Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5302459 — Exemplary damages at Room 3, 71 Budge Street, Riversdale, Blenheim 7201
Decided 19 Jan 2026 · Published 19 Jan 2026 · Application 5302459
- Exemplary damages
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- DR Investments Ltd. must pay Jennifer Jane Galbraith $1,814.43 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
Reasons
- The tenant appeared at the hearing. There was no landlord attendance, nor any prior message regarding this or any related problem (there has been at least one prior to seek an earlier adjournment that was granted). An attempt to call the contact number was made after waiting 10 minutes.
- The tenant sought orders for the return of the bond, return of overpaid rent, and compensation or exemplary damages for impact of quiet enjoyment, failure to maintain, and failure to lodge the bond.
- A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
- The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.”
- In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the applicant should know it has been considered where appropriate.
- The landlord is North Island based. The tenant said a local person, who lived in the front house at the property, was intended to act as the local agent although any such performance was not deemed adequate by the tenant.
- This was a short boarding-house tenancy, ending after just 17 days by tenant notice. Rent
- The tenant provided banking and payment records that confirm a bond of $670.00 was taken as well as two weeks rent in advance. The tenant made two further payment of one weeks rent. This meant the tenant overpaid the landlord, based on the tenant notice to terminate the tenancy effective 13 February 2025. The amount overpaid is $526.43 and this is returned to the tenant by way of order. Bond
- The tenant 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) 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 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- The landlord took $670.00 as a bond at commencement. This is more than one week of rent and as such it should have been lodged with the Bond Centre. I find they have 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- A prior adjourning order encouraged the landlord to resolve the bond return or make an application if any claims were to be made against it. The tenant has been waiting since February 2025 when the tenancy ended. The application was lodged in July 2025. Nothing has been done since and an adjournment as requested by the landlord has further delayed resolution.
- As a company owning a boarding house, the landlord is expected to have adequate procedures for the timely lodgement of the bond. The failure to address the initial failure that continued to now is considered. I have no evidence of prior failures of the landlord, although the tenant stated her belief that this was a common failing of the landlord. Given the lack of evidence of this, I award exemplary damages at the lower end of the scale, being one-third of the maximum amount that can be ordered. That means $500.00 exemplary damages are awarded.
- I also order the return to the tenant of the bond, currently retained by the landlord. Internet
- The tenancy agreement confirmed internet was to be provided as part of the tenancy. The tenant provided a series of screenshots confirming the Wi-Fi did not have a working internet connect at those times. The tenant had to purchase mobile data during her stay. She estimated the cost was three $30.00 data top- ups, totalling $90.00. This appears reasonable, in both approach and cost, and $90.00 is ordered to compensate the absence of landlord provided internet. Failure to maintain and quiet enjoyment
- These claims were discussed at the hearing.
- The tenant accepted the claims regarding quiet enjoyment related to others or neighbours and no notice was given to the landlord regarding the issues. I do not find the tenant has evidenced any landlord failure in relation to its obligation to not cause or permit interference with the tenant quiet enjoyment.
- The tenant produced photos of unclean conditions, as well as some evidence relating to the fire alarm system record keeping prior to this tenancy. The unexplained twice tripping of an alarm (with the resultant noise disturbance) was also raised by the tenant.
- As a snapshot, the photos of the condition of the kitchen show it in an unclean state but I do not have sufficient evidence of a prolonged failure that might deserve some compensation.
- The fire alarm system record keeping evidence predates this tenancy and I do not have sufficient evidence to determine the landlord has failed to ensure compliance with the requirements of s 66I(1)(ba) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and the claim is dismissed. Any disturbance from the two alarm events is not considered such that any related compensation should be ordered. Filing fee
- Because Jennifer Jane Galbraith has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.