What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5549103 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] tenant/s] $350.00 immediately, as set

How much money was awarded in case 5549103?

Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5549103?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5549103?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14018381-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5549103 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] tenant/s] $350.00 immediately, as set

How much money was awarded in case 5549103?

Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5549103?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5549103?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14018381-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

15 Ngapera Way, Omori, Turangi 3381 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5549103 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5549103 — net $350.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond as required	$350.00	Failure to lodge bond as required
Net award	$350.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$350.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5549103 — net $350.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond as required	$350.00	Failure to lodge bond as required
Net award	$350.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$350.00

Order

[The tenant/s] landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] tenant/s] $350.00 immediately, as set out in the table below:
Consent order as follows: a. The parties agree to a routine inspection on a date and time to be confirmed with a third-party property manager. The landlord will provide the tenant with the required statutory notice period for the routine inspection.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via remote teleconference.
The tenant lodged an application on 21 July 2026 claiming that the landlord has failed to lodge his bond within the required statutory timeframe.
The landlord cross applied on 22 July 2026 seeking an order for access for the purposes of a routine inspection.
The tenant claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
The tenant says that the premises was their principal place of residence. The tenant says that his initial intention was to live there for no more than 90 days. The tenancy was then extended to September this year. The tenant confirmed during the hearing that at no time was it not his principal place of residence.
The tenant confirmed that the tenancy started on 21 August 2025. He holds the view that he is an outstanding tenant. He says that they take care of the house as if it were their own.
The parties entered into a Short-Term Rental Agreement in August 2025 for the above tenancy address. The initial agreed rental period was 3 months, with a possible extension by mutual agreement in writing.
A weekly rent of $650.00 was payable, along with a bond of $2,600.00.
Rent excluded utilities.
The Agreement (clause 12) stated that the Agreement is not subject to the RTA as it is under 120 days in duration.
The tenant responded by stating that the purpose of the bond is to protect the landlord. He says that as a tenant the only protection he has is his bond money. He says that he is seeking the maximum exemplary damages payable in respect of this failure to lodge.
The landlord says that this is a reaction to her wanting to undertake a routine inspection.
The landlord says that she is a first-time landlord and thought that she did not need to lodge the bond as it was a short-term rental. The landlord thought that the first 90 days were exempt under the Act for not lodging the bond.
The landlord says that if she has made a mistake then it is a technical mistake. She says that it was not intentional and that the bond has been safely lodged with the bond centre since December 2025. Written confirmation of the bond lodgement on 31 December 2025 was provided. Analysis
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.
Having carefully considered the evidence provided by both parties, along with the oral evidence received during the hearing I am entirely satisfied that the provisions of the RTA apply to this arrangement.
There is no evidence before me that the exclusion under section 5(1)(m) of the RTA apply in this situation. I accept the tenant’s evidence that this was their principal place of residence. My finding is further confirmed by the fact that the tenancy was extended until September this year. There is no legal basis for the bond not being lodged within the required statutory timeframe.
I am satisfied that the landlord has breached their obligations because the bond was not lodged within 23 working days “after the payment [was] made”.
Bond money does not belong to the landlord, there was no right for them to hold it.
I consider exemplary damages should be ordered for these reasons: a. I consider it likely the failure to lodge the bond was ultimately intentional. b. The effect for the tenant is that his bond was not secure in the Bond Centre. c. There is a strong interest for landlords, tenants and the public generally that the bond system be robust, and of course that means landlords lodging tenants bond money as they are required to do. d. It would be just to make an order.
The maximum level of exemplary damages for failing to lodge the bond is $1,500.00.
I find that the reduced amount of $350.00 exemplary damages to be paid to the tenant is appropriate, taking into account the landlord’s explanation as to why the bond was not lodged when required.
The tenant seeks the maximum exemplary damages payable, however that approach is not consistent with how the Tribunal approaches claims of this nature. There is also no evidence before me that this landlord has previously failed to lodge a tenant’s bond.
Accordingly, the tenant’s claim for failing to lodge the bond is established. Landlord application Access for the purposes of a routine inspection
[The tenant/s] landlord/s] claims the tenant has not allowed them entry to the premises when they were entitled to enter.
A landlord may enter the premises during the tenancy with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord seeks an order for access for routine inspection. The landlord confirmed that a routine inspection was last undertaken in early March this year. The landlord needs to undertake a further routine inspection as this is a requirement for her insurance policy. The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant dated 22 July 2026.
The tenant says that at one stage his elderly mother was temporarily residing at the property with the tenant. The tenant also says that the last inspection conducted by the landlord was undertaken at a pre-arranged day but no time. The tenant says that his wife waited for up to 4 hours for the landlord (or their representative) to arrive.
During the hearing the tenant agreed to a routine inspection. Both parties agreed to a consent order which confirms that a routine inspection will be undertaken by the landlord and agreed by the tenant.
The parties will agree on a date and time once this is confirmed by the third- party property manager undertaking the inspection. The landlord must ensure that the required statutory notice period is provided to the tenant in respect of the routine inspection. The tenant should also not refuse without reasonable excuse.
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 – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act
The landlord applied for a name suppression order. The Tribunal has found that the landlord breached their obligations by failing to lodge the tenant’s bond within the required statutory timeframe. I decline the request and find that suppressing the landlord’s name would be inappropriate in these circumstances and not in the interests of justice.
The parties have each had a degree of success with their applications. I therefore do not make an order reimbursing their respective filing fees.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5549103 — Exemplary damages at 15 Ngapera Way, Omori, Turangi 3381

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5549103 — Exemplary damages at 15 Ngapera Way, Omori, Turangi 3381

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.

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.