Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5353481 — Exemplary damages at 11 Raphoe Place, Ellerslie, Auckland 1051, Labelled 11A
Published 11 March 2026 · Application 5353481
Tenant favoured
- Exemplary damages
- Healthy homes
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Tenant favoured
From published order
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $3,168.00
- Total balance for Landlord to pay Tenant
- $3,168.00
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compensation: Refund of bond | $340.00 | Refund of bond | |
| Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond | $1,500.00 | 20. Taking all of these matters into account, I order the landlord to pay $1,500.00 in exemplary damages. | |
| Compensation: Failure to comply with healthy homes standards | $200.00 | 27. The tenant seeks compensation for this breach. | |
| Exemplary damages: Failure to comply with healthy homes standards | $500.00 | Failure to comply with healthy homes standards | |
| Compensation: Failure to ensure tenancy agreement is in writing | $100.00 | 34. The tenant seeks compensation for this breach. | |
| Exemplary damages: Failure to ensure tenancy agreement is in writing | $500.00 | Failure to ensure tenancy agreement is in writing | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $3,168.00 | ||
| Total payable by Landlord to Tenant | $3,168.00 |
Claims and awards for application 5353481 — net $3,168.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Compensation: Refund of bond
- Amount
- $340.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Refund of bond
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond
- Amount
- $1,500.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- 20. Taking all of these matters into account, I order the landlord to pay $1,500.00 in exemplary damages.
Compensation: Failure to comply with healthy homes standards
- Amount
- $200.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- 27. The tenant seeks compensation for this breach.
Exemplary damages: Failure to comply with healthy homes standards
- Amount
- $500.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Failure to comply with healthy homes standards
Compensation: Failure to ensure tenancy agreement is in writing
- Amount
- $100.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- 34. The tenant seeks compensation for this breach.
Exemplary damages: Failure to ensure tenancy agreement is in writing
- Amount
- $500.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Failure to ensure tenancy agreement is in writing
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Tenant $3,168.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant
Tenant $3,168.00
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- The landlord’s application for an adjournment is dismissed.
- JIng Jing Li must pay Fabio Johnson Susanto $3,168.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
Reasons
- The tenant attended the hearing on 11 March 2026. The landlord did not.
- On 10 March 2026 at 2:55pm, the landlord contacted the Tribunal requesting an adjournment. In their email, the landlord said that they are receiving medical treatment in China and returning to New Zealand in early April.
- The Tribunal must exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that promotes the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes. 1 Therefore, adjournments should only be granted when there are good reasons. I declined the request for an adjournment in this case for the following reasons: a. The notice of hearing was sent to the landlord on 30 January 2026, yet the landlord waited until one day before the hearing to request an adjournment. b. The hearing was scheduled to occur in person and a half day had been set aside at the Auckland District Court. No other case could be heard in place of this one, because of the short notice of the adjournment request. c. No evidence confirming the landlord is in fact in China was submitted, nor was any medical evidence submitted confirming their ill-health or that they are currently receiving medical treatment.
- The tenancy began on 30 July 2025 and ended on 13 August 2025. The tenant lived in a granny flat attached to the main dwelling. In a decision dated 10 December 2025, the Tribunal found it had jurisdiction to determine this dispute.
- The tenant seeks a refund of their bond of $340.00, as well as compensation and exemplary damages for alleged breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The issues I must determine are: a. Should the landlord refund the tenant their bond? b. Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond? c. Did the landlord fail to comply with the healthy homes standards? d. Did the landlord fail to record the tenancy agreement in writing?
- Before determining these issues, I discuss some general legal principles that apply to this case. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 85.
GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES
Standard of proof
- As the applicant, the tenant must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
- As noted by the District Court in Katipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ...[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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 of 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.
- I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. Compensation and exemplary damages – the law generally
- Compensation is generally awarded for actual financial loss and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as, a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy.
- The following factors are relevant when deciding to award compensation: 2 • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.
- Exemplary damages are different from compensation. They are designed to punish and deter. They are like a fine.
- Under the RTA, exemplary damages may be ordered for certain defined, unlawful acts. 2 Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667.
- The usual approach of the Tribunal is to award one third of the maximum of exemplary damages, unless there are aggravating or excusing factors in play. 3
- Section 109(3) RTA states that exemplary damages may be ordered if the unlawful act was committed intentionally and it is just, having regard to the following factors: a. The intent of the person in committing the unlawful act; b. The effect of the unlawful act; c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed; and d. The public interest.
- In the District Court decision of Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667, the Court needed to consider a case where the landlord had unlawfully entered the tenancy. That was not disputed. The evidence was that because of a misunderstanding around noticeDid s being given, the landlord went into the tenancy without the necessary notice having first been served on the tenant.
- Judge Neave in the District Court agreed with an earlier summary of the law from the Tribunal that: 4 Before an award for exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it.
- Judge Neave went on to accept that the unlawful entry was made in error, and on that basis, there was no intention established. Therefore, there was no basis to order exemplary damages. 3 Wellington Property Management Ltd v Hardie [2022] NZTT 4399281 4374781. 4 Chief Executive, ex party Edmonson v Walls North Shore TT 548/92 TENANT’S CLAIMS Should the landlord refund the bond of $340.00 to the tenant?
- Section 22B(2) RTA states that if a tenant applies to the Tribunal and the landlord seeks payment of the bond in whole or in part, the landlord must file an application with the Tribunal that sets out the landlord’s counterclaim.
- The tenant has applied to the Tribunal for a refund of the bond of $340.00 paid by them at the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services. Therefore, I order that the landlord pay the tenant $340.00, being the bond paid to the landlord at the beginning of the tenancy.
Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?
The law
- Section 19(1)(b) RTA requires a landlord to deposit a bond with the Bond Centre within 23 working days after payment of the bond is made. Failure to do this is an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00 may be ordered. 5 Analysis
- The tenancy began on 30 July 2025 and the tenant paid the bond on this date. It is now 11 March 2026, and the bond has still not been lodged with the Bond Centre.
- The landlord was required to lodge the bond 23 working days after 30 July 2025. It has been approximately 154 working days since this date and the bond has still not been lodged. Therefore, I find the landlord has breached section 19(1)(b) RTA.
- I find the landlord acted intentionally in failing to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre. This is because they received the bond from the tenant and did not lodge it within the required timeframe. Whether the landlord knew about the requirement to lodge the bond or not is no excuse. What matters is the fact that they received the bond and did not lodge it. I am satisfied this was an intentional act.
- I find it just to order exemplary damages, considering the following factors: a. The intent of the person in committing the unlawful act. The landlord acted intentionally. 5 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 19(2) & Schedule 1A. b. The effect of the unlawful act. The tenancy ended on 13 August 2025 and the tenant has still not received their bond from the landlord. The fact it has not been lodged with the Bond Centre, means the tenant is now required to chase the landlord for a refund of the bond. This takes time, effort and involves a cost. The whole process has been stressful for the tenant. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. The tenant has an interest in receiving their bond back. d. The public interest. There is a strong public interest in ensuring that landlords are deterred from failing to lodge bonds with the Bond Centre on time. The purpose of a bond is to provide security for the tenancy. Tenants can experience great difficulty in retrieving their bond in circumstances where it has not been lodged by the landlord.
- Taking all of these matters into account, I order the landlord to pay $1,500.00 in exemplary damages. Because the landlord has still not lodged the bond or returned it to the tenant, I find this to be an appropriate case in which to order the full amount of exemplary damages.
Did the landlord fail to comply with the healthy homes standards?
The law
- Section 45(1)(bb) RTA requires a landlord to comply with the healthy homes standards.
- The healthy homes standards are found in the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 (“HHS”). These provide a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies in respect of insulation, heating, ventilation, draught stopping, moisture and drainage.
- Regulation 8 states: 8Main living room must have qualifying heaters (1)The main living room of the premises must be heated – (a)by 1 or more qualifying heaters with a total heating capacity of at least the required heating capacity for the main living room; or (b)by 1 or more qualifying heaters as assessed under regulation 10A; or (c)by geothermal heating as provided in regulation 10B. Analysis
- The tenancy began on 30 July 2025. The landlord needed to ensure the premises complied with the HHS at the beginning of the tenancy.
- The tenant claims the premises did not comply with Regulation 8 of the HHS, because the main living room did not have any source of heating. The tenant submitted the following text message exchange with the landlord on 5 August 2025: Tenant
Hi, is there a heater in the house?
Landlord No we don’t provide heater...feel free to use an electric blanket or a standard panel heater for heating. If you’re considering using a fan heater or any high-consumption heating appliance, please check with me first, as there may be extra electricity costs involved.
- This evidence convinces me on the balance of probabilities that the main living room was not heated in accordance with the requirements in regulation 8. For this reason, I find the landlord failed to comply with the HHS.
- The tenant seeks compensation for this breach. I find $200.00 to be reasonable considering the following factors: a. The nature of the breach. The tenant has only proven the premises do not comply with one aspect of the HHS. This is not a case where there are multiple areas of proven non-compliance. b. The duration of the breach. The duration of the breach was short, because the tenancy only lasted 14 days. c. The effect of the breach on the party. The tenant claims the premises were cold because of the lack of heating. I accept the tenant’s evidence and note that the tenancy began in winter.
Should exemplary damages be ordered?
- I find the landlord acted intentionally in failing to comply with the HHS. No evidence to the contrary was submitted and it is clear from the text messages sent to the tenant that the landlord knew there was no heater and purposely did not provide one.
- I find it just to order exemplary damages, considering the following factors: a. The intent of the person in committing the unlawful act. I find the landlord acted intentionally. b. The effect of the unlawful act. The tenant claims the premises were very cold, because of the absence of any heating. I accept the tenant’s evidence on this point. c. The public interest. There is a high public interest in ensuring landlords are deterred from failing to comply with the HHS. Compliance with the HHS is mandatory, not discretionary. Landlords should be encouraged to know their obligations and to take proactive steps to ensure compliance.
- Taking these matters into account, I order the landlord to pay $500.00 in exemplary damages.
Did the landlord fail to record the tenancy agreement in writing?
The law
- Section 13(1) RTA states that a landlord must ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing. Failure to do this is an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00 may be ordered. 6 Analysis
- The tenant claims the landlord never committed the tenancy agreement to writing. The tenant did not submit a copy of the tenancy agreement with their application. The landlord also did not provide a copy of any tenancy agreement, despite being aware of the application and attending the previous hearing on 10 December 2025.
- The fact that neither party has submitted a signed copy of the tenancy agreement supports the tenant’s evidence that the landlord did not commit the tenancy agreement to writing. On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied the landlord breached section 13(1) RTA.
- The tenant seeks compensation for this breach. I find $100.00 to be reasonable, considering the following factors: a. The nature of the breach. The breach is moderately serious, as evidenced by the fact that the maximum amount of exemplary damages that may be ordered is $750.00. This is in comparison to other breaches, which attract exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7,200.00. b. The duration of the breach. The tenancy began on 30 July 2025. As at the date of the hearing on 11 March 2026, the landlord has still not submitted a written copy of the tenancy agreement. 6 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 13(4)(a) & Schedule 1A. c. The effect of the breach on the party. It was difficult for the tenant to file these proceedings, because the lack of a tenancy agreement meant the tenant did not have any record of the appropriate contact and service address for the landlord. The tenant has experienced stress and inconvenience.
Should exemplary damages be ordered?
- I find the landlord acted intentionally in failing to ensure the tenancy agreement was in writing. No evidence to the contrary was submitted. Whether the landlord knew they were required to record the tenancy agreement in writing or not is not relevant. What matters is the fact that a verbal tenancy agreement was made between the parties and never reduced to writing. I am satisfied this was an intentional act.
- I find it just to order exemplary damages, considering the following factors: a. The intent of the person in committing the unlawful act. I find the landlord acted intentionally. b. The effect of the unlawful act. Failing to record the tenancy agreement in writing means the tenant did not have any contact or service information for the landlord. This made filing the application difficult, because the application needed to be appropriately brought to the landlord’s attention. c. The public interest. There is a high public interest in ensuring landlords are deterred from failing to ensure tenancy agreements are in writing. A written tenancy agreement reduces the risk of disagreements about the terms of the tenancy. It also ensures that both parties are able to appropriately give and serve notices on each other, as well as file applications with the Tribunal.
- Taking these matters into account, I order the landlord to pay $500.00 in exemplary damages. Filing fee
- Because Fabio Johnson Susanto has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s109(3), s13(1), s13(4), s16, s19(1), s19(2), s2019, s22B(2), s24, s32, s45(1), s85
Key findings
- Dispute theme: exemplary damages
- Dispute theme: healthy homes
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5353481?
The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application for an adjournment is dismissed.
How much money was awarded in case 5353481?
Compensation: Failure to comply with…: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to ensure tena…: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Refund Of Bond: $340.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5353481?
The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Healthy homes.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5353481?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13263767-Tribunal_Order.pdf.