Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5302249 — Exemplary damages at 74 Koputaroa Road, Levin, RD 5, Levin 5575
Decided 10 Oct 2025 · Published 10 Oct 2025 · Application 5302249
- 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.
- Glenn Murray must pay [the tenant] the sum of $944.26 immediately as calculated below: a. Exemplary damages for failure to lodge the bond $500.00 b. Refund of bond balance of $416.26 c. Reimbursement of filing fee $28.00.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing, with both Mr Murray and his wife Andie being present. Although the tenant’s son, [N] [Tenant’s son], occupied the sleepout at 74 Koputaroa Road during the relevant period, he did not attend the hearing.
- [Tenant] is seeking compensation and exemplary damages from Mr Murray. [Tenant] says that he had a tenancy with Mr Murray. He says it was ended without the proper notice period, causing him stress and that he was not refunded all of his bond. He also seeks exemplary damages for failure to have a written tenancy agreement, not giving the right amount of notice and not lodging the bond.
- Mr Murray says that the agreement is not covered by the Residential Tenancies Agreement, that it was only to last three months and that he deducted some expenses from the bond.
- The issues for the Tribunal to determine are: a. Was there a residential tenancy? b. If so, was it a periodic tenancy or a fixed term? c. Is [Tenant] entitled to compensation or exemplary damages for unlawful notice? d. Is [Tenant] entitled to a further bond refund? e. Is [Tenant] entitled to exemplary damages?
- The onus is on [Tenant] to establish his claims. He must provide sufficient evidence to support his applications. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Matters not in dispute
- Until March this year, the parties had been friends for years.
- There is no dispute that there was an agreement that [Tenant] and his son would have the use of the sleepout at Mr Murray’s property in exchange for $310 per week. It is a self-contained bach that is on the same property as the house occupied by Mr Murray and his wife.
- Mr Murray says that the couple offered [Tenant’s son] a bedroom in their house, and [Tenant] the sleepout as he has a Jack Russell terrier, and the Murrays have cats in the house. The [Tenants’] preference was to use the sleepout for [Tenant’s son] and to buy a caravan for [Tenant]. Mr Murray says they were assured that the stay would be a maximum of 3 months and they would be out by the end of March 2025. The Murrays spent $9,459.67 on plumbing and electrical fittings to be functional to support the caravan. All services come from the homestead.
- [Tenant]’s son lived in the bach and [Tenant] lived in a caravan that he owned. This arrangement lasted approximately 3 months from Boxing Day 2024 when [Tenant] moved belongings in until 4 April 2025 when he moved out.
Was there a residential tenancy?
- Section 2 is the interpretation section of the Act. It defines a number of terms.
- Residential premises are defined as any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence, whether or not the occupation or intended occupation for residential purposes is or would be unlawful.
- A tenancy is the right to occupy the premises in consideration for rent, and a tenancy agreement means any express or implied agreement where one person grants a tenancy in exchange for rent.
- In the present case, the sleepout is a self-contained unit. It meets the definition of residential premises. The parties agreed that [Tenant] would pay $310.00 in exchange for the right to occupy the premises and park his caravan there.
- Mr Murray considered that this was a “boarding arrangement”. He said that [Tenant] and his son paid a “Security deposit” of $1,000 and that this was a discounted amount as the promised to leave the sleepout fully furnished an offered to install new kitchen cupboards free of charge.
- Section 5 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Act is excluded in certain circumstances, including under paragraph (1)(n) where the premises, not being a boarding house, continue to be used, during the tenancy, principally as a place of residence by the landlord or the owner of the premises or by any member of the landlord’s or owner’s family.
- The sleepout and [Tenant]’s caravan do not meet the definition of a boarding house, which is defined as residential premises containing 1 or more boarding rooms along with facilities for communal use by the tenants of the boarding house; and occupied, or intended by the landlord to be occupied, by at least 6 tenants at any one time. 1
- The sleepout was not used principally as a place of residence for Mr Murray or any member of his family. Mr Murray was living in the other dwellinghouse. This was not a flatmate/house sharing agreement. [Tenant] and his son were not sharing occupation of the bach with Mr Murray or sharing occupation of the house with him. This finding is consistent with District Court decisions such as Harding v Caroto and Ors [2021] NZHC 1265.
- In conclusion, I find that there was a residential tenancy agreement between the parties for the use of the sleepout and adjacent land at 74 Koputaroa Road, Levin.
Was this a fixed term tenancy?
- [Tenant] says that the agreement was an indefinite one, that he would continue to occupy the premises in exchange for weekly rent of $310. He says that if the landlord wanted to terminate the tenancy, he needed to give 90 days’ notice.
- Mr Murray says that the arrangement was only ever for three months. He says that [Tenant] and his son, [Tenant’s son], approached Mr and Mrs Murray at the start of December 2024, seeking emergency, short-term accommodation, while 1 See section 66B searching for a place to live. [Tenant] had to vacate his home by 4 January 2025.
- In fact, the Taylors moved the caravan on to the premises on Boxing Day and put belongings into the sleepout. Therefore, the Murrays were unable to accommodate family in the sleepout over the Christmas period.
- [Tenant] says that the parties fell out during a drive to Palmerston North one day. I do not need to make any findings about the cause of that incident. I simply record that it is an agreed fact that Mr Murray was not happy with [Tenant]’s driving on that occasion. In any event, [Tenant] says that Mr Murray came over and apologised and they had a beer together. He said that the next he heard from Mr Murray was a text on 2 March, saying that the “boarding arrangement” was to end on 31 March. [Tenant] provided a copy of the text which reads: Hey Larry! Just a reminder the boarding arrangement end[s] on the 31 of March. Three Months as you asked for. You will need to validate 2 before the 1 st of April as I [have a] new tenant moving in. Also how much was payed for the kitchen cupboard so I can reimburse you! Regards Glenn
- [Tenant] replied, “I think maybe you should come over and talk to me”.
- Neither party could elaborate on whether there were further discussions about the purported 3-month term after that text.
- Mr Murray said that the new tenant coming was a friend coming to stay short- term.
- [Tenant] said that he would not have agreed to a limited term as his son needed a permanent address.
- I have decided that it is more likely that the original agreement was for only three months. This is because: a. [Tenant] needed accommodation at short-notice. b. This was not a situation of Mr Murray advertising the premises for income. The agreement came about because the two were friends. I find it likely it was expected to be temporary. c. Mr Murray’s text refers to a three-month term. [Tenant] did not dispute that in reply. d. There was no corroborative evidence from [Tenant’s son] Taylor about the expectation of the term of the agreement or reasons. 2 This should read “vacate”.
- Therefore, on the balance of probabilities I find that the agreement was for only three months. Is [Tenant] entitled to compensation or exemplary damages for termination without grounds?
- Because I have found that the agreement was for a fixed-term tenancy only, it follows that I find that Mr Murray did not give terminate without grounds. In accordance with section 50(1)(a), the tenancy terminated on the expiry of the term of the tenancy.
- Therefore there is no entitlement to exemplary damages. Is [Tenant] entitled to exemplary damages for failure to lodge the bond?
- Section 19 says that where the bond required more than the equivalent of one week’s rent, a landlord must lodge the bond within 23 days of receipt. Failure to do so is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $1,500 are payable.
- The tenant says that the bond was two weeks’ rent, which comes to $620. The landlord says there was a “security deposit” of $1,000. Either way, the amount paid was more than one week’s rent and so the landlord was required to lodge the bond. I find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
- The landlord knew he had not lodged the bond and in that sense he committed the act intentionally.
- It is no excuse that the landlord did not think the Residential Tenancies Act did not apply. Ignorance of the law is not a defence. The fact that the landlord asked for a security deposit and rent of $310 a week, should have alerted him to the fact this was probably a tenancy. There are accessible resources at Tenancy Services and he could have obtained advice.
- The Act stipulates how bond payments must be dealt with. The landlord must give the payer a written receipt, signed by the landlord showing the address, the amount and nature of the payment, the date and the name of the payer. The landlord must then lodge the bond within 23 days. 3
- In the absence of a receipt or any other record of the bond received, the failure to lodge the bond is more serious. There is a dispute about the bond and so there has been an impact on the tenant. The full bond should have been sitting at the Bond Centre, pending resolution.
- There is a public interest in reminding this landlord and others of the legal requirement to lodge the bond. I make an order for $500 exemplary damages. 3 See section 19. Is [Tenant] entitled to a further bond refund?
- At the end of the tenancy, Mr Murray refunded $583.74. He said he had received a security deposit of $1000. Therefore he retained $416.26.
- In his application, [Tenant] said that he was seeking a further $1,336.26. He said that he has paid $1,920.00 made up of $1,240 in cash being two weeks’ rent for bond and a further 2 weeks that he said he overpaid. The remaining $680.00 was for kitchen cupboards that he had installed.
- All payments were made in cash. No receipts were given.
- Mr Murray produced a list of items that he claimed reimbursement for. These included plugs and a lead for the caravan and carpet cleaning. He was unable to provide or explain the calculation supporting the $416.26 he had retained from the bond.
- In any event, section 22B says that if there is a dispute between the parties as to the payment of a bond, either party may apply to the Tribunal for an order determining to whom the bond, or any part of it, is to be paid. If the tenant applies to the Tribunal and the landlord seeks payment of the bond in whole or in part, the landlord must file an application with the Tribunal that sets out the landlord’s counterclaim.
- The landlord has not filed an application and so I cannot made any orders that take into account the matters that he has deducted.
- Therefore I order the landlord to refund $416.26 being the balance of the bond that was paid to him.
- That leaves a further $920 which the tenant says he is owed. This is made up of rent and money for a kitchen cabinet.
- [Tenant] said that his bank statements could show all the payments he made, but not surprisingly, there are no exact withdrawals correlating to the amounts he claimed he paid. There is no withdrawal for $1240, which he said was the bond of $620 plus two weeks in advance. There was a withdrawal for $1200. There were no regular withdrawals of $310 on a weekly basis.
- Where rent is not paid by bank transfer, a landlord is obliged to provide written receipts for rent. 4 The same details are required as for the bond. Before the common use of bank transfers, a receipt book usually had a carbon copy, which the recipient landlord kept, with the top copy being given to the payer, in this case the tenant. In such situations both had a copy of the payment record.
- Although the onus is on the tenant to prove his claims because there is a legal obligation to on the landlord to provide written receipts for rent paid in cash, the 4 See Section 29. onus of proof shifts to the landlord to establish what rent was received. If he had kept proper rent records, he would have been able to establish what was received.
- However, looking at the evidence of both parties, I find it unlikely that [Tenant] has overpaid any rent. The landlord did not charge him for the first week when [Tenant] had moved in belongings and put his caravan on the property. Mr Murray sent [Tenant] a text on 2 March reminding him that the tenancy was to end on 31 March. [Tenant] vacated on 7 April. I find it unlikely that he would have continued to pay rent in advance if he believed he had already paid two weeks in advance.
- I have therefore decided to order no refund of rent to [Tenant].
- Despite Mr Murray’s evidence that the installation of kitchen cupboards formed part of the discounted amount for rent and bond, in his text on 2 March, he asked how much was paid for the cabinetry so he could reimburse [Tenant].
- I am not satisfied that cost of the kitchen cupboards themselves formed part of the tenancy agreement and so that is best dealt with in another jurisdiction.
- Because the tenant has substantially succeeded, there is an order for reimbursement of the filing fee of $28.00.