What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4676029?

The tribunal order states: Ranjit Sharma must pay Cay-cee Charlotte Cribb $1,720.44 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4676029?

Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4676029?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4676029?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10049855-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4676029?

The tribunal order states: Ranjit Sharma must pay Cay-cee Charlotte Cribb $1,720.44 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4676029?

Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4676029?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4676029?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10049855-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

18A Brunner Road, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4676029 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4676029 — net $1,720.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Return of remaining bond	$1,500.00	Return of remaining bond
Exemplary damages: Non-lodgement of bond	$200.00	Non-lodgement of bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,720.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,720.44

Order

Ranjit Sharma must pay Cay-cee Charlotte Cribb $1,720.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
Cay-cee Charlotte Cribb’s claim for compensation for false advertising is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference 6 March 2024.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond, exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond appropriately and compensation for false advertising following the end of the tenancy.
This matter was originally heard on 23 January 2024. The hearing was adjourned to enable the parties an opportunity to provide further evidence to prove their respective positions. The landlord was also given the opportunity to file a counter claim seeking payment of the bond.
Neither party has filed further evidence. The landlord has not filed a counter claim. As the parties had ample opportunity to present further evidence and/or file a counter claim, the Tribunal did not consider it just to delay the hearing further and proceeded to determine the claim. Refund of the bond
The tenant paid a total bond of $4,500.00. The landlord has refunded $3,000.00 of the bond to the tenant and has kept $1,500.00 for damages. While the landlord has a potential claim against the remaining bond, she has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.
Section 22B(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim.
Given no counterclaim exists the remaining bond of $1,500.00 is to be returned to the tenant. Non-lodgement of the bond
Section 19 RTA requires the landlord to lodge a bond within 23 working days after payment is made. A failure to do so is declared an unlawful act. 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 did not lodge the bond within the required time. There was clearly a technical breach of section 19 and this is an unlawful act.
As I have determined that the landlord committed an unlawful act, I must decide if it is appropriate to award exemplary damages.
Exemplary damages under the Act are different from compensation. The provision of such damages is designed to punish and deter; Attorney-General (Commissioner of Crown Lands) v Little Bo Peep Sheep Company Ltd (HC CIV 2010-412-134).
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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) RTA.
The landlord advised that she was going to lodge the bond but then the tenant gave notice that she was going to move out but then didn’t. She also said that it had been overlooked as she had family problems and was very busy.
The oversight is a serious one. For the tenant it means considerable concern that their ability to recover their bond was compromised because it was not held at the Bond Centre. There was no bond held at the date the tenancy ended.
In this case I accept that the landlord has an obligation under the Act to understand their obligations. I also accept that this failure to lodge the bond, has disadvantaged the tenant as they have had to wait some time to resolve this matter as the amount in dispute was not held by an independent body.
In the circumstances, the Tribunal finds that the landlord intentionally did not lodge the bond within the 23 working day time frame. The effect of this is that the landlord has been able to retain the bond without any justification. There is a very strong public interest in landlords complying with their obligations, particularly in respect of bonds.
Balancing those considerations, I award exemplary damages of $200.00.
The Tribunal takes this matter seriously and urges the landlord to ensure that they lodge the bond within the 23 working day period in the future. Future failures may not be seen in the same light as now. False advertising
As the applicant, the tenant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
Given the conflicting views and lack of corroborating evidence, the Tribunal finds there is insufficient evidence to determine this claim. As such, the tenant has not proved her claim to the required standard and it is therefore dismissed. Filing fee
As the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim, I consider it reasonable to order the other party to reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4676029 — net $1,720.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Return of remaining bond	$1,500.00	Return of remaining bond
Exemplary damages: Non-lodgement of bond	$200.00	Non-lodgement of bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,720.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,720.44

Order

Ranjit Sharma must pay Cay-cee Charlotte Cribb $1,720.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
Cay-cee Charlotte Cribb’s claim for compensation for false advertising is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference 6 March 2024.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond, exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond appropriately and compensation for false advertising following the end of the tenancy.
This matter was originally heard on 23 January 2024. The hearing was adjourned to enable the parties an opportunity to provide further evidence to prove their respective positions. The landlord was also given the opportunity to file a counter claim seeking payment of the bond.
Neither party has filed further evidence. The landlord has not filed a counter claim. As the parties had ample opportunity to present further evidence and/or file a counter claim, the Tribunal did not consider it just to delay the hearing further and proceeded to determine the claim. Refund of the bond
The tenant paid a total bond of $4,500.00. The landlord has refunded $3,000.00 of the bond to the tenant and has kept $1,500.00 for damages. While the landlord has a potential claim against the remaining bond, she has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.
Section 22B(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim.
Given no counterclaim exists the remaining bond of $1,500.00 is to be returned to the tenant. Non-lodgement of the bond
Section 19 RTA requires the landlord to lodge a bond within 23 working days after payment is made. A failure to do so is declared an unlawful act. 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 did not lodge the bond within the required time. There was clearly a technical breach of section 19 and this is an unlawful act.
As I have determined that the landlord committed an unlawful act, I must decide if it is appropriate to award exemplary damages.
Exemplary damages under the Act are different from compensation. The provision of such damages is designed to punish and deter; Attorney-General (Commissioner of Crown Lands) v Little Bo Peep Sheep Company Ltd (HC CIV 2010-412-134).
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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) RTA.
The landlord advised that she was going to lodge the bond but then the tenant gave notice that she was going to move out but then didn’t. She also said that it had been overlooked as she had family problems and was very busy.
The oversight is a serious one. For the tenant it means considerable concern that their ability to recover their bond was compromised because it was not held at the Bond Centre. There was no bond held at the date the tenancy ended.
In this case I accept that the landlord has an obligation under the Act to understand their obligations. I also accept that this failure to lodge the bond, has disadvantaged the tenant as they have had to wait some time to resolve this matter as the amount in dispute was not held by an independent body.
In the circumstances, the Tribunal finds that the landlord intentionally did not lodge the bond within the 23 working day time frame. The effect of this is that the landlord has been able to retain the bond without any justification. There is a very strong public interest in landlords complying with their obligations, particularly in respect of bonds.
Balancing those considerations, I award exemplary damages of $200.00.
The Tribunal takes this matter seriously and urges the landlord to ensure that they lodge the bond within the 23 working day period in the future. Future failures may not be seen in the same light as now. False advertising
As the applicant, the tenant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
Given the conflicting views and lack of corroborating evidence, the Tribunal finds there is insufficient evidence to determine this claim. As such, the tenant has not proved her claim to the required standard and it is therefore dismissed. Filing fee
As the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim, I consider it reasonable to order the other party to reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4676029 — Exemplary damages at 18A Brunner Road, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4676029 — Exemplary damages at 18A Brunner Road, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions