What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5089670 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made and the Tribunal orders

How much money was awarded in case 5089670?

Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5089670?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5089670?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11253236-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5089670 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made and the Tribunal orders

How much money was awarded in case 5089670?

Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5089670?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5089670?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11253236-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Room 4, Unit/Flat 4G, 16 Liverpool Street, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5089670 — Exemplary damages

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5089670 — net $722.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: failure to lodge bond	$400.00	failure to lodge bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Refund of remainder of bond	$295.00	Refund of remainder of bond
Net award	$722.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$722.00

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Khan represented the landlord.

[The tenant/s] tenancy commenced in October 2022 and ended in July 2023. He has applied to have his bond returned to him and for exemplary damages as he claims the landlord did not lodge his bond at the Bond Centre. He has had $195 of his $490 bond refunded to date.

Mr Khan’s submission is that there was cleaning and curtain replacement required at the end of the tenancy therefore he kept the portion of the bond required to address those issues. He agrees he did not lodge the bond but explains this was because he received incorrect advice from the Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) on the point.

In 2019 Mr Khan established his company which trades under the name Friendly Flats Limited. The company runs residential tenancies in homes he rents from others. He says he was advised by CAB that as his bond paid to the owner of the home was lodged, he did not need to lodge the bonds of his tenants.

He operated this way until 2023 when the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment advised him that he must lodge bonds he received from his tenants. He says he has since changed his business practices and now lodges all bonds.

[The tenant/s] submission is that this was not good enough and he has been treated badly by Mr Khan. The law and discussion

Firstly, with respect to the remainder of the bond. Section 22B(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 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.

Accordingly, because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim, the remainder of the bond is to be refunded in full to [The tenant/s] now. The landlord is a professional tenancy management company; they should be aware of the law under which they operate.

Secondly, regarding the failure to lodge the bond at the Bond Centre, I note that the obligation to do so is pursuant to section 19(1) of the RTA and states that a landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received.

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 RTA. The landlord has breached section 19(1) of the RTA which is 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) RTA.

In consideration of whether exemplary damages are justified in these circumstances, I take into account the following: a. Mr Khan was remiss in taking advice from CAB when the Tenancy Services website is clear and comprehensive, and the call centre provides free advice. I do however accept that he did try to take advice on what was the appropriate process. b. [The tenant/s] asked Mr Khan for his bond to be refunded on several occasions. He also asked him for the bond number. Mr Khan’s responses were somewhat evasive, and it was not until this application was lodged that the bond was refunded in part. I do note however that part of the delay was [The tenant/s] non provision of his account number. c. For this lengthy period Mr Khan was in complete control of [The tenant/s] bond monies and would not enter into any discussion with him regarding the amounts he was claiming from the bond. d. [The tenant/s] was in a financially challenged position over this time and therefore being without his money for over a year has been difficult for him. e. Bond money belongs to a tenant, and it is of significant interest to both the tenant and the public that the money is held securely with the Bond Centre during the tenancy and that landlords comply with their obligations under the RTA.

Taking into account all of the above, I find that an award of $400 exemplary damages is justified. This is at the lower end of the scale to reflect that Mr Khan was acting in incorrect advice but has since rectified his practices.

Because [The tenant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee and approve his application for suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5089670 — net $722.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: failure to lodge bond	$400.00	failure to lodge bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Refund of remainder of bond	$295.00	Refund of remainder of bond
Net award	$722.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$722.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s identifying details.
Friendly Flats Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $722.00 immediately in accordance with the following table:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Khan represented the landlord.
[The tenant/s] tenancy commenced in October 2022 and ended in July 2023. He has applied to have his bond returned to him and for exemplary damages as he claims the landlord did not lodge his bond at the Bond Centre. He has had $195 of his $490 bond refunded to date.
Mr Khan’s submission is that there was cleaning and curtain replacement required at the end of the tenancy therefore he kept the portion of the bond required to address those issues. He agrees he did not lodge the bond but explains this was because he received incorrect advice from the Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) on the point.
In 2019 Mr Khan established his company which trades under the name Friendly Flats Limited. The company runs residential tenancies in homes he rents from others. He says he was advised by CAB that as his bond paid to the owner of the home was lodged, he did not need to lodge the bonds of his tenants.
He operated this way until 2023 when the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment advised him that he must lodge bonds he received from his tenants. He says he has since changed his business practices and now lodges all bonds.
[The tenant/s] submission is that this was not good enough and he has been treated badly by Mr Khan. The law and discussion
Firstly, with respect to the remainder of the bond. Section 22B(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 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.
Accordingly, because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim, the remainder of the bond is to be refunded in full to [The tenant/s] now. The landlord is a professional tenancy management company; they should be aware of the law under which they operate.
Secondly, regarding the failure to lodge the bond at the Bond Centre, I note that the obligation to do so is pursuant to section 19(1) of the RTA and states that a landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received.
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 RTA. The landlord has breached section 19(1) of the RTA which is 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) RTA.
In consideration of whether exemplary damages are justified in these circumstances, I take into account the following: a. Mr Khan was remiss in taking advice from CAB when the Tenancy Services website is clear and comprehensive, and the call centre provides free advice. I do however accept that he did try to take advice on what was the appropriate process. b. [The tenant/s] asked Mr Khan for his bond to be refunded on several occasions. He also asked him for the bond number. Mr Khan’s responses were somewhat evasive, and it was not until this application was lodged that the bond was refunded in part. I do note however that part of the delay was [The tenant/s] non provision of his account number. c. For this lengthy period Mr Khan was in complete control of [The tenant/s] bond monies and would not enter into any discussion with him regarding the amounts he was claiming from the bond. d. [The tenant/s] was in a financially challenged position over this time and therefore being without his money for over a year has been difficult for him. e. Bond money belongs to a tenant, and it is of significant interest to both the tenant and the public that the money is held securely with the Bond Centre during the tenancy and that landlords comply with their obligations under the RTA.
Taking into account all of the above, I find that an award of $400 exemplary damages is justified. This is at the lower end of the scale to reflect that Mr Khan was acting in incorrect advice but has since rectified his practices.
Because [The tenant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee and approve his application for suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5089670 — Exemplary damages at Room 4, Unit/Flat 4G, 16 Liverpool Street, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5089670 — Exemplary damages at Room 4, Unit/Flat 4G, 16 Liverpool Street, 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