What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5247039 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants’ names and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 5247039?

Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5247039?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5247039?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12138850-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5247039 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants’ names and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 5247039?

Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5247039?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5247039?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12138850-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

32 Stanford Way, Rolleston 7615 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5247039 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5247039. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Return of tenants’ bond – not lodged	$1,300.00	Return of tenants’ bond – not lodged
Exemplary damages for failing to lodge the bond	$750.00	Exemplary damages for failing to lodge the bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

The tenants’ names and identifying details must not be published.
Josh Stevenson must pay [the tenants] $2,077.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below. DescriptionTenant Return of tenants’ bond – not lodged$1,300.00 Exemplary damages for failing to lodge the bond$750.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$2,077.00

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by telephone.
Mr [surname of tenant] attended for the tenants.
The tenants claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
There was a preliminary issue. Mr Stevenson submitted he is incorrectly named as the landlord because Stevenson Family Trust owns the property. However, it does not matter that the Stevenson Family Trust owns the property because Mr Stevenson is named as landlord on the original tenancy agreement that Mr Stevenson signed. Mr Stevenson is therefore correctly named as the landlord.

Did the landlord lodge the bond?

A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. 1
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. 2
The landlord did not lodge the bond at any time, and nor had the landlord paid the bond back to the tenants.
The tenants paid the bond into Mr Stephenson’s Trust’s bank account in June 2021. Mr Stephenson says he instructed his administrator person to lodge the bond. He says he did not realise that the administrator person had failed to lodge the bond until later. By that time, he says, the bond had been transferred to Orange Property Management. Mr Stevenson said he used to own that company but had sold it by then.
Mr Stevenson submitted an email from the “Admin Team Orange Property Management” to him that states: We note that you instructed us to release the bond that we have held in our account. (That was deposited by you on the 1 st of September 2024)
The email demonstrates that Mr Stevenson had control of family trust’s bank account which held the bond, but he did not lodge the bond as required. Further, he had the ability to “instruct” Orange Property Management to deal with the bond. That means he could have instructed it to lodge the bond but did not do so. I find he has committed the unlawful act as alleged.
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. 3
Mr Stevenson says he did not intentionally fail to lodge the bond because he had thought his administrator person had done so. Later, it was Orange Property that failed to lodge the bond once it was transferred to it.
I find it more probable than not that Mr Stevenson intentionally failed to lodge the bond. It is likely that Mr Stevenson himself had close oversight of the family trust’s bank account and would observe and control its transactions. Purportedly, in September of 2024, rather than lodge the Bond Centre, Mr Stevenson transferred the money to Orange Property. It does not ring true. If it were true, Mr Stevenson deliberately omitted to lodge the bond upon this later date. Then he failed to instruct Orange Property to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre.
Mr Stevenson has still not returned the bond. He claims that the tenants have not supplied their bank details. The tenants deny they have not done so. The tenants happily recited their bank account details during the hearing. I find it is likely the tenants 1 Section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). 2 RTA s 19(2) and Schedule 1A. 3 RTA s 109(3). were happy to provide their bank account number to Mr Stevenson by email and that they did so.
Mr Stevenson’s intent was to hold onto the tenants’ bond rather than deposit it with the Bond Centre. The effect of the unlawful act was (and is) to deprive the tenants of money that is rightfully theirs. It is in the interests of the tenants to order exemplary damages to vindicate the wrong. Exemplary damages are punitive damages. It is the public interest to order exemplary damages to deter landlords from failing in their bond duties and to protect and maintain the integrity of the bond system.
Therefore, it is just to award exemplary damages. Having regard to the statutory factors, I set the exemplary damages at 50 per cent of the maximum, which is $750.00. Unpaid bond
Mr Stevenson must repay the tenants’ money paid for bond. Filing fee
The landlord must reimburse the tenants for the filing fee. 4 Non-publication order
The tenants seek an order for non-publication of their names and identifying particulars.
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. 5
The tenants have wholly succeeded in the proceedings. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or otherwise justified.
The Tribunal orders non-publication as sought.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5247039. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Return of tenants’ bond – not lodged	$1,300.00	Return of tenants’ bond – not lodged
Exemplary damages for failing to lodge the bond	$750.00	Exemplary damages for failing to lodge the bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

