What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5168112 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 5168112?

Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Pots: $60.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $700.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5168112?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5168112?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11927409-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5168112 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 5168112?

Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Pots: $60.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $700.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5168112?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5168112?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11927409-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat C19, 403 Ormond Road, Riverdale, Gisborne 4010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5168112 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5168112 — net $1,187.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond	$700.00	Failure to lodge bond
Compensation: Loss of amenity	$400.00	Loss of amenity
Compensation: Pots	$60.00	Pots
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,187.00
Bond	$1,840.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,187.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name .
Nationwide Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $1,187.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,840.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended this remote on 3 June 2025. The landlord company was represented by Kylie Wilson.
The tenancy commenced on 23 March 2024 and ended on 20 December 2024.
The tenanted premises were a self-contained unit within a boarding house complex. Neither party suggested that this was anything other than a tenancy.
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 burden of proving the claim is on the tenant. She must prove the claim on the balance of probabilities.
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.” 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. In this matter the burden of proof is with the tenant.
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).
The tenant’s claims are; • Release of the bond. • Failure to lodge bond. • Outgoings. • Breach of quiet enjoyment. • Unlawful entry. • Failure to maintain. • Exemplary damages where they are available. • Failure to provide minimum information required in a tenancy agreement. • Reimbursement of the filing fee. 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 refunded in full to the tenant.
[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.
The landlord received the bond prior to the commencement of the tenancy. The bond was not lodged with the Bond Centre until 24 October 2024. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
The landlord’s representative said that it was not her role within the company to deal with bond payments and that she didn’t know what had occurred with the bond.
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).
No reason for the delay in lodging the bond was provided by the landlord. Providing a landlord representative at the hearing who is not aware of the background to the claim is not helpful and suggests a degree of disinterest in the process. The landlord operates a residential tenancy as a commercial operation. I consider that the delay in lodging the bond of more than six months is an aggravating factor. Taking all the relevant factors into account, an award of exemplary damages of $700.00 is appropriate. Outgoings / Failure to maintain / Breach of quiet enjoyment.
Section 39 RTA provides that the tenant is responsible for electricity charges. The tenancy agreement provides that the tenant shall pay for their own power.
The supply of power to the tenant was under what appeared to be a somewhat unusual system. The owner contracts with the local power company for the supply of power to the complex and in particular, this unit. The tenant’s unit is separately metered. Tenants are required to prepay for their power in cash at the landlord’s onsite office. Where tenants do not wish to pay for power in cash, they are able to complete a bank transfer to the owner. The owner is based in China. There is an inevitable delay between payments being made to the owner in China and the payments appearing in the owner’s bank account. This causes a delay in the provision of power to the tenant of sometimes a matter of days. Where a tenant pays for power in cash, no invoice is given. Where a tenant pays for power by way of an account payment, no invoices provided, but they are provided with a receipt.
The tenant’s particular circumstances showed an even more complicated scenario. The process for allowing power to be provided to the tenant’s unit when the tenant had paid by bank transfer, was that the landlord would take a modem to the tenant’s unit, so that they could connect by Wi-Fi to the metering system held by the owner in China. This raised a number of issues:
The landlord’s staff would arrive at the tenant’s premises without giving appropriate notice. Section 48 RTA provides the grounds on which a landlord may enter a tenant’s premises. The exception to those grounds are where a tenant may consent to the entry. The evidence from both the landlord and tenant was such that I consider that the tenant has consented to the entry on each occasion. No doubt the tenant was eager to have power connected.
Secondly, despite the tenant’s requests to the landlord to change the system, nothing was done. The landlord would still arrive with a modem to connect to the landlord’s cloud based system. This resulted in there being no power for periods of up to two hours. Having reviewed the evidence, I consider that there has been a loss of amenity to the tenant for the periods where either she had no power or had the landlord’s staff coming to her unit. The loss of amenity is relatively minor in the circumstances of this case. The landlord is ordered to pay compensation of $400.00 to the tenant for the loss of amenity. I have included in this sum an amount for any breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment and failure to maintain to ensure that the amounts are not double counted as they relate to essentially the same circumstances. Unlawful Entry
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.
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) RTA.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenant said that two contractors arrived at her door, without notice, to remove the existing oven and replace it with a new one. Neither contractor spoke English and the tenant was unable to get the contractor’s to understand that they should leave. The tenant eventually gave in and consented to the contractors entering. As a result of that consent, I do not find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act. The landlord is ordered to pay compensation of $60.00. The oven removed by the contractors contained the tenant’s pots and pans. The parties agreed that $60.00 would be an acceptable compensation sum. Tenancy Agreement
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not ensured that the tenancy agreement contained the minimum information set out in section 13A RTA. The tenant claimed that the full name and contact address of the landlord had not been included. In this matter, the tenant appears to have confused the role of the owner and the landlord. The landlord’s full name and contact address are contained in the tenancy agreement and the tenant's claim is dismissed.
As the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Both parties have applied for name suppression. The tenant has been substantially successful in this hearing and suppression of the tenants name only is ordered. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing and the landlords application for name suppression is dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5168112 — net $1,187.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond	$700.00	Failure to lodge bond
Compensation: Loss of amenity	$400.00	Loss of amenity
Compensation: Pots	$60.00	Pots
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,187.00
Bond	$1,840.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,187.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name .
Nationwide Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $1,187.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,840.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended this remote on 3 June 2025. The landlord company was represented by Kylie Wilson.
The tenancy commenced on 23 March 2024 and ended on 20 December 2024.
The tenanted premises were a self-contained unit within a boarding house complex. Neither party suggested that this was anything other than a tenancy.
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 burden of proving the claim is on the tenant. She must prove the claim on the balance of probabilities.
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.” 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. In this matter the burden of proof is with the tenant.
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).
The tenant’s claims are; • Release of the bond. • Failure to lodge bond. • Outgoings. • Breach of quiet enjoyment. • Unlawful entry. • Failure to maintain. • Exemplary damages where they are available. • Failure to provide minimum information required in a tenancy agreement. • Reimbursement of the filing fee. 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 refunded in full to the tenant.
[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.
The landlord received the bond prior to the commencement of the tenancy. The bond was not lodged with the Bond Centre until 24 October 2024. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
The landlord’s representative said that it was not her role within the company to deal with bond payments and that she didn’t know what had occurred with the bond.
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).
No reason for the delay in lodging the bond was provided by the landlord. Providing a landlord representative at the hearing who is not aware of the background to the claim is not helpful and suggests a degree of disinterest in the process. The landlord operates a residential tenancy as a commercial operation. I consider that the delay in lodging the bond of more than six months is an aggravating factor. Taking all the relevant factors into account, an award of exemplary damages of $700.00 is appropriate. Outgoings / Failure to maintain / Breach of quiet enjoyment.
Section 39 RTA provides that the tenant is responsible for electricity charges. The tenancy agreement provides that the tenant shall pay for their own power.
The supply of power to the tenant was under what appeared to be a somewhat unusual system. The owner contracts with the local power company for the supply of power to the complex and in particular, this unit. The tenant’s unit is separately metered. Tenants are required to prepay for their power in cash at the landlord’s onsite office. Where tenants do not wish to pay for power in cash, they are able to complete a bank transfer to the owner. The owner is based in China. There is an inevitable delay between payments being made to the owner in China and the payments appearing in the owner’s bank account. This causes a delay in the provision of power to the tenant of sometimes a matter of days. Where a tenant pays for power in cash, no invoice is given. Where a tenant pays for power by way of an account payment, no invoices provided, but they are provided with a receipt.
The tenant’s particular circumstances showed an even more complicated scenario. The process for allowing power to be provided to the tenant’s unit when the tenant had paid by bank transfer, was that the landlord would take a modem to the tenant’s unit, so that they could connect by Wi-Fi to the metering system held by the owner in China. This raised a number of issues:
The landlord’s staff would arrive at the tenant’s premises without giving appropriate notice. Section 48 RTA provides the grounds on which a landlord may enter a tenant’s premises. The exception to those grounds are where a tenant may consent to the entry. The evidence from both the landlord and tenant was such that I consider that the tenant has consented to the entry on each occasion. No doubt the tenant was eager to have power connected.
Secondly, despite the tenant’s requests to the landlord to change the system, nothing was done. The landlord would still arrive with a modem to connect to the landlord’s cloud based system. This resulted in there being no power for periods of up to two hours. Having reviewed the evidence, I consider that there has been a loss of amenity to the tenant for the periods where either she had no power or had the landlord’s staff coming to her unit. The loss of amenity is relatively minor in the circumstances of this case. The landlord is ordered to pay compensation of $400.00 to the tenant for the loss of amenity. I have included in this sum an amount for any breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment and failure to maintain to ensure that the amounts are not double counted as they relate to essentially the same circumstances. Unlawful Entry
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.
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) RTA.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenant said that two contractors arrived at her door, without notice, to remove the existing oven and replace it with a new one. Neither contractor spoke English and the tenant was unable to get the contractor’s to understand that they should leave. The tenant eventually gave in and consented to the contractors entering. As a result of that consent, I do not find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act. The landlord is ordered to pay compensation of $60.00. The oven removed by the contractors contained the tenant’s pots and pans. The parties agreed that $60.00 would be an acceptable compensation sum. Tenancy Agreement
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not ensured that the tenancy agreement contained the minimum information set out in section 13A RTA. The tenant claimed that the full name and contact address of the landlord had not been included. In this matter, the tenant appears to have confused the role of the owner and the landlord. The landlord’s full name and contact address are contained in the tenancy agreement and the tenant's claim is dismissed.
As the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Both parties have applied for name suppression. The tenant has been substantially successful in this hearing and suppression of the tenants name only is ordered. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing and the landlords application for name suppression is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5168112 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat C19, 403 Ormond Road, Riverdale, Gisborne 4010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5168112 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat C19, 403 Ormond Road, Riverdale, Gisborne 4010

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