What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5266640 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 5266640?

Compensation: Reimbursement of rent…: $2,321.43 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $50.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5266640?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5266640?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12624657-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5266640 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 5266640?

Compensation: Reimbursement of rent…: $2,321.43 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $50.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5266640?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5266640?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12624657-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5266640 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5266640 — net $1,871.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs	$700.00		Repairs
Repairs: Carpet	$50.00		Repairs: Carpet
Compensation: Reimbursement of rent overpaid		$2,321.43	Reimbursement of rent overpaid
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond		$300.00	Failure to lodge bond
Total award	$750.00	$2,621.43
Net award		$1,871.43
Bond		$2,600.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,871.43

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5266640 — net $1,871.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs	$700.00		Repairs
Repairs: Carpet	$50.00		Repairs: Carpet
Compensation: Reimbursement of rent overpaid		$2,321.43	Reimbursement of rent overpaid
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond		$300.00	Failure to lodge bond
Total award	$750.00	$2,621.43
Net award		$1,871.43
Bond		$2,600.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,871.43

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
Kiwi Group Limited T/A Resido Sharry Fa'aiu Foe must pay [The tenant/s] $4,192.86 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on the 3 October 2025. The claims to be determined.
The tenants filed their claims first on the 31 May, which was 2 weeks before the tenancy ended on the 11 June 2025. The tenants seek: a. Overpaid rent from the 27 February 2025 to the 24 March 2025. The tenants say that they did not get possession of the property until 24 March 2025 or alternatively that the landlord prevented them from having possession from the 27 February to 24 March. b. Exemplary damages for the bond not being lodged. c. That the landlords refused to release the tenant’s bond at the end of the tenancy meaning that the tenants were not able to move into their new tenancy.
The landlord filed their claim on the 9 July 2025, they seek repair costs for damage they claim that the tenants caused to the premises being painting and plastering, repair air conditioner cover and carpet patch and repair flooring.
The questions that the Tribunal needs to determine are: a. When did the tenancy begin? b. Were the tenants liable for rent for the 27 February 2025 to 24 March 2025? c. Did the landlord lodge the bond with 23 working days of receipt? d. Are the tenants liable for any or the repair costs? Background.
The tenancy premises is a one-bedroom apartment in a new build apartment complex. The landlord says that the tenants were the first occupants of the apartment, but the tenants dispute this and say that they believe that someone else occupied the property before them as there was another name on the welcome pack and they believed the property showed signs of wear when they first moved in such as scratches on walls and skirting and a boggy patch in the wall by the ranch slider.
The parties both agree that the landlord’s representative Gail showed the tenants through 3 apartments on site in early February. At first [Tenant 1] filed his own tenancy application, on the 25 February Gail advised the tenants that it would be best if [Tenant 2] was also put on the tenancy agreement and asked her if she could fill out an application. I was provided with those applications at the hearing and a record of who viewed and signed documents on what dates at what times. They show me that the applications were completed on the 25 February, and [Tenant 2]’s income is shown as nil. On the 26 February the landlord presented a tenancy agreement to the tenants which the tenants signed on the same day. The landlord also signed the agreement that day. The commencement date for the tenancy was 27 February 2025.
On the 26 February [Tenant 2] also advised that if she was to be put in the tenancy agreement that WINZ who had by then approved her for a caregiver’s subsidy (which she received for caring for her ill mother) would require a supplier number from the landlord in order to process the rent payments and bond.
The landlord had a supplier number but when they provided it to WINZ, it was found to be only temporary, and WINZ required the landlord to obtain a new permanent number in order to pay them the rent and the bond. [Tenant 2] told me that WINZ had made it clear to her that all the landlord had to do was request it be sent to the email address that [Tenant 2] provided them with and it would be dealt with urgently.
The landlord says that the tenant never disclosed in the tenancy application form that she would be receiving funds from WINZ before signing the tenancy application and that it was not able to process the supplier number request until March. It did not give a reason why it was not able to do this until March except to say that its staff had a high workload.
The tenants say that they were unable to take possession of the property until they paid the bond, rent and rent in advance as per the contract.
The landlord’s say that they never prevented the tenant from taking possession of the property and the tenants never asked for the keys or a loading dock space (which is necessary in order to move in as it is the only way that tenants can move in using the loading bay).
It is the landlord’s position that had the tenants merely asked for the keys that they would have been given them and they would have allowed the tenants to move in.
The landlord also says that the tenant [Tenant 1] should have paid the bond and rent, he made claims that he could do so on his own and should have done that. The tenants say that they could not do that because if [Tenant 1] had paid the bond and rent then WINZ would not have paid [Tenant 2]’s half, and she would be ineligible to be a tenant. In essence the tenants say that they were stuck because if [Tenant 1] paid the rent, then [Tenant 2] would lose her entitlement, but they could not take possession without the rent being paid, and WINZ needed the landlord to obtain a supplier number.
Having considered all the evidence, I am satisfied that the tenancy actually started on the 24 March 2025 when the tenants picked up the keys and moved into the property. I say this for the following reasons: a. It is clear in the tenancy agreement that the keys and therefore possession of the property would not be given until the bond and rent was paid. This was also reiterated in the email from the landlord dated 19 March which said. At the moment you owe $3,296.43 Your next rent is due on Monday which will cover 24/03/2025 to 30/03/2025 - $650 Once you have paid, we are happy to proceed with providing access to your apartment so you can finally move in. Yaaaay!!! (Own emphasis in bold). b. I accept the tenant’s evidence that they did not hide that [Tenant 2] would be receiving income via WINZ, and that they told Gail about their situation. This is supported by the tenants’ submission that that is why they recorded [Tenant 2]’s income as nil in the application form. The tenants also referred to this in their email of the 15 April saying: “Throughout February and March, Gail repeatedly advised via text and email that the tenant could only proceed once the bond payment and proof of move in costs were confirmed. These conditions could not be met because Resido’s supplier number for WINZ had not been activated, delaying payment.” The tenants had no way of expediating the payment, it was totally within the landlord’s control. I do not consider it fair that the landlord, who had total control over the supplier number issue, could delay getting the supplier number, and then be entitled to rent for that period. c. I do not accept the landlord’s submission that they had not been told that [Tenant 2] was obtaining income from WINZ. The text messages provided in evidence support the tenant’s submission, they show that the tenant immediately told the landlord of the problems with the supplier number and that Gail had elevated it to the finance team. d. It is clear from the text messages and correspondence that Resido believed that their existing supplier number would be able to be used 1 . It is only logical that when they supplied this number to WINZ, that they knew the tenant was receiving income from WINZ. I also note that it would be illegal for the landlord to discriminate or not take a tenant based on their income coming from WINZ, (employment status). e. The landlord was inconsistent in its approach to whether the tenancy had begun or not. On the 14 March the landlord purported to withdraw the ‘offer’ of the tenancy, and told the tenants that their application had been declined. The landlord denied this, but the tenants’ evidence that that is why they had to make changes to the application on the 15 March bears out because the login details to the landlord’s portal show that the tenants did access the applications that day and is consistent with the tenant’s oral evidence.. f. A tenancy is a contract, whereby the landlord agrees to grant the tenant exclusive possession of the property, and the tenant agrees to pay rent. If the landlord refuses to give possession or does not offer up the means for the tenant to take possession, then the tenant is not liable for rent. I consider 1 See email evidence 5 – landlord’s submissions. that the landlord’s conduct and correspondence made it plain that no keys would be given until the tenants paid the bond and rent in full.
As the tenants were unable to take possession until the 24 March, then I do not consider that they are liable for rent until the 24 March. The tenants are entitled to a refund of rent paid between 27 February and 23 March =$2321.43 The bond.
Shortly before the end of the tenancy they became aware that their bond had not been lodged.
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.
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).
The landlord’s tenant statement records the bond as being charged on the 27 February. The landlord simply records all amounts in as receipts, it does not state if that is for rent or for bond.
The landlord says that it did not lodge the bond within 23 working days because: a. It was unclear what money was taken as bond and what money was receipted for rent. They say the tenants did not make it clear when they had paid bond. b. The tenants did not return the signed bond lodgement form until the 6 June 2025.
I am satisfied that the landlord breached s19(2) by failing to lodge the bond within 23 working days because: a. I consider that the two receipted payments of $1300 on the 18 March and $1300 on the 21 March were bond. I say this because the landlord recorded the date that the bond was paid as 27 March and 19 March in the bond lodgement form that it prepared and sent to the tenants for signing. b. The bond was not lodged until 11 June which is more than 23 working days after the 27 March.
I am satisfied that the landlord has acted intentionally because it is a large landlord (it states in one email to WINZ that it has over 300 tenancies) and it should have systems in place, that ensure that the bonds are sent promptly to the bond centre.
I award $300 in exemplary damages; this takes into account: • that the landlord immediately deposited the bond into the bond centre when the problem was brought to their attention. • The public interest in ensuring that large landlords strictly adhere to the legal requirements; and • The effect on the tenant, which they say left them upset and worried about where their bond was.

Are the tenants liable for any or the repair costs?

The landlord is claiming that the tenants damaged the cover of the outside unit of the air conditioner, paint damage to the walls, damage to the wooden laminate flooring and damage to the carpet patch behind the door of the bedroom.
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The landlord provided me with photographs of the property that was taken before the tenant’s moved in and photographs of the alleged damage at the end of the tenancy. The tenants deny causing any damage. They say that the damage is either fair wear and tear or was existing at the beginning of the tenancy.
Having considered all the evidence I am not satisfied that the tenant damaged the outside air conditioning unit or the wooden laminate flooring for the following reasons: a. The entry level photographs of the outside air conditioner are too far away to judge whether there was a dent in the outside unit. b. The unit is on the outside of the property, it is possible that any dent was caused by something falling onto the unit from above. c. The floor damage looks to be caused from sunlight or the way it is laid or a defect in the flooring. There is no evidence to support that the tenants did anything to cause damage to the floor.
I am satisfied that the tenant caused damage to the carpet by cutting a piece of the carpet from the back of the door and that this needed replacement. I say this because the ingoing inspection photographs show the carpet in place and the outgoing inspection photographs show the area without carpet. The carpet is cut and therefore this must be deliberate.
The landlord provided an invoice from its maintenance person for replacement carpet of $50.00 and I am satisfied that the tenants are liable for that amount.
I am also satisfied that the tenant is liable for the paint damage, because the tenant attempted to repair the wall damage, as requested by the landlord, but did not colour match the paint. This left the walls with patches of plaster and paint. This is more than fair wear and tear. Had the tenant not attempted repair then it is likely that some of the ‘damage’ would have been considered fair wear and tear, but the attempted repair made the damage worse and therefore it is the tenant’s liability.
The landlord had the walls painted for $850.00 plus GST. I award the landlord $700 for the painting and plastering of the walls. This takes into account betterment.
The landlord sought the cost of painting the window frame, but I was not satisfied that the tenants caused damage to the window frame that required painting and therefore no amount is awarded.

Is the landlord liable for the bond being withheld?

The tenants say that the landlord withheld their bond from them at the end of the tenancy. This caused the tenants to lose the tenancy that they were about to move into, effectively rendering them homeless.
I accept that at the end of the tenancy there was a genuine dispute over the bond and as such, it was appropriate that the bond was put in dispute.

Name suppression?

Each party requested name suppression. The tenants have been mostly successful in their claim, and I grant them name suppression.
The landlord has been partly successful in their claim, but given the exemplary damages have been awarded against them, for failure to lodge the bond, then I consider that the public interest in knowing which landlords have had exemplary damages awarded against them outweighs the landlord’s interests and I do not grant name suppression to the landlord. The filing fee.
As each party has been partly successful in their claim, then I do not award the filing fee to either of them.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5266640 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5266640 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants liable for any or the repair costs?

Is the landlord liable for the bond being withheld?

Name suppression?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants liable for any or the repair costs?

Is the landlord liable for the bond being withheld?

Name suppression?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions