What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5107088 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 5107088?

Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $977.14 awarded to landlord; Utility Charges: $1,099.87 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5107088?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5107088?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11825497-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5107088 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 5107088?

Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $977.14 awarded to landlord; Utility Charges: $1,099.87 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5107088?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5107088?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11825497-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5107088 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5107088 — net $1,777.01 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 22.12.24	$977.14		The claim for rent arrears and unpaid utility expenses is proven.
Utility charges	$1,099.87		Utility charges
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond		$300.00	Failure to lodge bond
Total award	$2,077.01	$300.00
Net award		$1,777.01
Bond		$3,040.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,777.01

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant and landlord names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,777.01 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,040.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,777.01 [The tenant/s]: $1,262.99
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $300.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant was assisted by a support person.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant filed a cross application on 14 January 2025 claiming that the landlord failed to lodge her bond money with the bond centre within the required time.
Before I address the specific claims, I will summarise some general legal principles that apply.
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 22 December 2024 when the tenant returned the keys to the landlord. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for utility expenses?

The landlord claims that there are unpaid utility charges incurred by the tenant during her time at the above tenancy address. The landlord provided full utility invoices from Smart Billing Solutions. The invoices provide detailed usage reports for electricity, water and internet attributable to the tenant’s apartment. The invoices are in the name of the apartment owner. The landlord also provided a schedule of charges and payments relating to this tenancy.
The total amount claimed for electricity, water and internet is $1309.79.
The landlord advised during the hearing that the amount of $209.92 is to be deducted off the total amount claimed leaving an amount of $1099.87 payable.
The claim for rent arrears and unpaid utility expenses is proven.
The tenant stated during the hearing that further payments may have been made and not recorded by the landlord. Any unreconciled payments discovered by the landlord must be deducted from the amount ordered above.
The claim for sofa removal costs was withdrawn by the landlord during the hearing.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. Damage to apartment building lift:
The landlord claims that one of the delivery contractors damaged the apartment lift when delivering a washing machine, fridge and drier.
The landlord has provided an invoice from Bespoke Body Corporate dated 16 April 2024 for $753.23 however no photographic evidence was provided in support. At the very least I would have expected ‘before and after’ photographic evidence of the apartment lift showing the alleged damage. I would have also expected photographic evidence of the items being delivered. The landlord requested photographic evidence from the Body Corporate however this was not provided.
In the absence of proper evidence I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenant is responsible for the alleged damage.
The claim for damage to the building lift is dismissed. Damage to apartment carpark gate:
The landlord says that the tenant is responsible for damage to the apartment carpark gate. The landlord has provided photographic evidence of the damage along with photographs of a grey sedan motor vehicle exiting the carpark. The landlord also provided a letter from the building Body Corporate dated 10 December 2024 in respect of damage caused to the gate by unit 203. During the hearing it was discovered that the alleged damaged relates to a different unit and not this tenant.
During the hearing the tenant strongly denied causing any damage to the carpark gate. She says that she does not drive and does not hold a driver licence.
The landlord has not satisfied me that the tenant is responsible for the damage as claimed. The evidence provided by the landlord in support of this claim is unreliable.
The claim for damage to the carpark gate is dismissed for want of reliable evidence. Tenant cross application Failure to lodge bond:
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
The tenant says that she moved into the apartment in February 2024. The bond and rent in advance were paid straight away to the landlord’s bank account. The tenant provided evidence in the form of an internet banking screenshot dated 13 February 2024 for the amount of $3800.00.
The landlord stated during the hearing that the bond was not lodged until 14 August 2024. The landlord says that the bond was lodged late because the tenant had not signed the bond lodgement form. The tenant says that she did not receive a bond lodgement form. The landlord accepts that it was not lodged until August 2024.
The landlord emailed the tenant on 15 February 2024 with the tenancy agreement and the bond lodgement form. The landlord says that the tenant did not return the signed form.
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 has failed to lodge the tenant’s bond. The landlord had a responsibility to ensure that the tenant signed the necessary bond form without delay and not wait six months before lodging. 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.
I am satisfied that the landlord has breached their obligations because the bond was not lodged within 23 working days “after the payment was made”. The bond money does not belong to the landlord, there was no right for them to hold it.
I consider exemplary damages should be ordered for these reasons: i. The owner is represented by a professional property manager who should have been well aware of the landlord’s obligations to lodge the bond following the payment being made. ii. The effect for the tenant is that her bond was not secure in the Bond Centre. iii. There is a strong interest for landlords, tenants and the public generally that the bond system be robust, and of course that means landlords lodging tenants bond money as they are required to do. iv. It would be just to make an order.
The maximum level of exemplary damages for failing to lodge the bond is $1500.00. For reasons as set out above, I order the amount of $300.00 as exemplary damages to be paid to the tenant.
Given that both parties have had some success with their applications I do not make an order for reimbursement of their respective filing fees.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
The landlord applied for a name suppression order. The landlord is entitled to name suppression as the application has been substantially successful – see section 95A RTA.
The tenant also applied for non-publication of her name and identifying details. She has succeeded with her application. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5107088 — net $1,777.01 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 22.12.24	$977.14		The claim for rent arrears and unpaid utility expenses is proven.
Utility charges	$1,099.87		Utility charges
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond		$300.00	Failure to lodge bond
Total award	$2,077.01	$300.00
Net award		$1,777.01
Bond		$3,040.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,777.01

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant and landlord names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,777.01 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,040.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,777.01 [The tenant/s]: $1,262.99
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $300.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant was assisted by a support person.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant filed a cross application on 14 January 2025 claiming that the landlord failed to lodge her bond money with the bond centre within the required time.
Before I address the specific claims, I will summarise some general legal principles that apply.
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 22 December 2024 when the tenant returned the keys to the landlord. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for utility expenses?

The landlord claims that there are unpaid utility charges incurred by the tenant during her time at the above tenancy address. The landlord provided full utility invoices from Smart Billing Solutions. The invoices provide detailed usage reports for electricity, water and internet attributable to the tenant’s apartment. The invoices are in the name of the apartment owner. The landlord also provided a schedule of charges and payments relating to this tenancy.
The total amount claimed for electricity, water and internet is $1309.79.
The landlord advised during the hearing that the amount of $209.92 is to be deducted off the total amount claimed leaving an amount of $1099.87 payable.
The claim for rent arrears and unpaid utility expenses is proven.
The tenant stated during the hearing that further payments may have been made and not recorded by the landlord. Any unreconciled payments discovered by the landlord must be deducted from the amount ordered above.
The claim for sofa removal costs was withdrawn by the landlord during the hearing.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. Damage to apartment building lift:
The landlord claims that one of the delivery contractors damaged the apartment lift when delivering a washing machine, fridge and drier.
The landlord has provided an invoice from Bespoke Body Corporate dated 16 April 2024 for $753.23 however no photographic evidence was provided in support. At the very least I would have expected ‘before and after’ photographic evidence of the apartment lift showing the alleged damage. I would have also expected photographic evidence of the items being delivered. The landlord requested photographic evidence from the Body Corporate however this was not provided.
In the absence of proper evidence I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenant is responsible for the alleged damage.
The claim for damage to the building lift is dismissed. Damage to apartment carpark gate:
The landlord says that the tenant is responsible for damage to the apartment carpark gate. The landlord has provided photographic evidence of the damage along with photographs of a grey sedan motor vehicle exiting the carpark. The landlord also provided a letter from the building Body Corporate dated 10 December 2024 in respect of damage caused to the gate by unit 203. During the hearing it was discovered that the alleged damaged relates to a different unit and not this tenant.
During the hearing the tenant strongly denied causing any damage to the carpark gate. She says that she does not drive and does not hold a driver licence.
The landlord has not satisfied me that the tenant is responsible for the damage as claimed. The evidence provided by the landlord in support of this claim is unreliable.
The claim for damage to the carpark gate is dismissed for want of reliable evidence. Tenant cross application Failure to lodge bond:
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
The tenant says that she moved into the apartment in February 2024. The bond and rent in advance were paid straight away to the landlord’s bank account. The tenant provided evidence in the form of an internet banking screenshot dated 13 February 2024 for the amount of $3800.00.
The landlord stated during the hearing that the bond was not lodged until 14 August 2024. The landlord says that the bond was lodged late because the tenant had not signed the bond lodgement form. The tenant says that she did not receive a bond lodgement form. The landlord accepts that it was not lodged until August 2024.
The landlord emailed the tenant on 15 February 2024 with the tenancy agreement and the bond lodgement form. The landlord says that the tenant did not return the signed form.
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 has failed to lodge the tenant’s bond. The landlord had a responsibility to ensure that the tenant signed the necessary bond form without delay and not wait six months before lodging. 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.
I am satisfied that the landlord has breached their obligations because the bond was not lodged within 23 working days “after the payment was made”. The bond money does not belong to the landlord, there was no right for them to hold it.
I consider exemplary damages should be ordered for these reasons: i. The owner is represented by a professional property manager who should have been well aware of the landlord’s obligations to lodge the bond following the payment being made. ii. The effect for the tenant is that her bond was not secure in the Bond Centre. iii. There is a strong interest for landlords, tenants and the public generally that the bond system be robust, and of course that means landlords lodging tenants bond money as they are required to do. iv. It would be just to make an order.
The maximum level of exemplary damages for failing to lodge the bond is $1500.00. For reasons as set out above, I order the amount of $300.00 as exemplary damages to be paid to the tenant.
Given that both parties have had some success with their applications I do not make an order for reimbursement of their respective filing fees.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
The landlord applied for a name suppression order. The landlord is entitled to name suppression as the application has been substantially successful – see section 95A RTA.
The tenant also applied for non-publication of her name and identifying details. She has succeeded with her application. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5107088 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5107088 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

How much is owed for utility expenses?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

How much is owed for utility expenses?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions