He challenged the information on his statement and HNZC told him to cut off the part which he was concerned with, which he did and his application was accepted.
However in 2007 he was told by a HNZC officer that he was not allowed to alter his income statement and as he objected to revealing his personal information he did not apply for income related rent subsidy for the next four years, the tribunal said.
As a result, Mr Holmes' rent increased from $42 to $80 a week from 2007 to 2010.
In 2011 when the financial struggle became too much Mr Holmes applied for income related rent, which was approved.
He also managed to obtain a statement which did not have personal details attached.
However, HNZC did not use the income statement Mr Holmes submitted and instead requested their own statement directly from Work and Income, which contained the additional information.
Mr Holmes said he believed this was an over-collection of information.
In 2004, in order to make applications for state housing faster, HNZC entered into an agreement with MSD, which saw MSD adding enhanced information to income statements.
HNZC told the tribunal if any privacy principle was breached, it was a breach by the Ministry of Social Development as they released the information.
However, the tribunal said as part of the agreement they were required to notify an MSD staff member if the additional information was not necessary at the time they made the request for the statement, therefore putting the "onus" on HNZC.
The tribunal found that HNZC interfered with the privacy of Mr Holmes by collecting information that was not necessary so they could determine whether he was eligible for income related rent.
Mr Holmes was awarded $10,000 for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings.
He was also awarded $10,804 for loss of his benefit.
"The award is to compensate for injured feelings, not to punish HNZC.
"The fact remains that for four years Mr Holmes felt compelled to endure the hardship of paying market rent when it was a certainty, known to HNZC, that he should have been paying income related rent.
Mr Holmes was not entitled to costs.
Housing New Zealand respected the findings of the tribunal and would not be appealing its decision, Chief Executive Glen Sowry said.
"The decision relates to a historic matter between Mr Holmes and Housing New Zealand.
"I acknowledge an error was made in our dealings with Mr Holmes in this instance. Our staff deeply respect and value the privacy of our tenants."
Mr Sowry said prior to this ruling, a separate and thorough investigation by the Privacy Commissioner into Mr Holmes' allegations was completed and subsequently closed in 2007.
