Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 5434568 — Rent arrears at 904C West Bank Road, Motueka Valley, Motueka 7196,

Published 5 March 2026 · Application 5434568

Landlord favoured

Rent arrears

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Outcome

Landlord favoured

From published order

Location

Motueka

Tribunal region

Adjudicator

S Young

Dispute themes

Award balance

Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.

Gross award: $1,999.00
Bond payment as ordered: −$900.00
Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord: $1,099.00

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5434568 — net $1,099.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,971.00	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,099.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,099.00

Claims and awards for application 5434568 — net $1,099.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $1,971.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Landlord $1,099.00

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $1,099.00

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee Rent arrears

Order

Lynda Anne Stewart must pay Glyn Peter Evans And Valerie Jane Evans As Trustees For The Evans Family Trust $1,099.00 immediately, being rent arrears to 27 February 2026 and the filing fee.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $900.00 (BN-25085543) to Glyn Peter Evans And Valerie Jane Evans As Trustees For The Evans Family Trust immediately.
The tenant is to remove her belongings from the tenanted premises by no later than 5.00 pm on Sunday 8 March 2026. The landlords are not to be present at the premises whilst the tenant is removing her belongings.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 5 March 2026.
The matter had been part heard remotely by me on 27 February 2026. Orders were made by the Tribunal by consent of the parties that the tenancy was to end immediately. Further orders were made to allow the tenant to uplift her belongings from the premises. For reasons outside the control of the tenant, she was unable to complete the removal of the goods within the time directed. I discussed the issue with the parties at the hearing today and made orders allowing the tenant until 5 pm on Sunday 8 March 2026 to remove her belongings. The landlords are not to be present at the premises during this time. The Law
The relevant law applying to this matter is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant (in this case both the landlord and the tenant), establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. That means that the landlord must prove their claim on the balance of probabilities and the tenant must prove her claim on the balance of probabilities.
The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, 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 more likely than not. This obligation carried by each party in proving their claim, is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
It may be that the Tribunal does not accept that a party has proven their claim to the required legal standing. That is not a finding that the party is not telling the truth, it simply means that the party has not proven their claim to the required legal standard.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke (DC) TT 233/02, 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.”
The parties provided documentation to the Tribunal. Not all of that evidence is referred to in this decision; however, the parties are assured that all evidence has been considered. Landlords’ claims
The relevant tenanted premises are on a large 16-acre block in the country. There are three tenanted units that are in close proximity to each other. The tenant said that her unit was approximately 5 metres away from the neighbouring unit tenanted by Sheryl Watkins.
As the parties had consented to orders being made by the Tribunal terminating the tenancy, the applications by the landlord to terminate the tenancy were withdrawn as they were no longer required. The sole remaining applications by the landlord were for rent arrears, release of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord provided a rent records showing that the rent arrears on the date of the tenancy terminating amounted to $1,971.00.
The tenant said that she had been on court ordered bail. It was a condition of that bail that she does not reside at the premises. She did not think it was reasonable for her to have to pay rent for a period when she could not use the premises.
This was a fixed term tenancy through until 15 December 2026. The tenant’s inability to use the tenanted premises was not as a result of the landlords’ actions. I find that the tenant remained liable for rent owing under the tenancy agreement until such time as that agreement was ended by consent of the parties or by order of the Tribunal. The tenant is ordered to pay rent arrears of $1,971.00 to the landlord. Tenant’s claims
The tenant’s claims are for; • Release of her bond. • Breach of her quiet enjoyment and exemplary damages for harassment. • Unlawful entry by the landlord • Compensation for costs associated with moving. • Compensation for damage to her car. • Reimbursement of the filing fee.
During the course of the hearing other claims arose which had not formed part of the tenant’s initial application to the Tribunal. They were not included in the Tribunal’s order dated 27 February 2026, nor did the tenant raise them at the commencement of today’s hearing when asked to confirm the matters that she wanted the Tribunal to consider. For those reasons, I have not considered claims regarding the tenant’s bond. For the tenant’s benefit, I record that I have checked with the Bond Centre. The records provided show that the bond was lodged by the landlord within the time frame required by s.19(1)(b) RTA. I have not considered whether a receipt was provided by the landlord for the reasons given. Breach of quiet enjoyment
The tenant says that the landlord has breached her quiet enjoyment of the premises. Section 38 RTA in part provides; (1) The tenant shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord or any person claiming by, through, or under the landlord or having superior title to that of the landlord. (2) The landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant. (3) Contravention of subsection (2) of this section in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant is hereby declared to be an unlawful act.... (4) In this section premises includes facilities.
The term “quiet enjoyment” is implied into tenancy agreements which do not include express covenants for quiet enjoyment. The meaning of the term was explained by Pearson LJ in Kenny v Preen [1963] 1 QB 499 (CA) at 511: “The implied covenant for quiet enjoyment is not an absolute covenant protecting a tenant against eviction or interference by anybody, but is a qualified covenant protecting the tenant against interference with the tenant’s quiet and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the premises by the landlord or persons claiming through or under the landlord. The basis of it is that the landlord, by letting the premises, confers on the tenant the right of possession during the term and impliedly promises not to interfere with the tenant’s exercise and use of the right of possession during the term.”
A breach of quiet enjoyment requires more than a personality clash. In Smith v Floris Auckland TT 1404/93, 9 March 1994 at 6, the Tribunal said: “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 agents. Balanced against that, however, one must bear in mind that landlord/tenant relationships tend to be between individuals and that will inevitably involve some interaction between them on a personal level. It is important not to allow a simple clash of personality to become the sole basis for a claim for breach of this type.”
Where the breach of a tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment is sufficiently severe that it amounts to harassment, it is deemed to be an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $2,000 can be awarded: ss38(3), 109(4) and sch 1A RTA.
“Harassment” is not defined in the RTA. However, Judge Harland in Macdonald v Dodds DC Hamilton CIV-2009-019-1524, 26 February 2010 considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was appropriate in the context of s 38(3) RTA. The Court in this 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.
From this definition, 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 Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987 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.”
In support of her claim, the tenant refers to; • The landlord frequently being at the premises. • The landlord being at the premise mowing and weed eating. • Frequent complaints being raised by a tenant of the next-door unit, Sheryl Watkins. • Her car being damaged. • Her trailer being moved.
The tenant says that there was harassment and unannounced visits by the landlord and her neighbour Sheryl Watkins. Sheryl Watkins made complaints about the tenant to both the SPCA and the Police.
The tenant says that between 16 December 2025 and 11 January 2026, the landlord Val Evans, made 11 unannounced visits. Between 1 January 2026 and 11 January 2026 there were 7 unannounced visits by the landlords.
The tenant says that there were an “unknown number of complaints” made by Sheryl Watkins to the landlords and the Police.
The tenant says that she was assaulted by Val Evans on 11 January 2026. Her car had been moved and had been damaged. Her trailer had been moved.
The landlords’ evidence was that they had been away from the area between 20 December 2025 and 3 January 2026 and had not visited the premises at all during that time. Outside that period, the landlord says that she visited the premises on 6 January 2026 and spoke to the tenant and on 11 January 2026.
The landlord denies moving the tenant’s car and says that they did shift the trailer so as to carry out work in the garden.
The tenant says that she was assaulted by the landlord. The landlord denies this and says that it was she that was assaulted by the tenant. The tenant has been charged by the Police with that assault and the hearing of that matter is pending. The burden of proving this claim is with the tenant. The evidence before me is such that I am unable to say that it is more likely than not that the landlord assaulted the tenant, or in fact whether it was the tenant who assaulted the landlord. As the burden of proof is on the tenant, the claim is dismissed.
The burden of proving the remaining quiet enjoyment claims is on the tenant. I found the tenant’s evidence to be vague and unsupported. The landlords’ evidence was direct and was supported where appropriate by witness statements. The landlord was prepared to make concessions where appropriate.
I accept that the tenant’s trailer was moved, but that no damage requiring compensation is appropriate. Otherwise, I prefer the evidence of the landlord where there is a conflict of evidence. I do not consider that there has been a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment, and that no harassment has occurred. What has occurred in my view is that there has been a conflict in personality between the tenant, the landlords and Sheryl Watkins. That does not in the circumstances as I have found them, amount to a breach of quiet enjoyment. The claim is dismissed. Unlawful entry.
The landlord may enter the tenanted unit with the consent of the tenant or after giving the appropriate notice to the tenant. The “premises”, does not include the surrounding curtilage. The landlord may go onto that area without giving notice and without consent, as long as they are there for legitimate purposes. The tenant complains about the landlord being present to mow lawns and weed eat. Those are legitimate reasons for a landlord to be present and I dismiss the claim as it relates to those purposes.
The landlord says that they entered the premises twice without notice or consent from the tenant. Both occasions were to check on the tenant’s pets. Once on 12 January 2026 to release the tenant’s dog and again on 13 January 2026 to check on the tenant’s cats. That is a breach of the right of entry. Section 48(2) RTA allows a landlord to enter without consent or notice “in the case of an emergency”. I consider that entry gained for the reasons given by the landlord was for an emergency as the tenant was no longer able to enter the premises to care for her pets without breaching her bail conditions. The claim is dismissed. Compensation
The tenant says that her car was damaged. No evidence was provided as to how this may have occurred. The burden of proving the claim is on the tenant. As I am not able to say whether it is more likely than not that the landlords caused the damage, the claim is dismissed.
The tenant seeks compensation for moving costs. The tenant is required to move as she has consented to orders being made terminating the tenancy. There is no obligation on the landlord to compensate the landlord for the costs incurred. The claim is dismissed.
It is absolutely clear that there has been a conflict of personalities in this tenancy. That in itself is not the basis for a claim before the Tribunal under the RTA. It is in the best interests of both parties that this tenancy has ended.
As the landlord has wholly succeeded in this hearing, the tenant is ordered to reimburse the filing fee.
The tenant applied for name suppression. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter. The tenant’s application for name suppression is dismissed.

Topics & place

Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).

Rent arrears Motueka

Residential Tenancies Act sections

s13, s38, s38(3), s48(2), s8

Key findings

Dispute theme: rent arrears

Property management

Glyn Peter Evans and Valerie Jane Evans as trustees for the Evans Family Trust (respondent)

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5434568?

The tribunal order states: Lynda Anne Stewart must pay Glyn Peter Evans And Valerie Jane Evans As

How much money was awarded in case 5434568?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,971.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5434568?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5434568?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13233202-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5434568 — net $1,099.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.

Claim

Landlord

Tenant

Reason

Rent arrears

$1,971.00

Rent arrears

Filing fee reimbursement

$28.00

Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

$1,099.00

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

$1,099.00

Order

Lynda Anne Stewart must pay Glyn Peter Evans And Valerie Jane Evans As Trustees For The Evans Family Trust $1,099.00 immediately, being rent arrears to 27 February 2026 and the filing fee.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $900.00 (BN-25085543) to Glyn Peter Evans And Valerie Jane Evans As Trustees For The Evans Family Trust immediately.

The tenant is to remove her belongings from the tenanted premises by no later than 5.00 pm on Sunday 8 March 2026. The landlords are not to be present at the premises whilst the tenant is removing her belongings.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 5 March 2026.

The matter had been part heard remotely by me on 27 February 2026. Orders were made by the Tribunal by consent of the parties that the tenancy was to end immediately. Further orders were made to allow the tenant to uplift her belongings from the premises. For reasons outside the control of the tenant, she was unable to complete the removal of the goods within the time directed. I discussed the issue with the parties at the hearing today and made orders allowing the tenant until 5 pm on Sunday 8 March 2026 to remove her belongings. The landlords are not to be present at the premises during this time. The Law

The relevant law applying to this matter is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant (in this case both the landlord and the tenant), establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. That means that the landlord must prove their claim on the balance of probabilities and the tenant must prove her claim on the balance of probabilities.

The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, 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 more likely than not. This obligation carried by each party in proving their claim, is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.

It may be that the Tribunal does not accept that a party has proven their claim to the required legal standing. That is not a finding that the party is not telling the truth, it simply means that the party has not proven their claim to the required legal standard.

As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke (DC) TT 233/02, 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.”

The parties provided documentation to the Tribunal. Not all of that evidence is referred to in this decision; however, the parties are assured that all evidence has been considered. Landlords’ claims

The relevant tenanted premises are on a large 16-acre block in the country. There are three tenanted units that are in close proximity to each other. The tenant said that her unit was approximately 5 metres away from the neighbouring unit tenanted by Sheryl Watkins.

As the parties had consented to orders being made by the Tribunal terminating the tenancy, the applications by the landlord to terminate the tenancy were withdrawn as they were no longer required. The sole remaining applications by the landlord were for rent arrears, release of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.

The landlord provided a rent records showing that the rent arrears on the date of the tenancy terminating amounted to $1,971.00.

The tenant said that she had been on court ordered bail. It was a condition of that bail that she does not reside at the premises. She did not think it was reasonable for her to have to pay rent for a period when she could not use the premises.

This was a fixed term tenancy through until 15 December 2026. The tenant’s inability to use the tenanted premises was not as a result of the landlords’ actions. I find that the tenant remained liable for rent owing under the tenancy agreement until such time as that agreement was ended by consent of the parties or by order of the Tribunal. The tenant is ordered to pay rent arrears of $1,971.00 to the landlord. Tenant’s claims

The tenant’s claims are for; • Release of her bond. • Breach of her quiet enjoyment and exemplary damages for harassment. • Unlawful entry by the landlord • Compensation for costs associated with moving. • Compensation for damage to her car. • Reimbursement of the filing fee.

During the course of the hearing other claims arose which had not formed part of the tenant’s initial application to the Tribunal. They were not included in the Tribunal’s order dated 27 February 2026, nor did the tenant raise them at the commencement of today’s hearing when asked to confirm the matters that she wanted the Tribunal to consider. For those reasons, I have not considered claims regarding the tenant’s bond. For the tenant’s benefit, I record that I have checked with the Bond Centre. The records provided show that the bond was lodged by the landlord within the time frame required by s.19(1)(b) RTA. I have not considered whether a receipt was provided by the landlord for the reasons given. Breach of quiet enjoyment

The tenant says that the landlord has breached her quiet enjoyment of the premises. Section 38 RTA in part provides; (1) The tenant shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord or any person claiming by, through, or under the landlord or having superior title to that of the landlord. (2) The landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant. (3) Contravention of subsection (2) of this section in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant is hereby declared to be an unlawful act.... (4) In this section premises includes facilities.

The term “quiet enjoyment” is implied into tenancy agreements which do not include express covenants for quiet enjoyment. The meaning of the term was explained by Pearson LJ in Kenny v Preen [1963] 1 QB 499 (CA) at 511: “The implied covenant for quiet enjoyment is not an absolute covenant protecting a tenant against eviction or interference by anybody, but is a qualified covenant protecting the tenant against interference with the tenant’s quiet and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the premises by the landlord or persons claiming through or under the landlord. The basis of it is that the landlord, by letting the premises, confers on the tenant the right of possession during the term and impliedly promises not to interfere with the tenant’s exercise and use of the right of possession during the term.”

A breach of quiet enjoyment requires more than a personality clash. In Smith v Floris Auckland TT 1404/93, 9 March 1994 at 6, the Tribunal said: “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 agents. Balanced against that, however, one must bear in mind that landlord/tenant relationships tend to be between individuals and that will inevitably involve some interaction between them on a personal level. It is important not to allow a simple clash of personality to become the sole basis for a claim for breach of this type.”

Where the breach of a tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment is sufficiently severe that it amounts to harassment, it is deemed to be an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $2,000 can be awarded: ss38(3), 109(4) and sch 1A RTA.

“Harassment” is not defined in the RTA. However, Judge Harland in Macdonald v Dodds DC Hamilton CIV-2009-019-1524, 26 February 2010 considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was appropriate in the context of s 38(3) RTA. The Court in this 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.

