What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5036609 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5036609?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5036609?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5036609?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11337754-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5036609 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5036609?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5036609?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5036609?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11337754-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Room 3.5, 1614 Great North Road, Waterview, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5036609 — Exemplary damages

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5036609 — net $3,100.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Bond payment	$2,600.00	Bond payment
Exemplary damages	$500.00	Exemplary damages
Net award	$3,100.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,100.00

The tenant attended this remote hearing.

The landlord did not attend the hearing by Teams video link. Telephone calls were made to the landlord on the number provided at the allocated hearing time. The calls could not be connected with that number. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given. I am satisfied that notice has been given.

[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 tenant says that the bond of $2600.00 was paid to the landlord at the commencement of the tenancy. A copy of the bond lodgement form was provided. At the end of the tenancy the tenant made enquiries with the Bond Centre. She was advised that no bond had been lodged. I also contacted the Bond Centre today and was advised that they had no record of the bond. I find that 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.

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 not having attended the hearing, the landlord has not provided the Tribunal with an explanation for the failure. The landlord is ordered to pay exemplary damages to the tenant of $500.00 and return the bond money of $2,600.00 to the tenant.

The tenant applied for name suppression. The tenant having been wholly successful in this hearing, suppression of the tenant name only is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5036609 — net $3,100.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Bond payment	$2,600.00	Bond payment
Exemplary damages	$500.00	Exemplary damages
Net award	$3,100.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,100.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name.
Brenda Allen must pay [The tenant/s] $3,100.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

The tenant attended this remote hearing.
The landlord did not attend the hearing by Teams video link. Telephone calls were made to the landlord on the number provided at the allocated hearing time. The calls could not be connected with that number. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given. I am satisfied that notice has been given.
[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 tenant says that the bond of $2600.00 was paid to the landlord at the commencement of the tenancy. A copy of the bond lodgement form was provided. At the end of the tenancy the tenant made enquiries with the Bond Centre. She was advised that no bond had been lodged. I also contacted the Bond Centre today and was advised that they had no record of the bond. I find that 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.
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 not having attended the hearing, the landlord has not provided the Tribunal with an explanation for the failure. The landlord is ordered to pay exemplary damages to the tenant of $500.00 and return the bond money of $2,600.00 to the tenant.
The tenant applied for name suppression. The tenant having been wholly successful in this hearing, suppression of the tenant name only is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5036609 — Exemplary damages at Room 3.5, 1614 Great North Road, Waterview, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5036609 — Exemplary damages at Room 3.5, 1614 Great North Road, Waterview, Auckland

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