What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5455215 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 5455215?

Property Damage: $950.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5455215?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5455215?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13631076-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5455215 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 5455215?

Property Damage: $950.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5455215?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5455215?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13631076-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5455215 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5455215 — net $1,006.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Bond	$950.00	Bond
Filing fee reimbursement – application 5403708	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement – application 5403708
Filing fee reimbursement – application 5455215	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement – application 5455215
Net award	$1,006.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,006.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5455215 — net $1,006.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Bond	$950.00	Bond
Filing fee reimbursement – application 5403708	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement – application 5403708
Filing fee reimbursement – application 5455215	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement – application 5455215
Net award	$1,006.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,006.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
The expiry of [The tenant/s]‘s fixed term tenancy at [address] is amended 5 December 2025.
Wongeoon Vast Limited Eddie Wongeoon must pay [The tenant/s] $848.86 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

[The tenant/s] is to pay Wongeoon Vast Limited $157.14 from the bond being rent owed for the tenancy at [address].
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) as follows: • Wongeoon Vast Limited • [The tenant/s]: $2042.86
The landlord’s other claims under application 5501229 and its application number 5453288 are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Wongeoon represented the landlord company.
[Ms R] entered into a tenancy agreement with the landlord for premises at [P Street] commencing 3 April 2025. Rent was agreed at $550 per week and a bond of $2,200.00 was paid.
[Ms R] and [Mr R] wanted to move to a different tenancy held by the landlord, [F Road], and the parties agreed that the [P Street] tenancy would end on 31 May 2025 (when a new tenant was found for the tenancy), and the [F Road] tenancy would commence on 29 May 2025. Rent for the [F Road] tenancy was agreed at $510 per week. The tenancy was for a fixed term ending on 31 May 2026. The parties also agreed that the [P Street] bond of $2,200.00 would be transferred to the [F Road] tenancy less the sum of $157.14, being rent for the final two days of the [P Street] tenancy. Both [Ms R] and [Mr R] were recorded as tenants on the tenancy agreement for [F Road]. However, the agreement was later amended to [Ms R] being a guarantor for the tenancy rather than a tenant.
On or about 24 October 2025, [Ms R] told Mr Wongeoon that [Mr R] had found another tenancy, and he would be moving out on 22 November. The parties agreed that [Mr R] and [Ms R] could try to find another tenant to take over the tenancy. Mr Wongeoon received several offers from prospective tenants and the landlord finally agreed to an assignment of the tenancy commencing on 14 January 2026, but at a reduced rent of $480 per week. [Mr R] had paid rent up until 6 December 2025.
[Ms R] and [Ms R] subsequently discovered that the bond paid for [P Street] had not been transferred to the [F Road] tenancy and had not been paid to the Bond Centre. Mr Wongeoon said that he kept the full bond because the tenants had damaged a wall at the [P Street] premises and because of the $157.14 rent that was owed for that tenancy.
On 2 December 2025, [Mr R] filed an application for an order reducing the term of the fixed tenancy claiming that the landlord had unreasonably refused to consent to the assignment of the tenancy earlier than 14 January. He also claimed exemplary damages for non-lodgement of the bond (application number 5403708).
The landlord lodged the bond of $2,200.00 with the Bond Centre on 24 February 2026 (the day before the applications first came before me) and that same day filed a cross application against [Mr R] as tenant and [Ms R] as guarantor (application number 5453288). Mr Wongeoon confirmed at the hearing that his claim is for rent totalling $3,908.57 being rent at $510 per week from 6 December until 13 January plus the difference in the rent payable by the new tenant ($30 per week) from 14 January until the end of the fixed term on 31 May 2026.
On 25 February 2025, [Ms R] filed an application for the [P Street] tenancy (application number 5455215). She claimed payment of the bond paid plus exemplary damages for it not being lodged with the Bond Centre.
The landlord filed a cross application against [Ms R] on 5 May 2026, the day before the applications were scheduled for hearing, claiming rent of $157.14 plus compensation (the insurance excess payable by the landlord, $650.00) for damage to the wall at [P Street] (application number 5501229).
[Ms R] waived her right to have adequate notice of the cross application filed against her and all four applications were heard together on 6 May 2026. Did the landlord unreasonably refuse consent to the assignment of the [F Road] tenancy?
A tenant may assign the tenancy with the prior consent of the landlord and in accordance with any reasonable conditions attached to that consent, and the landlord must not withhold consent unreasonably: section 48B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
Mr Wongeoon provided a list of the several prospective tenants who had expressed interest in the tenancy. He provided reasons why he refused consent to most of those on the list. Some of the reasons he gave were reasonable.
However, I do not consider that he did acted reasonably when considering the application from a prospective tenant received on 1 December (Ryan). Mr Wongeoon said that he did not follow up or contact Ryan after receiving his application because he lived in Dunedin, and therefore could not view the premises. It is not clear how Mr Wongeoon could have reached this conclusion without first contacting Ryan. Moreover, Ryan may well have been content to take the tenancy without first physically viewing it. I therefore find that, by not following up on what may well have been a potentially good tenant, the landlord has breached section 48B of the Act.
Ryan indicated in his application that he could move into the tenancy immediately if it was offered. Thus, it was likely that a new tenancy with Ryan could have commenced before 6 December (the date that rent had been paid to by [Mr R]) and his tenancy would therefore have ended as at that date.
In the circumstances I consider the appropriate remedy for the breach of the obligation on a landlord to act reasonably when considering an assignment of the tenancy is to reduce the expiry date of date of [Mr R’s] fixed term tenancy at [F Road] to 5 December 2025. This means that [Mr R] is not liable for rent after that date and the claim for rent is dismissed. .

Should exemplary damages be payable for non-lodgement of the bond?

There was no dispute that the bond was not lodged with the Bond Centre either under the [P Street] tenancy or the [F Road] tenancy as required by section 19(1)(b) of the Act. That provision provides that bonds must be lodged within 23 working days of receiving it. The bond was paid on or about 28 March 2025 for [P Street]. As mentioned, the landlord agreed to transfer the bond to the [F Road] tenancy (less the agreed $157.14 rent for [P Steet]) on or about 29 May 2025. As also mentioned, the bond was not lodged until 4 May 2026. Failure to lodge the bond in accordance with section 19(1)(b) is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum amount of $1,500.00.
The threshold requirement for the payment of exemplary damages is that the unlawful act was committed ‘intentionally’. In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court held that this requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: (a) The intention of the person; (b) The effect of the unlawful act; (c) The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d) The public interest.
The landlord is an experienced landlord of several rental properties and Mr Wongeoon did not dispute that he was fully aware of the requirements in the Act to lodge the bond. Therefore, the failure to do so can only be interpreted as intentional.
Mr Wongeoon said that he did not lodge the bond under the [P Street] tenancy because the tenants had told him on 6 May that they wanted to move to the [F Road] tenancy and the bond was to be transferred to that tenancy. There are 24 working days between 28 March and 6 May (after taking into account Easter). Thus, the landlord was still outside the 23 working day requirement. However, I am prepared to accept Mr Wongeoon’s reason for not lodging it under the [P Street] tenancy until after receiving [Mr R’s] application, and do not consider that an award of exemplary damages is appropriate for that breach.
However, the situation with the [F Road] tenancy is very different. Mr Wongeoon accepts that he did not transfer the bond or lodge it for the [F Road] tenancy. He said that he did not do so because he did not know how much it would cost to repair the wall damage. He said that the tenants had agreed to get a quote for the repair but did not do so.
I do not accept that this is a valid reason for failing to comply with section 19(1) of the Act. As mentioned, the landlord is an experienced landlord and Mr Wongeoon has been before the Tribunal many times. He is fully aware that if tenant damage is not repaired before the tenancy ends, the landlord may have the work done themselves and claim the cost from the tenant. If the damage is in dispute, the landlord should apply to the Tribunal to have the dispute determined. Moreover, the total amount claimed from the bond by the landlord is $807.14 ($650.00 for the wall damage and $157.14 for the rent) leaving a bond balance of $1,392.86. Mr Wongeoon’s only explanation for not lodging the remaining bond was that he did not know how much the wall repair might be.
In the circumstances I consider an award of exemplary damages at the higher end of the scale is warranted here. The purpose of exemplary damages is to punish and deter and I consider that this is a particular consideration here. In particular, it is not clear that Mr Wongeoon understands the importance of complying with all of a landlord’s legal obligations under the Act, including the requirements regarding bonds.
When assessing the amount of exemplary damages that ought to be payable I have also taken into account the effect on the tenants, in particular, they were required to file these applications to have their bond refunded. Furthermore, it is in the interests of tenants and the public interest that the bond is lodged promptly with the Bond Centre as a protection against a landlord’s unreasonable retention of it.
Taking all these factors into account I order exemplary damages of $950.00 to be paid by the landlord to the tenants. Is [Ms R] liable for the damage to the wall at the [P Street] premises?
To be successful in a claim for damage to the premises, the landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they, or others at the premises with their permission, did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage: sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent: section 49B(3)(a) of the Act.
There was no dispute that some repairs had been made to a section of the wall in the living room at the [P Street] premises before the tenancy commenced (after a wall heater had been removed). I am also satisfied that the repair had not been completed and had left the wall ‘soft’. I accept [Mr R] and [Ms R’s] evidence that Mr Wongeoon had promised to have the repair finished/rectified at the tenancy commencement but had not done so. I also accept [Ms R’s] evidence that their two-year-old daughter fell through the ’soft’ area of the wall while playing causing the additional damage claimed.
Mr Wongeoon said that the wall has not to date been repaired. He provided a quote dated 5 May 2026 totalling $920.00 to repair and repaint the wall but said that the landlord is only claiming the insurance policy excess of $650.00.
[Ms R] accepts that she agreed with Mr Wongeoon to get a quote for the repair when it occurred. However, she said that she only agreed to do so because she and her family were dealing with some very difficult family circumstances at the time, and they did not have the energy to argue liability with Mr Wongeoon. I full accept their evidence in this regard and fully accept that this was not an admission of liability for the damage. Rather, it was simply a way to try to move on and focus on family at a very difficult time in their lives.
I find that the landlord has not established that [Ms R] is liable for the damage to the wall. The wall was defective at the tenancy commencement and the additional damage to it likely occurred due to it not being adequately repaired at the tenancy commencement. [Ms R] has also established that the damage was caused accidentally when their young daughter fell. Thus, she has discharged her liability to prove that it was not caused carelessly or intentionally.
The claim for compensation for the wall damage is therefore dismissed. Tribunal application fee
[Mr R] and [Ms R] have been mostly successful in their respective claims and I consider it appropriate that the landlord pay the application fees paid by them. On the other hand, the landlord has been fully or mostly unsuccessful in its claims (the only successful claim was for rent of $157.14 which was agreed to by the tenants and was intended to be paid for by retention of that sum from the bond). I therefore do not award payment of the Tribunal fees paid by it.

Should a suppression order be made?

All parties applied for a suppression order.
Section 95A of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).
The tenants have been substantially successful in their claims and the limited exceptions set out in s 95A do not apply. I therefore make an order that the tenants’ names and identifying details be suppressed.
However, the landlord has been mostly unsuccessful in its claim. Accordingly, the landlord’s application for a suppression order is denied.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5455215 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5455215 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should exemplary damages be payable for non-lodgement of the bond?

Should a suppression order be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should exemplary damages be payable for non-lodgement of the bond?

Should a suppression order be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions