What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5416469 about?

The tribunal order states: MI Homes (NZ) Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $4,400.00 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5416469?

Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5416469?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5416469?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13194567-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5416469 about?

The tribunal order states: MI Homes (NZ) Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $4,400.00 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5416469?

Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5416469?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5416469?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13194567-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

26 Pohewa Road, Silverdale, Silverdale 0932 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5416469 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5416469 — net $4,400.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Refund Bond Not Lodged	$3,400.00	Refund Bond Not Lodged
Exemplary damages: Bond Not Lodged	$1,000.00	Bond Not Lodged
Net award	$4,400.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,400.00

Order

MI Homes (NZ) Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $4,400.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionTenant Refund Bond Not Lodged $3,400.00 Exemplary damages: Bond Not Lodged $1,000.00 Total award $4,400.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $4,400.00

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing.
A person who identified themselves as Roc purported to attend for the landlord. He described himself as a friend of the landlord and said that he worked for the landlord’s development company. He said that he was not a property manager and did not know how to locate or contact the landlord currently. He said that the landlord described in the tenancy agreement (MI Homes (NZ) Ltd) no longer owns the property.
Ms Crozier advised that the landlord had not changed during her tenancy, and that she always paid her rent to the same entity and bank account.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. Roc advised that the landlord has a claim against the bond and said that he (Roc) filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services on 20 February 2026. There is no record of that on the Tribunal search function.
This tenancy ended in November 2025. Ms Crozier made her application in December. There is a record on the Tribunal file that Roc was advised, on 24 December 2025, how the landlord could go about making an application and was told to do so at least 10 working days before this hearing (so by 12 February 2026)
Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. The records on my system do not show that the landlord (or any properly authorised employee or agent of the landlord) has made a cross application.
Even if Roc has made an application, I am not satisfied that he was authorised to do so, he simply describes himself as a friend of the landlord, and explicitly said that he is not a property manager. If the landlord has a claim against Ms Crozier it will need to be proved in the normal way. I note that the evidence submitted by Roc in relation to this application seem to show normal wear and tear.
The landlord must refund the bond to Ms Crozier immediately.
The bond has not been lodged at the bond centre. The tenancy started in April 2024 and the bond was never lodged.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received (see s 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986). This applies whether the bond is paid in part or whole.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00 (see s 19(2) and Schedule 1A RTA.
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).
A bond is the tenants’ money and must be lodged with the Bond Centre within the statutory time limit to protect the tenants’ interests. Lodging a bond is not a conditional obligation but a mandatory one and it is in the public interest that landlords fulfil their obligations under the Act. If no penalty is imposed there can be no deterrent.
The failure to lodge the bond must be intentional for exemplary damages to be awarded. The Tribunal may draw an inference of intent where the landlord claims to have simply forgotten, as a landlord should have systems in place to ensure this does not happen. Exemplary damages have been awarded where: the landlord has no explanation for the non-lodgement and has other tenancies (Jones v Ying [2001] NZTT Auckland 2783/01); the landlord is experienced (Hart v Allen Realty Ltd [2003] NZTT Auckland 2183/02); and where the landlord knew of the obligation from the bond form signed by the tenant (Fu v Florendo [2013] DC Manukau, CIV-2013-092-2373).
The landlord had used a standard form tenancy agreement which clearly stated: “› Bonds must be lodged with the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment within 23 working days of being paid. › Receipts must be given for bond payments.”
There was no explanation for the failure to lodge the bond. Roc said that he didn’t know that it hadn’t been lodged and that it was his colleague’s failure. He did not say who that colleague was, or what their role is within the landlord company.
The failure to lodge the bond has distressed the tenant. This has been exacerbated by the landlord’s failure to refund the bond directly to her or to make a cross application within a reasonable timeframe (or at all). It is a further aggravating factor, that it is difficult for the tenant and Tribunal to contact the landlord company, or to be satisfied as to Roc’s role and authority (he is not a director or shareholder).
Not only has the bond not been lodged, but there is no transparency around the landlord entity or a properly authorised agent or employee. In this instance, I consider that the public interest, and this tenant’s interests require exemplary damages of $1,000. I have made the award accordingly.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5416469 — net $4,400.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Refund Bond Not Lodged	$3,400.00	Refund Bond Not Lodged
Exemplary damages: Bond Not Lodged	$1,000.00	Bond Not Lodged
Net award	$4,400.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,400.00

Order

MI Homes (NZ) Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $4,400.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionTenant Refund Bond Not Lodged $3,400.00 Exemplary damages: Bond Not Lodged $1,000.00 Total award $4,400.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $4,400.00

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing.
A person who identified themselves as Roc purported to attend for the landlord. He described himself as a friend of the landlord and said that he worked for the landlord’s development company. He said that he was not a property manager and did not know how to locate or contact the landlord currently. He said that the landlord described in the tenancy agreement (MI Homes (NZ) Ltd) no longer owns the property.
Ms Crozier advised that the landlord had not changed during her tenancy, and that she always paid her rent to the same entity and bank account.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. Roc advised that the landlord has a claim against the bond and said that he (Roc) filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services on 20 February 2026. There is no record of that on the Tribunal search function.
This tenancy ended in November 2025. Ms Crozier made her application in December. There is a record on the Tribunal file that Roc was advised, on 24 December 2025, how the landlord could go about making an application and was told to do so at least 10 working days before this hearing (so by 12 February 2026)
Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. The records on my system do not show that the landlord (or any properly authorised employee or agent of the landlord) has made a cross application.
Even if Roc has made an application, I am not satisfied that he was authorised to do so, he simply describes himself as a friend of the landlord, and explicitly said that he is not a property manager. If the landlord has a claim against Ms Crozier it will need to be proved in the normal way. I note that the evidence submitted by Roc in relation to this application seem to show normal wear and tear.
The landlord must refund the bond to Ms Crozier immediately.
The bond has not been lodged at the bond centre. The tenancy started in April 2024 and the bond was never lodged.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received (see s 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986). This applies whether the bond is paid in part or whole.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00 (see s 19(2) and Schedule 1A RTA.
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).
A bond is the tenants’ money and must be lodged with the Bond Centre within the statutory time limit to protect the tenants’ interests. Lodging a bond is not a conditional obligation but a mandatory one and it is in the public interest that landlords fulfil their obligations under the Act. If no penalty is imposed there can be no deterrent.
The failure to lodge the bond must be intentional for exemplary damages to be awarded. The Tribunal may draw an inference of intent where the landlord claims to have simply forgotten, as a landlord should have systems in place to ensure this does not happen. Exemplary damages have been awarded where: the landlord has no explanation for the non-lodgement and has other tenancies (Jones v Ying [2001] NZTT Auckland 2783/01); the landlord is experienced (Hart v Allen Realty Ltd [2003] NZTT Auckland 2183/02); and where the landlord knew of the obligation from the bond form signed by the tenant (Fu v Florendo [2013] DC Manukau, CIV-2013-092-2373).
The landlord had used a standard form tenancy agreement which clearly stated: “› Bonds must be lodged with the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment within 23 working days of being paid. › Receipts must be given for bond payments.”
There was no explanation for the failure to lodge the bond. Roc said that he didn’t know that it hadn’t been lodged and that it was his colleague’s failure. He did not say who that colleague was, or what their role is within the landlord company.
The failure to lodge the bond has distressed the tenant. This has been exacerbated by the landlord’s failure to refund the bond directly to her or to make a cross application within a reasonable timeframe (or at all). It is a further aggravating factor, that it is difficult for the tenant and Tribunal to contact the landlord company, or to be satisfied as to Roc’s role and authority (he is not a director or shareholder).
Not only has the bond not been lodged, but there is no transparency around the landlord entity or a properly authorised agent or employee. In this instance, I consider that the public interest, and this tenant’s interests require exemplary damages of $1,000. I have made the award accordingly.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5416469 — Exemplary damages at 26 Pohewa Road, Silverdale, Silverdale 0932

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5416469 — Exemplary damages at 26 Pohewa Road, Silverdale, Silverdale 0932

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions