How much money was awarded in case 5127828?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5127828?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Exemplary damages, Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5127828?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11854660-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5127828?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5127828?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Exemplary damages, Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5127828?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11854660-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5127828 — Rent arrears

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5127828 about?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ name and identifying details.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $900.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Abhishek Bhowmick must pay [The tenant/s] $0.00 immediately for exemplary damages ($500.00 for failure to lodge bond) and reimbursement of the filing fee ($27.00).

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

[The tenant/s] claim the landlord did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre as required by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), resulting in significant stress and anxiety.

They seek a refund of the bond, as well as exemplary damages for this failure.

They also seek damages for a professional cleaning dispute at the end of the tenancy. Background

The tenancy commenced on 14 June 2022, and ended on 23 December 2024.

A bond of $900.00 was paid at the commencement of the tenancy. At the end of the tenancy, the tenants say that the landlord failed to return the bond to them and provided a bond refund form for signing despite them determining that the bond had not being lodged. In addition, they say that the landlord attempted to demand professional cleaning of $3,900.00 be paid by the tenants.

The landlord says that the bond was lodged and that there are several costs relating to vacated damages that he had to pay, that he has not sought from the tenant. He has provided several documents that include invoices, body corporate emails, correspondence, and a solicitor letter.

In summary, the landlord says that there were ongoing issues with rent arrears, repeated breaches in relation to the body corporate rules, professional boundary concerns, cleaning required at the end of the tenancy, failure to return keys and evasion following termination.

In response to the tenants claims the landlord seeks release of the bond to him to cover cleaning and reinstatement costs, replacement of keys, loss of rent and legal and administrative costs. However, he has not filed a claim or cross application for any of these costs.

The landlord sought that the restraint of not filing a cross application be acknowledged. However, it is not possible to consider payment out of the bond to the landlord without a cross application with respect to the items the landlord seeks to have paid out.

Accordingly, I have not considered these and have only considered the landlords submissions to the extent they respond to the tenants’ claims. The law

A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) RTA.

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 failed to send the bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days. The bond was not lodged until January 2025, after the tenancy had ended. Although I acknowledge the submissions around the landlord’s personal, medical, and familial pressures over the last two years, 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) RTA.

A landlord is considered to know and understand tenancy law and so any breach of tenancy law must be considered intentional. The lodgement of bond is fundamental to ensuring a fair process for its return at the end of the tenancy. It is understandable that it not being lodged until after they vacated and were already in dispute, caused stress to the tenants.

I therefore find that exemplary damages should be awarded for $500.00.

The tenant also claims that at the end of the tenancy, the landlord attempted to unreasonably charge for professional cleaning, and they seek exemplary damages for the impact of that dispute. However, there are no specific exemplary damages available or sought for this, and I note that the landlord did eventually waive this cleaning amount. This claim is dismissed.

There being no cross application for the bond, I also direct that the bond be refunded in full to the tenant.

Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must also reimburse the filing fee.

I note that the tenants sought name suppression and as they have been wholly successful, this has been granted. There was no name suppression sought by the landlord. R Harvey-Lane 16 May 2025

Order