What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5337182 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 5337182?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Rent In Advance: $1,260.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5337182?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5337182?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12738092-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5337182 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 5337182?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Rent In Advance: $1,260.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5337182?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5337182?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12738092-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5337182 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5337182 — net $3,808.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Release of bond	$2,520.00	Release of bond
Rent in advance	$1,260.00	Rent in advance
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,808.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,808.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5337182 — net $3,808.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Release of bond	$2,520.00	Release of bond
Rent in advance	$1,260.00	Rent in advance
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,808.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,808.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s and Landlord’s names and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $3,808.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing on 17 November 2025.
The tenant was represented by Ms Caird. For the purposes of this order, I propose referring to the tenant as “Ms T.”
The claim relates to premises in Lower Hutt. Relevant legal principles The burden of proof
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. In this case, the burden is on the tenant to prove her claims.
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.” Compensation and exemplary damages
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach. • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: “Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.”
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proven that the other party has, with intent, committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must consider the factors set out in section 109 (3) 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. Background
The background facts are somewhat complicated.
The initial tenancy of the premises was held by Summa-Rose Karaitiana and Codi Wakefield. That tenancy commenced on 4 April 2023.
In 2024, Summa-Rose Karaitiana contacted the landlord stating that Codi Wakefield wished to be released from the tenancy.
The evidence of Ms T was;
Summa-Rose Karaitiana placed an advertisement for the tenancy.
Ms T saw the advertisement. She was an acquaintance of Summa-Rose Karaitiana and made contact with her. When they spoke, Summa-Rose Karaitiana indicated that she wanted to assign the existing tenancy to Ms T.
Ms T subsequently signed a variation to the tenancy agreement. That variation showed that Ms T would be added as a new tenant. Codi Wakefield would be released and Summa-Rose Karaitiana would be a “remaining tenant.”
Ms T clearly did not understand the effect of that variation. At all times she was under the impression that the tenancy that she was signing up for was to be in her sole name. Her impression was confirmed when Summa-Rose Karaitiana produced a “ tenancy agreement “ for her to sign. It is not clear whether that agreement already included a signature purporting to be the landlord’s signature, or if the signature was added later.
It is however absolutely clear from the evidence of both the landlord and Ms T that the tenancy agreement had been fraudulently prepared by Summa-Rose Karaitiana. It had never been signed or seen by the landlord.
Having signed the “tenancy agreement” and thinking that a tenancy had been obtained, Ms T approached WINZ for assistance with the payment of a bond and rent in advance. WINZ agreed to assist her in that manner.
At this point, the evidence of the landlord needs to be referred to. The landlord had agreed to a variation to the terms of the existing tenancy to release Codi Wakefield and to add Ms T. A variation had been signed. This variation would have resulted in SR and Ms T being joint tenants. The landlord’s evidence, which I accept, was that they had never agreed to enter into a new tenancy with Ms T as the sole tenant. The landlord had agreed with Ms T becoming a joint tenant on the existing tenancy agreement.
Summa-Rose Karaitiana was in arrears for rent at the time leading up to the landlord accepting Ms T as a joint tenant. Summa-Rose Karaitiana told the landlord that she had arranged for Ms T to pay off the arrears and that the funds would be credited to the landlord’s account. Those funds should be used to clear the arrears with the balance to be rent in advance .
The funds which Ms T had arranged with WINZ for her bond and rent in advance, duly arrived in the landlord’s account. The landlord was expecting the funds as a result of their conversation with Summa-Rose Karaitiana . The landlord paid the funds to the account of the owner of the premises in accordance with their obligations to the owner.
Summa-Rose Karaitiana has acted fraudulently throughout to dupe both Ms T and the landlord. I wish to make it clear at this point that I do not assign any blame or criminal intent to either Ms T, the landlord or its staff. The police were involved, a complaint having been filed and Summa-Rose Karaitiana is now a serving prisoner. No complaint has been laid against Ms T.
The tenant has sought to be reimbursed for the payments to the landlord. The landlord has refused to pay the tenant.
The tenant now seeks; • Release of her bond. • Reimbursement for her payment of rent in advance. • Exemplary damages for failure to lodge the bond. • Compensation. • Reimbursement of the filing fee. The law
Section 78(1)(g) RTA provides. 78 Orders of Tribunal (1) Without limiting the generality of section 77 or the nature or extent of orders that the Tribunal may make in the exercise of its jurisdiction, the Tribunal may, in respect of any claim within its jurisdiction (but subject to section 78 A, if that section applies), make 1 or more of the following orders:... (g) where it appears to the Tribunal that an agreement between the parties has been induced by fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake, or that any writing purporting to express the agreement between the parties does not accord with their true agreement, an order varying, or setting aside, the agreement or the writing (either wholly or in part):
When interpreting s.78 RTA, the Tribunal and courts have consistently taken a generous approach to jurisdiction under the RTA and a strict approach to the exceptions in the RTA. This means the RTA is to be interpreted broadly to cover as many residential tenancy situations as possible unless there is a clear and specific exclusion. For example, in Harding v Schellevis ,Tan and Caroto [2021] NZHC 1265, the High Court emphasised that the RTA supports a generous approach to jurisdiction and a strict approach to exceptions.
The definitions in s.2(1) RTA of “tenant”, “tenancy” and ”tenancy agreement” are interpreted broadly to ensure that the protections of the RTA apply widely. The focus is on providing broad protection to tenants and ensuring the RTA applies in as many relevant situations as possible unless it is specifically excluded. The definition of “tenant,” importantly for the consideration of this case, includes “a prospective tenant” such as Ms T.
Taking into account this approach, I consider that s.78(1)(g) RTA should be interpreted broadly and should not be limited to a requirement that any fraudulent behaviour be by the parties to the tenancy.
Based on the evidence, it is clear that Ms T has been induced to enter into the tenancy as a result of the fraud of Summa-Rose Karaitiana. Section 78(1)(g) RTA applies. I set aside the tenancy agreement as having been induced by fraud.
Ms T has been induced to enter into the existing tenancy agreement by way of variation as a result of the fraud of Summa-Rose Karaitiana . The variation to the tenancy agreement is set aside.
Having set aside the two agreements, there is no legal basis for the landlord to retain the funds deposited with them by WINZ on behalf of Ms T. The landlord is ordered to pay $3,770.00 to Ms T.
Having set aside the two “agreements”, there was no obligation on the landlord to lodge the bond. It would be unreasonable in the circumstances to further punish the landlord for something that they were not obliged to do. There was no unlawful act by the landlord, on which a claim for exemplary damages could be based and the tenant’s application for exemplary damages is dismissed.
In the event that I am wrong in my assessment that there was no obligation to lodge the bond, if there was a tenancy between Ms T and the landlord, I find the landlord was not obligated to lodge the bond money. That is because the landlord reasonably believed that the payment was to cover rent arrears, not bond. As the landlord believed this was a variation of the tenancy agreement, there was an existing tenancy, so it would be credible that the landlord believed the money was to cover the rent debt.
The tenant seeks compensation. The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
The essential basis for a compensation claim is a loss suffered by the tenant arising from a proven breach by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. The landlord’s breach must occur before a tenant can become entitled to compensation. There was no statutory responsibility on the landlord to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre, as there was no valid tenancy. The tenant has suffered a loss as she has not had access to her funds, but there has been no breach by the landlord which might allow the Tribunal to order compensation. The tenant’s application for compensation is dismissed.
As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have ordered the landlord to reimbursed the filing fee.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The tenant has been substantially successful in this hearing and suppression of the tenant’s name and details is ordered. Whilst the landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing, I consider that the landlord’s conduct to be such that there is no public interest in the publication of the name of the landlord. Suppression of the landlord’s name and details is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5337182 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5337182 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions