What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4636666?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $800.00 (6495320-018) to Atanas Stoev

How much money was awarded in case 4636666?

Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4636666?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4636666?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9852112-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4636666?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $800.00 (6495320-018) to Atanas Stoev

How much money was awarded in case 4636666?

Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4636666?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4636666?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9852112-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

24A Korotaha Terrace, Rothesay Bay, Auckland 0630 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4636666 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4636666 — net $50.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: Wall damage	$200.00		Repairs: Wall damage
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond		$250.00	Failure to lodge bond
Total award	$200.00	$250.00
Net award		$50.00
Bond		$800.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$50.00

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $800.00 (6495320-018) to Atanas Stoev and Laura Williams immediately.
Kiwi Keyholders Limited must pay Atanas Stoev and Laura Williams $50.00 immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant applied for refund of the bond, a claim in relation to the Healthy Homes standards, recovery of a weekly payment for a dog, exemplary damages for the failure of the landlord to lodge the bond, failure of the landlord to appoint an agent and the landlord requiring 12 weeks rent in advance.
The landlord applied for compensation for costs to repair damage to exterior and interior wall holes and for cleaning. Tenant’s application Healthy Homes standards
The tenant claims that the landlord did not provide a Healthy Homes certificate.
At page 9 of the tenancy agreement signed by the parties it states that the landlord complies with the healthy homes standards as required by section 45(1)(bb). At the hearing the landlord advised that the insulation was installed on 30 November 2021, before the tenancy commenced, and the tenancy complied in all other respects.
At the hearing the tenant said that he did not ask for information related to the Healthy Homes standards during the term of the tenancy.
There is no evidence to suggest that the premises does not comply with the Healthy Homes standards. The landlord has complied with the legislation.
The tenant’s claim relating to the Healthy Homes standards is dismissed. Dog payment
A clause was inserted in the tenancy agreement in relation to the tenant’s keeping a dog at the premises. The clause states, Pets: Permission for Pet Cody (dog) to stay at the property on condition that you openly communicate with us regarding any issues and agree to cover damages in case they occur. Carpeted areas (bedrooms) are out of bounds and there will be an additional charge of $50/week to cover additional wear and tear.
The tenant seeks reimbursement of the $50 per week payment that was paid during the tenancy. He relies on section 18A(2)(a) Residential Tenancies Act which states that a landlord must not require security other than the permitted bond.
The extra payment agreed to by the parties relates to the tenant being able to have a pet. The rent without the dog is $1,250.00 and including the dog is $1,300.00. The payment was not a lump sum paid in advance as is the case with bond money. It was a weekly payment. The agreement does not record that the weekly payment is to be returned to the tenant at the end of the tenancy.
The Residential Tenancies Act defines bond as, any sum of money payable or paid under a tenancy agreement as security for the observance and performance of the tenant’s obligations under the agreement and this Act; but does not include any sum payable or paid by way of rent 1
The weekly payment is also not a security as defined by section 18A(3).
In a recent Tenancy Tribunal decision 2 with a similar situation the Adjudicator considered that the increase in rent was objectively reasonable as it enabled the tenants to keep a pet. The Tribunal in that case dismissed the application for a refund of the increase in rent.
I find that the weekly payment was a term agreed to between the parties which enabled the tenant to keep a pet at the premises. It was not a bond to be refunded at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant’s claim to be reimbursed the weekly payment for the dog is dismissed. Bond
Atanas Stoev and Laura Williams 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 said at the hearing that he did not lodge the bond because the tenant was only on a visitor’s visa and did not want a paper trail that he intended to stay for the term of a fixed term tenancy. I do not accept this reason as if the tenant did not want a paper trail, he would not have signed the tenancy agreement. Also, it is the landlord’s responsibility to lodge the bond and that responsibility does not depend on the view of the tenant. 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. 1 Section 2, Residential Tenancies Act 2 Re Rainbow Trustee 2019 [2023] NZTT 4523629.
