What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5325408 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 5325408?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5325408?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5325408?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12699610-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5325408 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 5325408?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5325408?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5325408?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12699610-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5325408 — Exemplary damages

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlords name and identifying details.
The Tenants application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The Tenants have claimed compensation and exemplary damages.
The tenancy commenced on 1 October 2024 and was fixed to 30 September 2025. The tenancy ended earlier on 26 July 2025 by agreement between the parties. Compensation
The tenants sought compensation of $6,525.00, claiming that when they vacated the property on 26 July 2025, they had paid rent through to the end of the fixed-term tenancy on 30 September 2025. They submitted that the landlord had entered into a new tenancy from 1 August 2025 to 30 September 2025 and therefore the Tenants rent should be reimbursed for the overlapping period. They stated there was a new tenancy based on driving past the property and seeing people move in on 1 August 2025. They were also informed by neighbours that new Tenants had moved in. To support their claim, they provided email correspondence confirming the landlord’s acceptance on 6 July 2025 of their proposal to end the tenancy on 26 July 2025. They further stated that, on 8 July 2025, they emailed the landlord proposing that if new tenants were found, rent for the overlapping period should be reimbursed to the Tenants. The landlord, however, did not agree to this variation.
The landlord submitted that he had not entered into a new tenancy agreement during the period of 1 August 2025 to September 2025. They explained that the property had been vandalised the day after the tenants vacated, and so friends were asked to house-sit to prevent further damage. Those friends had moved into the house temporarily and not pursuant to a Tenancy Agreement.
In considering the evidence, I find the tenants have not established that a new tenancy commenced on 1 August 2025. They provided no tenancy agreement or evidence that rent was paid to the landlord by new Tenants. While they noted the difficulty of obtaining this evidence, the onus remains on the applicants to prove their claim. The Tribunal cannot make an order for reimbursement of rent based on speculation or mere passing of the property.
The claim is therefore dismissed. Exemplary damages
Clinton Bacon, Talitha Monique Bacon and Beverley Lynne Bacon claims the landlord did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre. They contacted the Bond Centre on 4 August 2025 and were advised that their bond had not been lodged.
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 admitted they failed to lodge the bond. At the tenancy’s start in September 2022, they intended to hold the bond for six weeks as a trial period for the Tenants to decide whether the tenancy would continue. If the Tenants decided to not proceed with the tenancy, the Landlord could readily return the bond. After the trial period, the Tenants continued with the tenancy however the Landlord forgot to lodge the bond. Although they had properly lodged a bond in a previous tenancy and did not intend to act unlawfully, they ultimately refunded the bond to the tenant. I find 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord submitted that the failure to lodge the bond was unintentional, explaining that they forgot and later refunded it to the tenants. Email correspondence between the parties reflects a friendly and genuine relationship. The landlord stated they accepted the tenants application at the start of the tenancy to assist them, knowing they had recently relocated from overseas.
The tenants, however, felt misled and argued that, given the landlord’s 16 years of rental experience, such an oversight should not have occurred.
Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond was inadvertent and the result of an oversight. The correspondence suggests the landlord acted honestly and transparently throughout the tenancy, and the bond was subsequently refunded to the tenants.
For these reasons, the claim is dismissed.
Section 95A of the RTA states the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
As the Tenants have not been successful in their claims, name suppression is not granted to the Tenants.
The Landlord has requested name suppression and has been successful in defending the Tenants application. Name suppression is granted to the Landlord.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlords name and identifying details.
The Tenants application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The Tenants have claimed compensation and exemplary damages.
The tenancy commenced on 1 October 2024 and was fixed to 30 September 2025. The tenancy ended earlier on 26 July 2025 by agreement between the parties. Compensation
The tenants sought compensation of $6,525.00, claiming that when they vacated the property on 26 July 2025, they had paid rent through to the end of the fixed-term tenancy on 30 September 2025. They submitted that the landlord had entered into a new tenancy from 1 August 2025 to 30 September 2025 and therefore the Tenants rent should be reimbursed for the overlapping period. They stated there was a new tenancy based on driving past the property and seeing people move in on 1 August 2025. They were also informed by neighbours that new Tenants had moved in. To support their claim, they provided email correspondence confirming the landlord’s acceptance on 6 July 2025 of their proposal to end the tenancy on 26 July 2025. They further stated that, on 8 July 2025, they emailed the landlord proposing that if new tenants were found, rent for the overlapping period should be reimbursed to the Tenants. The landlord, however, did not agree to this variation.
The landlord submitted that he had not entered into a new tenancy agreement during the period of 1 August 2025 to September 2025. They explained that the property had been vandalised the day after the tenants vacated, and so friends were asked to house-sit to prevent further damage. Those friends had moved into the house temporarily and not pursuant to a Tenancy Agreement.
In considering the evidence, I find the tenants have not established that a new tenancy commenced on 1 August 2025. They provided no tenancy agreement or evidence that rent was paid to the landlord by new Tenants. While they noted the difficulty of obtaining this evidence, the onus remains on the applicants to prove their claim. The Tribunal cannot make an order for reimbursement of rent based on speculation or mere passing of the property.
The claim is therefore dismissed. Exemplary damages
Clinton Bacon, Talitha Monique Bacon and Beverley Lynne Bacon claims the landlord did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre. They contacted the Bond Centre on 4 August 2025 and were advised that their bond had not been lodged.
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 admitted they failed to lodge the bond. At the tenancy’s start in September 2022, they intended to hold the bond for six weeks as a trial period for the Tenants to decide whether the tenancy would continue. If the Tenants decided to not proceed with the tenancy, the Landlord could readily return the bond. After the trial period, the Tenants continued with the tenancy however the Landlord forgot to lodge the bond. Although they had properly lodged a bond in a previous tenancy and did not intend to act unlawfully, they ultimately refunded the bond to the tenant. I find 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord submitted that the failure to lodge the bond was unintentional, explaining that they forgot and later refunded it to the tenants. Email correspondence between the parties reflects a friendly and genuine relationship. The landlord stated they accepted the tenants application at the start of the tenancy to assist them, knowing they had recently relocated from overseas.
The tenants, however, felt misled and argued that, given the landlord’s 16 years of rental experience, such an oversight should not have occurred.
Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond was inadvertent and the result of an oversight. The correspondence suggests the landlord acted honestly and transparently throughout the tenancy, and the bond was subsequently refunded to the tenants.
For these reasons, the claim is dismissed.
Section 95A of the RTA states the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
As the Tenants have not been successful in their claims, name suppression is not granted to the Tenants.
The Landlord has requested name suppression and has been successful in defending the Tenants application. Name suppression is granted to the Landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5325408 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5325408 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions