What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5301972 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 5301972?

Cleaning: $390.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5301972?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5301972?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12809620-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5301972 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 5301972?

Cleaning: $390.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5301972?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5301972?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12809620-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

23 Gulf View Road, Murrays Bay, Auckland 0630 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5301972 — Exemplary damages

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5301972 — net $2,968.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Refund of the bond	$1,800.00	Refund of the bond
Exemplary damages: Failing to lodge the bond	$750.00	Failing to lodge the bond
Refund of professional cleaning	$390.00	Refund of professional cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,968.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,968.00

The tenant attended the hearing on 14 November 2025. The landlord did not.

The tenancy was from 26 March 2017 and ended on 29 June 2025.

After the tenancy ended, the tenant applied to the Tribunal for refund of the bond, exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond, breach of Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”), compensation for curtain mould cleaning, unreasonable conduct and emotional distress, reimbursement for exit cleaning and refund of the filing fee. Refund of the bond

The tenant has applied for the refund of the bond. Section 22B(2) 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.

Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenant.

I order the landlord to pay the tenant $1,800.00 being the refund of the bond. Exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond

[The tenant/s]claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.

A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) RTA.

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 RTA.

The tenant has checked with the Bond Centre and they have confirmed that no bond had been received. The Tribunal was also unable to find any evidence that the bond had been lodged with the Bond Centre.

I find that the tenant has proven that the landlord has committed an unlawful act.

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.

The bond is supposed to be lodged to the Bond Centre so that the landlord cannot use it to threaten the tenants during the tenancy.

The landlord demanded that the tenant clean the premises to an extremely high standard and threatened to withhold the tenant’s bond.

I find that the landlord has intentionally failed to lodged the bond with the Bond Centre. The landlord has caused the tenant stress by using the bond against the tenant. There is public interest in denouncing this behaviour.

I order the landlord to pay the tenant $750.00 in exemplary damages for failing to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre. Breach of HHS

The tenant claimed that the landlord had breached the HHS and that the landlord failed to provide an HHS compliant fixed-heating device in the main living area.

As this tenancy began in 2017, the compliance due date for HHS was 1 July 2025.

This tenancy ended before the compliance due date for HHS. Therefore, the landlord was not required to provide any fixed heating device as per the requirements of HHS.

However, the landlord was still required to provide an approved form of heating for the tenant’s living room under regulation 6 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947.

The landlord never provided any heater for the tenant, but the tenant never asked the landlord for a heater neither. The tenant simply used their own heater.

Although the landlord was at fault for not providing a heater to the tenant, the tenant also had a duty to ask the landlord for heater if the landlord was not providing one. This is what is called the duty to mitigate loss under section 49 RTA.

There was no evidence of any request for a heater in the 8 years of tenancy. I see no basis for any compensation. I dismiss this claim. Compensation for curtain mould cleaning

The tenant sought compensation of $400.00 for having to have mouldy curtains cleaned.

The tenant claimed that the premises had a design flow and that had caused the curtains to have mould growth. The bedroom curtains extended from the ceiling to the floor, while the windows only covered two-thirds of the wall. The remaining curtain area lacked ventilation and sunlight.

The tenant also explained that most windows face west and were blocked by neighbouring trees. The lower section of the curtains, which were not exposed to sunlight or airflow, developed mould despite regular ventilation and use.

The tenant also claimed that the premises was damp and that curtains became mouldy due to the landlord not providing a heating device in the damp premises.

The tenant confirmed that the tenant never raised any dampness issues with the landlord during the tenancy.

Mould is a joint responsibility of both parties. The landlord must provide the premises free from mould and the tenant must maintain it free from mould.

It is the tenant’s responsibility to keep the curtains clean. There was no evidence provided of the tenant having cleaned the curtains during the tenancy.

I do not find that the tenant has proven that the curtain moulds were due to an inherent design flow in the premises or due to the premises itself being damp. I dismiss this claim. Unreasonable conduct and emotional distress

The tenant claimed that the landlord had repeatedly made unreasonable demands, verbal abuse and threats to withhold the tenant’s bond. The tenant said that the tenant suffered significant emotional and financial stress as a result.

The tenant should have made an application to the Tribunal earlier for the refund of the bond in that situation.

I had already taken the impact the landlord’s actions had on the tenant due to withholding the bond in the exemplary damages awarded above. I cannot grant any separate compensation for this claim. Reimbursement for exit cleaning

Under section 40 RTA, the tenant is only required to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.

After the tenant had done the exit cleaning, the landlord demanded that the tenant clean again. In fear of the bond not being refunded back to the tenant, the tenant paid $390.00 to have the premises professionally cleaned.

Having seen the photos shown, I find that the premises was already reasonably clean and tidy before the professional cleaners were called by the tenant.

Acknowledging that the tenant only called the professional cleaners as the landlord had held the bond as ransom, I order the landlord to reimburse the tenant’s costs for having the premises professionally cleaned. Filing fee reimbursement

Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim, I order the landlord to reimburse the tenant’s filing fee. Name suppression

At the request of the tenant, the tenant’s details are suppressed.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5301972 — net $2,968.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Refund of the bond	$1,800.00	Refund of the bond
Exemplary damages: Failing to lodge the bond	$750.00	Failing to lodge the bond
Refund of professional cleaning	$390.00	Refund of professional cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,968.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,968.00