What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4863860?

The tribunal order states: Nicole Drought and Paul Drought must pay Employees That Count Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4863860?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4863860?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4863860?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10327178-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4863860?

The tribunal order states: Nicole Drought and Paul Drought must pay Employees That Count Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4863860?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4863860?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4863860?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10327178-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

3 Epping Place, Richmond Heights, Taupo 3330 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4863860 — Exemplary damages

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4863860 — net $500.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages failure to lodge tenants’ bond	$500.00	Exemplary damages failure to lodge tenants’ bond
Net award	$500.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$500.00

Both parties attended the hearing.

Employees That Count Limited, 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.

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.

The landlord has committed an unlawful act. The bond was paid on 10 November 2022. The tenant gave notice and the tenancy ended on 31 January 2024. The tenant assisted the landlord with finding a replacement tenant and was told in early February that the bond would be refunded in full.

The tenant then sent a number of texts and emails and phoned the landlord requesting that the bond be refunded but was “fobbed off” with a variety of excuses. He then phoned tenancy services and discovered the bond had never been lodged.

He made an application for a refund of the bond and exemplary damages on 17 April 2024. A few days later the bond was refunded directly to his account by the landlord.

The tenant decided to continue with the application for exemplary damages.

I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act. The bond was not lodged within the required timeframe. The landlord’s explanation that it was overlooked at this time is accepted.

However, even when the landlord became aware that the bond was not lodged, at the end of January, it was not returned to the tenant immediately. Ms Drought said this was because she and her husband were not in a financial position to refund it when the tenancy ended.

That highlights perfectly why the public interest requires bonds, which are tenants’ money, are held by an independent third party. Their return is not then dependent on the landlord having sufficient funds to repay them.

Instead of explaining this honestly to the tenant, whose evidence that he would have allowed some time for repayment, the landlord essentially made excuses, then failed to answer messages at all and essentially delayed the return of the bond, while they sorted their own financial position. Those are relevant matters; they were the reason the application with the Tribunal was made as the tenants thought by then he had no other option and highlight the aggravating effects of the unlawful act.

The landlord is also experienced having owned and managed 5 or 6 rental properties over the past 15 years.

The public interest requires that a clear message is sent that lodging bonds is not optional, it is a requirement that must be strictly complied with.

As explained at the hearing, if a further application is received regarding non lodgement of bonds, then the damages awarded are likely to be higher.

Having considered all of these relevant matters, including the landlords lack of intention at the time the bond was received, I determine that an award of one third of the maximum is appropriate.

The public interest requires publication of the order.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4863860 — net $500.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages failure to lodge tenants’ bond	$500.00	Exemplary damages failure to lodge tenants’ bond
Net award	$500.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$500.00

Order

Nicole Drought and Paul Drought must pay Employees That Count Limited $500.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Employees That Count Limited, 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.
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.
The landlord has committed an unlawful act. The bond was paid on 10 November 2022. The tenant gave notice and the tenancy ended on 31 January 2024. The tenant assisted the landlord with finding a replacement tenant and was told in early February that the bond would be refunded in full.
The tenant then sent a number of texts and emails and phoned the landlord requesting that the bond be refunded but was “fobbed off” with a variety of excuses. He then phoned tenancy services and discovered the bond had never been lodged.
He made an application for a refund of the bond and exemplary damages on 17 April 2024. A few days later the bond was refunded directly to his account by the landlord.
The tenant decided to continue with the application for exemplary damages.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act. The bond was not lodged within the required timeframe. The landlord’s explanation that it was overlooked at this time is accepted.
However, even when the landlord became aware that the bond was not lodged, at the end of January, it was not returned to the tenant immediately. Ms Drought said this was because she and her husband were not in a financial position to refund it when the tenancy ended.
That highlights perfectly why the public interest requires bonds, which are tenants’ money, are held by an independent third party. Their return is not then dependent on the landlord having sufficient funds to repay them.
Instead of explaining this honestly to the tenant, whose evidence that he would have allowed some time for repayment, the landlord essentially made excuses, then failed to answer messages at all and essentially delayed the return of the bond, while they sorted their own financial position. Those are relevant matters; they were the reason the application with the Tribunal was made as the tenants thought by then he had no other option and highlight the aggravating effects of the unlawful act.
The landlord is also experienced having owned and managed 5 or 6 rental properties over the past 15 years.
The public interest requires that a clear message is sent that lodging bonds is not optional, it is a requirement that must be strictly complied with.
As explained at the hearing, if a further application is received regarding non lodgement of bonds, then the damages awarded are likely to be higher.
Having considered all of these relevant matters, including the landlords lack of intention at the time the bond was received, I determine that an award of one third of the maximum is appropriate.
The public interest requires publication of the order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4863860 — Exemplary damages at 3 Epping Place, Richmond Heights, Taupo 3330

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4863860 — Exemplary damages at 3 Epping Place, Richmond Heights, Taupo 3330

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