Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5259403 — Exemplary damages at Room Suite 403, 149 Nelson Street, Auckland Central,
Decided 30 Jul 2025 · Published 30 Jul 2025 · Application 5259403
- Exemplary damages
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
- Jean Claude Schrater must pay the tenant $1,417.00 immediately, being $450.00 in exemplary damages, the filing fee and return of the bond of $940.00, calculated as shown in the table below:
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing which was conducted via telephone. An interpreter, Ruth Liliana Tizon de Qureshi, attended the hearing to assist the Tribunal.
- The tenant has applied for refund of the bond, exemplary damages for failure to pay the bond to the Bond Centre within 23 working days of receipt and the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Should the bond be refunded?
- The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The landlord has not filed claim a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.
- Section 22B(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (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.
- Usually, the Tribunal would direct the Bond Centre to pay the bond to the tenant. However, as the bond has not been paid to the Bond Centre, the landlord is to pay that sum to the tenant immediately. Should the Tribunal award exemplary damages for failing to lodge the bond with the
Bond Centre within the required time?
- Section 19(1) of the RTA provides that a landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received.
- 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 of the RTA.)
- The tenant claims that the landlord did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time. The landlord does not dispute this claim. He says that he is a first-time landlord and did not know that he was required to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre. The landlord said he became aware of this obligation approximately one month into the tenancy.
- The bond has still not been lodged with the Bond Centre.
- I find that the landlord failed to lodge the bond within the required time and has, therefore, committed an unlawful act.
- Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
- Section 109 of the RTA provides that the Tribunal has a discretion to award exemplary damages if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
- I accept that the landlord is a first time landlord and was not initially aware of his obligation to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre. However, I do not consider this means exemplary damages should not be awarded. In T.M.T New Zealand Limited Trading as Strata Property Management v Kirk Liam Sweeney and Anne-mette Holmgard Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182, the landlord had failed to provide an insurance and healthy homes compliance statement. The Court held that: The obligation to provide these documents are fundamental obligations on landlords of which it appears Mr Hu was not fully aware despite their being included in the Act since 2016 and 2019 respectively. Like all citizens, corporate or otherwise, he and his company are deemed to know the law and on that basis a failure to provide these fundamental documents is properly seen as intentional. Parliament’s intention would be subverted if landlords were able to escape consequence for the unlawful acts involved by claiming ignorance of the law.
- Lodging the bond is a fundamental obligation for landlords and there is a strong public interest in landlords doing so. While the tenant spoke mainly of his frustration of not having the bond returned to him, no doubt the failure to lodge the bond made him feel concerned about the security of the money he had paid.
- The landlord’s failure to lodge the bond caused the tenant inconvenience. The landlord has not breached the obligation previously. The landlord did apologise for this failure during the hearing. In these circumstances, I consider it is appropriate to award exemplary damages at a modest level. I award $450.00 in exemplary damages. Filing fee and suppression:
- The tenant has wholly succeeded with the claim. For this reason, I order reimbursement of the filing fee and suppression of the tenant’s name.