OF QUIET ENJOYMENT

OTHER MATTERS

FILING FEE

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

ISSUES

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

FAILURE TO PROVIDE A TENANCY AGREEMENT

UNLAWFUL BOND INCREASE

INTERFERING WITH SERVICES

UNLAWFUL ENTRY

BREACH OF QUIET ENJOYMENT

OTHER MATTERS

FILING FEE

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions