What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4747429 about?

The tribunal order states: Scott Anthony Sidon must pay [The tenant/s] $1,690.44 immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 4747429?

Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4747429?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4747429?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9825790-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4747429 about?

The tribunal order states: Scott Anthony Sidon must pay [The tenant/s] $1,690.44 immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 4747429?

Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4747429?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4747429?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9825790-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

48 Murray Street, Mosgiel, Mosgiel 9024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4747429 — Exemplary damages

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4747429 — net $1,690.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Return of Bond Money not lodged	$1,320.00	Return of Bond Money not lodged
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond	$350.00	Failure to lodge bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,690.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,690.44

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord attended the hearing by teleconference.

This is an application by the tenant for the return of bond money which was not lodged by the landlord. The applicant claims that the landlord has not lodged the bond with the bond centre within the required timeframe. As of todays’ date, there are no bond details held in the system against this tenancy address.

The tenant also claims that the landlord is seeking to deduct money from the bond for a deep clean.

The landlord says that his ex-wife failed to lodge the bond within the required timeframe. He also says that his son was unwell at one stage which distracted him in respect of lodging the bond. Ultimately the landlord accepts that the bond was not lodged. He also accepts that he cannot withhold bond money for a claim which is in dispute without lodging an application with the Tribunal.

The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The landlord has a claim against the bond but has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.

Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond must be refunded in full to the tenant.

[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 accepts that the bond was never lodged with the bond centre as required. 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 tenancy began on or about 25 June 2021 and concluded on or about 21 November 2023. Failing to lodge bond money during this period is clearly intentional and is a serious breach of landlord obligations. I also consider it an aggravating feature when bond money is not lodged for more than two years.

Accordingly, I award exemplary damages in respect of a breach of landlord obligations.

Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

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 – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.

The tenant applied for a name suppression order. The tenant is entitled to name suppression as the application is successful – see section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4747429 — net $1,690.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Return of Bond Money not lodged	$1,320.00	Return of Bond Money not lodged
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond	$350.00	Failure to lodge bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,690.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,690.44

Order

Scott Anthony Sidon must pay [The tenant/s] $1,690.44 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord attended the hearing by teleconference.
This is an application by the tenant for the return of bond money which was not lodged by the landlord. The applicant claims that the landlord has not lodged the bond with the bond centre within the required timeframe. As of todays’ date, there are no bond details held in the system against this tenancy address.
The tenant also claims that the landlord is seeking to deduct money from the bond for a deep clean.
The landlord says that his ex-wife failed to lodge the bond within the required timeframe. He also says that his son was unwell at one stage which distracted him in respect of lodging the bond. Ultimately the landlord accepts that the bond was not lodged. He also accepts that he cannot withhold bond money for a claim which is in dispute without lodging an application with the Tribunal.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The landlord has a claim against the bond but has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.
Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond must be refunded in full to the tenant.
[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 accepts that the bond was never lodged with the bond centre as required. 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 tenancy began on or about 25 June 2021 and concluded on or about 21 November 2023. Failing to lodge bond money during this period is clearly intentional and is a serious breach of landlord obligations. I also consider it an aggravating feature when bond money is not lodged for more than two years.
Accordingly, I award exemplary damages in respect of a breach of landlord obligations.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
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 – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
The tenant applied for a name suppression order. The tenant is entitled to name suppression as the application is successful – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4747429 — Exemplary damages at 48 Murray Street, Mosgiel, Mosgiel 9024

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4747429 — Exemplary damages at 48 Murray Street, Mosgiel, Mosgiel 9024

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