What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4758643 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $290.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to

How much money was awarded in case 4758643?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4758643?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4758643?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10113818-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4758643 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $290.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to

How much money was awarded in case 4758643?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4758643?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4758643?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10113818-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4758643 — Rent arrears

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $290.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The claims that the landlord failed to lodge the bond with the required period, and failed to provide the tenant with a copy of their insurance policy are proven. No damages are awarded. The claim that the landlord required the tenant to pay more than two weeks rent in advance is dismissed.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by telephone with both parties appearing.
On 07 December 2023, the tenant filed a claim that the landlord had failed to lodge the bond within the required period, required the tenant to pay more than two weeks rent in advance, and failed when requested to provide a copy of their insurance policy. The tenant indicated in their application that they were seeking exemplary damages.
Under section 19(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”) landlords must lodge bonds with the bond centre within 23 working days. Section 23 (1) of the Act prohibits landlord’s requesting more than two weeks rent in advance. Under section 45(2B), landlords must provide tenants a copy of any insurance policy for the property upon request within a reasonable period.
Breaching these provisions is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded under section 109 of the Act. In determining whether exemplary damages are warranted, the Tribunal will consider the intention of the breaching party, the effect of the breach on the other party, the interest of the parties, and the public interest.
On 01 February 2023, the tenant paid the landlord a bond of $1,160.00, and one weeks rent in advance of $290.00. The tenant states that at the end of the tenancy they called the Bond Centre and were advised that the bond had not been lodged.
The Bond data available to the Tribunal shows that on 11 March 2023 a payment of $290.00 was lodged by the landlord. The landlord states that after being advised by the tenant they discovered that an administrative error had occurred whereby the bond had been attributed to the rent, and the one weeks rent in advance paid to the bond centre. The payment concerned is shown in the rent summary.
The tenant vacated the property on 10 November 2023. The tenancy was for fixed term and due to end on 20 November 2023. Unless the parties agreed in writing the tenant remained liable for the rent until the end of the tenancy.
Although the issue of rent arrears is not formally before the Tribunal, based on the available information, including a rent summary and discussions with the parties, who agree the amounts due and paid, it was determined that the tenant does not owe rent arrears. As the landlord has no claim against the portion of the bond that has been lodged, the $290.00 can be refunded to the tenant.
There is no evidence that the landlord has required the tenant to pay more than two weeks rent in advance. The fact that the tenant has done so, as stated, is the result of an administrative error.
Regarding the insurance policy, the landlord acknowledges that the tenant’s request was received by not actioned. The landlord states that due to extenuating circumstances it was regrettably overlooked. In their application the tenant stated they were forced to obtain their own contents insurance due to non – disclosure. The landlord points out that apart from any careless damage caused by the tenant they were not in any event covered by the landlord’s insurance.
The landlord acknowledges that the errors concerning the bond, and failure to provide the insurance policy have caused the tenant stress. As a gesture of goodwill, the landlord has offered to waive an end of tenancy cleaning cost of $150.00, which has been accepted by the tenant, and has indicated that no other claims will be brought. Both parties have indicated that they consider the matter settled.
In light of the circumstances and considering the relevant factors, while there has been acknowledged breaches exemplary damages are not warranted.
Where a party has been partly successful the Tribunal has the discretion to order reimbursement of the $20.44 filing fee. In this case, I have decided not to make such an order.
Both parties seek name suppression. Under section 95A of the Act on the application by a party wholly or substantially successful the Tribunal must, unless there are good reasons not to, order suppression of the party’s name and identifying details. In this case I believe both parties have been substantially successful and accordingly both are granted name suppression.

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $290.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The claims that the landlord failed to lodge the bond with the required period, and failed to provide the tenant with a copy of their insurance policy are proven. No damages are awarded. The claim that the landlord required the tenant to pay more than two weeks rent in advance is dismissed.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by telephone with both parties appearing.
On 07 December 2023, the tenant filed a claim that the landlord had failed to lodge the bond within the required period, required the tenant to pay more than two weeks rent in advance, and failed when requested to provide a copy of their insurance policy. The tenant indicated in their application that they were seeking exemplary damages.
Under section 19(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”) landlords must lodge bonds with the bond centre within 23 working days. Section 23 (1) of the Act prohibits landlord’s requesting more than two weeks rent in advance. Under section 45(2B), landlords must provide tenants a copy of any insurance policy for the property upon request within a reasonable period.
Breaching these provisions is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded under section 109 of the Act. In determining whether exemplary damages are warranted, the Tribunal will consider the intention of the breaching party, the effect of the breach on the other party, the interest of the parties, and the public interest.
On 01 February 2023, the tenant paid the landlord a bond of $1,160.00, and one weeks rent in advance of $290.00. The tenant states that at the end of the tenancy they called the Bond Centre and were advised that the bond had not been lodged.
The Bond data available to the Tribunal shows that on 11 March 2023 a payment of $290.00 was lodged by the landlord. The landlord states that after being advised by the tenant they discovered that an administrative error had occurred whereby the bond had been attributed to the rent, and the one weeks rent in advance paid to the bond centre. The payment concerned is shown in the rent summary.
The tenant vacated the property on 10 November 2023. The tenancy was for fixed term and due to end on 20 November 2023. Unless the parties agreed in writing the tenant remained liable for the rent until the end of the tenancy.
Although the issue of rent arrears is not formally before the Tribunal, based on the available information, including a rent summary and discussions with the parties, who agree the amounts due and paid, it was determined that the tenant does not owe rent arrears. As the landlord has no claim against the portion of the bond that has been lodged, the $290.00 can be refunded to the tenant.
There is no evidence that the landlord has required the tenant to pay more than two weeks rent in advance. The fact that the tenant has done so, as stated, is the result of an administrative error.
Regarding the insurance policy, the landlord acknowledges that the tenant’s request was received by not actioned. The landlord states that due to extenuating circumstances it was regrettably overlooked. In their application the tenant stated they were forced to obtain their own contents insurance due to non – disclosure. The landlord points out that apart from any careless damage caused by the tenant they were not in any event covered by the landlord’s insurance.
The landlord acknowledges that the errors concerning the bond, and failure to provide the insurance policy have caused the tenant stress. As a gesture of goodwill, the landlord has offered to waive an end of tenancy cleaning cost of $150.00, which has been accepted by the tenant, and has indicated that no other claims will be brought. Both parties have indicated that they consider the matter settled.
In light of the circumstances and considering the relevant factors, while there has been acknowledged breaches exemplary damages are not warranted.
Where a party has been partly successful the Tribunal has the discretion to order reimbursement of the $20.44 filing fee. In this case, I have decided not to make such an order.
Both parties seek name suppression. Under section 95A of the Act on the application by a party wholly or substantially successful the Tribunal must, unless there are good reasons not to, order suppression of the party’s name and identifying details. In this case I believe both parties have been substantially successful and accordingly both are granted name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4758643 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4758643 — Rent arrears

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