What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5291760 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 5291760?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5291760?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5291760?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12276505-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5291760 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 5291760?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5291760?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5291760?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12276505-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

70 Harold Street, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5291760 — Exemplary damages

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has unlawfully requested ‘key money’.

A landlord cannot, without the Tribunal’s consent, require a tenant to pay any money other than rent or bond for the grant, renewal, variation or assignment of a tenancy agreement. See section 17(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

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 17(3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

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 (s 109(3) RTA).

The applicant is seeking compensatory and exemplary damages with respect to his unsuccessful attempt to negotiate a tenancy agreement for an advertised property that he had viewed, and what he considers was an unlawful attempt by the respondent to charge key money or a letting fee.

The respondent denies this and states that his offer or proposal letter to the applicant dated 17 June was not a request for key or option money, it simply set out the key terms, that would be required of the successful applicant, of the proposed tenancy, including the payment of two weeks rent in advance.

The applicant responded saying it was “most likely” the offer would be accepted but that he wanted permission to install a wall mounted tv and potentially a different commencement date, he questioned the applicant’s request that two weeks non-refundable rent in advance was paid.

The applicant said he did not proceed with the respondents proposed tenancy as he did not want a wall mounted tv or different commencement date. He had other applicants not requesting changes to the terms proposed and decided to proceed with one of those.

Payment of the 2 weeks “nonrefundable” rent in advance referred to in the offer was only a payment to be required of the successful applicant. He is entitled to ask for two weeks rent in advance.

There was no concluded tenancy agreement between the parties, the rent in advance proposed was not paid. Compensatory damages cannot be awarded as no loss has been suffered.

Exemplary damages cannot be awarded as there was no intention to require key money or a letting fee.

As noted at the hearing a recent District Court decision has confirmed that a landlord can require a prospective tenant to pay a maximum of one week rent (that is non-refundable) as option money; DPM Property Group Limited V Gabriel Espinoza [2025] NZDC 10145 refers and provides a useful analysis of the correct application of the provisions of s 17 of the RTA. The reference to the case is included as requested, but in this case, the two weeks rent in advance was not key money or letting money. As discussed, the applicant may consider removing the reference to the rent in advance being “non-refundable”, once the contract is signed, as then the rent in advance would by definition, be both required and non-refundable.

Both parties are granted name suppression as the public interest does not require either name to be published.

It was not unreasonable for the applicant to bring the claim, however it is not successful.

The applicant did not request reimbursement of the filing fee.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has unlawfully requested ‘key money’.
A landlord cannot, without the Tribunal’s consent, require a tenant to pay any money other than rent or bond for the grant, renewal, variation or assignment of a tenancy agreement. See section 17(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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 17(3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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 (s 109(3) RTA).
The applicant is seeking compensatory and exemplary damages with respect to his unsuccessful attempt to negotiate a tenancy agreement for an advertised property that he had viewed, and what he considers was an unlawful attempt by the respondent to charge key money or a letting fee.
The respondent denies this and states that his offer or proposal letter to the applicant dated 17 June was not a request for key or option money, it simply set out the key terms, that would be required of the successful applicant, of the proposed tenancy, including the payment of two weeks rent in advance.
The applicant responded saying it was “most likely” the offer would be accepted but that he wanted permission to install a wall mounted tv and potentially a different commencement date, he questioned the applicant’s request that two weeks non-refundable rent in advance was paid.
The applicant said he did not proceed with the respondents proposed tenancy as he did not want a wall mounted tv or different commencement date. He had other applicants not requesting changes to the terms proposed and decided to proceed with one of those.
Payment of the 2 weeks “nonrefundable” rent in advance referred to in the offer was only a payment to be required of the successful applicant. He is entitled to ask for two weeks rent in advance.
There was no concluded tenancy agreement between the parties, the rent in advance proposed was not paid. Compensatory damages cannot be awarded as no loss has been suffered.
Exemplary damages cannot be awarded as there was no intention to require key money or a letting fee.
As noted at the hearing a recent District Court decision has confirmed that a landlord can require a prospective tenant to pay a maximum of one week rent (that is non-refundable) as option money; DPM Property Group Limited V Gabriel Espinoza [2025] NZDC 10145 refers and provides a useful analysis of the correct application of the provisions of s 17 of the RTA. The reference to the case is included as requested, but in this case, the two weeks rent in advance was not key money or letting money. As discussed, the applicant may consider removing the reference to the rent in advance being “non-refundable”, once the contract is signed, as then the rent in advance would by definition, be both required and non-refundable.
Both parties are granted name suppression as the public interest does not require either name to be published.
It was not unreasonable for the applicant to bring the claim, however it is not successful.
The applicant did not request reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5291760 — Exemplary damages at 70 Harold Street, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5291760 — Exemplary damages at 70 Harold Street, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions