What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5314599 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5314599?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5314599?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5314599?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12964608-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5314599 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5314599?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5314599?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5314599?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12964608-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5314599 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5314599 — net $4,848.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Refund of bond	$4,320.00	Refund of bond
Exemplary damages: Non lodgement of the bond	$500.00	Non lodgement of the bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,848.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,848.00

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
Shuang Leng and Mark Liu must pay [The tenant/s] $4,848.00 immediately, calculated in the table below:

Reasons

The tenants attended the hearing which was held on 9 October 2025. The landlord and his agent did not attend. Preliminary matter
On the morning of the hearing, the landlord’s agent requested an adjournment on the basis that he had tested positive for COVID-19 and was unable to attend in person.
The Tribunal advised that, consistent with the Tribunal’s COVID-19 operational protocols, the agent could participate remotely by telephone, which remains a safe and appropriate means of attendance.
The Tribunal declined the adjournment request for the following reasons: • The application before the Tribunal concerns a bond refund and claim for exemplary damages for non-lodgement of the bond; • The tenancy ended on 4 July 2025, more than three months ago, and the claims are of a straightforward factual nature that can be addressed remotely; • The tenants are entitled to timely resolution of their claims; and • Remote attendance is sufficient to protect public health while allowing fair participation.
The Tribunal therefore determined the matter would proceed as scheduled. The agent was advised that if neither he nor the landlord participated, the Tribunal would proceed and determine the matter in their absence.
In response, the agent advised: “I am going through 39.6 degrees high fever so i think it will be better to speak about this matter when my head is more clear. Also I don’t have any contact number at the moment because Vodafone has stop the service due to my personal financial crisis after I lost job early this year. I am just a contacting person for this tenancy to help the landlord to draft the tenancy agreement and communicate with the tenant because landlord don’t speak English. The bond money was deposited from the tenant directly into landlord’s bank account which I have no control over and landlord told me they will take care of the bond. I knew there must be some misunderstanding and mistakes between me and the landlord regarding this bond issue and that’s what I was and going to find out. But believe me they became very hard to find and communicate but I will do my best to find them and solve this issue before the next hearing date if there is one. If the postpone is not granted then I am willing to take full responsibility of all decisions by the Adjudicator. Sorry for all the inconvenience caused to the tenant.”
Despite this, and for the reasons noted above, I considered it appropriate to proceed with the hearing in the landlord and his agent’s absence. Tenants’ Application
The tenants apply for refund of their bond (being $4,320) and exemplary damages for failure to lodge the bond.
The tenants state they paid the bond at the start of the tenancy and received no confirmation of lodgement. Upon vacating the property on 4 July 2025, they discovered that the bond had never been lodged with Tenancy Services.
The tenants have experienced significant delay and financial strain due to the missing bond and the inability to secure timely refund of funds that should have been protected by law.
The tenants also described persistent delays and poor communication from the agent throughout the tenancy, including delays in forwarding water bills.

Who is Liable?

The application was filed against the agent, who facilitated the tenancy on behalf of the landlord. However, under section 2 and section 19 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), the landlord bears ultimate legal responsibility for bond compliance.
The agent has admitted to collecting the bond and depositing it directly into the landlord’s bank account. In doing so, the agent participated in the receipt and mismanagement of the bond funds.
Accordingly, both the landlord (as principal) and the agent (as representative actively involved in the breach) are jointly and severally liable for the consequences of the unlawful act. The Tribunal adopts this approach consistent with principles of agency and vicarious liability, recognising that both parties had direct roles in the non-lodgement. Relevant Law
Section 19(1) RTA requires that a landlord who receives a bond must lodge it with the chief executive (Tenancy Services) within 23 working days after receipt. Failure to do so is an unlawful act under section 19(4).
Section 109(3) allows the Tribunal to impose exemplary damages if the act was intentional and having regard to: • The intent of the person; • The effect of the act; • The interests of the other party; and • The public interest in ensuring compliance.
The maximum exemplary damages for non-lodgement of a bond is $1,500 (Schedule 1A RTA).
Section 22B(2) 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. Findings
I find on the evidence that the tenants paid a bond at the start of the tenancy, that the bond was never lodged with Tenancy Services, and that neither the landlord nor agent has refunded it.
The evidence confirms the agent was directly involved in the receipt of the bond and was aware of the obligation to lodge it. The landlord, as the principal and ultimate holder of the funds, also bears responsibility.
The failure to lodge the bond deprives tenants of the protection of the Bond Centre’s statutory framework and undermines the integrity of the tenancy system. This was not a mere oversight but a reckless disregard for the Act.
The agent’s statement that he “has no control over the bond” but “will take full responsibility” reinforces that both parties failed to comply with their legal duties. The Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional within the meaning of section 109(3).
The tenants have been placed in a financially disadvantageous position for over three months, during which time they have been unable to access funds lawfully due to them.
Having considered the seriousness of the breach, the duration of non-compliance, the agent’s admission, and the public interest in enforcing the law, I find exemplary damages of $500.00 to be appropriate.
The landlord has not filed a counterclaim, and accordingly, has not sought any formal orders relating to the refund of the bond. Without such an application, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to make compensatory orders in the landlord’s favour. The bond must therefore be refunded to the tenants in full, in accordance with section 22B RTA. This outcome does not prevent the landlord from bringing a separate application for compensation through Tenancy Services.
This case highlights the importance of strict compliance with bond lodgement obligations under section 19 RTA. The Tribunal reiterates that an agent’s involvement does not absolve a landlord of liability, nor can responsibility be shifted between them.
As the tenants have been wholly successful with the claim, I order the landlord and agent to reimburse the filing fee (section 102(4) RTA) and grant the tenants’ name suppression (section 95A RTA).

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5314599 — net $4,848.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Refund of bond	$4,320.00	Refund of bond
Exemplary damages: Non lodgement of the bond	$500.00	Non lodgement of the bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,848.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,848.00

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
Shuang Leng and Mark Liu must pay [The tenant/s] $4,848.00 immediately, calculated in the table below:

Reasons

The tenants attended the hearing which was held on 9 October 2025. The landlord and his agent did not attend. Preliminary matter
On the morning of the hearing, the landlord’s agent requested an adjournment on the basis that he had tested positive for COVID-19 and was unable to attend in person.
The Tribunal advised that, consistent with the Tribunal’s COVID-19 operational protocols, the agent could participate remotely by telephone, which remains a safe and appropriate means of attendance.
The Tribunal declined the adjournment request for the following reasons: • The application before the Tribunal concerns a bond refund and claim for exemplary damages for non-lodgement of the bond; • The tenancy ended on 4 July 2025, more than three months ago, and the claims are of a straightforward factual nature that can be addressed remotely; • The tenants are entitled to timely resolution of their claims; and • Remote attendance is sufficient to protect public health while allowing fair participation.
The Tribunal therefore determined the matter would proceed as scheduled. The agent was advised that if neither he nor the landlord participated, the Tribunal would proceed and determine the matter in their absence.
In response, the agent advised: “I am going through 39.6 degrees high fever so i think it will be better to speak about this matter when my head is more clear. Also I don’t have any contact number at the moment because Vodafone has stop the service due to my personal financial crisis after I lost job early this year. I am just a contacting person for this tenancy to help the landlord to draft the tenancy agreement and communicate with the tenant because landlord don’t speak English. The bond money was deposited from the tenant directly into landlord’s bank account which I have no control over and landlord told me they will take care of the bond. I knew there must be some misunderstanding and mistakes between me and the landlord regarding this bond issue and that’s what I was and going to find out. But believe me they became very hard to find and communicate but I will do my best to find them and solve this issue before the next hearing date if there is one. If the postpone is not granted then I am willing to take full responsibility of all decisions by the Adjudicator. Sorry for all the inconvenience caused to the tenant.”
Despite this, and for the reasons noted above, I considered it appropriate to proceed with the hearing in the landlord and his agent’s absence. Tenants’ Application
The tenants apply for refund of their bond (being $4,320) and exemplary damages for failure to lodge the bond.
The tenants state they paid the bond at the start of the tenancy and received no confirmation of lodgement. Upon vacating the property on 4 July 2025, they discovered that the bond had never been lodged with Tenancy Services.
The tenants have experienced significant delay and financial strain due to the missing bond and the inability to secure timely refund of funds that should have been protected by law.
The tenants also described persistent delays and poor communication from the agent throughout the tenancy, including delays in forwarding water bills.

Who is Liable?

The application was filed against the agent, who facilitated the tenancy on behalf of the landlord. However, under section 2 and section 19 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), the landlord bears ultimate legal responsibility for bond compliance.
The agent has admitted to collecting the bond and depositing it directly into the landlord’s bank account. In doing so, the agent participated in the receipt and mismanagement of the bond funds.
Accordingly, both the landlord (as principal) and the agent (as representative actively involved in the breach) are jointly and severally liable for the consequences of the unlawful act. The Tribunal adopts this approach consistent with principles of agency and vicarious liability, recognising that both parties had direct roles in the non-lodgement. Relevant Law
Section 19(1) RTA requires that a landlord who receives a bond must lodge it with the chief executive (Tenancy Services) within 23 working days after receipt. Failure to do so is an unlawful act under section 19(4).
Section 109(3) allows the Tribunal to impose exemplary damages if the act was intentional and having regard to: • The intent of the person; • The effect of the act; • The interests of the other party; and • The public interest in ensuring compliance.
The maximum exemplary damages for non-lodgement of a bond is $1,500 (Schedule 1A RTA).
Section 22B(2) 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. Findings
I find on the evidence that the tenants paid a bond at the start of the tenancy, that the bond was never lodged with Tenancy Services, and that neither the landlord nor agent has refunded it.
The evidence confirms the agent was directly involved in the receipt of the bond and was aware of the obligation to lodge it. The landlord, as the principal and ultimate holder of the funds, also bears responsibility.
The failure to lodge the bond deprives tenants of the protection of the Bond Centre’s statutory framework and undermines the integrity of the tenancy system. This was not a mere oversight but a reckless disregard for the Act.
The agent’s statement that he “has no control over the bond” but “will take full responsibility” reinforces that both parties failed to comply with their legal duties. The Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional within the meaning of section 109(3).
The tenants have been placed in a financially disadvantageous position for over three months, during which time they have been unable to access funds lawfully due to them.
Having considered the seriousness of the breach, the duration of non-compliance, the agent’s admission, and the public interest in enforcing the law, I find exemplary damages of $500.00 to be appropriate.
The landlord has not filed a counterclaim, and accordingly, has not sought any formal orders relating to the refund of the bond. Without such an application, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to make compensatory orders in the landlord’s favour. The bond must therefore be refunded to the tenants in full, in accordance with section 22B RTA. This outcome does not prevent the landlord from bringing a separate application for compensation through Tenancy Services.
This case highlights the importance of strict compliance with bond lodgement obligations under section 19 RTA. The Tribunal reiterates that an agent’s involvement does not absolve a landlord of liability, nor can responsibility be shifted between them.
As the tenants have been wholly successful with the claim, I order the landlord and agent to reimburse the filing fee (section 102(4) RTA) and grant the tenants’ name suppression (section 95A RTA).

Tenancy Tribunal case 5314599 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5314599 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Who is Liable?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Who is Liable?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions