What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5496393 about?

The tribunal order states: The order dated 10 June 2026 is amended in relation to the table at order 3 as

How much money was awarded in case 5496393?

Compensation: Rent Refund: $285.12 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5496393?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5496393?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13732911-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5496393 about?

The tribunal order states: The order dated 10 June 2026 is amended in relation to the table at order 3 as

How much money was awarded in case 5496393?

Compensation: Rent Refund: $285.12 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5496393?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5496393?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13732911-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

44 Dickson Crescent, Hornby, Christchurch 8042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5496393 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5496393 — net $813.12 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages	$500.00	Exemplary damages
Compensation: Rent refund	$285.12	Rent refund
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$813.12
Bond	$2,200.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$813.12

Order

The order dated 10 June 2026 is amended in relation to the table at order 3 as the filing fee reimbursement was incorrectly listed as a landlord award.
An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
Ahmad Shalaldeh must pay [The tenant/s] $813.12 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on 10 June 2026 by video.
The tenancy began on 28 December 2024 and was for a fixed term due to end on 1 November 2025. The end date was extended to 30 January 2026 and then the parties agreed for the tenancy to finally end on 13 February 2026.
The tenant moved out of the tenancy and returned the keys to the landlord on the morning of 16 February 2026.
The landlord claims $1,000.00 for each of the two days that the tenant remained in the property because it was not available to family members and caused inconvenience.
The tenants submitted that they paid a weeks rent on 13 February 2026 which means that the rent was paid until 20 February 2026. The landlord produced evidence confirming that a rent payment was received on 13 February 2026.
At the end of the tenancy, the tenant must return all keys and vacate the premises 1 . If the tenant remains in possession after the tenancy ends, the landlord can claim compensation for actual loss, typically calculated as the daily rent for each extra day the tenant remained in the property. There is no legal basis for a landlord to claim a penalty or arbitrary amount (such as $1,000.00 per day) unless this is an actual, provable loss.
The evidence suggests that the tenant had paid rent for four days after the tenancy was vacated. The tenant has sought refund of the overpaid rent which I calculate at $71.28 per day for the four days from 17 February to 20 February 2026 which amounts to $285.12. The landlord is not entitled to any compensation for the tenant not vacating the premises as he has not proven any actual loss. That claim is dismissed.
The landlord claimed for damage to the premises and for missing household items.
The landlord claimed the insurance excess ($1,000.00) for a broken triple glazed door. The middle panel of glass shattered but the out layers did not. The landlord claimed insurance for this. He says that the tenant caused the damage because the interior handle for the door was broken, and the landlord linked this to the shattered glass.
The tenant said that he noticed a crack up high on the door. The contractor who repaired the door mentioned to him that it may have been due to sunlight causing a gas problem. The tenant said that the door shattered when he was not home. He had asked the landlord to check the security camera from the other house on the section to see how the damage occurred, but it seems that the landlord did not do so.
In relation to the broken handle the tenant said that it was loose at the beginning of the tenancy and he had sent a video to the landlord about it. The 1 Section 40(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 tenant has paid for the handle to be fixed. The tenant said that the door was not often used.
The tenant is only liable if the damage was caused intentionally or carelessly. I am not satisfied that the tenant caused the door glass to shatter. The reason for the shatter has not been established. The landlord could have obtained evidence from the insurance company or the contractor who repaired the door but has not done so. The claim for damages to the door is dismissed.
The landlord claimed for damage to the microwave. The microwave has deteriorated and is rusty. The landlord says that the microwave was new when the tenancy commenced in December 2024.
At the hearing the tenant produced a photograph of the microwave taken in January 2025. The condition of the microwave in that photograph is like the condition in the photograph produced by the landlord.
On the evidence submitted the microwave was in a bad condition at the beginning of the tenancy and there is no evidence that the tenant caused damage to the microwave beyond wear and tear from normal use. That claim is dismissed.
The landlord claimed for replacement of leaking handsprays connected to the toilets. A receipt was produced showing that the handsprays were replaced on 9 April 2026. That is more than seven weeks after the tenants moved out. There is no evidence that the tenants caused damage to the handsprays. That claim is dismissed.
The landlord claims for damage to the lawn mower. The landlord said that he does not know what is wrong with the lawn mower, but the battery was replaced, and it was still not working. The landlord says that the tenant was the only person to use the lawn mower.
The tenant says that the lawn mower was not working at the beginning of the tenancy and instead they used the mower of the tenant living in the other house on the property.
There is no evidence that the lawn mower is not working, that the tenant caused any damage or the cost of repair. The claim in relation to the lawn mower is dismissed.
The landlord claimed for damage to a trampoline that was located at the front of the next-door tenancy which is also owned by the landlord and on the same section. The landlord says that the tenant’s children used the trampoline and broke it. He said that the tenant’s children invited other children in the neighbourhood to also use the trampoline.
The trampoline is not part of this tenancy. There is no evidence that the tenant’s children broke the trampoline or the cost of repair. The claim is dismissed.
The landlord claimed that the tenant has damaged various walls and doors in the tenancy. He produced some photographs which mainly show fair wear and tear.
There are no photographs of the walls from before the tenancy commenced or any evidence of the cost to repair the walls. Without these the Tribunal is not able to determine that the tenant caused the damage or that the landlord has suffered a loss due to the damage. That claim is dismissed.
The landlord claimed that various items that were left at the tenancy for use by the tenant were not there at the end of the tenancy. These included a vacuum cleaner, a clothes drying rack, a clothes basket, a sheep rug, a side table and blankets, carpets and a shoe rack, cushions, cups, dishes, cutlery, pans, rubbish bins and cleaning stuff address
The tenancy agreement does not record that any chattels were included in the tenancy or that this was a furnished tenancy. The tenant says that this was an unfurnished tenancy, and the landlord moved from New Zealand and left behind items that he could not sell. The tenant said that there was agreement between the landlord’s wife and the tenant’s wife that the items could either be kept or given away. The tenant says that the items have been donated.
Without clearer evidence it is not possible to determine that the tenant has retained these items. There is also no evidence of their value or that the landlord has suffered a loss by having to replace them. The claim is dismissed.
The landlord claimed for cleaning, but no evidence was produced to show that the premises were not reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant applied for refund of the bond, compensation and exemplary damages for the landlord not lodging the bond.
The compensation claimed by the tenant is in relation to inconvenience, anxiety, mental harassment and health effects. The Tribunal requires evidence to support claims for compensation, especially for non-economic loss such as anxiety and mental harassment. Evidence could include medical reports, witness statements or other documents showing the impact on the tenant. The Tribunal can only award compensation where there is a proven loss or harm, and the amounts must be supported by evidence.
Due to a lack of evidence the tenant’s claim for compensation is dismissed.
The tenant 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 within 23 working days after receipt. 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 tenant submitted that he had asked the landlord to lodge the bond soon after the tenancy commenced. The landlord confirmed this. The landlord lodged the bond on 28 April 2026, more than two months after the fourteen- month tenancy ended.
The landlord has retained the bond after the tenancy ended because he considers that the tenant is liable for damage and missing items. The purpose of lodging the bond with the Bond Centre is to ensure that during the tenancy the bond is available for release by agreement between the parties or by order of the Tribunal.
The tenant claims that he should be entitled to the interest on the bond given that the landlord has retained the money. The Tribunal cannot order interest to be paid on the bond amount. The correct remedy for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond is exemplary damages, not interest.
When asked why the bond was not lodged the landlord said that it was an oversight. The landlord had another tenancy in the main house on the section and the bond for that tenancy was also not lodged.
The tenant’s request for the bond to be lodged does not change the landlord’s legal obligation, but it does highlight the landlord’s awareness of his duty.
The breach was intentional because the tenant had made sure that the landlord was aware of the need for the bond to be lodged, even though that is a responsibility that the landlord should have been aware of. I accept that the landlord’s failure has had a negative impact on the tenant because of the uncertainty around the bond lodgement. It is in the public interest for landlords to lodge bonds with the Bond Centre.
I consider exemplary damages of $500.00 is reasonable in the circumstances.
Given that the landlord’s claims have been unsuccessful the bond is refunded in full to the tenant.
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5496393 — net $813.12 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages	$500.00	Exemplary damages
Compensation: Rent refund	$285.12	Rent refund
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$813.12
Bond	$2,200.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$813.12

Order

The order dated 10 June 2026 is amended in relation to the table at order 3 as the filing fee reimbursement was incorrectly listed as a landlord award.
An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
Ahmad Shalaldeh must pay [The tenant/s] $813.12 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on 10 June 2026 by video.
The tenancy began on 28 December 2024 and was for a fixed term due to end on 1 November 2025. The end date was extended to 30 January 2026 and then the parties agreed for the tenancy to finally end on 13 February 2026.
The tenant moved out of the tenancy and returned the keys to the landlord on the morning of 16 February 2026.
The landlord claims $1,000.00 for each of the two days that the tenant remained in the property because it was not available to family members and caused inconvenience.
The tenants submitted that they paid a weeks rent on 13 February 2026 which means that the rent was paid until 20 February 2026. The landlord produced evidence confirming that a rent payment was received on 13 February 2026.
At the end of the tenancy, the tenant must return all keys and vacate the premises 1 . If the tenant remains in possession after the tenancy ends, the landlord can claim compensation for actual loss, typically calculated as the daily rent for each extra day the tenant remained in the property. There is no legal basis for a landlord to claim a penalty or arbitrary amount (such as $1,000.00 per day) unless this is an actual, provable loss.
The evidence suggests that the tenant had paid rent for four days after the tenancy was vacated. The tenant has sought refund of the overpaid rent which I calculate at $71.28 per day for the four days from 17 February to 20 February 2026 which amounts to $285.12. The landlord is not entitled to any compensation for the tenant not vacating the premises as he has not proven any actual loss. That claim is dismissed.
The landlord claimed for damage to the premises and for missing household items.
The landlord claimed the insurance excess ($1,000.00) for a broken triple glazed door. The middle panel of glass shattered but the out layers did not. The landlord claimed insurance for this. He says that the tenant caused the damage because the interior handle for the door was broken, and the landlord linked this to the shattered glass.
The tenant said that he noticed a crack up high on the door. The contractor who repaired the door mentioned to him that it may have been due to sunlight causing a gas problem. The tenant said that the door shattered when he was not home. He had asked the landlord to check the security camera from the other house on the section to see how the damage occurred, but it seems that the landlord did not do so.
In relation to the broken handle the tenant said that it was loose at the beginning of the tenancy and he had sent a video to the landlord about it. The 1 Section 40(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 tenant has paid for the handle to be fixed. The tenant said that the door was not often used.
The tenant is only liable if the damage was caused intentionally or carelessly. I am not satisfied that the tenant caused the door glass to shatter. The reason for the shatter has not been established. The landlord could have obtained evidence from the insurance company or the contractor who repaired the door but has not done so. The claim for damages to the door is dismissed.
The landlord claimed for damage to the microwave. The microwave has deteriorated and is rusty. The landlord says that the microwave was new when the tenancy commenced in December 2024.
At the hearing the tenant produced a photograph of the microwave taken in January 2025. The condition of the microwave in that photograph is like the condition in the photograph produced by the landlord.
On the evidence submitted the microwave was in a bad condition at the beginning of the tenancy and there is no evidence that the tenant caused damage to the microwave beyond wear and tear from normal use. That claim is dismissed.
The landlord claimed for replacement of leaking handsprays connected to the toilets. A receipt was produced showing that the handsprays were replaced on 9 April 2026. That is more than seven weeks after the tenants moved out. There is no evidence that the tenants caused damage to the handsprays. That claim is dismissed.
The landlord claims for damage to the lawn mower. The landlord said that he does not know what is wrong with the lawn mower, but the battery was replaced, and it was still not working. The landlord says that the tenant was the only person to use the lawn mower.
The tenant says that the lawn mower was not working at the beginning of the tenancy and instead they used the mower of the tenant living in the other house on the property.
There is no evidence that the lawn mower is not working, that the tenant caused any damage or the cost of repair. The claim in relation to the lawn mower is dismissed.
The landlord claimed for damage to a trampoline that was located at the front of the next-door tenancy which is also owned by the landlord and on the same section. The landlord says that the tenant’s children used the trampoline and broke it. He said that the tenant’s children invited other children in the neighbourhood to also use the trampoline.
The trampoline is not part of this tenancy. There is no evidence that the tenant’s children broke the trampoline or the cost of repair. The claim is dismissed.
The landlord claimed that the tenant has damaged various walls and doors in the tenancy. He produced some photographs which mainly show fair wear and tear.
There are no photographs of the walls from before the tenancy commenced or any evidence of the cost to repair the walls. Without these the Tribunal is not able to determine that the tenant caused the damage or that the landlord has suffered a loss due to the damage. That claim is dismissed.
The landlord claimed that various items that were left at the tenancy for use by the tenant were not there at the end of the tenancy. These included a vacuum cleaner, a clothes drying rack, a clothes basket, a sheep rug, a side table and blankets, carpets and a shoe rack, cushions, cups, dishes, cutlery, pans, rubbish bins and cleaning stuff address
The tenancy agreement does not record that any chattels were included in the tenancy or that this was a furnished tenancy. The tenant says that this was an unfurnished tenancy, and the landlord moved from New Zealand and left behind items that he could not sell. The tenant said that there was agreement between the landlord’s wife and the tenant’s wife that the items could either be kept or given away. The tenant says that the items have been donated.
Without clearer evidence it is not possible to determine that the tenant has retained these items. There is also no evidence of their value or that the landlord has suffered a loss by having to replace them. The claim is dismissed.
The landlord claimed for cleaning, but no evidence was produced to show that the premises were not reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant applied for refund of the bond, compensation and exemplary damages for the landlord not lodging the bond.
The compensation claimed by the tenant is in relation to inconvenience, anxiety, mental harassment and health effects. The Tribunal requires evidence to support claims for compensation, especially for non-economic loss such as anxiety and mental harassment. Evidence could include medical reports, witness statements or other documents showing the impact on the tenant. The Tribunal can only award compensation where there is a proven loss or harm, and the amounts must be supported by evidence.
Due to a lack of evidence the tenant’s claim for compensation is dismissed.
The tenant 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 within 23 working days after receipt. 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 tenant submitted that he had asked the landlord to lodge the bond soon after the tenancy commenced. The landlord confirmed this. The landlord lodged the bond on 28 April 2026, more than two months after the fourteen- month tenancy ended.
The landlord has retained the bond after the tenancy ended because he considers that the tenant is liable for damage and missing items. The purpose of lodging the bond with the Bond Centre is to ensure that during the tenancy the bond is available for release by agreement between the parties or by order of the Tribunal.
The tenant claims that he should be entitled to the interest on the bond given that the landlord has retained the money. The Tribunal cannot order interest to be paid on the bond amount. The correct remedy for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond is exemplary damages, not interest.
When asked why the bond was not lodged the landlord said that it was an oversight. The landlord had another tenancy in the main house on the section and the bond for that tenancy was also not lodged.
The tenant’s request for the bond to be lodged does not change the landlord’s legal obligation, but it does highlight the landlord’s awareness of his duty.
The breach was intentional because the tenant had made sure that the landlord was aware of the need for the bond to be lodged, even though that is a responsibility that the landlord should have been aware of. I accept that the landlord’s failure has had a negative impact on the tenant because of the uncertainty around the bond lodgement. It is in the public interest for landlords to lodge bonds with the Bond Centre.
I consider exemplary damages of $500.00 is reasonable in the circumstances.
Given that the landlord’s claims have been unsuccessful the bond is refunded in full to the tenant.
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5496393 — Exemplary damages at 44 Dickson Crescent, Hornby, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5496393 — Exemplary damages at 44 Dickson Crescent, Hornby, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions