What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5017848 about?

The tribunal order states: Cameron Wood must pay Luca Eve March and Max Talos Davis $3,027.00.

How much money was awarded in case 5017848?

Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5017848?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5017848?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11151880-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5017848 about?

The tribunal order states: Cameron Wood must pay Luca Eve March and Max Talos Davis $3,027.00.

How much money was awarded in case 5017848?

Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5017848?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5017848?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11151880-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

24 Panners Way, Queenstown, Queenstown 9300 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5017848 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5017848 — net $3,027.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge the bond	$200.00	Failure to lodge the bond
Bond (retained by landlord	$2,800.00	Bond (retained by landlord
Net award	$3,027.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,027.00

Order

Cameron Wood must pay Luca Eve March and Max Talos Davis $3,027.00. $2,827.00 is due immediately, and $200.00 per order 2., calculated as shown in table below:
The further $200.00 for exemplary damages is stayed from enforcement until the conclusion of the landlord counterclaim and hearing (if the counterclaim is lodged before 20 December 2024). If no counterclaim is lodged by 20 December 2024 the stay lapses and the $200.00 becomes payable immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via video conference.
The tenants sought return of the bond, exemplary damages and the application filing fee.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
An offer to resolve all matters via an order by consent could not conclude. The landlord is to lodge his own application. Tenant claims Release of bond where no landlord claim
The tenant has applied for refund of their bond following the end of the tenancy.
At the hearing the landlord made a claim against the bond. However, the landlord did not file an application with Tenancy Services.
Section 22B RTA provides: (1) If there is a dispute between the parties as to the payment of a bond, either party may apply to the Tribunal for an order determining to whom the bond, or any part of it, is to be paid. (2) If the tenant applies to the Tribunal and the landlord seeks payment of the bond in whole or in part, the landlord must file an application with the Tribunal that sets out the landlord’s counterclaim.
The requirement for the landlord to file a counterclaim is mandatory. Therefore, because the landlord has not done so, the bond is refunded in full to the tenant. This does not prevent the landlord from filing a claim against the tenant at a later date. It just means that, if the landlord’s claim is successful, there is no bond to put towards any monetary award made.
The bond of $2,800, retained by the landlord, is returned to the tenants by this order. Failure to lodge bond
The tenant claims the landlord failed to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the required period.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received (see s 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986). This applies whether the bond is paid in part or whole.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00 (see s 19(2) and Schedule 1A RTA.
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) RTA).
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).
The landlord clearly failed to lodge the bond. I question intent based on his inexperience but I have a concern that since the application seeking the bond was lodged in September 2024 there has been no attempt by the landlord to resolve or address the matter. I find it appropriate to make an order of $200.00, albeit at the lower end, as exemplary damages. The landlord is expected to be better schooled from here on a number of landlord obligations. Any future repeats will likely attract greater exemplary damages. Healthy Homes Statement not provided
The tenants claim the landlord did not provide a healthy homes compliance statement on the tenancy agreement. This arose via advice from Tenancy Services – there does not appear to be any issues with the HHS at this premises.
A copy of the tenancy agreement, as supplied, was shared with the parties during the hearing. This appears to include an HHS compliance statement at page 8.
This claim is dismissed. Filing fee
Because Luca Eve March, Max Talos Davis have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5017848 — net $3,027.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge the bond	$200.00	Failure to lodge the bond
Bond (retained by landlord	$2,800.00	Bond (retained by landlord
Net award	$3,027.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,027.00

Order

Cameron Wood must pay Luca Eve March and Max Talos Davis $3,027.00. $2,827.00 is due immediately, and $200.00 per order 2., calculated as shown in table below:
The further $200.00 for exemplary damages is stayed from enforcement until the conclusion of the landlord counterclaim and hearing (if the counterclaim is lodged before 20 December 2024). If no counterclaim is lodged by 20 December 2024 the stay lapses and the $200.00 becomes payable immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via video conference.
The tenants sought return of the bond, exemplary damages and the application filing fee.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
An offer to resolve all matters via an order by consent could not conclude. The landlord is to lodge his own application. Tenant claims Release of bond where no landlord claim
The tenant has applied for refund of their bond following the end of the tenancy.
At the hearing the landlord made a claim against the bond. However, the landlord did not file an application with Tenancy Services.
Section 22B RTA provides: (1) If there is a dispute between the parties as to the payment of a bond, either party may apply to the Tribunal for an order determining to whom the bond, or any part of it, is to be paid. (2) If the tenant applies to the Tribunal and the landlord seeks payment of the bond in whole or in part, the landlord must file an application with the Tribunal that sets out the landlord’s counterclaim.
The requirement for the landlord to file a counterclaim is mandatory. Therefore, because the landlord has not done so, the bond is refunded in full to the tenant. This does not prevent the landlord from filing a claim against the tenant at a later date. It just means that, if the landlord’s claim is successful, there is no bond to put towards any monetary award made.
The bond of $2,800, retained by the landlord, is returned to the tenants by this order. Failure to lodge bond
The tenant claims the landlord failed to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the required period.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received (see s 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986). This applies whether the bond is paid in part or whole.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00 (see s 19(2) and Schedule 1A RTA.
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) RTA).
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).
The landlord clearly failed to lodge the bond. I question intent based on his inexperience but I have a concern that since the application seeking the bond was lodged in September 2024 there has been no attempt by the landlord to resolve or address the matter. I find it appropriate to make an order of $200.00, albeit at the lower end, as exemplary damages. The landlord is expected to be better schooled from here on a number of landlord obligations. Any future repeats will likely attract greater exemplary damages. Healthy Homes Statement not provided
The tenants claim the landlord did not provide a healthy homes compliance statement on the tenancy agreement. This arose via advice from Tenancy Services – there does not appear to be any issues with the HHS at this premises.
A copy of the tenancy agreement, as supplied, was shared with the parties during the hearing. This appears to include an HHS compliance statement at page 8.
This claim is dismissed. Filing fee
Because Luca Eve March, Max Talos Davis have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5017848 — Exemplary damages at 24 Panners Way, Queenstown, Queenstown 9300

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5017848 — Exemplary damages at 24 Panners Way, Queenstown, Queenstown 9300

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