What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4917139?

The tribunal order states: Marco Meister must pay The Estate of Graeme Mitchell Dick (A.K.A Hamish

How much money was awarded in case 4917139?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4917139?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4917139?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10985417-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4917139?

The tribunal order states: Marco Meister must pay The Estate of Graeme Mitchell Dick (A.K.A Hamish

How much money was awarded in case 4917139?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4917139?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4917139?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10985417-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

173A Queen Victoria Street, Motueka, Motueka 7120 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4917139 — Exemplary damages

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4917139 — net $520.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages	$500.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$520.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$520.44

Both parties attended this video hearing on 22 October 2024. Suzanne Dick appeared as the next of kin of the deceased tenant.

The matter had been part heard on 22 August 2024. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear this matter was confirmed in that earlier order as well as the matters to be considered today.

The Estate of Graeme Mitchell Dick (A.K.A Hamish Mitchell) 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 accepts the tenant paid a bond to him and that it was not lodged with the bond centre. The landlord says that the bond money was repaid to the tenant prior to the tenant’s death on 12 February 2024. I accept that evidence and no further bond is required to be repaid.

I find that in failing to lodge the bond however, 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) RTA).

A bond is the tenants’ money and must be lodged with the Bond Centre within the statutory time limit to protect the tenants’ interests. Lodging a bond is not a conditional obligation but a mandatory one and it is in the public interest that landlords fulfil their obligations under the Act. If no penalty is imposed there can be no deterrent.

The failure to lodge the bond must be intentional for exemplary damages to be awarded. Therefore, damages will not be awarded where non-lodgement is a genuine oversight, rather than an intentional act (Chief Executive for Housing New Zealand v Walls [1993] NZTT Auckland 548/92).

However, the Tribunal may draw an inference of intent where the landlord claims to have simply forgotten, as a landlord should have systems in place to ensure this does not happen. Exemplary damages have been awarded where: the landlord has no explanation for the non-lodgement and has other tenancies (Jones v Ying [2001] NZTT Auckland 2783/01); the landlord is experienced (Hart v Allen Realty Ltd [2003] NZTT Auckland 2183/02); and where the landlord knew of the obligation from the bond form signed by the tenant (Fu v Florendo [2013] DC Manukau, CIV-2013-092-2373).

The landlord said in evidence that the payment of the bond was “...a personal contract between us and nobody needs to be involved. Some people call it trust.” That indicates to me that the landlord was well aware of his obligation as a landlord to lodge the bond, but made a conscious decision not to.

As noted above, the lodging of the bond with the Bond Centre is mandatory. The parties cannot opt out of it. It was in the best interest of this tenant and in the interests of tenants generally to have bond money held by an independent body.

Taking those factors into account, the landlord is ordered to pay exemplary damages of $500.00.

The tenant applied to have any overpayment of rent repaid. The tenant was unable to produce any evidence in support of the claim. A deceased tenant will in general terms remain liable for a period of 21 days after the date on which the personal representative or next of kin gives the landlord written notice of the death of the tenant. The claim is dismissed.

The tenant has been substantially successful in this matter and the landlord is ordered to reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4917139 — net $520.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages	$500.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$520.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$520.44

Order

Marco Meister must pay The Estate of Graeme Mitchell Dick (A.K.A Hamish Mitchell) $520.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended this video hearing on 22 October 2024. Suzanne Dick appeared as the next of kin of the deceased tenant.
The matter had been part heard on 22 August 2024. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear this matter was confirmed in that earlier order as well as the matters to be considered today.
The Estate of Graeme Mitchell Dick (A.K.A Hamish Mitchell) 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 accepts the tenant paid a bond to him and that it was not lodged with the bond centre. The landlord says that the bond money was repaid to the tenant prior to the tenant’s death on 12 February 2024. I accept that evidence and no further bond is required to be repaid.
I find that in failing to lodge the bond however, 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) RTA).
A bond is the tenants’ money and must be lodged with the Bond Centre within the statutory time limit to protect the tenants’ interests. Lodging a bond is not a conditional obligation but a mandatory one and it is in the public interest that landlords fulfil their obligations under the Act. If no penalty is imposed there can be no deterrent.
The failure to lodge the bond must be intentional for exemplary damages to be awarded. Therefore, damages will not be awarded where non-lodgement is a genuine oversight, rather than an intentional act (Chief Executive for Housing New Zealand v Walls [1993] NZTT Auckland 548/92).
However, the Tribunal may draw an inference of intent where the landlord claims to have simply forgotten, as a landlord should have systems in place to ensure this does not happen. Exemplary damages have been awarded where: the landlord has no explanation for the non-lodgement and has other tenancies (Jones v Ying [2001] NZTT Auckland 2783/01); the landlord is experienced (Hart v Allen Realty Ltd [2003] NZTT Auckland 2183/02); and where the landlord knew of the obligation from the bond form signed by the tenant (Fu v Florendo [2013] DC Manukau, CIV-2013-092-2373).
The landlord said in evidence that the payment of the bond was “...a personal contract between us and nobody needs to be involved. Some people call it trust.” That indicates to me that the landlord was well aware of his obligation as a landlord to lodge the bond, but made a conscious decision not to.
As noted above, the lodging of the bond with the Bond Centre is mandatory. The parties cannot opt out of it. It was in the best interest of this tenant and in the interests of tenants generally to have bond money held by an independent body.
Taking those factors into account, the landlord is ordered to pay exemplary damages of $500.00.
The tenant applied to have any overpayment of rent repaid. The tenant was unable to produce any evidence in support of the claim. A deceased tenant will in general terms remain liable for a period of 21 days after the date on which the personal representative or next of kin gives the landlord written notice of the death of the tenant. The claim is dismissed.
The tenant has been substantially successful in this matter and the landlord is ordered to reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4917139 — Exemplary damages at 173A Queen Victoria Street, Motueka, Motueka 7120

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4917139 — Exemplary damages at 173A Queen Victoria Street, Motueka, Motueka 7120

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions