What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4516990 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4516990?

Compensation: $220.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4516990?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4516990?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9380055-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4516990 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4516990?

Compensation: $220.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4516990?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4516990?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9380055-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

16A Lynbrooke Avenue, Blockhouse Bay, Auckland 0600 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4516990 — Exemplary damages

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4516990 — net $990.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$220.00	Compensation
Exemplary damages: not lodging bond	$750.00	not lodging bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$990.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$990.44

Both parties attended the hearing. [The tenant/s] and Mr Zhu and Ms Zou, the landlords.

The tenancy appeared to be a good tenancy with both parties having a reasonably good relationship with each other. This was affected by the flooding on 27 January 2023 and again on 3 February 2023.

At the start of the hearing, [The tenant/s] confirmed part of the claim had been resolved. She has been paid the 3 weeks of rent overpayment due to the floods as well as her bond.

[The tenant/s] seeks the following: (a) exemplary damages for the landlord not filing the bond; (b) compensation for missing out on opportunities of getting another rental due to not getting her bond back in a timely manner, taking time off work and for her and her sister travelling to the property to seek repayment of the rent and bond.

The landlord does not dispute the bond was not lodged with the Bond Centre.

The landlord intended to lodge the bond but forgot to do this. The landlord had to go to China for something urgent, ending up there for 5 months. Their daughter looked after the tenancy in NZ in the meantime. The obligation to lodge the bond did not disappear with the landlord not being in New Zealand.

A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

I find they have committed an unlawful act.

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord should have been aware of the obligation to lodge the tenant’s bond. This is the tenant’s money, not for the landlord’s use without lawful authority.

It is in the public interest that bonds are lodged at the bond centre to avoid problems like this occurring. For this reason, exemplary damages of $750.00 are awarded to the tenant.

In terms of the claim for compensation, I do not consider it reasonable the landlord has to pay a cost for the tenant having to take time off work after the flood occurred. This was in the context of a natural disaster and had an effect on both the tenant and landlord.

It was also a time of uncertainty of tenancies. However, the stress to the tenant to keep seeking the bond to be paid out took longer than necessary. The tenant and her sister had to drive to the tenant’s home on at least 2 occasions about rent overpayment and the bond, mostly paid in cash. On that basis, I award $220.00 compensation which equates to one week rent.

Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

The tenant is seeking suppression of identifying details in any publication of this order. If a party has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings the Tribunal must make the order 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. Section 95A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant has been substantially successful in these proceedings. Having considered the factors in this case the Tribunal grants suppression as sought.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4516990 — net $990.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$220.00	Compensation
Exemplary damages: not lodging bond	$750.00	not lodging bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$990.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$990.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
De Qing Zhu must pay [The tenant/s] $990.44 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [The tenant/s] and Mr Zhu and Ms Zou, the landlords.
The tenancy appeared to be a good tenancy with both parties having a reasonably good relationship with each other. This was affected by the flooding on 27 January 2023 and again on 3 February 2023.
At the start of the hearing, [The tenant/s] confirmed part of the claim had been resolved. She has been paid the 3 weeks of rent overpayment due to the floods as well as her bond.
[The tenant/s] seeks the following: (a) exemplary damages for the landlord not filing the bond; (b) compensation for missing out on opportunities of getting another rental due to not getting her bond back in a timely manner, taking time off work and for her and her sister travelling to the property to seek repayment of the rent and bond.
The landlord does not dispute the bond was not lodged with the Bond Centre.
The landlord intended to lodge the bond but forgot to do this. The landlord had to go to China for something urgent, ending up there for 5 months. Their daughter looked after the tenancy in NZ in the meantime. The obligation to lodge the bond did not disappear with the landlord not being in New Zealand.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord should have been aware of the obligation to lodge the tenant’s bond. This is the tenant’s money, not for the landlord’s use without lawful authority.
It is in the public interest that bonds are lodged at the bond centre to avoid problems like this occurring. For this reason, exemplary damages of $750.00 are awarded to the tenant.
In terms of the claim for compensation, I do not consider it reasonable the landlord has to pay a cost for the tenant having to take time off work after the flood occurred. This was in the context of a natural disaster and had an effect on both the tenant and landlord.
It was also a time of uncertainty of tenancies. However, the stress to the tenant to keep seeking the bond to be paid out took longer than necessary. The tenant and her sister had to drive to the tenant’s home on at least 2 occasions about rent overpayment and the bond, mostly paid in cash. On that basis, I award $220.00 compensation which equates to one week rent.
Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenant is seeking suppression of identifying details in any publication of this order. If a party has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings the Tribunal must make the order 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. Section 95A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant has been substantially successful in these proceedings. Having considered the factors in this case the Tribunal grants suppression as sought.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4516990 — Exemplary damages at 16A Lynbrooke Avenue, Blockhouse Bay, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4516990 — Exemplary damages at 16A Lynbrooke Avenue, Blockhouse Bay, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions