What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5371264 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 5371264?

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

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5371264?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5371264?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13081800-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5371264 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 5371264?

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

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5371264?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5371264?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13081800-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

121 Lancaster Road, Beach Haven, Auckland 0626 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5371264 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5371264 — net $528.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond	$500.00	Failure to lodge bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$528.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$528.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Annette Loughnane and Matthew Kieran Loughnane must pay [The tenant/s] $528.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

One of the tenants attended the hearing by telephone conference. I am satisfied that the landlord received the notice of the hearing including instructions to attend the hearing via video link or telephone. However, the landlord did not join the hearing. Therefore, it proceeded in the landlord’s absence.
[The tenant/s] claim the landlord did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
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 (RTA).
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 RTA.
The tenancy commenced on 23 August 2024 and ended on 3 October 2025.
In an email to the tenants on 14 August 2024, the landlord sent through the tenancy agreement for signing and asked the tenants to confirm as soon as the bond payment was made, stating that they would then lodge it at the Bond Centre.
The tenants provided evidence proving that the first week’s rent plus the bond of $3,000 was paid by direct credit into the landlord’s account (detailed in the tenancy agreement) on 15 August 2024. The tenants also signed a bond lodgement form on 14 August 2024 which was forwarded to the landlord.
At the end of the tenancy, the landlord conducted a bond inspection and advised that the bond would be refunded in full. The tenants provided the landlord with their account number for that purpose. The landlord claimed that the refund of bond request had been submitted to the Bond Centre The tenants then followed up with the Bond Centre and were advised that no bond had been lodged for this tenancy. When the tenants advised the landlord about this, she said that the money was invested “somewhere” and the tenants would receive the bond back with interest. In a text message to the tenants on 14 October 2025, the landlord advised: “Bond refund is total amount (original investment + interest) is $3,085.50. The interest is $85.50. Transferred.” Payment still did not eventuate.
The tenants became very concerned and stressed about the return of their bond and lodged this application on 21 October 2025 for refund of the bond and exemplary damages for failing to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre. Payment of the bond was then made by the landlord on 23 October 2025. However, the tenants still seek exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre.
The landlord has breached their obligations under s19 RTA to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre. 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) RTA.
The landlord was not present at the hearing to explain why the bond was not lodged at the Bond Centre during the tenancy. However, they clearly knew their obligation to do so as is evidenced in their email sent to the tenant before the tenancy started. They might argue that it was an oversight, but I am not persuaded that would be a reasonable excuse. A landlord ought to know that if they do not have good accounting processes for tracking bond money, failing to lodge the bond is a likely consequence. In this case, it appears that the landlord might have deliberately invested the funds elsewhere to earn interest.
Having regard to the circumstances, I am satisfied that the the matter of intention in terms of s109 RTA has been established in that the landlord has failed to adopt a robust process to ensure that the bond was paid to the Bond Centre. Bond money belongs to a tenant, and it is of significant interest to both the tenant and the public that the money is held securely with the Bond Centre during the tenancy and that landlords comply with their obligations under the Act. The tenant explained that she became quite stressed as to whether the bond would be returned once she learned it had never been lodged with the Bond Centre.
Exemplary damages are not compensatory but are designed to be a fine or penalty imposed to punish and deter and to mark disapproval of the conduct. After considering the factors in s109, and bearing in mind that the landlord never lodged the Bond during the tenancy, I find that an award of exemplary damages of $500 is justified.
As the tenants have substantially succeeded with their claim, they are entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee and to suppression of their name and identifying details, as requested.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5371264 — net $528.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond	$500.00	Failure to lodge bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$528.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$528.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Annette Loughnane and Matthew Kieran Loughnane must pay [The tenant/s] $528.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

One of the tenants attended the hearing by telephone conference. I am satisfied that the landlord received the notice of the hearing including instructions to attend the hearing via video link or telephone. However, the landlord did not join the hearing. Therefore, it proceeded in the landlord’s absence.
[The tenant/s] claim the landlord did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
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 (RTA).
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 RTA.
The tenancy commenced on 23 August 2024 and ended on 3 October 2025.
In an email to the tenants on 14 August 2024, the landlord sent through the tenancy agreement for signing and asked the tenants to confirm as soon as the bond payment was made, stating that they would then lodge it at the Bond Centre.
The tenants provided evidence proving that the first week’s rent plus the bond of $3,000 was paid by direct credit into the landlord’s account (detailed in the tenancy agreement) on 15 August 2024. The tenants also signed a bond lodgement form on 14 August 2024 which was forwarded to the landlord.
At the end of the tenancy, the landlord conducted a bond inspection and advised that the bond would be refunded in full. The tenants provided the landlord with their account number for that purpose. The landlord claimed that the refund of bond request had been submitted to the Bond Centre The tenants then followed up with the Bond Centre and were advised that no bond had been lodged for this tenancy. When the tenants advised the landlord about this, she said that the money was invested “somewhere” and the tenants would receive the bond back with interest. In a text message to the tenants on 14 October 2025, the landlord advised: “Bond refund is total amount (original investment + interest) is $3,085.50. The interest is $85.50. Transferred.” Payment still did not eventuate.
The tenants became very concerned and stressed about the return of their bond and lodged this application on 21 October 2025 for refund of the bond and exemplary damages for failing to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre. Payment of the bond was then made by the landlord on 23 October 2025. However, the tenants still seek exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre.
The landlord has breached their obligations under s19 RTA to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre. 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) RTA.
The landlord was not present at the hearing to explain why the bond was not lodged at the Bond Centre during the tenancy. However, they clearly knew their obligation to do so as is evidenced in their email sent to the tenant before the tenancy started. They might argue that it was an oversight, but I am not persuaded that would be a reasonable excuse. A landlord ought to know that if they do not have good accounting processes for tracking bond money, failing to lodge the bond is a likely consequence. In this case, it appears that the landlord might have deliberately invested the funds elsewhere to earn interest.
Having regard to the circumstances, I am satisfied that the the matter of intention in terms of s109 RTA has been established in that the landlord has failed to adopt a robust process to ensure that the bond was paid to the Bond Centre. Bond money belongs to a tenant, and it is of significant interest to both the tenant and the public that the money is held securely with the Bond Centre during the tenancy and that landlords comply with their obligations under the Act. The tenant explained that she became quite stressed as to whether the bond would be returned once she learned it had never been lodged with the Bond Centre.
Exemplary damages are not compensatory but are designed to be a fine or penalty imposed to punish and deter and to mark disapproval of the conduct. After considering the factors in s109, and bearing in mind that the landlord never lodged the Bond during the tenancy, I find that an award of exemplary damages of $500 is justified.
As the tenants have substantially succeeded with their claim, they are entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee and to suppression of their name and identifying details, as requested.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5371264 — Exemplary damages at 121 Lancaster Road, Beach Haven, Auckland 0626

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5371264 — Exemplary damages at 121 Lancaster Road, Beach Haven, Auckland 0626

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