What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5017073 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5017073?

Property Damage: $656.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5017073?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5017073?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11345527-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5017073 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5017073?

Property Damage: $656.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5017073?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5017073?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11345527-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

28 Whare Kauri Road, Papakura, Papakura 2110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5017073 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5017073. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
y . 3.’s application for compensation and exemplary damages to do with the issues surrounding payment of and non-lodgmen	$656.00		y . 3.’s application for compensation and exemplary damages to do with the issues surrounding payment of and non-lodgmen

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5017073. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
y . 3.’s application for compensation and exemplary damages to do with the issues surrounding payment of and non-lodgmen	$656.00		y . 3.’s application for compensation and exemplary damages to do with the issues surrounding payment of and non-lodgmen

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The bond of $656.00 that was since refunded to after the Order of the Tribunal issued on 18 October 2024 may be retained by .
’s application for compensation and exemplary damages to do with the issues surrounding payment of and non-lodgment of the bond of $656.00 is hereby dismissed.

Reasons

This is a rehearing of the tenant’s application number 5017073 for refund of the bond, general damages and/or exemplary damages for failure to lodge the bond.
Both parties attended the rehearing yesterday, 22 January 2025. The landlord attended in person and the tenant attended by phone.
On 25 September 2024 the tenant applied for refund of the bond and exemplary damages for failure to lodge the bond.
On 4 October 2024, the landlord applied for damages for defamation and to recover a $150.00 administration fee.
At the initial hearing, Adjudicator M Edison in his order of 18 October 2024 dismissed the landlord’s claims in its entirety and in respect of the tenant’s claims, ordered as follows: must pay immediately, for general damages and the filing fee for general damages and the filing fee.
The landlord’s subsequent application for rehearing of the original order and tenant’s claims was partly successful.
On 11 November 2024, Adjudicator Edison ordered a rehearing of the tenant’s application on these terms:
The landlord’s application for rehearing is granted on the papers. This means that the tenant’s application (number 5017073) will be reheard. The landlord’s application (number 5026049) will not be reheard and remains dismissed.
The tenant has been paid $656.00 from the Bond Centre. The tenant is not liable to pay any money to the landlord (or to any third party) unless and until ordered to do so by the Tribunal.
The tenant does not live in Auckland and is granted permission to attend the rehearing by telephone.
A Tribunal-appointed Mandarin interpreter must attend the rehearing to assist the landlord.
The parties will be notified by Tenancy Services of the time, date, and place of the next hearing. A different adjudicator will hear the matter, so that the tenant’s application is heard afresh. Background
The background of the application has been previously set out below by Adjudicator Edison below: • The landlord entered into a fixed term tenancy agreement from 7 May 2024 to 6 May 2025 with two other tenants (B and R) at a weekly rent of $820.00. • B and R paid a bond of $3,280.00 (contributing $1,640.00 each). This was lodged with the Bond Centre on 15 May 2024. • On 17 June 2024, the tenant was added to the tenancy pursuant to a change of tenant form. The change of tenant form recorded the tenant’s contribution to the bond as being $656.00 (20% - there being 5 occupants in total). • A variation agreement was also signed by all three tenants on 17 June 2024. The tenant says she was not provided with a copy of the tenancy agreement between the landlord, B and R, and did not know its terms. • The landlord emailed the tenant on 18 June 2024 about the bond: “...pay to your head tenant is fine. [A]t the end of the tenancy, you can get your part from there”. • On 25 June 2024 the landlord received a payment of $656.00 from the tenant. The money was credited towards the rent. • On 20 September 2024 the tenant said she had not received confirmation of lodgement of her bond. This led to a series of emailed communications. The landlord had treated the payment as a rent credit, and on 23 September 2023 notified the tenants that she had cancelled the rent receipt. In response, R asked the landlord to keep the money as a rent credit: “[The tenant] has misunderstood the situation and does not need to be refunded as she will get her part of the bond back when the contract has ended”. • On 25 September 2024 the landlord paid the tenant’s bond to B, who the landlord considered to be the “head tenant”. • The tenant gave notice on 25 September 2024 and moved out of the premises after receiving threats from other occupants due to the dispute over the bond. Analysis Tenant’s application
The landlord had an obligation to send the bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after receipt (section 19 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act)).
Failure to comply with these obligations on receipt of the bond constitute “unlawful acts” for which exemplary damages may be awarded.
