What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5280259 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 5280259?

Property Damage: $900.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5280259?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5280259?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12188577-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5280259 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 5280259?

Property Damage: $900.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5280259?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5280259?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12188577-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5280259 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5280259 — net $2,727.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Bond refund	$1,800.00	Bond refund
Exemplary damages	$900.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,727.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,727.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5280259 — net $2,727.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Bond refund	$1,800.00	Bond refund
Exemplary damages	$900.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,727.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,727.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Mighty Rocket Properties Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $2,727.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionTenant Bond refund$1,800.00 Exemplary damages$900.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$2,727.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant$2,727.00

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the tenant against the property manager. The claim relates to a failure to lodge the tenants bond, and a breach of quiet enjoyment.
Only the tenant appeared at the hearing. I am satisfied that the landlord has been properly notified of the hearing, and therefore I will proceed to consider the claim in the landlord’s absence.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced on 8 August 2024 as a fixed term tenancy. The tenancy agreement records the landlord as “Pearl Fernandez and Shailesh Neman, C/O Mighty Rocket Property Ltd”. The agreement further records ‘Mighty Rocket Property Ltd’ as the landlords agent.
I note at this juncture that the Companies Office does not record any registered company called “Mighty Rocket Property Limited”, but it does record a “Mighty Rocket Properties Limited”. I note that the property manager the tenant was dealing with was Aaron Gilmore, and the Companies Office records Aaron Wayne Gilmore as a shareholder / director of ‘Mighty Rocket Properties Limited’. I will proceed on the basis that the correct name of the Agent is ‘Mighty Rocket Properties Limited’ or for brevity in this decision I will refer to the agent as ‘Mighty Rocket’.
Returning to the tenancy agreement, that required the tenant to pay a bond of $2,940.00. The tenant’s evidence is that she paid this bond (with the first two weeks of rent) before the tenancy commenced, and that payment was made to Mighty Rocket.
The tenant has produced a photograph of a bond lodgement form signed and dated by both the landlord and tenant on 10 September 2024.
More recently the landlord (Pearl Fernandez) emailed the Bond Centre raising that she believed the agent had not lodged the bonds for her properties. The Bond Centre replied on 29 May 2025, stating they could not locate a bond for the two identified properties, including this tenancy before the Tribunal.
The landlord (the owner) contacted the Property Manager advising that the management agreement was terminated, and directing the Property Manager to pay the landlord the bond within 24 hours so they could lodge it with the Bond Centre.
On 5 June 2025 Mr Gilmore messaged the tenant seeking her bank account to refund the tenant $1,140, but stating he would refund the $1,800.00 balance to MSD.
The tenant messaged Mr Gilmore. In a message in reply, on 11 June 2025, Mr Gilmore states that the bond was not lodged because “you didn’t sign the form so it couldn’t be lodged” and that he would speak with MSD.
On 5 June 2025, the tenant filed this application with the Tribunal.
A hearing was scheduled and convened in Porirua on 30 July 2025. Only the tenant appeared.
At 9:48am (18 minutes after the hearing start time), Mr Gilmore emailed the Tribunal a screenshot purporting to show a payment to the tenant of $1,800.00 (from today) and stating: Please see the attached. Resolving payment to Toni following confirmation from MSD. We also note that our contract as property manager was terminated by the owner on 29 May 2025 and this issue is before the Courts including claims against actions by Toni. This has delayed the resolution of this matter.

APPLICANTS CLAIMS

The tenant seeks orders in relation to: a. The Property Manager’s failure to lodge the bond; and b. A breach of quiet enjoyment / unlawful entry.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The 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 likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike 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.

ANALYSIS

Claim 1 - Bond

The tenant states that at the start of the tenancy, she paid her bond before moving into the tenancy, it was paid to Mighty Rocket, but not lodged with the Bond Centre.
The tenant says that she has received a partial refund of $1,140.00, but that Mr Gilmore had just sent a screenshot showing a payment of $1,800.00 to the tenant’s account, but that she had not yet confirmed receipt of those funds into her account. Analysis
The tenant seeks a refund of her bond and exemplary damages on the basis that the landlord / agent has breached section 19 of the RTA, for failing to lodge the bond with the Chief Executive.
Section 19 of the RTA sets out the “Duties of landlord on receipt of bond”, and confirms that the landlord: shall, within 23 working days after the payment is made, forward the amount received to the chief executive, together with a statement of particulars in the approved form signed by the landlord and the tenant.
For the purposes of this provision, the bond is considered to be lodged with the Chief Executive, by lodging the bond with the Bond Centre.
Section 19(2) of the RTA confirms that failure to lodge the bond following the section 19 requirements is declared to be an unlawful Act, and therefore could be the subject of an order of exemplary damages. The maximum level of exemplary damages is $1,500.00.
There is no doubt that the landlord has breached the obligation to lodge the bond as the law requires. In fact even in the communications from Mr Gilmore he seems to acknowledge that the bond has not been lodged.
It is not entirely clear to me why the bond was not lodged, but it seems to be on the basis that the tenant has not completed a form. I note that there is a signed bond lodgement form on file from September 2024, but even if that had not been provided, the landlord / property manager was still able to have lodged the bond with the Bond Centre without a signed bond form. The landlord has breached its obligations around the bond.
It is appropriate that the bond is refunded to the tenant. The tenant confirmed that she has already received part of the bond, and at the hearing today advised the landlord had just sent her a screenshot which purports to show a payment made this morning at 8:52am, of $1,800.00. Ultimately that payment has not reached the tenant’s bank account as yet, so it is appropriate that I make an order for the payment to be made immediately, so the tenant can enforce that payment if necessary. But if the payment reaches the tenant’s account, then obviously that order will have been complied with.
Otherwise the question is then whether exemplary damages should be ordered.
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.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.
Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded 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.
The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the Act, which as noted above is $1,500.00.
Taking the section 109 factors into consideration, I find that exemplary damages should be ordered. I consider the breach would be intentional. As a property manager, Mr Gilmore would have known that he needed to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre. There is no merit to his explanation regarding waiting for a signed form. In fact even when he was challenged by the landlord (his Principal), and directed to pay the bond in full to them, he failed to do that or pay the bond into the Bond Centre at that time. The effect for the tenant is that she has been without the security of having her bond securely in the Bond Centre, and I accept it has been stressful for her in seeking to have that returned. There are very strong interests for tenants and landlords as well as the public generally, to have the bond held in the Bond Centre, and that requires that the bonds be lodged. After all, as the landlord reminded the Property Manager, the bond it the tenant’s money. I consider it would be just to make this order in the circumstances.
In this case I consider an order of exemplary damages at the level of $900.00 would be indicated. That is 60% of the maximum level of exemplary damages available. I have reached that figure because I am aware of a number of other cases the Tribunal has considered against the Property Manager for similar bond breaches, where similar arguments have been made. After those earlier orders were received, a reasonable Property Manager would have reviewed and ensured they had no other cases of failure to lodge bonds.
I conclude by noting that I have made the order only against Mighty Rocket, and in doing so note the approach confirmed by the District Court in Abdulla Moussa Ragab Hamouda v Xin Ji [2024] NZDC 16642. The appeal in that case was from the tenant, who opposed the original order from the Tribunal that the money ordered to be paid by the landlord, only be paid by the owner of the premises as landlord. The tenant wanted the order to be made against the property managers as landlord. The Court upheld the appeal, and made the order for the property managers to pay the amounts ordered as well as the landlord (owner). Judge Clarke confirmed: For practical purposes, I also note any search of the Tribunal’s decision database will show numerous decisions which record a property manager as a party in Tribunal proceedings, either making claims against tenants or defending them. The property managers are recorded as “agents for a (named) landlord” but not always. What this means then is a property manager must meet the obligations, which are imposed by the RTA on the landlord, as if it was a landlord. When liabilities imposed on the property manager (as agent) the property manager may be entitled to seek compensation from the owner and the general agency law, or by way of contract, but that is an issue between the property manager and the owner and not something which can be resolved in the tenancy jurisdiction. What that means is that it is no excuse for a property manager to blame the owner and effectively ignore requests which are made by tenants when obligations under the RTA have been breached. In this instance both property managers have made submissions which attempt to do that. I reject those submissions entirely. As property managers they take on the professional responsibility to ensure compliance is met at all stages...
In this case I can see no wrongdoing on the part of the owners, so it is appropriate that the order is made against the agent only. Claim 2 – Quiet enjoyment
The tenant says that she was at the gym with her daughter, and got a notification from her camera about someone at the premises. The camera showed the Mr Gilmore coming to the premises, walking up the path and to the door. The tenant states that the Property Manager should not have done that, because he had been dismissed from his property management role by that time. The tenant states that she does not know if Mr Gilmore went inside the house.
The tenant said that when she was returning home, she saw and spoke with Mr Gilmore on the street. The tenant states that Mr Gilmore took the lock box at the property which was his property, and that also included a key to the premises. When Mr Gilmore was challenged about this, he stated it was not the tenant’s key, it was his key. Analysis
I find this claim has not been established.
The evidence from the tenant is that Mr Gilmore came to her door, but she does not know if he went inside, there is no evidence before me that he did.
There is nothing unlawful with a person coming to a dwelling, and going to the door. If Mr Gilmore had gone inside that would be different, but coming to the door is not unlawful.
The tenant said that the owner (landlord) had forbid Mr Gilmore from going to the premises. From a strict legal perspective, the landlord cannot do that because she does not have possession of the premises; the tenant does. So a tenant could forbid someone from coming on the premises, but the landlord cannot.
The reason for the attendance was to get the lockbox which the tenant says was Might Rocket property, and that seems to be a fair reason for the attendance.
While there may have been a key in the box, the obligation on the Property Manager would then be to hand that to the owner (Principal), but that is not a matter I can consider.
I find this claim has not been established.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the tenant has requested name suppression, and as the tenant has been substantially successful, tenant name suppression is ordered.

FILING FEE

The applicant has been mostly successful in their claim before the Tribunal. I find it is reasonable therefore to award the filing fee paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5280259 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5280259 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

APPLICANTS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

APPLICANTS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions