What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4767823 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $540.00 to [The tenant/s] immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 4767823?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4767823?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4767823?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10215316-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4767823 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $540.00 to [The tenant/s] immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 4767823?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4767823?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4767823?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10215316-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

469 Mount Albert Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4767823 — Exemplary damages

Reasons

The hearing was held by teleconference. Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenant has applied for refund of the bond and claims that the landlord has breached her obligation to lodge the bond. Jurisdiction

In this case, the premises were rented on a room-by-room basis, facilities were shared but it was not a boarding house, and the landlord did not live at the premises during the duration of the tenant’s tenancy. I am satisfied this was a residential tenancy covered by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Refund of the bond

Section 22B(2) RTA 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.

The tenant paid a total bond of $540.00. While the landlord has potential claims against the bond, she has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.

Given no counterclaim exists the bond of $540.00 is to be returned to the tenant. Non-lodgement of the bond

Section 19 RTA requires the landlord to lodge a bond within 23 working days after payment is made. A failure to do so is declared an unlawful act. 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 RTA.

The landlord did not lodge the bond within the required time. There was clearly a technical breach of section 19 and this is an unlawful act.

As I have determined that the landlord committed an unlawful act, I must decide if it is appropriate to award exemplary damages.

Exemplary damages under the Act are different from compensation. The provision of such damages is designed to punish and deter; Attorney-General (Commissioner of Crown Lands) v Little Bo Peep Sheep Company Ltd (HC CIV 2010-412-134).

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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) RTA

The landlord accepts that this was an oversight on her part. Having said that, operating rental accommodation is a business and should be run as such.

Before an award of exemplary damages is made, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the failure to lodge the bond was intentional. I am not satisfied that this was the case here. I am not aware of any similar breaches in the past by the landlord. The bond has since been lodged with the Bond Centre. This is not a circumstance where I view it as appropriate to make an order for exemplary damages. The claim for exemplary damages is dismissed. Filing fee

As the tenant has been mostly successful with the claim, I consider it reasonable to order the landlord to reimburse the filing fee.

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $540.00 to [The tenant/s] immediately.
[The landlord/s] is to pay [The tenant/s] $20.44 immediately, being reimbursement of the filing fee.

Reasons

The hearing was held by teleconference. Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond and claims that the landlord has breached her obligation to lodge the bond. Jurisdiction
In this case, the premises were rented on a room-by-room basis, facilities were shared but it was not a boarding house, and the landlord did not live at the premises during the duration of the tenant’s tenancy. I am satisfied this was a residential tenancy covered by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Refund of the bond
Section 22B(2) RTA 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.
The tenant paid a total bond of $540.00. While the landlord has potential claims against the bond, she has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.
Given no counterclaim exists the bond of $540.00 is to be returned to the tenant. Non-lodgement of the bond
Section 19 RTA requires the landlord to lodge a bond within 23 working days after payment is made. A failure to do so is declared an unlawful act. 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 RTA.
The landlord did not lodge the bond within the required time. There was clearly a technical breach of section 19 and this is an unlawful act.
As I have determined that the landlord committed an unlawful act, I must decide if it is appropriate to award exemplary damages.
Exemplary damages under the Act are different from compensation. The provision of such damages is designed to punish and deter; Attorney-General (Commissioner of Crown Lands) v Little Bo Peep Sheep Company Ltd (HC CIV 2010-412-134).
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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) RTA
The landlord accepts that this was an oversight on her part. Having said that, operating rental accommodation is a business and should be run as such.
Before an award of exemplary damages is made, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the failure to lodge the bond was intentional. I am not satisfied that this was the case here. I am not aware of any similar breaches in the past by the landlord. The bond has since been lodged with the Bond Centre. This is not a circumstance where I view it as appropriate to make an order for exemplary damages. The claim for exemplary damages is dismissed. Filing fee
As the tenant has been mostly successful with the claim, I consider it reasonable to order the landlord to reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4767823 — Exemplary damages at 469 Mount Albert Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1042

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4767823 — Exemplary damages at 469 Mount Albert Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1042

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