What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5387310 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 5387310?

Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5387310?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5387310?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13703600-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5387310 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 5387310?

Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5387310?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5387310?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13703600-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

160 Penrose Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1060 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5387310 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5387310 — net $468.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Refund of bond balance	$240.00	Refund of bond balance
Exemplary damages: Bond not lodged	$200.00	Bond not lodged
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$468.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$468.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Huilan Wang must pay [The tenant/s] $468.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on 4 June 2026. The landlord was represented by her son at the hearing. A mandarin interpreter was present to assist both parties.
A hearing was held on 6 March 2026 where the landlord did not attend.
An application for rehearing was filed on the basis that the landlord did not receive notice of the hearing. That application was granted on the papers.
The application was reheard with both parties attending.
The tenant applied for refund of the balance of the bond money and exemplary damages for the landlord not lodging the bond.
The tenancy commenced on 23 August 2024 and ended on 24 October 2025.
There is no tenancy agreement, but the tenant says that the weekly rent was $220.00 and there was a bond of $440.00. Jurisdiction
An issue to consider was whether this tenancy comes within the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal. That is because the tenant stated in his documents that the landlord lives at the address.
The landlord’s representative confirmed that the landlord, her husband and one or two grandchildren lived at the address during the tenancy.
Section 5(1)(n) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Act shall not apply where the premises, not being a boarding house, continue to be used, during the tenancy, principally as a place of residence by the landlord or the owner of the premises.
In a High Court decision 1 it was found that the critical issue is whether the tenant’s area is self-contained and separate from the landlord’s living area. The Court noted that even if there is some shared use of facilities (such as a toilet or shower), the Residential Tenancies Act may still apply if the tenant’s area is largely self-contained.
The situation for this tenancy is that the tenant lived in one bedroom with his own bathroom. He had the exclusive use of a kitchen which was built on the deck outside undercover. The kitchen contained a fridge, a gas stove burner, a sink, cupboards and a microwave. When asked whether any facilities were shared, the tenant said that sometimes the microwave was shared because the microwave in the landlord’s kitchen was broken. There was a deck area that could be shared, and the shared laundry was also located outside on the deck.
There was no reason for the tenant to go inside the part of the house occupied by the landlord and he had no keys to access either of the three doors to the house. There was an external door to his bedroom and bathroom, although there was no lock for it. He had the code for the gate at the entrance to the property. The tenant said that he would walk around the back of the property to access his area. 1 Harding v Schellevis, Tan and Caroto [NZHC] 1265
The tenant said that he only accepted the tenancy because it was self- contained. The tenant said that the water in the outside kitchen was not good because it came from a tank, so he used the sink in his bathroom to wash his dishes. He never used the kitchen inside the house.
The landlord submitted that the tenancy was not self-contained and that apart from his bedroom and bathroom everything else was part of a shared household. The landlord said that there was only one entrance to the property, one letterbox, no separate address or subdivision, no separate kitchen or self- contained living space and no independent utilities or metering. The landlord said that the cooking space outside was a barbeque area to be used to cook smoky or greasy food to protect the interior of the house to manage cleanliness and smoke alarms.
The representative submitted that the landlord retained full responsibility and control over the property and its operation. In support of the landlord’s position, it was submitted that the room was provided to the tenant fully furnished.
The landlord submits that this is not a separate unit capable of operating independently because it is one dwelling and household with shared and centralised facilities with owner-controlled management and a furnished room.
At the hearing both the landlord and the tenant produced photographs of the property. I note that there was no suggestion that the tenant was able to enter the landlord’s area internally. The tenant also said that he never used the inside kitchen.
When asked about the fridge in the outside kitchen area the landlord said that this was a second fridge also used by the landlord. However, the photographs produced by the tenant show that when he left the tenancy the fridge was completely empty and therefore it seems more likely that it was provided for the exclusive use of the tenant.
It is not accepted that the outside kitchen can be described as a barbeque area. It has all the amenities that would be expected in a kitchen except that it is located outside on the deck.
After taking account of all the evidence submitted and while the landlord may have at times used the microwave and the parties shared the laundry which was located outside, it is the Tribunal’s view that overall, the substance of the arrangement between the landlord and tenant is that the tenant has a separate tenancy which comes within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Tenant’s application
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond of $440.00. The tenant produced bank statements showing that he paid the bond, together with one week and two days rent on 23 August 2024 (a total payment of $720.00).
The tenant said that the landlord refunded $200.00 of the bond after the tenancy ended but retained $240.00. This was apparently due to damage to the bathroom sink and the tenant produced photographs of the sink. While it is not before the Tribunal it appears that the damage to the sink may be more due to age and wear rather than any action of the tenant.
The landlord seeks refund of the remainder of the bond.
The landlord has not filed an application for any costs following the end of the tenancy. The Act 2 states that if the 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 landlord has not filed an application. The remaining bond is refunded to the tenant.
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not lodged 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.
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 did not 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
As stated above the tenant paid the bond to the landlord on 23 August 2024. The bond money should have been lodged with the Bond Centre within 23 working days after that date, but it was not.
There is no apparent reason for the bond not to be lodged and even though the landlord’s representative attended the hearing, there were no submissions in relation to failure to lodge the bond.
The landlord’s failure to lodge the bond means that the landlord has retained part of the bond without the agreement of the tenant or order of the Tribunal. It is in the public interest for landlords to lodge bonds. I consider that exemplary damages of $200.00 are reasonable in this situation. 2 Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. For the same reason the tenant’s name is suppressed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5387310 — net $468.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Refund of bond balance	$240.00	Refund of bond balance
Exemplary damages: Bond not lodged	$200.00	Bond not lodged
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$468.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$468.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Huilan Wang must pay [The tenant/s] $468.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on 4 June 2026. The landlord was represented by her son at the hearing. A mandarin interpreter was present to assist both parties.
A hearing was held on 6 March 2026 where the landlord did not attend.
An application for rehearing was filed on the basis that the landlord did not receive notice of the hearing. That application was granted on the papers.
The application was reheard with both parties attending.
The tenant applied for refund of the balance of the bond money and exemplary damages for the landlord not lodging the bond.
The tenancy commenced on 23 August 2024 and ended on 24 October 2025.
There is no tenancy agreement, but the tenant says that the weekly rent was $220.00 and there was a bond of $440.00. Jurisdiction
An issue to consider was whether this tenancy comes within the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal. That is because the tenant stated in his documents that the landlord lives at the address.
The landlord’s representative confirmed that the landlord, her husband and one or two grandchildren lived at the address during the tenancy.
Section 5(1)(n) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Act shall not apply where the premises, not being a boarding house, continue to be used, during the tenancy, principally as a place of residence by the landlord or the owner of the premises.
In a High Court decision 1 it was found that the critical issue is whether the tenant’s area is self-contained and separate from the landlord’s living area. The Court noted that even if there is some shared use of facilities (such as a toilet or shower), the Residential Tenancies Act may still apply if the tenant’s area is largely self-contained.
The situation for this tenancy is that the tenant lived in one bedroom with his own bathroom. He had the exclusive use of a kitchen which was built on the deck outside undercover. The kitchen contained a fridge, a gas stove burner, a sink, cupboards and a microwave. When asked whether any facilities were shared, the tenant said that sometimes the microwave was shared because the microwave in the landlord’s kitchen was broken. There was a deck area that could be shared, and the shared laundry was also located outside on the deck.
There was no reason for the tenant to go inside the part of the house occupied by the landlord and he had no keys to access either of the three doors to the house. There was an external door to his bedroom and bathroom, although there was no lock for it. He had the code for the gate at the entrance to the property. The tenant said that he would walk around the back of the property to access his area. 1 Harding v Schellevis, Tan and Caroto [NZHC] 1265
The tenant said that he only accepted the tenancy because it was self- contained. The tenant said that the water in the outside kitchen was not good because it came from a tank, so he used the sink in his bathroom to wash his dishes. He never used the kitchen inside the house.
The landlord submitted that the tenancy was not self-contained and that apart from his bedroom and bathroom everything else was part of a shared household. The landlord said that there was only one entrance to the property, one letterbox, no separate address or subdivision, no separate kitchen or self- contained living space and no independent utilities or metering. The landlord said that the cooking space outside was a barbeque area to be used to cook smoky or greasy food to protect the interior of the house to manage cleanliness and smoke alarms.
The representative submitted that the landlord retained full responsibility and control over the property and its operation. In support of the landlord’s position, it was submitted that the room was provided to the tenant fully furnished.
The landlord submits that this is not a separate unit capable of operating independently because it is one dwelling and household with shared and centralised facilities with owner-controlled management and a furnished room.
At the hearing both the landlord and the tenant produced photographs of the property. I note that there was no suggestion that the tenant was able to enter the landlord’s area internally. The tenant also said that he never used the inside kitchen.
When asked about the fridge in the outside kitchen area the landlord said that this was a second fridge also used by the landlord. However, the photographs produced by the tenant show that when he left the tenancy the fridge was completely empty and therefore it seems more likely that it was provided for the exclusive use of the tenant.
It is not accepted that the outside kitchen can be described as a barbeque area. It has all the amenities that would be expected in a kitchen except that it is located outside on the deck.
After taking account of all the evidence submitted and while the landlord may have at times used the microwave and the parties shared the laundry which was located outside, it is the Tribunal’s view that overall, the substance of the arrangement between the landlord and tenant is that the tenant has a separate tenancy which comes within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Tenant’s application
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond of $440.00. The tenant produced bank statements showing that he paid the bond, together with one week and two days rent on 23 August 2024 (a total payment of $720.00).
The tenant said that the landlord refunded $200.00 of the bond after the tenancy ended but retained $240.00. This was apparently due to damage to the bathroom sink and the tenant produced photographs of the sink. While it is not before the Tribunal it appears that the damage to the sink may be more due to age and wear rather than any action of the tenant.
The landlord seeks refund of the remainder of the bond.
The landlord has not filed an application for any costs following the end of the tenancy. The Act 2 states that if the 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 landlord has not filed an application. The remaining bond is refunded to the tenant.
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not lodged 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.
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 did not 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
As stated above the tenant paid the bond to the landlord on 23 August 2024. The bond money should have been lodged with the Bond Centre within 23 working days after that date, but it was not.
There is no apparent reason for the bond not to be lodged and even though the landlord’s representative attended the hearing, there were no submissions in relation to failure to lodge the bond.
The landlord’s failure to lodge the bond means that the landlord has retained part of the bond without the agreement of the tenant or order of the Tribunal. It is in the public interest for landlords to lodge bonds. I consider that exemplary damages of $200.00 are reasonable in this situation. 2 Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. For the same reason the tenant’s name is suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5387310 — Exemplary damages at 160 Penrose Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1060

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5387310 — Exemplary damages at 160 Penrose Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1060

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