What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5475709?

The tribunal order states: Alpha Property Management 2015 Limited As Agent For T N Y

How much money was awarded in case 5475709?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5475709?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5475709?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13544272-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5475709?

The tribunal order states: Alpha Property Management 2015 Limited As Agent For T N Y

How much money was awarded in case 5475709?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5475709?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5475709?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13544272-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 3, 207 St Johns Road, Saint Johns, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5475709 — Exemplary damages

Order

Alpha Property Management 2015 Limited As Agent For T N Y Partnership is to pay Jennifer Nadine Andrews $300 immediately

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Jennifer Nadine Andrew claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time. The tenancy began on 25 March 2024, and ended on 6 March 2026. She says that she suspected that the bond had not been lodged early in the tenancy but said nothing as she was suffering from anxiety. She discovered on 8 or 9 March 2026 when the Bond Centre confirmed that the bond had not been lodged.
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 accepts accepts that the bond was not lodged. It was explained that the administration staff member whose responsibility was to lodge the bond was having a personal issue, and left employment not long after. The landlord explained that it was not discovered that the bond to not been lodged until 25 March 2026, when administration was being carried out after the property had been inspected on 18 March 2026. The landlord was apologetic for the era. I note that the obligation to lodge bond is strict and find the landlord has 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. Considering these criteria: a. I accept the landlord’s explanation that the failure to lodge the bond was an administrative error. There was no intention or poor faith which sat behind the failure. b. The effects of the breach were relatively minor. As soon as the error was discovered the tenant was paid her bond out of the trust account immediately. The tenant says that the incident has lived her anxious and mistrustful, however, while I acknowledge he may have had suspicions prior to the issue being discovered, there is no evidence or persuasive narrative as to why the suspicions were held. c. It is in the interests of tenants to have their bonds lodged. This is to protect a relatively substantial amount of funds which are held in trust for the tenant. The heart of the bond scheme is designed to protect the tenant’s funds. While in this case the landlord’s trust account was secure, it can never reach the level of security provided by the government backed bonds scheme. d. It is in the public interest that bonds are lodged. This is both to protect tenants’ interests, but also as the investment income from the deposited bonds are held as used to fund tenancy services.
The maximum level of exemplary damages available for this breach is $1500. For the maximum to be awarded the 109 (3) factors would have to show a level of bad faith or poor intention well in excess of what is shown here. I note that: a. it does not appear that the landlord has had previous similar breaches which have come before the Tribunal; b. I accept that the failure to lodge the bond was a genuine error; c. I acknowledge the tenant’s personal challenges and accept that there was distress when she discovered the error; d. The lodgement of bond is an important responsibility for a landlord a the start of a tenancy.
Taking into account these issues I conclude that an exemplary damages award is appropriate, however, the factors above dictate that the breach is at the lower end of seriousness, and it does appear that the landlord has acted reasonably and promptly. The Tribunal has a practice of taking account of a party’s history, when considering exemplary damages, using a sliding scale. I consider that an award of $300, being 20% of the maximum is appropriate in this case.

Order

Alpha Property Management 2015 Limited As Agent For T N Y Partnership is to pay Jennifer Nadine Andrews $300 immediately

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Jennifer Nadine Andrew claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time. The tenancy began on 25 March 2024, and ended on 6 March 2026. She says that she suspected that the bond had not been lodged early in the tenancy but said nothing as she was suffering from anxiety. She discovered on 8 or 9 March 2026 when the Bond Centre confirmed that the bond had not been lodged.
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 accepts accepts that the bond was not lodged. It was explained that the administration staff member whose responsibility was to lodge the bond was having a personal issue, and left employment not long after. The landlord explained that it was not discovered that the bond to not been lodged until 25 March 2026, when administration was being carried out after the property had been inspected on 18 March 2026. The landlord was apologetic for the era. I note that the obligation to lodge bond is strict and find the landlord has 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. Considering these criteria: a. I accept the landlord’s explanation that the failure to lodge the bond was an administrative error. There was no intention or poor faith which sat behind the failure. b. The effects of the breach were relatively minor. As soon as the error was discovered the tenant was paid her bond out of the trust account immediately. The tenant says that the incident has lived her anxious and mistrustful, however, while I acknowledge he may have had suspicions prior to the issue being discovered, there is no evidence or persuasive narrative as to why the suspicions were held. c. It is in the interests of tenants to have their bonds lodged. This is to protect a relatively substantial amount of funds which are held in trust for the tenant. The heart of the bond scheme is designed to protect the tenant’s funds. While in this case the landlord’s trust account was secure, it can never reach the level of security provided by the government backed bonds scheme. d. It is in the public interest that bonds are lodged. This is both to protect tenants’ interests, but also as the investment income from the deposited bonds are held as used to fund tenancy services.
The maximum level of exemplary damages available for this breach is $1500. For the maximum to be awarded the 109 (3) factors would have to show a level of bad faith or poor intention well in excess of what is shown here. I note that: a. it does not appear that the landlord has had previous similar breaches which have come before the Tribunal; b. I accept that the failure to lodge the bond was a genuine error; c. I acknowledge the tenant’s personal challenges and accept that there was distress when she discovered the error; d. The lodgement of bond is an important responsibility for a landlord a the start of a tenancy.
Taking into account these issues I conclude that an exemplary damages award is appropriate, however, the factors above dictate that the breach is at the lower end of seriousness, and it does appear that the landlord has acted reasonably and promptly. The Tribunal has a practice of taking account of a party’s history, when considering exemplary damages, using a sliding scale. I consider that an award of $300, being 20% of the maximum is appropriate in this case.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5475709 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat Flat 3, 207 St Johns Road, Saint Johns, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5475709 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat Flat 3, 207 St Johns Road, Saint Johns, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions