What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4983170 about?

The tribunal order states: Barfoot & Thompson Property Limited As Agent For Nidavellir Ltd must pay

How much money was awarded in case 4983170?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4983170?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4983170?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10986517-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4983170 about?

The tribunal order states: Barfoot & Thompson Property Limited As Agent For Nidavellir Ltd must pay

How much money was awarded in case 4983170?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4983170?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4983170?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10986517-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4983170 — Exemplary damages

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4983170 — net $527.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages (failure to lodge bond	$500.00	Exemplary damages (failure to lodge bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$527.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$527.00

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.

[The tenant/s] claim 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 22 May 2024 but did not lodge it until 6 August 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).

In this instance the landlord is very experienced. It should have systems in place to ensure that it meets its obligations in respect of the bond. The person responsible for lodging this bond is no longer employed by the landlord. Current staff could not explain the failure to lodge the bond except to surmise that it was an oversight because there was no bond lodgement form for the tenancy. Another explanation was that the landlord had been provided incorrect or unclear advice from an auditor regarding treatment of bond money.

Even without a bond lodgement form the landlord could and should have lodged the bond. The landlord did not provide any corroborative evidence of the advice from its auditors.

The landlord acknowledged that the bond was not lodged within time and apologised to the tenants at the hearing. The error was identified and rectified by the landlord before the tenant was aware of it. The landlord also gave evidence of steps it has put in place to ensure that all bonds are lodged on time.

On balance, I consider that a modest award of exemplary damages is appropriate and award $500.

As the tenant was the successful party, I also award reimbursement of the filing fee and grant the tenant’s request for suppression of its details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4983170 — net $527.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages (failure to lodge bond	$500.00	Exemplary damages (failure to lodge bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$527.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$527.00

Order

Barfoot & Thompson Property Limited As Agent For Nidavellir Ltd must pay [The tenant/s] $527.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.
[The tenant/s] claim 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 22 May 2024 but did not lodge it until 6 August 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).
In this instance the landlord is very experienced. It should have systems in place to ensure that it meets its obligations in respect of the bond. The person responsible for lodging this bond is no longer employed by the landlord. Current staff could not explain the failure to lodge the bond except to surmise that it was an oversight because there was no bond lodgement form for the tenancy. Another explanation was that the landlord had been provided incorrect or unclear advice from an auditor regarding treatment of bond money.
Even without a bond lodgement form the landlord could and should have lodged the bond. The landlord did not provide any corroborative evidence of the advice from its auditors.
The landlord acknowledged that the bond was not lodged within time and apologised to the tenants at the hearing. The error was identified and rectified by the landlord before the tenant was aware of it. The landlord also gave evidence of steps it has put in place to ensure that all bonds are lodged on time.
On balance, I consider that a modest award of exemplary damages is appropriate and award $500.
As the tenant was the successful party, I also award reimbursement of the filing fee and grant the tenant’s request for suppression of its details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4983170 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4983170 — 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