What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4685689 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 4685689?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4685689?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4685689?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9454020-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4685689 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 4685689?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4685689?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4685689?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9454020-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

18 New Street, Saint Marys Bay, Auckland 1011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4685689 — Exemplary damages

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the [The tenant/s] name and identifying details.
Executive Property Management Residential Rentals Limited As Agent For Gp Trustee Company Ltd (Ken Erskine & Joana Allan) Merrill Guttenbeil
Ken Erskine & Joana Allan are to lodge the bond monies of [The tenant/s] with Bond Services within seven (7) days.

Reasons

The Tenant attended the hearing.
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
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.
The landlord failed to lodge the bond within 23 working days. 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.
In Chowdhury v Dugh and Ors 1 evidence confirmed the landlord's intentional breach due to a standard tenancy agreement’s explicitness, the landlord's experience, and continued non-compliance even after the tenant raised the issue.
The Tribunal decision references NZ International Property Development Limited T/As Sunshine Housing v Dunn and Kelly, 2 where a late lodgement of a bond by a relatively inexperienced landlord resulted in exemplary damages of $200. This was considered 'relatively nominal' by Judge Doherty, reflecting the inexperience and 'naivety' of the landlord in that specific case.
Exemplary damages serves a public interest in ensuring landlords abide by statutory responsibilities. The bond system is specifically there to protect vulnerable tenants. Even for inexperienced landlords, there’s a clear indication that some form of deterrent is essential to maintain the public interest.
In Chowdhury, the landlord was fined $330, which is described as being on the 'lower level' of potential awards, given there was no evidence of habitual behaviour on the landlord's part.
Considering the above: a. The Tenant paid a substantial bond of over $5,000, which has not been lodged. This represents a significant sum of money. b. The past property manager and the owner’s absence at the hearing further demonstrate a lack of responsibility or intent to rectify the issue. c. While the Adjudicator in Chowdury awarded $330 for a breach without evidence of habitual behaviour, the breach in this case is more significant, given the large amount of bond and the absence of the Landlord at the hearing. d. The non-lodgement of the bond has also created considerable uncertainty for the Tenant, who has worried about having enough money to pay a new bond. This has not been helped by the failure of the Landlord to communicate to the Tenant what it will do to rectify the issue, and no 1 Chowdhury v Dugh and Ors [2019] NZTT Hastings 4201059, 4205111. 2 NZ International Property Development Limited T/As Sunshine Housing v Dunn and Kelly, DC, CIV- 2012-009-000267, 16 May 2012. communication at all from the Property Manager who appears to have vanished from off the face of the earth with the Tenant’s bond monies.
Based on the above and considering that $1,500 represents the maximum the Tribunal can award, I consider $1,000 is an appropriate award, striking a balance between the severity of the breach, the interests of the affected tenant, and serving as a strong deterrent for other landlords.
Because the Tenant has wholly succeeded in its claim, the Landlord must pay the Tenant’s application filing fee. I also grant the Tenant’s request for name suppression because, as the Tenant put it, we would not want a problem which we had no control over to become an obstacle for us in the future.
I also direct that this decision is sent to the Chief Executive for the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment for it to consider exercising its discretion under s 126C of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the [The tenant/s] name and identifying details.
Executive Property Management Residential Rentals Limited As Agent For Gp Trustee Company Ltd (Ken Erskine & Joana Allan) Merrill Guttenbeil
Ken Erskine & Joana Allan are to lodge the bond monies of [The tenant/s] with Bond Services within seven (7) days.

Reasons

The Tenant attended the hearing.
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
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.
The landlord failed to lodge the bond within 23 working days. 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.
In Chowdhury v Dugh and Ors 1 evidence confirmed the landlord's intentional breach due to a standard tenancy agreement’s explicitness, the landlord's experience, and continued non-compliance even after the tenant raised the issue.
The Tribunal decision references NZ International Property Development Limited T/As Sunshine Housing v Dunn and Kelly, 2 where a late lodgement of a bond by a relatively inexperienced landlord resulted in exemplary damages of $200. This was considered 'relatively nominal' by Judge Doherty, reflecting the inexperience and 'naivety' of the landlord in that specific case.
Exemplary damages serves a public interest in ensuring landlords abide by statutory responsibilities. The bond system is specifically there to protect vulnerable tenants. Even for inexperienced landlords, there’s a clear indication that some form of deterrent is essential to maintain the public interest.
In Chowdhury, the landlord was fined $330, which is described as being on the 'lower level' of potential awards, given there was no evidence of habitual behaviour on the landlord's part.
Considering the above: a. The Tenant paid a substantial bond of over $5,000, which has not been lodged. This represents a significant sum of money. b. The past property manager and the owner’s absence at the hearing further demonstrate a lack of responsibility or intent to rectify the issue. c. While the Adjudicator in Chowdury awarded $330 for a breach without evidence of habitual behaviour, the breach in this case is more significant, given the large amount of bond and the absence of the Landlord at the hearing. d. The non-lodgement of the bond has also created considerable uncertainty for the Tenant, who has worried about having enough money to pay a new bond. This has not been helped by the failure of the Landlord to communicate to the Tenant what it will do to rectify the issue, and no 1 Chowdhury v Dugh and Ors [2019] NZTT Hastings 4201059, 4205111. 2 NZ International Property Development Limited T/As Sunshine Housing v Dunn and Kelly, DC, CIV- 2012-009-000267, 16 May 2012. communication at all from the Property Manager who appears to have vanished from off the face of the earth with the Tenant’s bond monies.
Based on the above and considering that $1,500 represents the maximum the Tribunal can award, I consider $1,000 is an appropriate award, striking a balance between the severity of the breach, the interests of the affected tenant, and serving as a strong deterrent for other landlords.
Because the Tenant has wholly succeeded in its claim, the Landlord must pay the Tenant’s application filing fee. I also grant the Tenant’s request for name suppression because, as the Tenant put it, we would not want a problem which we had no control over to become an obstacle for us in the future.
I also direct that this decision is sent to the Chief Executive for the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment for it to consider exercising its discretion under s 126C of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4685689 — Exemplary damages at 18 New Street, Saint Marys Bay, Auckland 1011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4685689 — Exemplary damages at 18 New Street, Saint Marys Bay, Auckland 1011

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions