Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5437848 — Exemplary damages at Unit 3, 224 Green Lane West, Epsom, Auckland 1051,
Published 20 May 2026 · Application 5437848
Tenant favoured
- Exemplary damages
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Tenant favoured
From published order
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
G Guptill
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $2,428.00
- Total balance for Landlord to pay Tenant
- $2,428.00
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bond refund | $2,000.00 | Bond refund | |
| Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond | $400.00 | nce of previous breaches of this nature. Therefore, I order the landlord to pay $400.00 in exemplary damages. | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $2,428.00 | ||
| Total payable by Landlord to Tenant | $2,428.00 |
Claims and awards for application 5437848 — net $2,428.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Bond refund
- Amount
- $2,000.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Bond refund
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond
- Amount
- $400.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- nce of previous breaches of this nature. Therefore, I order the landlord to pay $400.00 in exemplary damages.
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Tenant $2,428.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant
Tenant $2,428.00
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- The provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 apply to this tenancy.
- Abella Limited (T/A Abella Inn) Robert must pay Timothy Nixon $2,428.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionTenant Bond refund $2,000.00 Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond $400.00 Filing fee reimbursement $28.00 Total award $2,428.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $2,428.00
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing on 18 May 2026. Mr Young of Abella Limited trading as Abella Inn attended for the landlord and the tenant attended with a friend and also with support from Mr Levy of Auckland City Mission.
- The tenant entered in to an agreement for a tenancy to commence on 28 October 2025. The tenant moved out on or about 16 January 2026.
- The tenant has applied for refund of the bond, exemplary damages for failure to lodge the bond, compensation for wrongful termination and reimbursement of the filing fee.
- The landlord disputes the claims and claims that there is no jurisdiction as this tenancy is excluded from the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- Before considering these claims, the Tribunal must first determine whether there is jurisdiction.
Does the Tenancy Tribunal have jurisdiction in this matter?
- The Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider disputes between landlords and tenants in residential tenancies. However, there are some kinds of residential tenancies that are excluded from the jurisdiction of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). The excluded tenancies are set out in section 5 of the RTA.
- The landlord claimed that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction as the premises are either a motel or transitional and emergency accommodation funded wholly or partly by a government department. A copy of an information printout from the tenancy services website was provided which was headed “Types of tenancies Residential Tenancies Act does not cover”.
- The exclusions that the landlord refers to are section 5 (1)(k) and 5(1)(y) RTA? Is the tenancy excluded under section 5 (1)(k) RTA?
- Section 5 (1) (k) provides that the RTA does not apply to a case where the premises: - (i) Are intended to provide temporary or transient accommodation (such as that provided by hotels and motels). Being accommodation that is ordinarily provided for periods of less than 28 days at a time: and (ii) Are subject to an agreement that has been entered into for the purpose of providing temporary or transient accommodation that continues to be provided under the agreement.
- Mr Young stated that this is a motel complex.
- Mr Nixon stated that he was told about the premises by MSD and went to the front door and asked to stay. He was given a contract and went to MSD where he obtained a bond and rent in advance and moved in.
- Mr Nixon stated that he thought he was in a tenancy. He stated that Mr Young first told him it was a boarding house but there was no shared kitchen.
- The tenant stated that he rented a self-contained room with a bed, bathroom, fridge, table and chair.
- There was a written agreement provided which is an MBIE standard form contract headed “Residential Tenancy Agreement”.
- The agreement contains an outline of the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act, records the party names and details, rent amount of $500.00 per week to be paid in advance, bond of $2000.00, records that this is a periodic tenancy and is signed by both parties. The commencement date is 28 October 2025.
- The landlord claimed that this was not a tenancy agreement as it did not contain all of the pages required such as the Healthy Homes statement, however, in clause 14 of the agreement provided are the words “Landlords must include a statement in all new, renewed or varied tenancy agreements which includes details of the property’s compliance with the healthy homes standards”. Even though the statement was not included the agreement signed clearly states that it ought to be provided.
- Both short and long-term accommodation may be offered at a motel. In this case I find that there is no evidence that the agreement the parties entered in to was intended to provide temporary or transient accommodation. The agreement recorded that it was for a periodic tenancy.
- The tenancy lasted more than 28 days.
- The paying of a bond, signing a residential tenancy agreement and the arrangement with WINZ for ongoing rent is all evidence that this was intended to be an ongoing arrangement.
- I find that the exclusion does not apply in this particular case as it is clear from the evidence of both parties that a periodic tenancy agreement was entered into.
- For the above reasons I find that the landlord has not proved that the exception in section 5(1)(k) applies in this case. Is the tenancy excluded under section 5 (1) (y) RTA?
- Section 5(1)(y) provides an exception if the premises are used to provide emergency or transitional accommodation and— the provision of the accommodation is funded wholly or partly by— emergency housing assistance paid to or for the credit of a person under the Special Needs Grants Programme; or any other payment made by a government department for the provision of emergency or transitional accommodation to people in need of housing;
- The landlord claims that the accommodation was emergency or transitional accommodation and that this was funded by MSD as they paid a bond and the rent.
- The landlord did not provide any evidence in support of the claim that this was emergency or transitional accommodation, other than stating that this is a motel.
- The tenant stated that he went to the premises after talking to a case worker at MSD. He understood he was renting a premises.
- It is not unusual for MSD to assist tenants with start up costs at the commencement of a tenancy if the tenant is a beneficiary. The question is what was funded.
- Mr Young advised that MSD required a tenancy agreement which is why he drafted this recording a bond and weekly rent. It appears more probable than not that in requesting a tenancy agreement MSD were intending that the bond and rent paid was for a tenancy.
- Mr Young has not produced any evidence that this was an agreement for emergency or transitional accommodation and on the face of it the use of the standard form Tenancy Services tenancy agreement indicates that a tenancy was intended to be entered into.
- The Tribunal finds that the landlord has not proved to the required standard that the exclusion in section 5(1)(y) applies in this case. Therefore, the Tribunal has jurisdiction in this matter.
- Even if I were wrong in finding that the tenancy is not excluded the Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider this claim, because the parties have contracted back into the RTA.
- Section 8 of the RTA states that parties to an excluded tenancy can contract back into the RTA as follows: (1) Nothing in any of sections 5 to 7 shall prevent the parties to a tenancy that would otherwise be excluded from this Act by virtue of any of the provisions of those sections, being a tenancy of any premises used or intended to be used for residential premises, from agreeing in writing that all or any of the provisions of this Act shall apply in respect of the tenancy, either without modification or with such modifications as they may so agree.
- In this case the parties have used the standard form Tenancy Services tenancy agreement. In doing so, they have agreed to be bound by the terms of the RTA.
Should the bond be refunded to the tenant?
- The tenant has applied for refund of the bond.
- The landlord has a claim against the bond, but has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.
- 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. Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenant.
Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?
- Timothy Nixon 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 failed to lodge the bond. 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.
- The tenancy agreement provided by the landlord includes the following in clause 4 “Bonds must be lodged with the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment with in 23 working days of being paid”.
- I find therefore that the landlord failure to lodge the bond was intentional.
- The effect on the tenant is to have no certainty that the bond is held safely.
- It is in the public interest that landlords understand lodgement of a bond at the Bond Centre is a serious responsibility. Some landlords who do not lodge bonds use the money to pay their debts, and the money is not available at the end of the tenancy. Others insist on keeping some bond money at the end or none will be refunded. There are very good reasons that the bond should be held by a neutral body during the tenancy.
- The interest on bond money helps to pay for the tenancy advice and dispute resolution services. The fewer bonds that are lodged, the more the taxpayer must then contribute.
- I find that it is appropriate to order the landlord to pay exemplary damages at the lower end of the scale as I have no evidence of previous breaches of this nature. Therefore, I order the landlord to pay $400.00 in exemplary damages.
Was the tenancy unlawfully terminated?
- The tenant claimed that the landlord unlawfully terminated the tenancy by giving a 24-hour notice to terminate the tenancy. A copy of the notice was not provided.
- The landlord claimed that the tenant left the premises.
- Neither party filed evidence to corroborate their submissions regarding the end of the tenancy.
- I find that there is insufficient evidence to prove how the tenancy ended. Therefore, this claim is dismissed. Filing fee
- Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the landlord to reimburse the filing fee. See sections 102(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s102(4), s109(3), s19(1), s19(2), s22B(2), s28, s5, s5(1), s8
Key findings
- Dispute theme: exemplary damages
Property management
- ABELLA LIMITED (t/a Abella Inn) (respondent)
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5437848?
The tribunal order states: The provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 apply to this tenancy.
How much money was awarded in case 5437848?
Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5437848?
The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5437848?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13615462-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.