What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5533001 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 5533001?

Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Failure To Comply With Heating Stand…: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5533001?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5533001?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14190093-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5533001 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 5533001?

Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Failure To Comply With Heating Stand…: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5533001?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5533001?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14190093-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

41 Hyperion Drive, Randwick Park, Auckland 2105 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5533001 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5533001 — net $2,728.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages (content of tenancy agreement	$250.00	Exemplary damages (content of tenancy agreement
Exemplary damages (non-lodgement of bond	$800.00	Exemplary damages (non-lodgement of bond
Bond refund (not lodged, part refunded	$1,300.00	Bond refund (not lodged, part refunded
Failure to comply with heating standard	$350.00	Failure to comply with heating standard
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,728.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,728.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name.
calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 8 September 2026.
The tenant applied for refund of the bond, compensation for breach of the Healthy Homes Standards, and exemplary damages for non-lodgement of the bond. Background
The periodic residential tenancy started on 4 March 2026, and the tenant gave notice to terminate on 21 May 2026. Pursuant to this notice, the tenancy ended on 11 June 2026 (the application form said 21 June 2026, which is probably a typographical error).
The weekly rent was $650.00. A bond of $3,900.00 was specified in the tenancy agreement. This was paid by MSD in two instalments: $2,600.00 and $1,300.00 both on 5 March 2026. The tenant described these instalments as a bond of 4 weeks and an advance of 2 weeks rent. The landlord said the bond was $1,300.00 and this had been repaid to the tenant on 1 July 2026. Bond Refund and Lodgement
The photographs the Tribunal was shown at the hearing (these were later sent through but could not be accessed) demonstrated that the tenant left the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
Although the tenancy agreement specified a bond of $3,900.00 it seems more likely that the bond was $2,600.00 as that is equal to 4 weeks’ rent. Half of this has been refunded. I note that the landlord has not claimed rent arrears and did not bring his own application, despite being advised to do so by the mediator. The landlord must establish that there are rent arrears which justify withholding the bond of $2,600.00. There has been no attempt to quantify a claim. The tenant said the rent was never in arrears, and she did not use the payment of 2 weeks rent in advance.
I have reviewed the bank statements provided by the landlord, which cover the period from 1 March to 28 June 2026. These show that rent payments totalling $8,450.00 were made by the tenant during the tenancy, together with the bond of $2,600.00 (a total payment of $11,050.00). The rent payable from the start of the tenancy to its end on 11 June 2026 was $9,285.71. The difference between the rent payable and the rent paid, on my numbers, is a shortfall of $835.71.
Refunding the full bond to the tenant does therefore appear to create some rent arrears, and that was part of the landlord’s argument. However, it was the landlord’s obligation to bring an application to retain the bond, without which the bond must be returned (see section 22B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986). The landlord can bring an application for rent arrears if so minded, supported by a rent summary.
The bond should have been lodged with the Bond Centre. The landlord did not offer any reason why he had not done so. The landlord appeared to believe that the bond did not have to be refunded to the tenant because the bond payment came from MSD. However, that misunderstands the tenant’s liability to repay the bond. It is effectively a loan from MSD. Consistent with the landlord’s view, he paid $1,300.00 to MSD on 26 June 2026 but this was immediately returned.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. The bond was paid to the landlord on 5 March 2026 and was not lodged. Rather than refund the bond to the tenant, the landlord attempted to pay part of it to MSD.
Failing to lodge the bond in time is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. 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.
Although this was a short tenancy, the bond should have been lodged. The landlord mentioned that he has other rental properties, so he ought to have been aware of this requirement. The failure to lodge has been compounded by the landlord’s refusal to return the bond after the end of the tenancy as requested, his attempt to pay half of it elsewhere, and the failure to provide a rent summary or make an application to the Tribunal to establish any rent arrears. The repayment of $1,300.00 to the tenant was arbitrary in amount. I award exemplary damages of $800.00. Healthy Homes Standards
The tenant said she was misled about the property’s compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards and noted that the landlord had not included insulation details in the tenancy agreement.
A landlord must include a signed statement in the tenancy agreement that provides the following information: a. whether or not insulation is installed in any ceilings, walls and floors, and b. details of the location, type and condition of all insulation installed. (see section 13A(1A) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986).
Alternatively, if the landlord is unable to provide some or all of the information required, they must include a statement explaining what information cannot be obtained, why it cannot be provided, and that all reasonable efforts have been made to do so.
The tenancy agreement must also provide the information set out in regulations 34 to 39 of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019.
Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00.
In the tenancy agreement a box was ticked in the inspection record indicating there was insulation. In the section of the agreement relating to the Healthy Homes Standards, the landlord indicated that it was unknown if there was wall insulation, there was no exemption for underfloor insulation, and the R-value of the ceiling insulation was unknown. There was no explanation why this information could not be obtained.
At the hearing, the landlord said the premises were completely insulated, with insulation in the ceiling, walls, and under the house. Some of the tenant’s photographs suggest there may be underfloor insulation. The landlord said he had a certificate for the insulation under the house, although he had not brought a copy to the hearing.
The tenancy agreement, as provided by the tenant, is difficult to read but the landlord’s responses about the presence or absence of insulation are confusing, incomplete and to some degree inconsistent with what the Tribunal was told at the hearing. Information for some of the Healthy Homes Standards is entirely missing. I cannot say that the landlord knew the information was misleading but there was a substantive failure to provide clear information about the extent of compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards. I award exemplary damages of $250.00.
The tenant complained of leaks from the hot water cylinder, a leaking and flooding toilet, and a leak under the house. The tenant said the S-bend under the tap in the laundry was leaking. The tenant provided photographs and videos which show that the premises had various issues with leaks. The tenant mentioned that plumbers had been called to fix the toilet and the hot water cylinder. The landlord said all the issues were addressed, although no documentation (e.g. invoices) have been provided. The tenant also complained about mould and provided photographs of a bed mattress with a small area of mould and mouldy shoes.
I am unable to determine whether the landlord complied with his maintenance obligations in relation to the mould and leaks. The mould issue could have been caused by a lack of ventilation. There was no evidence of widespread mould on ceilings or walls, for example. The issue was minor and perhaps not untypical of houses in Auckland, which has a humid climate. While there were leaks, again these seem quite minor, and the landlord appears to have taken some steps to investigate.
The tenant complained that the property did not comply with the heating standard. The landlord admitted that there was no heating at the premises but explained that the property had been fully renovated prior to the tenancy. I note that the tenancy agreement stated there was a heat pump.
I find that there was a breach of the heating standard as, contrary to the tenancy agreement, there was no heat pump. The tenancy was short, lasting just over 3 months. I award compensation of $350.00 for the lack of heating. Procedural Note
The landlord was profoundly deaf and attended without a support person. He was able to understand what I said about half the time, even when I spoke loudly into the microphone, so it was necessary to be repetitive. From his reactions to the tenant’s evidence while it was being given, I am satisfied that he heard and understood what the tenant was saying. Filing Fee and Suppression
The tenant is granted name suppression as requested.
The tenant is also awarded the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5533001 — net $2,728.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages (content of tenancy agreement	$250.00	Exemplary damages (content of tenancy agreement
Exemplary damages (non-lodgement of bond	$800.00	Exemplary damages (non-lodgement of bond
Bond refund (not lodged, part refunded	$1,300.00	Bond refund (not lodged, part refunded
Failure to comply with heating standard	$350.00	Failure to comply with heating standard
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,728.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,728.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name.
calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 8 September 2026.
The tenant applied for refund of the bond, compensation for breach of the Healthy Homes Standards, and exemplary damages for non-lodgement of the bond. Background
The periodic residential tenancy started on 4 March 2026, and the tenant gave notice to terminate on 21 May 2026. Pursuant to this notice, the tenancy ended on 11 June 2026 (the application form said 21 June 2026, which is probably a typographical error).
The weekly rent was $650.00. A bond of $3,900.00 was specified in the tenancy agreement. This was paid by MSD in two instalments: $2,600.00 and $1,300.00 both on 5 March 2026. The tenant described these instalments as a bond of 4 weeks and an advance of 2 weeks rent. The landlord said the bond was $1,300.00 and this had been repaid to the tenant on 1 July 2026. Bond Refund and Lodgement
The photographs the Tribunal was shown at the hearing (these were later sent through but could not be accessed) demonstrated that the tenant left the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
Although the tenancy agreement specified a bond of $3,900.00 it seems more likely that the bond was $2,600.00 as that is equal to 4 weeks’ rent. Half of this has been refunded. I note that the landlord has not claimed rent arrears and did not bring his own application, despite being advised to do so by the mediator. The landlord must establish that there are rent arrears which justify withholding the bond of $2,600.00. There has been no attempt to quantify a claim. The tenant said the rent was never in arrears, and she did not use the payment of 2 weeks rent in advance.
I have reviewed the bank statements provided by the landlord, which cover the period from 1 March to 28 June 2026. These show that rent payments totalling $8,450.00 were made by the tenant during the tenancy, together with the bond of $2,600.00 (a total payment of $11,050.00). The rent payable from the start of the tenancy to its end on 11 June 2026 was $9,285.71. The difference between the rent payable and the rent paid, on my numbers, is a shortfall of $835.71.
Refunding the full bond to the tenant does therefore appear to create some rent arrears, and that was part of the landlord’s argument. However, it was the landlord’s obligation to bring an application to retain the bond, without which the bond must be returned (see section 22B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986). The landlord can bring an application for rent arrears if so minded, supported by a rent summary.
The bond should have been lodged with the Bond Centre. The landlord did not offer any reason why he had not done so. The landlord appeared to believe that the bond did not have to be refunded to the tenant because the bond payment came from MSD. However, that misunderstands the tenant’s liability to repay the bond. It is effectively a loan from MSD. Consistent with the landlord’s view, he paid $1,300.00 to MSD on 26 June 2026 but this was immediately returned.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. The bond was paid to the landlord on 5 March 2026 and was not lodged. Rather than refund the bond to the tenant, the landlord attempted to pay part of it to MSD.
Failing to lodge the bond in time is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. 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.
Although this was a short tenancy, the bond should have been lodged. The landlord mentioned that he has other rental properties, so he ought to have been aware of this requirement. The failure to lodge has been compounded by the landlord’s refusal to return the bond after the end of the tenancy as requested, his attempt to pay half of it elsewhere, and the failure to provide a rent summary or make an application to the Tribunal to establish any rent arrears. The repayment of $1,300.00 to the tenant was arbitrary in amount. I award exemplary damages of $800.00. Healthy Homes Standards
The tenant said she was misled about the property’s compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards and noted that the landlord had not included insulation details in the tenancy agreement.
A landlord must include a signed statement in the tenancy agreement that provides the following information: a. whether or not insulation is installed in any ceilings, walls and floors, and b. details of the location, type and condition of all insulation installed. (see section 13A(1A) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986).
Alternatively, if the landlord is unable to provide some or all of the information required, they must include a statement explaining what information cannot be obtained, why it cannot be provided, and that all reasonable efforts have been made to do so.
The tenancy agreement must also provide the information set out in regulations 34 to 39 of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019.
Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00.
In the tenancy agreement a box was ticked in the inspection record indicating there was insulation. In the section of the agreement relating to the Healthy Homes Standards, the landlord indicated that it was unknown if there was wall insulation, there was no exemption for underfloor insulation, and the R-value of the ceiling insulation was unknown. There was no explanation why this information could not be obtained.
At the hearing, the landlord said the premises were completely insulated, with insulation in the ceiling, walls, and under the house. Some of the tenant’s photographs suggest there may be underfloor insulation. The landlord said he had a certificate for the insulation under the house, although he had not brought a copy to the hearing.
The tenancy agreement, as provided by the tenant, is difficult to read but the landlord’s responses about the presence or absence of insulation are confusing, incomplete and to some degree inconsistent with what the Tribunal was told at the hearing. Information for some of the Healthy Homes Standards is entirely missing. I cannot say that the landlord knew the information was misleading but there was a substantive failure to provide clear information about the extent of compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards. I award exemplary damages of $250.00.
The tenant complained of leaks from the hot water cylinder, a leaking and flooding toilet, and a leak under the house. The tenant said the S-bend under the tap in the laundry was leaking. The tenant provided photographs and videos which show that the premises had various issues with leaks. The tenant mentioned that plumbers had been called to fix the toilet and the hot water cylinder. The landlord said all the issues were addressed, although no documentation (e.g. invoices) have been provided. The tenant also complained about mould and provided photographs of a bed mattress with a small area of mould and mouldy shoes.
I am unable to determine whether the landlord complied with his maintenance obligations in relation to the mould and leaks. The mould issue could have been caused by a lack of ventilation. There was no evidence of widespread mould on ceilings or walls, for example. The issue was minor and perhaps not untypical of houses in Auckland, which has a humid climate. While there were leaks, again these seem quite minor, and the landlord appears to have taken some steps to investigate.
The tenant complained that the property did not comply with the heating standard. The landlord admitted that there was no heating at the premises but explained that the property had been fully renovated prior to the tenancy. I note that the tenancy agreement stated there was a heat pump.
I find that there was a breach of the heating standard as, contrary to the tenancy agreement, there was no heat pump. The tenancy was short, lasting just over 3 months. I award compensation of $350.00 for the lack of heating. Procedural Note
The landlord was profoundly deaf and attended without a support person. He was able to understand what I said about half the time, even when I spoke loudly into the microphone, so it was necessary to be repetitive. From his reactions to the tenant’s evidence while it was being given, I am satisfied that he heard and understood what the tenant was saying. Filing Fee and Suppression
The tenant is granted name suppression as requested.
The tenant is also awarded the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5533001 — Exemplary damages at 41 Hyperion Drive, Randwick Park, Auckland 2105

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5533001 — Exemplary damages at 41 Hyperion Drive, Randwick Park, Auckland 2105

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.