Having heard from the parties yesterday, I am satisfied that the landlord has been advised by Tenancy Services (or at least, been given the impression) that a bond of more than 4 weeks’ rent could not be lodged.
Having heard the recording of the phone call with the contact centre of the bond centre, I regard the advice given by Tenancy Services is that the landlord may not require a bond of more than 4 weeks rent, and consequently a bond of more than 4 weeks’ rent could not be lodged.
The issue before me however does not hinge on whether a bond of more than 4 weeks’ rent could or could not be lodged at the Bond Centre.
Section 18 RTA states that a landlord shall not require payment by way of bond of an amount greater than 4 weeks’ rent lawfully payable under the tenancy agreement.
I consider the relevant issue to be whether the landlord has required the tenants to pay a bond that ultimately equates to more than 4 weeks’ rent.
I accept the landlord’s evidence that none of the landlord’s property managers (and employees) have ever required the new tenant Ms [The tenant/s] to pay an additional bond to the landlord which was already sitting at 4 weeks’ rent payable under the tenancy agreement.
In her email to the landlord, the new tenant stated at 4.18pm on 17 June 2024: Thank you for your email, I will forward to this to my msd to pay for the bond
The landlord’s property manager KaiXin Huang responded by email the next day at 8.45am with: thanks for your email pay to your head tenant is fine. at the end of the tenancy, you can get your part from there
I am satisfied from the plain reading of the above email exchanges that the new tenant has assumed that she is required to pay additional bond to the landlord (through the Ministry of Social Development ‘MSD’) to which the landlord responded that her share of the bond should be paid to the head tenant (who the landlord considers to be ‘B’) instead.
Consequently, I find that at no time did the landlord require the new tenant or tenants to pay any further bond to the landlord which will tip the quantum of the bond to a sum greater than 4 weeks’ rent.
What KaiXin has correctly, although infelicitously worded ‘pay to your head tenant is fine’, stated is that no further bond from MSD is required to be paid to the landlord.
Upon notifying the bond centre on 17 June 2024 that Ms [The tenant/s] is a new tenant via submission of the change of tenant form dated 17 June 2024, the new tenant had herself assumed that she had to pay a further bond to the landlord. This mistaken assumption lies with the new tenant entirely, albeit most unfortunately as this mistake ultimately resulted in disquiet and breakdown in relationship between the tenants during the tenancy.
For the avoidance of doubt, the new tenant was only required to pay her share of the bond to the existing tenants because the bond centre has been duly notified that the new tenant has a ‘bond contribution’ and therefore an interest in the existing bond of $656.
Consequently, it was only in order for Ms [The tenant/s] to pay her bond contribution of $656 (through MSD) to the existing tenants, rather than to the landlord as she has mistakenly assumed, despite being correctly advised by the landlord’s property manager KaiXin Huang on 18 June 2024 not to pay to the landlord.
I accept the landlord’s evidence that MSD then paid $656 to the landlord without a specific reference on the nature of that payment. The landlord applied that payment ‘without thinking’ towards rent; a receipt was duly issued and accounted for by the landlord for the rent credit of $656.
Applying those facts to the rehearing of the tenant’s claim before me, I find that the landlord has not breached the RTA on requiring a bond that is in excess of 4 weeks’ rent in the first place. The landlord has also not pocketed the $656 portion of the new tenant’s bond payment in breach of section 19 RTA (by not lodging it to Tenancy Services) because that payment had been applied towards rent.
Naturally, if I consider that the landlord had duly addressed their mind to the $656 payment by the new tenant towards bond, the landlord ought to have then immediately refunded that payment back to the new tenant. This would be in line with KaiXin’s email to Ms [The tenant/s] to pay the bond contribution to the existing tenants directly.
I find on balance that the landlord had not addressed their mind properly to the $656 payment at all and consequently, the landlord cannot be said to have breached any provision of the RTA nor the tenancy agreement when the landlord automatically applied that $656 payment towards rent.
For those reasons, I decline to award any compensation to the tenant. I also dismiss the tenant’s claim for exemplary damages for failure to lodge the bond for the abovestated reasons.
That said, the landlord has duly notified the bond centre on 17 June 2024 that the tenant has a bond contribution/interest of $656. I do not consider there is any injustice to the parties by maintaining the status quo in that the bond of $656 that has since been refunded to Ms [The tenant/s] should be retained by her after she has vacated the premises.
Any prospective claims by the landlord on account of abandonment of the parties’ fixed term tenancy are the subject matter of separate proceedings to be lodged by the landlord, if any.
For now, my determination on the tenant’s claim for damages and exemplary damages for the issues to do with the payment of the tenant’s bond contribution of $656 remains dismissed, save for the order that the tenant can continue to keep the $656 that has already been refunded to her pursuant to the original adjudicator’s order of 18 October 2024. Name suppression
I consider suppression is appropriate in this case to protect the tenant’s privacy. I order suppression of the tenant’s name accordingly.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5017073 — Exemplary damages at 28 Whare Kauri Road, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5017073 — Exemplary damages at 28 Whare Kauri Road, Papakura, Papakura 2110

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