The landlord was aware of the requirement to lodge the bond and therefore intended not to lodge it. It was only after there was a dispute between the parties in relation to release of the bond that the landlord lodged the disputed amount of the bond, being $800.00.
While the tenant was not initially aware of the legislation in relation to lodging the bond the landlord’s failure to do so added to the dispute between the parties. This landlord has had other tenancies and may have future tenancies. It is in the public interest to ensure that landlords lodge bond money with the Bond Centre.
In the circumstances I consider that an award of $250.00 is reasonable. Failure to appoint an agent
At some stage during the tenancy the landlord was overseas and did not appoint an agent in his absence.
Section 16A(1) provides that, A landlord who is out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must ensure that the landlord has an agent in New Zealand.
The tenant thought that the landlord was overseas for over a month but could not provide the dates or exact timeframe that he was away. The tenant said that they had no trouble contacting the landlord while he was away. The Auckland floods occurred during the time the landlord was away, and the tenant sent some video footage to the landlord. The tenancy did not flood inside and there was no suggestion that the tenant needed assistance while the landlord was away.
The landlord also was unable to provide the dates that he was away. However, the onus is on the tenant to prove the claim. I am not satisfied that there was a breach or that the tenant was disadvantaged if there was a breach.
The tenant’s claim in respect of the landlord not appointing an agent is dismissed. Rent in advance
The parties entered a short-term tenancy from 25 June 2023 for a period of three months. At the end of that tenancy the agreement was entered in to for this tenancy. The tenant claims that the landlord required payment more than two weeks rent. That payment related to an earlier tenancy and not the fixed term tenancy currently before the Tribunal.
As that issue relates to a different tenancy, I make no finding or award. If he wishes the tenant may file a separate application with evidence if he seeks to claim in respect of that earlier tenancy.
The claim in respect of rent in advance is dismissed. Landlord’s application Compensation for repairs
The landlord claims for compensation in relation to the repair of two screw or bolt holes on the exterior of the premises and two small screw or bolt holes in the master bedroom.
The landlord produced photographs taken soon after the tenancy ended. The tenant acknowledges causing the holes.
The tenant attempted to repair the exterior holes after the tenancy ended.
At the hearing the tenant provided a photograph taken from a distance the day before the hearing. Even from a distance it is evident that some repairs have been carried out.
The onus is on the landlord to provide evidence to establish that the damage needs to be repaired. The failure of the landlord to provide up to date photographs means that it is not possible to determine what if any further repairs are required.
I make no award for repairs to the exterior wall.
The tenant acknowledges causing the damage to the wall in the master bedroom.
The landlord obtained a quote to repair both the exterior and interior holes. That quote amounts to $977.50. The quote does not break down the cost between the interior and exterior holes.
I also note that the repairs quoted for have not been carried out.
After considering the photographs I consider that a reasonable amount to repair the interior holes is $200.00 and that amount is ordered. Compensation for cleaning
The landlord sought $989.00 for cleaning following the end of the tenancy. That amount was from an estimate of $860.00 plus GST obtained in June 2023 from commercial cleaners.
The landlord did not employ the company that provided the estimate and instead carried out the cleaning themselves.
The landlord did not provide any objective evidence to support the claim for cleaning.
The legislation provides that the tenant shall on termination of the tenancy leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition 3 . There is no evidence that the tenant did not do so.
The landlord’s claim for cleaning costs is dismissed due to lack of evidence. Filing fees
As both parties have had some success with their claims, I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fees.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4636666 — net $50.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: Wall damage	$200.00		Repairs: Wall damage
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond		$250.00	Failure to lodge bond
Total award	$200.00	$250.00
Net award		$50.00
Bond		$800.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$50.00

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $800.00 (6495320-018) to Atanas Stoev and Laura Williams immediately.
Kiwi Keyholders Limited must pay Atanas Stoev and Laura Williams $50.00 immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant applied for refund of the bond, a claim in relation to the Healthy Homes standards, recovery of a weekly payment for a dog, exemplary damages for the failure of the landlord to lodge the bond, failure of the landlord to appoint an agent and the landlord requiring 12 weeks rent in advance.
The landlord applied for compensation for costs to repair damage to exterior and interior wall holes and for cleaning. Tenant’s application Healthy Homes standards
The tenant claims that the landlord did not provide a Healthy Homes certificate.
At page 9 of the tenancy agreement signed by the parties it states that the landlord complies with the healthy homes standards as required by section 45(1)(bb). At the hearing the landlord advised that the insulation was installed on 30 November 2021, before the tenancy commenced, and the tenancy complied in all other respects.
At the hearing the tenant said that he did not ask for information related to the Healthy Homes standards during the term of the tenancy.
There is no evidence to suggest that the premises does not comply with the Healthy Homes standards. The landlord has complied with the legislation.
The tenant’s claim relating to the Healthy Homes standards is dismissed. Dog payment
A clause was inserted in the tenancy agreement in relation to the tenant’s keeping a dog at the premises. The clause states, Pets: Permission for Pet Cody (dog) to stay at the property on condition that you openly communicate with us regarding any issues and agree to cover damages in case they occur. Carpeted areas (bedrooms) are out of bounds and there will be an additional charge of $50/week to cover additional wear and tear.
The tenant seeks reimbursement of the $50 per week payment that was paid during the tenancy. He relies on section 18A(2)(a) Residential Tenancies Act which states that a landlord must not require security other than the permitted bond.
The extra payment agreed to by the parties relates to the tenant being able to have a pet. The rent without the dog is $1,250.00 and including the dog is $1,300.00. The payment was not a lump sum paid in advance as is the case with bond money. It was a weekly payment. The agreement does not record that the weekly payment is to be returned to the tenant at the end of the tenancy.
The Residential Tenancies Act defines bond as, any sum of money payable or paid under a tenancy agreement as security for the observance and performance of the tenant’s obligations under the agreement and this Act; but does not include any sum payable or paid by way of rent 1
The weekly payment is also not a security as defined by section 18A(3).
In a recent Tenancy Tribunal decision 2 with a similar situation the Adjudicator considered that the increase in rent was objectively reasonable as it enabled the tenants to keep a pet. The Tribunal in that case dismissed the application for a refund of the increase in rent.
I find that the weekly payment was a term agreed to between the parties which enabled the tenant to keep a pet at the premises. It was not a bond to be refunded at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant’s claim to be reimbursed the weekly payment for the dog is dismissed. Bond
Atanas Stoev and Laura Williams 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 said at the hearing that he did not lodge the bond because the tenant was only on a visitor’s visa and did not want a paper trail that he intended to stay for the term of a fixed term tenancy. I do not accept this reason as if the tenant did not want a paper trail, he would not have signed the tenancy agreement. Also, it is the landlord’s responsibility to lodge the bond and that responsibility does not depend on the view of the tenant. 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. 1 Section 2, Residential Tenancies Act 2 Re Rainbow Trustee 2019 [2023] NZTT 4523629.
The landlord was aware of the requirement to lodge the bond and therefore intended not to lodge it. It was only after there was a dispute between the parties in relation to release of the bond that the landlord lodged the disputed amount of the bond, being $800.00.
While the tenant was not initially aware of the legislation in relation to lodging the bond the landlord’s failure to do so added to the dispute between the parties. This landlord has had other tenancies and may have future tenancies. It is in the public interest to ensure that landlords lodge bond money with the Bond Centre.
In the circumstances I consider that an award of $250.00 is reasonable. Failure to appoint an agent
At some stage during the tenancy the landlord was overseas and did not appoint an agent in his absence.
Section 16A(1) provides that, A landlord who is out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must ensure that the landlord has an agent in New Zealand.
The tenant thought that the landlord was overseas for over a month but could not provide the dates or exact timeframe that he was away. The tenant said that they had no trouble contacting the landlord while he was away. The Auckland floods occurred during the time the landlord was away, and the tenant sent some video footage to the landlord. The tenancy did not flood inside and there was no suggestion that the tenant needed assistance while the landlord was away.
The landlord also was unable to provide the dates that he was away. However, the onus is on the tenant to prove the claim. I am not satisfied that there was a breach or that the tenant was disadvantaged if there was a breach.
The tenant’s claim in respect of the landlord not appointing an agent is dismissed. Rent in advance
The parties entered a short-term tenancy from 25 June 2023 for a period of three months. At the end of that tenancy the agreement was entered in to for this tenancy. The tenant claims that the landlord required payment more than two weeks rent. That payment related to an earlier tenancy and not the fixed term tenancy currently before the Tribunal.
As that issue relates to a different tenancy, I make no finding or award. If he wishes the tenant may file a separate application with evidence if he seeks to claim in respect of that earlier tenancy.
The claim in respect of rent in advance is dismissed. Landlord’s application Compensation for repairs
The landlord claims for compensation in relation to the repair of two screw or bolt holes on the exterior of the premises and two small screw or bolt holes in the master bedroom.
The landlord produced photographs taken soon after the tenancy ended. The tenant acknowledges causing the holes.
The tenant attempted to repair the exterior holes after the tenancy ended.
At the hearing the tenant provided a photograph taken from a distance the day before the hearing. Even from a distance it is evident that some repairs have been carried out.
The onus is on the landlord to provide evidence to establish that the damage needs to be repaired. The failure of the landlord to provide up to date photographs means that it is not possible to determine what if any further repairs are required.
I make no award for repairs to the exterior wall.
The tenant acknowledges causing the damage to the wall in the master bedroom.
The landlord obtained a quote to repair both the exterior and interior holes. That quote amounts to $977.50. The quote does not break down the cost between the interior and exterior holes.
I also note that the repairs quoted for have not been carried out.
After considering the photographs I consider that a reasonable amount to repair the interior holes is $200.00 and that amount is ordered. Compensation for cleaning
The landlord sought $989.00 for cleaning following the end of the tenancy. That amount was from an estimate of $860.00 plus GST obtained in June 2023 from commercial cleaners.
The landlord did not employ the company that provided the estimate and instead carried out the cleaning themselves.
The landlord did not provide any objective evidence to support the claim for cleaning.
The legislation provides that the tenant shall on termination of the tenancy leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition 3 . There is no evidence that the tenant did not do so.
The landlord’s claim for cleaning costs is dismissed due to lack of evidence. Filing fees
As both parties have had some success with their claims, I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fees.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4636666 — Exemplary damages at 24A Korotaha Terrace, Rothesay Bay, Auckland 0630

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4636666 — Exemplary damages at 24A Korotaha Terrace, Rothesay Bay, Auckland 0630

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions