What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5514177 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants name identifying details are suppressed.

How much money was awarded in case 5514177?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5514177?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5514177?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14053712-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5514177 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants name identifying details are suppressed.

How much money was awarded in case 5514177?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5514177?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5514177?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14053712-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Room 3, 21A Belmont Terrace, Milford, Auckland 0620 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5514177 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5514177 — net $828.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: bond not lodged	$500.00	bond not lodged
Bond held by landlord	$300.00	Bond held by landlord
Filing fee	$28.00	Filing fee
Net award	$828.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$828.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5514177 — net $828.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: bond not lodged	$500.00	bond not lodged
Bond held by landlord	$300.00	Bond held by landlord
Filing fee	$28.00	Filing fee
Net award	$828.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$828.00

Order

The tenants name identifying details are suppressed.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $828.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This matter relates to a tenancy that has ended, although the exact end date is in dispute, and I address this further below.
The tenant initially applied for payment of the bond. A jurisdiction hearing was held, and I found the Tribunal had jurisdiction with respect to this tenancy. The landlord applied for a rehearing and that application was dismissed.
The tenant’s claims were then scheduled for hearing and the landlord has filed a cross-application.
The tenant seeks: a. payment of the bond ($400) and b. exemplary damages for the landlord not lodging the bond,
The landlord seeks: a. rent arrears - $85.71, and b. compensation, $1,090 replacement of curtain rack and curtains
The landlord holds the bond. The issues
The issues I must determine are: a. Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond, and if so should exemplary damages be awarded? b. How much is owed for rent? c. Is the tenant liable for the replacement curtain rack and curtains? d. What should happen with the bond? e. What orders should be made with respect to the filing fees and name suppression?
The landlord raised a claim in respect of two ovens he says the tenant damaged from a previous tenancy. That matter is unrelated to this tenancy, and I declined to hear it. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy 1 , in practical terms this means that: • ... “[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond, and if so should exemplary damages be awarded?
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. 2 Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. 3
The landlord accepted he did not lodge the bond. The landlord says he considered that this is not a residential tenancy to which the RTA applies and for which the Tribunal has jurisdiction. The landlord says Tenancy Services advised him that as this premises is his mother’s home and guests would be staying in her home, he does not need to lodge the bond.
I have already determined that this is a residential tenancy and as such the bond should have been lodged.
I 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. 4 I address these factors in turn below.
Intent –The landlord is expected to know the law and I consider the landlord has intentionally not lodged the bond. 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. 2 See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 3 See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 4 See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Effect - The effect of the tenant for the bond not being lodged is that they have been without these funds and the situation has created a power imbalance the process of lodging of the Bond with the bond centre is intended to level. The tenant said he was in a vulnerable position.
Interest of tenant - It is in the tenant’s interest to receive exemplary damages for the unlawful acts committed against him
Public interest - There is a public interest in ensuring landlords lodge tenant’s bonds. The bond belongs to the tenant, and it is therefore important that it is protected at the Bond Centre so that it can be paid out automatically by way of a Tribunal order.
The Tribunal’s usual approach to exemplary damages is to award one third of the maximum unless there are aggravating or mitigating factors in play. 5 I consider an award of exemplary damages of a third of the maximum is appropriate in this case and I make an order for exemplary damages of $500.00.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenant must pay the rent as and when it is due and payable under the tenancy agreement. 6 The landlord claims $385.71 for rent arrears (referred to as an accommodation fee in his evidence). This was amended at the hearing to $85.71.
The rent arrears were disputed by the tenant.
The landlord has not provided a rent summary for this tenancy alone and he said his calculations included rent for a period when this tenant was not residing in the premises but included rent for the neighbouring home, which was also the landlord’s property (the subsequent tenancy).
The parties were not particularly clear in their oral evidence about the dates the tenant changed rooms in this tenancy (and rent reduced to $300 for 2 days) and when the subsequent tenancy commenced. I have therefore relied largely on the documentary evidence in assessing this claim.
On my review of the file this tenancy commenced on 5 July 2025.
The tenant was required to change rooms on 3 November 2025 and moved to the neighbouring property on 5 November 2025.
The tenant’s liability for rent is therefore as follows: 5 Wellington Property Management Ltd v Hardie [2022] NZTT 4399281 4374781 6 RTA, 40 (1)(a). 5 July 2025 – 2 November 2025 17 weeks 2 days at $350 per week $6,050 3 November 2025 – 4 November 2026 2 days at $300 per week $85.71 Total payable$6,135.71 Total paid $6,300.00 Credit $164.29
The rent payment summary sets out payments made by the tenant during this tenancy, therefore they have all been allocated to this tenancy. The tenant did not apply for a refund of any rent, it appears to me that any difference is to be used for the subsequent tenancy between the parties at the neighbouring property.
Because I have determined there was a rent credit, the claim for rent arrears is not proven and it is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A tenant must not intentionally or carelessly cause damage or permit any other person to damage the premises. 7
Where a landlord is claiming compensation for damage a landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. 8
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. 9
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 (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). 10 Where the damage is careless and is not covered by 7 RTA, s 40 (2)(a). 8 RTA s 40(2)(a), 41, 49B. 9 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA). 10 RTA s 49B(3)(a). the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). 11 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 12
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. 13 Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. 14
In assessing a claim for compensation, I must take into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Curtain and curtain rack
The landlord says the tenant removed the bedroom curtains and broke the curtain rack during the tenancy. The landlord says when the tenant vacated the premises the curtains were not present, and the curtain rack was on the floor. The landlord provided a photograph he says he received from his son taken the day the tenant moved in and a photograph of damage to the wall where the curtain rack appeared to be previously affixed. The latter photograph the landlord said was taken by the subsequent tenant and in the photograph the curtain rail is placed higher than the damage.
The landlord said the curtains were approximately 15 years old and he did not have contents insurance to make a claim for the damage.
The tenant says the specified curtains were not in the bedroom during his tenancy. The tenant says the landlord did not inspect the property to see what the existing curtains were in the room at the start of the tenancy. The tenant says there was a different curtain in the room to the one the landlord claims was up and was missing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant says the landlord told him he subsequently found the curtain and it was damaged. 11 RTA, s 49B(3)(b). 12 RTA s 49B(3A)(a). 13 RTA s 49B(1). 14 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The tenant provided photographs of the door and balcony which he says were taken at the commencement of the tenancy showing leaves on the balcony and a different curtain, whereas the landlord’s photograph claimed to be taken at the commencement of the tenancy does not show the same leaves over the balcony.
On balance, given the landlord did not take the photographs he provided or undertake a pre-tenancy and post tenancy inspection report I am not satisfied the landlord has proven that the tenant removed the curtain that the landlord is claiming was removed, or removed the curtain rail. I consider it more likely than not that there was older curtains in the tenant’s room and not the curtains visible in the photographs submitted by the landlord. I accept the tenant took photographs of the leaves on the balcony when he moved in (likely to show that he needed to clean the balcony) and I consider it unlikely the tenant would have removed the curtains in place, replaced them with inferior curtains (as the curtain in his photograph appears to be) and then remove the curtain and curtain rail at the end of the tenancy.
In addition, the landlord has not provided an end of tenancy photograph showing the bedroom or the said curtain rack removed.
However, if I am wrong in that finding I note the IR265 General depreciation rates provides that curtains have an estimated useful lifespan of 8 years, in which case the curtains would have surpassed their useful lifespan and likely required replacement in any event.
Therefore, overall, I consider the landlord has not proven the claim for loss and accordingly, the claim for curtain and curtain rack replacement is dismissed.

What should happen with the bond?

The tenant has applied for refund of the bond.
The landlord holds the bond.
The tenant says the bond held for this tenancy was $700, however $400 of this was paid for a previous tenancy, therefore I consider I cannot make an order in respect of that. There is insufficient evidence that the tenant was required to pay a bond of $700 or that this landlord holds the $400 paid by the tenant for the previous tenancy. The tenant’s claim for the difference in the bond should be made against Karen Zhang.
The landlord is to refund the bond of $300 to the tenant Filing Fee
Because the tenant has been partly successful in their claim, I have ordered that the landlord reimburse the filing fee. 15
The landlord has not been successful, even in part, in his claim, therefore I decline to reimburse the landlord the filing fee. Suppression
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 16
The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published and may attach any conditions to that order that the Tribunal considers appropriate. 17
The order for suppression of the tenant’s name continues to apply to this order.
The landlord applies for name suppression. The landlord has not been successful in his claim and the public interest outweighs the landlord’s interest in name suppression, therefore I decline to grant the landlord name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5514177 — Exemplary damages at Room 3, 21A Belmont Terrace, Milford, Auckland 0620

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5514177 — Exemplary damages at Room 3, 21A Belmont Terrace, Milford, Auckland 0620

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

What should happen with the bond?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

What should happen with the bond?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.