The tenants’ names and identifying details must not be published.
Josh Stevenson must pay [the tenants] $2,077.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below. DescriptionTenant Return of tenants’ bond – not lodged$1,300.00 Exemplary damages for failing to lodge the bond$750.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$2,077.00

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by telephone.
Mr [surname of tenant] attended for the tenants.
The tenants claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
There was a preliminary issue. Mr Stevenson submitted he is incorrectly named as the landlord because Stevenson Family Trust owns the property. However, it does not matter that the Stevenson Family Trust owns the property because Mr Stevenson is named as landlord on the original tenancy agreement that Mr Stevenson signed. Mr Stevenson is therefore correctly named as the landlord.

Did the landlord lodge the bond?

A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. 1
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. 2
The landlord did not lodge the bond at any time, and nor had the landlord paid the bond back to the tenants.
The tenants paid the bond into Mr Stephenson’s Trust’s bank account in June 2021. Mr Stephenson says he instructed his administrator person to lodge the bond. He says he did not realise that the administrator person had failed to lodge the bond until later. By that time, he says, the bond had been transferred to Orange Property Management. Mr Stevenson said he used to own that company but had sold it by then.
Mr Stevenson submitted an email from the “Admin Team Orange Property Management” to him that states: We note that you instructed us to release the bond that we have held in our account. (That was deposited by you on the 1 st of September 2024)
The email demonstrates that Mr Stevenson had control of family trust’s bank account which held the bond, but he did not lodge the bond as required. Further, he had the ability to “instruct” Orange Property Management to deal with the bond. That means he could have instructed it to lodge the bond but did not do so. I find he has committed the unlawful act as alleged.
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. 3
Mr Stevenson says he did not intentionally fail to lodge the bond because he had thought his administrator person had done so. Later, it was Orange Property that failed to lodge the bond once it was transferred to it.
I find it more probable than not that Mr Stevenson intentionally failed to lodge the bond. It is likely that Mr Stevenson himself had close oversight of the family trust’s bank account and would observe and control its transactions. Purportedly, in September of 2024, rather than lodge the Bond Centre, Mr Stevenson transferred the money to Orange Property. It does not ring true. If it were true, Mr Stevenson deliberately omitted to lodge the bond upon this later date. Then he failed to instruct Orange Property to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre.
Mr Stevenson has still not returned the bond. He claims that the tenants have not supplied their bank details. The tenants deny they have not done so. The tenants happily recited their bank account details during the hearing. I find it is likely the tenants 1 Section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). 2 RTA s 19(2) and Schedule 1A. 3 RTA s 109(3). were happy to provide their bank account number to Mr Stevenson by email and that they did so.
Mr Stevenson’s intent was to hold onto the tenants’ bond rather than deposit it with the Bond Centre. The effect of the unlawful act was (and is) to deprive the tenants of money that is rightfully theirs. It is in the interests of the tenants to order exemplary damages to vindicate the wrong. Exemplary damages are punitive damages. It is the public interest to order exemplary damages to deter landlords from failing in their bond duties and to protect and maintain the integrity of the bond system.
Therefore, it is just to award exemplary damages. Having regard to the statutory factors, I set the exemplary damages at 50 per cent of the maximum, which is $750.00. Unpaid bond
Mr Stevenson must repay the tenants’ money paid for bond. Filing fee
The landlord must reimburse the tenants for the filing fee. 4 Non-publication order
The tenants seek an order for non-publication of their names and identifying particulars.
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. 5
The tenants have wholly succeeded in the proceedings. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or otherwise justified.
The Tribunal orders non-publication as sought.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5247039 — Exemplary damages at 32 Stanford Way, Rolleston 7615

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5247039 — Exemplary damages at 32 Stanford Way, Rolleston 7615

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord lodge the bond?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord lodge the bond?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions