What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4860481 about?

The tribunal order states: Metro Nz Property Management Limited As Agent For Di Alex Wang Frank Rangi

How much money was awarded in case 4860481?

Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4860481?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4860481?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10470804-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4860481 about?

The tribunal order states: Metro Nz Property Management Limited As Agent For Di Alex Wang Frank Rangi

How much money was awarded in case 4860481?

Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4860481?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4860481?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10470804-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

60 Hackett Street, Saint Marys Bay, Auckland 1011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4860481 — Exemplary damages

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4860481 — net $620.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages	$600.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$620.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$620.44

Both parties 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 accepts that the bond wasn’t lodged. However, argues that it wasn’t necessary as the tenant gave notice to terminate the tenancy early.

I do not find that argument compelling. The bond was paid on 13 December 2023, so should have been lodged by 28 January 2024. Some 3 days after the tenancy commenced. Further, even if the date for lodgement commenced on the start of the tenancy, the bond must still be lodged. The fact that it took 3 months and an application to the Tribunal to have this bond refunded is a good illustration of why this requirement is necessary.

I find the landlord has 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.

I consider that the failure to lodge the bond must have been an intentional act. In this context it is clear that “intention” concerns the act itself, not an intent to do something unlawful i.e., if the act itself was intended, an unlawful act will have been committed whether the landlord knew it to be unlawful or not. The landlord made a deliberate decision not to lodge the bond.

The effect of that the breach is that the tenants’ have not had benefitted from the security of having the bond held in trust for them. A bond remains the tenant’s property for the duration of the tenancy, so the tenant is entitled to have that interest protected. On this occasion it remained in the landlord’s possession, and it had the use of it. Further, the tenant has had ongoing issues getting the bond refunded. These would have been avoided by the lodgement of the bond with the Bond Centre.

I further consider that there is a public interest in ensuring that tenant’s money is protected through use of the Bond Centre for the duration of tenancies. A failure to lodge the bond is a serious breach because it undermines the legislative arrangement for the management of residential tenancies.

Accordingly, I think an award of exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure on this occasion is appropriate, and I award $600.00.

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

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4860481 — net $620.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages	$600.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$620.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$620.44

Order

Metro Nz Property Management Limited As Agent For Di Alex Wang Frank Rangi must pay [The tenant/s] $620.44 immediately, made up as follows: DescriptionTenant Exemplary damages$600.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant$620.44

Reasons

Both parties 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 accepts that the bond wasn’t lodged. However, argues that it wasn’t necessary as the tenant gave notice to terminate the tenancy early.
I do not find that argument compelling. The bond was paid on 13 December 2023, so should have been lodged by 28 January 2024. Some 3 days after the tenancy commenced. Further, even if the date for lodgement commenced on the start of the tenancy, the bond must still be lodged. The fact that it took 3 months and an application to the Tribunal to have this bond refunded is a good illustration of why this requirement is necessary.
I find the landlord has 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.
I consider that the failure to lodge the bond must have been an intentional act. In this context it is clear that “intention” concerns the act itself, not an intent to do something unlawful i.e., if the act itself was intended, an unlawful act will have been committed whether the landlord knew it to be unlawful or not. The landlord made a deliberate decision not to lodge the bond.
The effect of that the breach is that the tenants’ have not had benefitted from the security of having the bond held in trust for them. A bond remains the tenant’s property for the duration of the tenancy, so the tenant is entitled to have that interest protected. On this occasion it remained in the landlord’s possession, and it had the use of it. Further, the tenant has had ongoing issues getting the bond refunded. These would have been avoided by the lodgement of the bond with the Bond Centre.
I further consider that there is a public interest in ensuring that tenant’s money is protected through use of the Bond Centre for the duration of tenancies. A failure to lodge the bond is a serious breach because it undermines the legislative arrangement for the management of residential tenancies.
Accordingly, I think an award of exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure on this occasion is appropriate, and I award $600.00.
Because [The tenant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4860481 — Exemplary damages at 60 Hackett Street, Saint Marys Bay, Auckland 1011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4860481 — Exemplary damages at 60 Hackett Street, Saint Marys Bay, Auckland 1011

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