From this definition, 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 Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987 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.”

In support of her claim, the tenant refers to; • The landlord frequently being at the premises. • The landlord being at the premise mowing and weed eating. • Frequent complaints being raised by a tenant of the next-door unit, Sheryl Watkins. • Her car being damaged. • Her trailer being moved.

The tenant says that there was harassment and unannounced visits by the landlord and her neighbour Sheryl Watkins. Sheryl Watkins made complaints about the tenant to both the SPCA and the Police.

The tenant says that between 16 December 2025 and 11 January 2026, the landlord Val Evans, made 11 unannounced visits. Between 1 January 2026 and 11 January 2026 there were 7 unannounced visits by the landlords.

The tenant says that there were an “unknown number of complaints” made by Sheryl Watkins to the landlords and the Police.

The tenant says that she was assaulted by Val Evans on 11 January 2026. Her car had been moved and had been damaged. Her trailer had been moved.

The landlords’ evidence was that they had been away from the area between 20 December 2025 and 3 January 2026 and had not visited the premises at all during that time. Outside that period, the landlord says that she visited the premises on 6 January 2026 and spoke to the tenant and on 11 January 2026.

The landlord denies moving the tenant’s car and says that they did shift the trailer so as to carry out work in the garden.

The tenant says that she was assaulted by the landlord. The landlord denies this and says that it was she that was assaulted by the tenant. The tenant has been charged by the Police with that assault and the hearing of that matter is pending. The burden of proving this claim is with the tenant. The evidence before me is such that I am unable to say that it is more likely than not that the landlord assaulted the tenant, or in fact whether it was the tenant who assaulted the landlord. As the burden of proof is on the tenant, the claim is dismissed.

The burden of proving the remaining quiet enjoyment claims is on the tenant. I found the tenant’s evidence to be vague and unsupported. The landlords’ evidence was direct and was supported where appropriate by witness statements. The landlord was prepared to make concessions where appropriate.

I accept that the tenant’s trailer was moved, but that no damage requiring compensation is appropriate. Otherwise, I prefer the evidence of the landlord where there is a conflict of evidence. I do not consider that there has been a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment, and that no harassment has occurred. What has occurred in my view is that there has been a conflict in personality between the tenant, the landlords and Sheryl Watkins. That does not in the circumstances as I have found them, amount to a breach of quiet enjoyment. The claim is dismissed. Unlawful entry.

The landlord may enter the tenanted unit with the consent of the tenant or after giving the appropriate notice to the tenant. The “premises”, does not include the surrounding curtilage. The landlord may go onto that area without giving notice and without consent, as long as they are there for legitimate purposes. The tenant complains about the landlord being present to mow lawns and weed eat. Those are legitimate reasons for a landlord to be present and I dismiss the claim as it relates to those purposes.

The landlord says that they entered the premises twice without notice or consent from the tenant. Both occasions were to check on the tenant’s pets. Once on 12 January 2026 to release the tenant’s dog and again on 13 January 2026 to check on the tenant’s cats. That is a breach of the right of entry. Section 48(2) RTA allows a landlord to enter without consent or notice “in the case of an emergency”. I consider that entry gained for the reasons given by the landlord was for an emergency as the tenant was no longer able to enter the premises to care for her pets without breaching her bail conditions. The claim is dismissed. Compensation

The tenant says that her car was damaged. No evidence was provided as to how this may have occurred. The burden of proving the claim is on the tenant. As I am not able to say whether it is more likely than not that the landlords caused the damage, the claim is dismissed.

The tenant seeks compensation for moving costs. The tenant is required to move as she has consented to orders being made terminating the tenancy. There is no obligation on the landlord to compensate the landlord for the costs incurred. The claim is dismissed.

It is absolutely clear that there has been a conflict of personalities in this tenancy. That in itself is not the basis for a claim before the Tribunal under the RTA. It is in the best interests of both parties that this tenancy has ended.

As the landlord has wholly succeeded in this hearing, the tenant is ordered to reimburse the filing fee.

The tenant applied for name suppression. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter. The tenant’s application for name suppression is dismissed.