What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5310880 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 5310880?

Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5310880?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5310880?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12655057-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5310880 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 5310880?

Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5310880?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5310880?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12655057-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

198 Withells Road, Avonhead, Christchurch 8042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5310880 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5310880 — net $408.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Refund balance of bond	$180.00	Refund balance of bond
Exemplary damages: non-lodgement of bond and failure to give receipt	$150.00	non-lodgement of bond and failure to give receipt
Exemplary damages: section 13, 13A RTA breaches	$50.00	section 13, 13A RTA breaches
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$408.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$408.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Qi Meng must pay [The tenant/s] $408.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing today. The tenant resides in China, so the Tribunal approved his request to be represented. His representative attended the hearing by phone. The landlord attended in person. Background
The tenancy is a boarding house tenancy. A boarding house tenancy is defined as residential premises occupied, or intended by the landlord to be occupied, by at least 6 tenants at any one time 1 .
The tenancy started on 6 March 2025 and ended three months later on 6 June.
The landlord had an agent, and it was that person the tenant dealt with when the tenancy was set up. The tenant paid the agent a bond of $540.00. The agent deducted his commission from the bond and paid the balance to the owner Mr Meng, who is the landlord in this case.
Neither the agent nor Mr Meng provided the tenant with a written tenancy agreement. Nor did they give the tenant a receipt for the bond or pay the bond to the Bond Centre.
After the tenancy ended, the landlord paid the tenant $360.00 from the bond but retained $180.00 for electricity costs.
On 25 July 2025, the tenant lodged his Tribunal application. He seeks the return of the balance of his bond and exemplary damage for breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) by the landlord that amount to unlawful acts. Issues
The issues for the Tribunal to determine are these: •Should the tenant be refunded the balance of the bond retained by the landlord? •Has the tenant proved that the landlord committed breaches of the RTA that amount to unlawful acts? •Should the Tribunal award the tenant exemplary damages? 1 See section 66B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) Relevant law
Sections 13 and 13A RTA provide that the tenancy agreement must be in writing and set out the minimum information that must be included in a tenancy agreement.
Section 19 RTA sets out a landlord’s duties on receipt of the bond.
Section 66C RTA sets out the required contents of a boarding house tenancy agreement (in addition to the section 13A RTA requirements).
Section 66E RTA sets out the law regarding the payment of outgoings in a boarding house tenancy. Exemplary damages
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.
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. Those factors are: • The intention of the person; • The effect of the unlawful act; • The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and • The public interest. Discussion Should the tenant be refunded the balance of the bond retained by the landlord?
The landlord said that the tenant agreed to pay electricity costs of $60.00 per month. The tenant denies that.
A landlord cannot simply deduct costs from the bond. Section 22B RTA provides that if the tenant applies to the Tribunal for the bond and the landlord seeks payment of the bond in whole or in part, the landlord must file a Tribunal application setting out the landlord’s counterclaim.
A further complication here is that section 66E RTA provides that a landlord is responsible for all outgoings in a boarding house. However, if the landlord provides services to a tenant and payment is not included in the rent, the landlord must provide the tenant each week with an itemised account of the services and the amount payable. A tenant is only responsible for electricity supplies if the supply is separately metered for that room.
The landlord must therefore refund the portion of the bond he retained. He has the option of claiming electricity costs from the tenant, if the electricity was separately metered, but that would require him to make a Tribunal application. Has the tenant proved that the landlord committed breaches of the RTA that amount to unlawful acts?
A failure to provide a written tenancy agreement and a failure to provide all required information in the tenancy agreement (such as the healthy homes compliance information) are unlawful acts under sections 13 and 13A RTA.
Mr Meng said that the tenant never asked for a written tenancy agreement, nor for information about the healthy homes status of the premises; had he done so he would have provided it.
Principals (landlords) are liable for the actions of their agent. So, whether it was the agent’s failure to comply with section 13 and 13A RTA or Mr Meng’s makes little difference. It is no defence to say that the tenant never asked for a written tenancy agreement or for the disclosure of information. These are responsibilities the RTA places on landlords.
The tenant has proved that the landlord breached his responsibilities under sections 13 and 13A RTA.
The landlord did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre, nor did he (or his agent) issue a receipt for the bond. Those are breaches of a landlord’s section 19 RTA responsibilities and are defined unlawful acts.
The landlord said he was unaware of the requirement to lodge bonds with the Bond Centre but now he was aware of it he had lodged the bonds for the other boarding house tenants.
The tenant has proved that the landlord failed to comply with his section 19 RTA responsibilities.

Should the Tribunal award the tenant exemplary damages?

As I noted earlier, exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. Here, the deterrence factor is not so relevant as the landlord is now aware of his responsibilities and has taken active steps to ensure he complies with them. He produced evidence of written tenancy agreements, and the lodgement of bonds.
The tenant is still entitled to some exemplary damages as a landlord punishment. The landlord said he had been a landlord for about 6 years so he should have been aware of his statutory responsibilities.
This was a short tenancy. The only real effect on the tenant has been the denial of part of his bond which otherwise would have been protected at the Bond Centre. The landlord produced evidence that the premises are Healthy Homes Standards compliant. So, while the tenant was deprived of confirmation of that, there was no actual impact.
When there is more than one breach of the same section and the responsibilities under that section, the Tribunal cannot make multiple awards of exemplary damages.
While the tenant has proved claims for exemplary damages, I have limited the amounts awarded to reflect the reality of this tenancy: short duration and limited effect. For the breaches of the landlord’s section 19 RTA responsibilities (relating to bonds) I award the tenant $150.00. For the breaches of the landlord’s section 13, 13A responsibilities (written tenancy agreement with all required information), I award the tenant $50.00. In total, I award the tenant exemplary damages of $200.00. Result
The landlord will refund the tenant the portion of the bond he retained for electricity costs ($180.00). The landlord will pay the tenant exemplary damages of $200.00 in total and the filing fee of $28.00. Name suppression
Both parties applied for name suppression. The tenant is entitled to name suppression as his application is successful. The landlord is not entitled to name suppression as his defence to the application is unsuccessful 2 .

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5310880 — net $408.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Refund balance of bond	$180.00	Refund balance of bond
Exemplary damages: non-lodgement of bond and failure to give receipt	$150.00	non-lodgement of bond and failure to give receipt
Exemplary damages: section 13, 13A RTA breaches	$50.00	section 13, 13A RTA breaches
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$408.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$408.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Qi Meng must pay [The tenant/s] $408.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing today. The tenant resides in China, so the Tribunal approved his request to be represented. His representative attended the hearing by phone. The landlord attended in person. Background
The tenancy is a boarding house tenancy. A boarding house tenancy is defined as residential premises occupied, or intended by the landlord to be occupied, by at least 6 tenants at any one time 1 .
The tenancy started on 6 March 2025 and ended three months later on 6 June.
The landlord had an agent, and it was that person the tenant dealt with when the tenancy was set up. The tenant paid the agent a bond of $540.00. The agent deducted his commission from the bond and paid the balance to the owner Mr Meng, who is the landlord in this case.
Neither the agent nor Mr Meng provided the tenant with a written tenancy agreement. Nor did they give the tenant a receipt for the bond or pay the bond to the Bond Centre.
After the tenancy ended, the landlord paid the tenant $360.00 from the bond but retained $180.00 for electricity costs.
On 25 July 2025, the tenant lodged his Tribunal application. He seeks the return of the balance of his bond and exemplary damage for breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) by the landlord that amount to unlawful acts. Issues
The issues for the Tribunal to determine are these: •Should the tenant be refunded the balance of the bond retained by the landlord? •Has the tenant proved that the landlord committed breaches of the RTA that amount to unlawful acts? •Should the Tribunal award the tenant exemplary damages? 1 See section 66B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) Relevant law
Sections 13 and 13A RTA provide that the tenancy agreement must be in writing and set out the minimum information that must be included in a tenancy agreement.
Section 19 RTA sets out a landlord’s duties on receipt of the bond.
Section 66C RTA sets out the required contents of a boarding house tenancy agreement (in addition to the section 13A RTA requirements).
Section 66E RTA sets out the law regarding the payment of outgoings in a boarding house tenancy. Exemplary damages
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.
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. Those factors are: • The intention of the person; • The effect of the unlawful act; • The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and • The public interest. Discussion Should the tenant be refunded the balance of the bond retained by the landlord?
The landlord said that the tenant agreed to pay electricity costs of $60.00 per month. The tenant denies that.
A landlord cannot simply deduct costs from the bond. Section 22B RTA provides that if the tenant applies to the Tribunal for the bond and the landlord seeks payment of the bond in whole or in part, the landlord must file a Tribunal application setting out the landlord’s counterclaim.
A further complication here is that section 66E RTA provides that a landlord is responsible for all outgoings in a boarding house. However, if the landlord provides services to a tenant and payment is not included in the rent, the landlord must provide the tenant each week with an itemised account of the services and the amount payable. A tenant is only responsible for electricity supplies if the supply is separately metered for that room.
The landlord must therefore refund the portion of the bond he retained. He has the option of claiming electricity costs from the tenant, if the electricity was separately metered, but that would require him to make a Tribunal application. Has the tenant proved that the landlord committed breaches of the RTA that amount to unlawful acts?
A failure to provide a written tenancy agreement and a failure to provide all required information in the tenancy agreement (such as the healthy homes compliance information) are unlawful acts under sections 13 and 13A RTA.
Mr Meng said that the tenant never asked for a written tenancy agreement, nor for information about the healthy homes status of the premises; had he done so he would have provided it.
Principals (landlords) are liable for the actions of their agent. So, whether it was the agent’s failure to comply with section 13 and 13A RTA or Mr Meng’s makes little difference. It is no defence to say that the tenant never asked for a written tenancy agreement or for the disclosure of information. These are responsibilities the RTA places on landlords.
The tenant has proved that the landlord breached his responsibilities under sections 13 and 13A RTA.
The landlord did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre, nor did he (or his agent) issue a receipt for the bond. Those are breaches of a landlord’s section 19 RTA responsibilities and are defined unlawful acts.
The landlord said he was unaware of the requirement to lodge bonds with the Bond Centre but now he was aware of it he had lodged the bonds for the other boarding house tenants.
The tenant has proved that the landlord failed to comply with his section 19 RTA responsibilities.

Should the Tribunal award the tenant exemplary damages?

As I noted earlier, exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. Here, the deterrence factor is not so relevant as the landlord is now aware of his responsibilities and has taken active steps to ensure he complies with them. He produced evidence of written tenancy agreements, and the lodgement of bonds.
The tenant is still entitled to some exemplary damages as a landlord punishment. The landlord said he had been a landlord for about 6 years so he should have been aware of his statutory responsibilities.
This was a short tenancy. The only real effect on the tenant has been the denial of part of his bond which otherwise would have been protected at the Bond Centre. The landlord produced evidence that the premises are Healthy Homes Standards compliant. So, while the tenant was deprived of confirmation of that, there was no actual impact.
When there is more than one breach of the same section and the responsibilities under that section, the Tribunal cannot make multiple awards of exemplary damages.
While the tenant has proved claims for exemplary damages, I have limited the amounts awarded to reflect the reality of this tenancy: short duration and limited effect. For the breaches of the landlord’s section 19 RTA responsibilities (relating to bonds) I award the tenant $150.00. For the breaches of the landlord’s section 13, 13A responsibilities (written tenancy agreement with all required information), I award the tenant $50.00. In total, I award the tenant exemplary damages of $200.00. Result
The landlord will refund the tenant the portion of the bond he retained for electricity costs ($180.00). The landlord will pay the tenant exemplary damages of $200.00 in total and the filing fee of $28.00. Name suppression
Both parties applied for name suppression. The tenant is entitled to name suppression as his application is successful. The landlord is not entitled to name suppression as his defence to the application is unsuccessful 2 .

Tenancy Tribunal case 5310880 — Exemplary damages at 198 Withells Road, Avonhead, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5310880 — Exemplary damages at 198 Withells Road, Avonhead, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the Tribunal award the tenant exemplary damages?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the Tribunal award the tenant exemplary damages?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions