What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5352207 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 5352207?

Compensation: part reimbursement of…: $639.50 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5352207?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5352207?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13236980-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5352207 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 5352207?

Compensation: part reimbursement of…: $639.50 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5352207?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5352207?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13236980-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

113 Hadlow Terrace, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5352207 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5352207 — net $1,167.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: part reimbursement of bond	$639.50	part reimbursement of bond
Exemplary damages: failure to lodge bond	$500.00	failure to lodge bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,167.50
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,167.50

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5352207 — net $1,167.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: part reimbursement of bond	$639.50	part reimbursement of bond
Exemplary damages: failure to lodge bond	$500.00	failure to lodge bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,167.50
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,167.50

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
Rent Smart Limited Chenxu Zhao must pay [The tenant/s] $1,167.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [Tenant 1] appeared on behalf of all four tenants and had authority to speak on their behalf. Raymond Zhang attended on behalf of the landlord. Background
This tenancy of a nearly new-build town house in a large complex of 121 units began on 2 March 2025. Rent was $730 per week. The tenants paid a bond of $2920.00.
The tenancy was for a fixed term. The tenants said in their application that the tenancy agreement incorrectly recorded the date of the end of the fixed term as 2 March 2026, when 2 February 2026 had been agreed, but the difference in date is not material for the purposes of this decision.
The tenants have filed an application seeking the following orders: a. Reimbursement of the sum of $839.50 which was deducted from their bond; b. Exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond; c. Compensation for the landlord’s breach of the Healthy Homes Standards (heating and ventilation standards); and d. Reimbursement of the filing fee. Onus and evidence
As with all claims that come before the Tribunal, the party bringing the claim must prove their claim to the civil standard (on the balance of probabilities). This claim is a claim by the tenants, and so they bear the onus to prove their claims.
For the sake of brevity I have not referred to all of the evidence filed prior to and produced at the hearing, but the parties can be assured that I have reviewed and considered all of the evidence when preparing this decision. Bond
The tenants decided to move out during the fixed term and told the landlord that they would find new tenants. The tenants did so, and then moved out on 19 September 2025. New tenants moved in the next day.
The tenants said that the landlord deducted the sum of $839.50 from their bond as an “administration fee”. They said that the landlord had not lodged the bond and so they were able to simply return the sum of $2,080.50 and retain the balance.
The landlord said that the tenants were very difficult to deal with, and insisted on finding new tenants themselves, which caused a lot of administration for the landlord in dealing with both the old and the new tenants, and that they had to do an inspection on the day the old tenants moved out before the new tenants moved in.
The landlord produced an invoice addressed to one of the tenants, dated 20 September 2025, setting out a breakdown as follows:
The landlord acknowledged that the bond had not been lodged. They explained that there had initially been an intermediary (a friend of the owner) who the bond was paid to, and this led to the bond not being lodged. The landlord accepted that they failed to lodge the bond and that it had been their responsibility to do so. Should the retained portion of the tenants’ bond be returned to them?
In a fixed term tenancy neither party can give notice to end the tenancy, but the parties can negotiate to end the fixed term early if they wish to do so.
Section 44A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that a landlord who agrees that the tenant may part with possession during the term of the tenancy may recover from the outgoing tenant any expenses reasonably incurred by the landlord. The landlord must provide an itemised account of these expenses to the tenant.
The question for the Tribunal in this case is whether the costs claimed by the landlord are “expenses reasonably incurred”.
The Tribunal frequently deals with claims by landlords for expenses incurred when releasing a tenant from a fixed term tenancy early. These expenses are commonly advertising fees, conducting viewings with prospective tenants, credit checks for new tenants and an additional outgoing/incoming inspection.
Having reviewed the landlord’s list of expenses I am satisfied that the inspection is an expense that has been reasonably incurred. The landlord is entitled to recovery of that amount.
However it is much less common for landlords to seek time spent communicating with outgoing and ingoing tenants as an “expense”. Such communications are usually regarded as being part and parcel of managing a tenancy rather than an expense incurred.
