What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4817540?

The tribunal order states: Jacob Property Development Limited must pay Yu Tang and Yingzheng Wei

How much money was awarded in case 4817540?

Property Damage: $700.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4817540?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4817540?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10494584-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4817540?

The tribunal order states: Jacob Property Development Limited must pay Yu Tang and Yingzheng Wei

How much money was awarded in case 4817540?

Property Damage: $700.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4817540?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4817540?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10494584-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

654 Sandringham Road, Sandringham, Auckland 1025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4817540 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4817540 — net $3,400.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Bond refund	$2,680.00	Bond refund
Exemplary damages for non-lodgment of bond	$700.00	Exemplary damages for non-lodgment of bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,400.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,400.44

Order

Jacob Property Development Limited must pay Yu Tang and Yingzheng Wei $3,400.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionTenant Bond refund $2,680.00 Exemplary damages for non-lodgment of bond $700.00 Filing fee reimbursement $20.44 Total award $3,400.44 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $3,400.44

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 24 June 2024. Sam Turkmani attended by phone on behalf of Jacob Property Development Limited.
Yu Tang and Yingzheng Wei seek the return of their bond after the tenancy had ended on 18 February 2024. The tenants also seek exemplary damages because the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre at all during their tenancy. The tenancy commenced on 26 November 2022.
In response to the tenant’s claims, the landlord wrote to the Tribunal on 18 June 2024 that he was prepared to return the bond in full to the tenant. Mr Turkmani also offered an explanation on why he has not lodged the bond.
Mr Turkmani says that his property manager contracted COVID19 at the commencement of the tenancy and was prevented from lodging the bond due to sickness. The situation compounded when upon recovery, her son also fell ill which bad health resulted in the property manager’s return to China. Mr Turkmani says the replacement property manager assumed the bond had been lodged. Mr Turkmani submits that the failure to lodge the bond was due to a genuine oversight and not an attempt to evade the Residential Tenancies Act. Mr Turkmani refers to his company’s extensive property portfolio which always complies with its statutory obligations. Mr Turkmani says that records will show their past and present compliance in each and every respect.
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.
By failing to lodge the bond at all during the entire tenancy from November 2022 to date, 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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Mr Turkmani is an experienced landlord. His company has been before the Tribunal in respect of an allegation of late lodgment of bond in application 4710749. In the Tribunal order dated 11 April 2024, adjudicator A Aiolupotea observed:
The Landlord disputed this and submitted they received the bond payment on 1 September 2023. The Tenant moved into the property and after one week advised the Landlord he wanted to move out to a cheaper place after he enrolled his children into the local school. Because of this change in mind, the bond was not lodged until 3 October 2023 however it was still within the 23 day timeframe.
In considering the evidence, I find the Landlord has lodged the bond within the 23 working day time frame because although the Tenant paid the Landlord in August 2023, this is before the tenancy commenced. The Landlord had from the 2 September 2023 to count the 23 working days and so they were not late lodging the bond.
While Mr Turkmani’s property management company has been found to have complied with its statutory obligations in respect of bond lodgment in application 4710749, in this case before me, the bond was never lodged for over 18 months to date.
On receipt of the notice of the tenant’s application filed on 22 February 2024 and the notice of hearing, Mr Turkmani could have responded appropriately by lodging the bond immediately. He waited until a week before the hearing on 24 June 2024 to say that he will return the bond to the tenant.
I do not consider Mr Turkmani’s records show Jacob Property Development Limited’s “past and present compliance in each and every respect”.
Mr Turkmani has been brought to the Tenancy Tribunal in the past to do with an allegation of lodging bonds outside of 23 working days from receiving the bond.
As a professional property management company, an audit ought to be conducted on bond lodgements on their entire portfolio to ensure that any overlooked and unlodged bonds will be remedied by bond lodgment immediately. Because bond lodgment calls upon positive action on part of the landlord, this obligation to do so cannot be so easily circumvented by a plea of mere oversight as Mr Turkmani has submitted before the Tribunal.
The only factor that counts in the landlord’s favour is his willingness to now return the bond to the tenant unconditionally.
Having regard to the above factors, I find it just to award exemplary damages of $700.00 against the landlord. In doing so, I have had regard to Mr Turkmani’s bare assertion of the reason for non-lodgment, the effect of the unlawful act to these tenants, the interests of these tenants, and the public interest to tenants in general to be assured that all landlords, especially professional landlords like Jacob Property Development Limited, lodge the bond within 23 working days from the receipt of the bond.
Until Mr Turkmani’s correspondence of 18 June 2024, the tenants’ bond money was left at the mercy of the landlord. The primary reason that bonds must be lodged at the Bond Centre is to prevent abuse of tenants' money by irresponsible landlords.
Because Yu Tang, Yingzheng Wei have substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee alongside the orders for the bond to be returned to them and an order for exemplary damages of $700.00 in their favour.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4817540 — net $3,400.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Bond refund	$2,680.00	Bond refund
Exemplary damages for non-lodgment of bond	$700.00	Exemplary damages for non-lodgment of bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,400.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,400.44

Order

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 24 June 2024. Sam Turkmani attended by phone on behalf of Jacob Property Development Limited.
Yu Tang and Yingzheng Wei seek the return of their bond after the tenancy had ended on 18 February 2024. The tenants also seek exemplary damages because the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre at all during their tenancy. The tenancy commenced on 26 November 2022.
In response to the tenant’s claims, the landlord wrote to the Tribunal on 18 June 2024 that he was prepared to return the bond in full to the tenant. Mr Turkmani also offered an explanation on why he has not lodged the bond.
Mr Turkmani says that his property manager contracted COVID19 at the commencement of the tenancy and was prevented from lodging the bond due to sickness. The situation compounded when upon recovery, her son also fell ill which bad health resulted in the property manager’s return to China. Mr Turkmani says the replacement property manager assumed the bond had been lodged. Mr Turkmani submits that the failure to lodge the bond was due to a genuine oversight and not an attempt to evade the Residential Tenancies Act. Mr Turkmani refers to his company’s extensive property portfolio which always complies with its statutory obligations. Mr Turkmani says that records will show their past and present compliance in each and every respect.
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.
By failing to lodge the bond at all during the entire tenancy from November 2022 to date, 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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Mr Turkmani is an experienced landlord. His company has been before the Tribunal in respect of an allegation of late lodgment of bond in application 4710749. In the Tribunal order dated 11 April 2024, adjudicator A Aiolupotea observed:
The Landlord disputed this and submitted they received the bond payment on 1 September 2023. The Tenant moved into the property and after one week advised the Landlord he wanted to move out to a cheaper place after he enrolled his children into the local school. Because of this change in mind, the bond was not lodged until 3 October 2023 however it was still within the 23 day timeframe.
In considering the evidence, I find the Landlord has lodged the bond within the 23 working day time frame because although the Tenant paid the Landlord in August 2023, this is before the tenancy commenced. The Landlord had from the 2 September 2023 to count the 23 working days and so they were not late lodging the bond.
While Mr Turkmani’s property management company has been found to have complied with its statutory obligations in respect of bond lodgment in application 4710749, in this case before me, the bond was never lodged for over 18 months to date.
On receipt of the notice of the tenant’s application filed on 22 February 2024 and the notice of hearing, Mr Turkmani could have responded appropriately by lodging the bond immediately. He waited until a week before the hearing on 24 June 2024 to say that he will return the bond to the tenant.
I do not consider Mr Turkmani’s records show Jacob Property Development Limited’s “past and present compliance in each and every respect”.
Mr Turkmani has been brought to the Tenancy Tribunal in the past to do with an allegation of lodging bonds outside of 23 working days from receiving the bond.
As a professional property management company, an audit ought to be conducted on bond lodgements on their entire portfolio to ensure that any overlooked and unlodged bonds will be remedied by bond lodgment immediately. Because bond lodgment calls upon positive action on part of the landlord, this obligation to do so cannot be so easily circumvented by a plea of mere oversight as Mr Turkmani has submitted before the Tribunal.
The only factor that counts in the landlord’s favour is his willingness to now return the bond to the tenant unconditionally.
Having regard to the above factors, I find it just to award exemplary damages of $700.00 against the landlord. In doing so, I have had regard to Mr Turkmani’s bare assertion of the reason for non-lodgment, the effect of the unlawful act to these tenants, the interests of these tenants, and the public interest to tenants in general to be assured that all landlords, especially professional landlords like Jacob Property Development Limited, lodge the bond within 23 working days from the receipt of the bond.
Until Mr Turkmani’s correspondence of 18 June 2024, the tenants’ bond money was left at the mercy of the landlord. The primary reason that bonds must be lodged at the Bond Centre is to prevent abuse of tenants' money by irresponsible landlords.
Because Yu Tang, Yingzheng Wei have substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee alongside the orders for the bond to be returned to them and an order for exemplary damages of $700.00 in their favour.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4817540 — Exemplary damages at 654 Sandringham Road, Sandringham, Auckland 1025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4817540 — Exemplary damages at 654 Sandringham Road, Sandringham, Auckland 1025

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions