What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5139189 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 5139189?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5139189?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5139189?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11871674-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5139189 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 5139189?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5139189?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5139189?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11871674-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5139189 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5139189 — net $2,700.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages	$500.00	Exemplary damages
Bond release	$2,200.00	Bond release
Net award	$2,700.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,700.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay Donella Jordana Sands $2,700.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing on 20 May 2025.
The tenancy commenced on 25 August 2024 and ended on 9 March 2025.
The tenant’s claims are for; • Release of the bond. • Failure to lodge the bond. • Breach of quiet enjoyment. • Attempting to terminate the tenancy without grounds. • Exemplary damages where applicable. • Reimbursement of the filing fee.
The relevant law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
The term “balance of probabilities” means more likely than unlikely, 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 more likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
The obligation to show that something is more likely than not is referred to as the “burden of proof.” The burden of proof in this hearing is on the tenant. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “ like 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.” (the emphasis is mine). Bond
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The landlord has a claim against the bond, but has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.
Section 22B(2) 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. As the landlord has not filed a counterclaim, the bond is to be refunded in full to the tenant.
I record that the landlord agreed that he had appointed a former partner as his agent for the tenancy, as he would be away. The landlord said that he had directed his agent to have the tenant pay the bond directly to the landlord. The agent arranged to have the bond paid by the tenant directly to her. In the circumstances, the landlord remains responsible for the release of the bond to the tenant. Any dispute between the agent and the landlord is for them to resolve.
Donella Jordana Sands 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) 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 lodge the bond with the Bond Centre. 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.
The failure by the landlord to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre has resulted in the need for this hearing in relation to the bond. Owning a residential tenancy is a business. A landlord is required to make themselves aware of their obligations under the RTA with regards to a bond. It is in the best interests of this tenant and tenants generally to have landlords comply with their obligations under the RTA. It is an aggravating feature that as of the date of this hearing, the bond has still not been lodged with the Bond Centre. Taking those factors into consideration, the landlord is ordered to pay exemplary damages of $500.00. Quiet Enjoyment
The tenant says that the landlord has breached her quiet enjoyment of the premises. The tenant’s evidence was that the landlord contacted her in October 2024 and asked if he could use the spare room at the premises. The tenant consented to this. The landlord stayed at the premises for two months. I do not consider that the landlord living at the premises for that short period of time means that this was the landlord’s principal place of residence, such that the exclusion in s.5(1)(n) RTA would apply.
The landlord moved out when the tenant served a trespass notice on him and required him to leave.
In the circumstances, as described, I consider that the tenant has consented to the landlord being present at the premises. The landlord has left the premises when that consent was withdrawn. The tenant’s claim for breach of quiet enjoyment is dismissed. Terminate without grounds.
The tenant says that the landlord has attempted to terminate the tenancy without grounds.
The Tribunal in considering this, must decide whether this was a fixed term tenancy or a periodic tenancy.
The tenant says that prior to entering into the tenancy she spoke to the landlord’s agent. The agent and the tenant agreed by text message that the tenancy would be for a fixed term of one year.
The tenant agreed that she subsequently signed a tenancy agreement that had been prepared by the agent. The tenancy agreement allows for the parties to strike out whichever of the two options was applicable, namely for the tenancy to be periodic or for a fixed term to apply. Neither option has been struck out. This has the effect of there being no specific fixed term included in the tenancy agreement. We are that has occurred, I consider it to be more likely than not that the parties had agreed on the tenancy being periodic, so that either party would be able to terminate the tenancy on giving the appropriate notice to the other. Had they intended for the agreement to be for a fixed term, then it would seem more likely than not, that the agreed end date would have been included in the tenancy agreement.
Having concluded that this was a periodic tenancy, the landlord was entitled to give the tenant 63 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy. The tenant’s application is therefore dismissed.
As the tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing, I make no order with regards to the filing fee.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing and the tenant’s application for name suppression is dismissed. The landlord has been substantially successful in this hearing. Suppression of the landlord’s name and details is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5139189 — net $2,700.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages	$500.00	Exemplary damages
Bond release	$2,200.00	Bond release
Net award	$2,700.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,700.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay Donella Jordana Sands $2,700.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing on 20 May 2025.
The tenancy commenced on 25 August 2024 and ended on 9 March 2025.
The tenant’s claims are for; • Release of the bond. • Failure to lodge the bond. • Breach of quiet enjoyment. • Attempting to terminate the tenancy without grounds. • Exemplary damages where applicable. • Reimbursement of the filing fee.
The relevant law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
The term “balance of probabilities” means more likely than unlikely, 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 more likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
The obligation to show that something is more likely than not is referred to as the “burden of proof.” The burden of proof in this hearing is on the tenant. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “ like 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.” (the emphasis is mine). Bond
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The landlord has a claim against the bond, but has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.
Section 22B(2) 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. As the landlord has not filed a counterclaim, the bond is to be refunded in full to the tenant.
I record that the landlord agreed that he had appointed a former partner as his agent for the tenancy, as he would be away. The landlord said that he had directed his agent to have the tenant pay the bond directly to the landlord. The agent arranged to have the bond paid by the tenant directly to her. In the circumstances, the landlord remains responsible for the release of the bond to the tenant. Any dispute between the agent and the landlord is for them to resolve.
Donella Jordana Sands 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) 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 lodge the bond with the Bond Centre. 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.
The failure by the landlord to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre has resulted in the need for this hearing in relation to the bond. Owning a residential tenancy is a business. A landlord is required to make themselves aware of their obligations under the RTA with regards to a bond. It is in the best interests of this tenant and tenants generally to have landlords comply with their obligations under the RTA. It is an aggravating feature that as of the date of this hearing, the bond has still not been lodged with the Bond Centre. Taking those factors into consideration, the landlord is ordered to pay exemplary damages of $500.00. Quiet Enjoyment
The tenant says that the landlord has breached her quiet enjoyment of the premises. The tenant’s evidence was that the landlord contacted her in October 2024 and asked if he could use the spare room at the premises. The tenant consented to this. The landlord stayed at the premises for two months. I do not consider that the landlord living at the premises for that short period of time means that this was the landlord’s principal place of residence, such that the exclusion in s.5(1)(n) RTA would apply.
The landlord moved out when the tenant served a trespass notice on him and required him to leave.
In the circumstances, as described, I consider that the tenant has consented to the landlord being present at the premises. The landlord has left the premises when that consent was withdrawn. The tenant’s claim for breach of quiet enjoyment is dismissed. Terminate without grounds.
The tenant says that the landlord has attempted to terminate the tenancy without grounds.
The Tribunal in considering this, must decide whether this was a fixed term tenancy or a periodic tenancy.
The tenant says that prior to entering into the tenancy she spoke to the landlord’s agent. The agent and the tenant agreed by text message that the tenancy would be for a fixed term of one year.
The tenant agreed that she subsequently signed a tenancy agreement that had been prepared by the agent. The tenancy agreement allows for the parties to strike out whichever of the two options was applicable, namely for the tenancy to be periodic or for a fixed term to apply. Neither option has been struck out. This has the effect of there being no specific fixed term included in the tenancy agreement. We are that has occurred, I consider it to be more likely than not that the parties had agreed on the tenancy being periodic, so that either party would be able to terminate the tenancy on giving the appropriate notice to the other. Had they intended for the agreement to be for a fixed term, then it would seem more likely than not, that the agreed end date would have been included in the tenancy agreement.
Having concluded that this was a periodic tenancy, the landlord was entitled to give the tenant 63 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy. The tenant’s application is therefore dismissed.
As the tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing, I make no order with regards to the filing fee.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing and the tenant’s application for name suppression is dismissed. The landlord has been substantially successful in this hearing. Suppression of the landlord’s name and details is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5139189 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5139189 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions