What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5160511 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 5160511?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5160511?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5160511?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11742327-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5160511 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 5160511?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5160511?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5160511?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11742327-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5160511 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5160511 — net $527.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages	$500.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$527.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$527.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
Forth St Apartments Anna Henare must pay [The tenant/s] $527.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing.
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.
The tenanted premises consists of four bedrooms, each with an en-suite. Each of the four tenants has an individual and separate tenancy agreement with the landlord. The tenancy agreement provides them with exclusive use of their bedroom and en-suite. Use of the communal spaces (kitchen, dining, laundry and lounge) is shared between the tenants.
The tenancy agreement provides the landlord will pay for the cleaning of the shared communal areas.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The tenant says that the landlord was seen to enter the shared communal area on 5 November 2024. Section 48 RTA sets out the landlord’s right of entry to the premises. Section 48(7) RTA records that in this section, “premises” does not include land or facilities.
“Facilities” is defined in the RTA as being “in relation to a tenancy agreement (other than a boarding house tenancy agreement), includes all facilities provided by the landlord for the non-exclusive use and enjoyment of the tenant, otherwise then as part of the premises that are the subject of the agreement, such as the following; (a) Any land or buildings intended for use for storage space or for the parking of motor vehicles; (b) Laundry facility; (c) Cooking facilities; (d) Lifts and stairways; (e) Rubbish storage and rubbish disposal facilities; (f) Toilet and washing facilities (g) Appliances for heating or cooling premises; (h) Communication facilities; (i) Recreational areas; (j) Lawns, gardens, and out houses.”
The communal area by definition is a facility. That facility is provided for the non-exclusive use and enjoyment of the tenants, otherwise than as a part of the premises that are the subject of the tenancy agreement The unlawful entry provisions of the RTA exclude facilities. The landlord cannot unlawfully enter facilities. The claim is dismissed.
[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) 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.
This is an experienced landlord. The landlord accepts that the bond was paid by the tenant and that the bond money was not lodged at any time with the bond centre. The landlord says that when she received a message from the tenant on 10 February 2025 asking for the bond to be repaid, it was paid to the tenant immediately. 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) RTA.
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).
I accept that the landlord has forgotten to lodge the bond, but should have had systems in place to ensure this does not happen. I am not aware of any other occasions where this landlord has failed to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre. The bond was not lodged during the course of the tenancy. There was a delay in the tenant receiving the bond from the landlord following the end of the tenancy. Taking all of these circumstances referred to above into consideration, I order the landlord to pay exemplary damages of $500.00 to the tenant.
As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have ordered the landlord to reimburse the filing fee.
Both parties have applied for name suppression. The tenant has been substantially successful in this application and suppression of the tenant’s name and details is ordered. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and the landlord’s application for suppression is dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5160511 — net $527.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages	$500.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$527.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$527.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
Forth St Apartments Anna Henare must pay [The tenant/s] $527.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing.
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.
The tenanted premises consists of four bedrooms, each with an en-suite. Each of the four tenants has an individual and separate tenancy agreement with the landlord. The tenancy agreement provides them with exclusive use of their bedroom and en-suite. Use of the communal spaces (kitchen, dining, laundry and lounge) is shared between the tenants.
The tenancy agreement provides the landlord will pay for the cleaning of the shared communal areas.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The tenant says that the landlord was seen to enter the shared communal area on 5 November 2024. Section 48 RTA sets out the landlord’s right of entry to the premises. Section 48(7) RTA records that in this section, “premises” does not include land or facilities.
“Facilities” is defined in the RTA as being “in relation to a tenancy agreement (other than a boarding house tenancy agreement), includes all facilities provided by the landlord for the non-exclusive use and enjoyment of the tenant, otherwise then as part of the premises that are the subject of the agreement, such as the following; (a) Any land or buildings intended for use for storage space or for the parking of motor vehicles; (b) Laundry facility; (c) Cooking facilities; (d) Lifts and stairways; (e) Rubbish storage and rubbish disposal facilities; (f) Toilet and washing facilities (g) Appliances for heating or cooling premises; (h) Communication facilities; (i) Recreational areas; (j) Lawns, gardens, and out houses.”
The communal area by definition is a facility. That facility is provided for the non-exclusive use and enjoyment of the tenants, otherwise than as a part of the premises that are the subject of the tenancy agreement The unlawful entry provisions of the RTA exclude facilities. The landlord cannot unlawfully enter facilities. The claim is dismissed.
[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) 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.
This is an experienced landlord. The landlord accepts that the bond was paid by the tenant and that the bond money was not lodged at any time with the bond centre. The landlord says that when she received a message from the tenant on 10 February 2025 asking for the bond to be repaid, it was paid to the tenant immediately. 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) RTA.
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).
I accept that the landlord has forgotten to lodge the bond, but should have had systems in place to ensure this does not happen. I am not aware of any other occasions where this landlord has failed to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre. The bond was not lodged during the course of the tenancy. There was a delay in the tenant receiving the bond from the landlord following the end of the tenancy. Taking all of these circumstances referred to above into consideration, I order the landlord to pay exemplary damages of $500.00 to the tenant.
As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have ordered the landlord to reimburse the filing fee.
Both parties have applied for name suppression. The tenant has been substantially successful in this application and suppression of the tenant’s name and details is ordered. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and the landlord’s application for suppression is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5160511 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5160511 — Exemplary damages

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