Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5371829 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 1, 41 Station Road, Takanini, Auckland 2112
Decided 28 Apr 2026 · Published 28 Apr 2026 · Application 5371829
- Exemplary damages
- Cleanliness
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
- Manukau City Property Management Limited as Agent for Sebastian Gonzalez Meza must pay $6,458.00 immediately, calculated below:
Reasons
- The tenant attended the hearing. The landlord did not attend and could not be contacted on the phone number given in the Notice of Hearing, which was properly served. Background
- The tenant’s evidence is that she became interested in these premises, after a period of living with her children in emergency accommodation and her car.
- She says that she was required to pay the bond and two week’s rent in advance before viewing the property and signing the tenancy agreement. The agreement was for a periodic tenancy starting on 4 September 2025, at a rent of $780.00 per week.
- Her evidence is that when she went to the property she found it in a very poor state of cleanliness and repair with a very very strong dog odour. She told the property manager she did not want to move in for those reasons but was told she would not get any of her bond or rent in advance back, so felt she had no choice but to move in.
- She moved in and spent time and effort cleaning the place up. She moved out on 6 October 2025 and paid rent to that date.
- She asks that all of the rent and bond she paid be refunded and that exemplary damages be awarded for the landlord’s conduct.
- She says she hasn’t received any notification from the Bond Centre that her bond has been lodged, despite the Tribunal’s Order dated 26 February 2026, which stated: “The matter includes an application for refund of the tenant’s bond. I could find no record of the bond being held at the bond Centre. If the bond has not been lodged with the Bond Centre, the landlord must lodge it immediately. If it has already been lodged, the landlord will need to provide the bond number.”
- There being no appearance from the landlord and no evidence filed, there is no basis to question the tenant’s evidence, which in some respects is corroborated by photographic evidence provided.
- I find it more likely than not that the bond has not been lodged.
Should the bond be refunded?
- If a tenant applies to the Tribunal for refund of the bond, the landlord must file an application with the Tribunal that sets out the landlord’s counterclaim. 1 As the landlord has not lodged a claim, the bond must be refunded.
- Any bond money paid to a landlord must be lodged with the Bond Centre within 23 working days of receipt. 2 Failing to do that is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $1,500.00 may be awarded.
- 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’s breach must be regarded as intentional.
- The evidence indicates the flowing relevant factors: a. payment of the bond was required before the tenant was able to inspect the premises, putting the tenant in a difficult position; b. the bond has remained held by the landlord even though it is aware of the tenant’s claim; c. the bond has not been paid the Bond Centre despite clear directions from the Tribunal;
- The tenant’s interests and the public interest make it just that a significant award of exemplary damages be made.
Were the premises provided in satisfactory condition?
- A landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and repair. 3
- Breaching that obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00.
- The tenant says, “House was so bad was not liveable you could smell the house before getting to the door the inside was so bad smelt like a really bad wet dog all over the house back room smelt like faeces and urine”
- Evidence of odours is difficult to provide. Again, in the absence of evidence the landlord could have provided, such as through an entry inspection report acknowledged by the tenant, there is no reason to disbelieve the tenant. 1 S.22B RTA 2 S.19(1)(b) RTA 3 S.45(1)(a) and (b) RTA
- The tenant’s evidence is consistent with evidence she has provided through photographs taken from the start of the tenancy which show what appear to be large stains on carpets, a demolished fence, overgrown outside areas, rubbish left in the premises, and a shed with lots of rubbish and debris.
- I find it proved on balance that the premises were not provided in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
- Photographs provided by the tenant suggest that a lot of work was done by the tenant during the very short tenancy, to clean up the property before she vacated.
- She should be provided compensation which I assess at 2 weeks rent.
- The landlord’s breach was intentional. While I hesitate to make such a finding, The evidence does suggests on balance that the landlord was aware of the issues with the premises so required payment of the bond before a viewing, to make it difficult for the tenant to object.
- Primarily for that reason, I find it would be just to make an award of exemplary damages, in addition to the compensation awarded. The damages awarded are modest, because the tenant was able to vacate the tenancy before very long.
- Because the tenant has succeeded with the claim, I reimburse the filing fee.