What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5257138 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 5257138?

Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5257138?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5257138?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12115587-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5257138 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 5257138?

Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5257138?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5257138?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12115587-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 29, 41 Cambridge Terrace, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 5257138 — Exemplary damages

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5257138 — net $327.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: failure to lodge the bond	$300.00	failure to lodge the bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$327.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$327.00

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via teleconference. The tenant is overseas in Ireland at present.

The tenant stated the landlord failed to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the required period, claiming the failure to do so was an unlawful act.

This failure was not disputed by the landlord. He claimed that as the fixed-term tenancy was of some five months there was no need.

A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received (see s 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986). This applies whether the bond is paid in part or whole.

The tenancy ended not long after the fixed-term period. A dispute regarding a $50.00 landlord claim for cleaning then arose. This was eventually waived by the landlord and the bond returned but the very fact the dispute was argued with the landlord holding the bond, rather than the Bond Centre, created a power imbalance the Bond Centre process is intended to level.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00 (see s 19(2) and Schedule 1A RTA.

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 am satisfied the landlord intentionally turned his mind to withholding the bond, albeit for a reason he considered justified. There is no indication of prior failures by the landlord to lodge the bond. He said the premises is currently untenanted. The subsequent dispute between the parties regarding some of the bond being claimed for cleaning – a claim rejected by the tenant – exacerbated the impact on the tenant, requiring him to assert himself to the landlord as well as seek advice from Tenancy Services prior to this application.

Given the balancing considerations of s 109(3) RTA, I consider an exemplary damages order at the lower end is appropriate here. I order $300.00 exemplary damages for the landlord failure to lodge the bond. Any future such failures will likely attract a more significant order. Filing fee

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

Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that 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.

The tenant requested suppression in his application. As he has been wholly successful, name suppression is appropriate and ordered. The address is not suppressed as there may be future tenant interest in being aware of this order.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5257138 — net $327.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: failure to lodge the bond	$300.00	failure to lodge the bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$327.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$327.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name.
Jin Yang must pay [The tenant/s] $327.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via teleconference. The tenant is overseas in Ireland at present.
The tenant stated the landlord failed to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the required period, claiming the failure to do so was an unlawful act.
This failure was not disputed by the landlord. He claimed that as the fixed-term tenancy was of some five months there was no need.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received (see s 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986). This applies whether the bond is paid in part or whole.
The tenancy ended not long after the fixed-term period. A dispute regarding a $50.00 landlord claim for cleaning then arose. This was eventually waived by the landlord and the bond returned but the very fact the dispute was argued with the landlord holding the bond, rather than the Bond Centre, created a power imbalance the Bond Centre process is intended to level.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00 (see s 19(2) and Schedule 1A RTA.
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 am satisfied the landlord intentionally turned his mind to withholding the bond, albeit for a reason he considered justified. There is no indication of prior failures by the landlord to lodge the bond. He said the premises is currently untenanted. The subsequent dispute between the parties regarding some of the bond being claimed for cleaning – a claim rejected by the tenant – exacerbated the impact on the tenant, requiring him to assert himself to the landlord as well as seek advice from Tenancy Services prior to this application.
Given the balancing considerations of s 109(3) RTA, I consider an exemplary damages order at the lower end is appropriate here. I order $300.00 exemplary damages for the landlord failure to lodge the bond. Any future such failures will likely attract a more significant order. Filing fee
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that 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.
The tenant requested suppression in his application. As he has been wholly successful, name suppression is appropriate and ordered. The address is not suppressed as there may be future tenant interest in being aware of this order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5257138 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat Flat 29, 41 Cambridge Terrace, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5257138 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat Flat 29, 41 Cambridge Terrace, Christchurch

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