I do accept however that the landlord spent more time than usual dealing with the tenants over this issue. I have therefore allowed a small additional amount for this time, and award the total sum of $200.00.
The balance of $639.50 is to be reimbursed to the tenants. Are the tenants entitled to exemplary damage for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond?
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 accepted that they had failed to lodge the bond. 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.
The obligation to lodge the bond is so fundamental and well known that a failure to do so will almost always be regarded as intentional.
The bond is the tenants’ money. It is important that the bond is held securely at the Bond Centre. This means that in the event of a dispute, the Tribunal can hear and resolve the dispute and release the bond in accordance with orders made. Otherwise, the landlord may act unilaterally to retain the bond, as happened here. It is in the public interest that tenant’s bond monies be protected and any disputes are heard by the Tribunal if the parties cannot otherwise agree.
In the circumstances it would be just to make an award of exemplary damages. It is usual in the Tribunal to make an award of approximately 1/3 rd of the maximum amount the first time such a breach occurs. I see no reason to depart from that convention in this instance. I therefore make an award of exemplary damages of $500.00. Healthy Homes Standards (Heating)
[The tenant/s] claim that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS), and in this case the heating standard.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
The tenant said that there was no heating at all in the lounge and that it became extremely cold.
The landlord confirmed that there was no heating in the lounge but said that it was not possible to do so in this case because: a. the landlord was constrained by the Body Corporate Rules, which state at
1.2 that an owner of a unit must “not install a heat pump or other heating or cooling apparatus to the [u]nit which has an external component without the prior written consent of the Body Corporate”; b. The two lounge walls are fire rated between units on each side and cannot be penetrated to install a fixed wall heater. This is not specifically referred to in the Body Corporate Rules, but those rules do provide that an owner must not do anything in a unit that increases the premium on the unit, is in beach of or may conflict with the Body Corporate insurance policy, or is in breach of any laws, regulations and/or enactment relating to fire.
The landlord said that for the above reasons there is an exemption in these circumstances. The landlord also provided a Healthy Homes report dated 5 January 2025 for the property which stated the following in relation to heating: “Unit titles partial exemption and may caus[e] substantial damage to the property”
In order to find a breach by the landlord I do not need to be completely certain, but I must be more certain than uncertain. On the basis of the information before me it appears that the landlord may well have an exemption. I am not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the landlord is in breach of their obligations.
This part of the tenants’ claim is therefore dismissed. Healthy Homes Standards (Ventilation)
The tenants also claim that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
The tenants said that the extractor fan in one of the bathrooms didn’t work and they were concerned about a build-up of moisture and mould.
The landlord said that the tenants raised this issue when they moved in and so they had an electrician inspect the property who confirmed that “the relay at switchboard for fan is working good, the relay is in good working condition [a]nd [f]an is working well”. The landlord provided a copy of the electrician’s invoice and notes dated 30 September 2025.
The landlord also referred me to the Healthy Homes Report which confirms that the property is compliant with the Healthy Homes ventilation standard.
The landlord said that when they did an inspection prior to the next tenants moving in they discovered that the tenants had turned off the fan at the switchboard, possibly as all of the ventilation is connected and the ventilation unit in the laundry makes a noise.
Having reviewed all of the evidence I am not satisfied that the tenants have proved, on the balance of probabilities, that the ventilation was not in working order.
I accordingly I find no breach by the landlord. This part of the tenants’ application is dismissed. Breach of Healthy Homes Standards (drainage)
The tenants did not raise any issues regarding drainage in their application but raised this issue at the hearing. The tenants said that the drains in the showers were smelly, that they raised this issue with the landlord but in the end solve the issue themselves by putting covers over the drains.
The landlord said that they had never been told about any issue with the drains and that the new tenants had not raised any issue either.
As this matter was not raised in the tenants’ application I declined to hear further evidence on this issue and make no determination on it. Filing fee and name suppression
Because [The applicant/s] have substantially succeeded with their claim, in the sense that they have recovered part of their retained bond and have received an award of exemplary damages, I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenants also sought an order for name suppression and are entitled to an order as the substantially successful party (see section 95A RTA).

Tenancy Tribunal case 5352207 — Exemplary damages at 113 Hadlow Terrace, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5352207 — Exemplary damages at 113 Hadlow Terrace, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions