What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4904855 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 4904855?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4904855?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4904855?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10863615-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4904855 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 4904855?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4904855?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4904855?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10863615-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4904855 — Exemplary damages

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4904855 — net $500.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Bond not lodged	$500.00	Bond not lodged
Net award	$500.00
Bond	$2,320.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$500.00

The tenant attended the hearing.

The landlord did not attend the hearing.

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. As the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is 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 received the bond on 12 March 2024.The bond was lodged by the landlord with the Bond Centre on 4 June 2024. 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.

A bond is the tenants’ money and must be lodged with the Bond Centre within the statutory time limit to protect the tenants’ interests. Lodging a bond is not a conditional obligation but a mandatory one and it is in the public interest that landlords fulfil their obligations under the Act. If no penalty is imposed there can be no deterrent.

The failure to lodge the bond must be intentional for exemplary damages to be awarded. Therefore, damages will not be awarded where non-lodgement is a genuine oversight, rather than an intentional act (Chief Executive for Housing New Zealand v Walls [1993] NZTT Auckland 548/92).

However, the Tribunal may draw an inference of intent where the landlord claims to have simply forgotten, as a landlord should have systems in place to ensure this does not happen. Exemplary damages have been awarded where: the landlord has no explanation for the non-lodgement and has other tenancies (Jones v Ying [2001] NZTT Auckland 2783/01); the landlord is experienced (Hart v Allen Realty Ltd [2003] NZTT Auckland 2183/02); and where the landlord knew of the obligation from the bond form signed by the tenant (Fu v Florendo [2013] DC Manukau, CIV-2013-092-2373).

Where no aggravating or mitigating circumstances exist, the Tribunal will often consider an award of exemplary damages of one third of the maximum available. I consider that no aggravating or mitigating factors exist.

Taking all of those factors into account, the landlord is ordered to pay exemplary damages to the tenant of $500.00.

The tenant applied for name suppression. The tenant has been wholly successful and suppression of the tenant‘s name and details is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4904855 — net $500.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Bond not lodged	$500.00	Bond not lodged
Net award	$500.00
Bond	$2,320.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$500.00

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The landlord is to pay $500.00 to the tenant immediately.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing.
The landlord did not attend the hearing.
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. As the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is 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 received the bond on 12 March 2024.The bond was lodged by the landlord with the Bond Centre on 4 June 2024. 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.
A bond is the tenants’ money and must be lodged with the Bond Centre within the statutory time limit to protect the tenants’ interests. Lodging a bond is not a conditional obligation but a mandatory one and it is in the public interest that landlords fulfil their obligations under the Act. If no penalty is imposed there can be no deterrent.
The failure to lodge the bond must be intentional for exemplary damages to be awarded. Therefore, damages will not be awarded where non-lodgement is a genuine oversight, rather than an intentional act (Chief Executive for Housing New Zealand v Walls [1993] NZTT Auckland 548/92).
However, the Tribunal may draw an inference of intent where the landlord claims to have simply forgotten, as a landlord should have systems in place to ensure this does not happen. Exemplary damages have been awarded where: the landlord has no explanation for the non-lodgement and has other tenancies (Jones v Ying [2001] NZTT Auckland 2783/01); the landlord is experienced (Hart v Allen Realty Ltd [2003] NZTT Auckland 2183/02); and where the landlord knew of the obligation from the bond form signed by the tenant (Fu v Florendo [2013] DC Manukau, CIV-2013-092-2373).
Where no aggravating or mitigating circumstances exist, the Tribunal will often consider an award of exemplary damages of one third of the maximum available. I consider that no aggravating or mitigating factors exist.
Taking all of those factors into account, the landlord is ordered to pay exemplary damages to the tenant of $500.00.
The tenant applied for name suppression. The tenant has been wholly successful and suppression of the tenant‘s name and details is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4904855 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4904855 — Exemplary damages

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