What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4920257?

The tribunal order states: Pete Watson and Philip Lewellyn Giles are jointly and severally liable for, and

How much money was awarded in case 4920257?

Compensation: Bond Refund: $1,400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4920257?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4920257?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10795496-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4920257?

The tribunal order states: Pete Watson and Philip Lewellyn Giles are jointly and severally liable for, and

How much money was awarded in case 4920257?

Compensation: Bond Refund: $1,400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4920257?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4920257?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10795496-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

424 Old Te Atatu Road, Te Atatu Peninsula, Auckland 0610, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4920257 — Exemplary damages

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4920257 — net $2,170.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Bond refund	$1,400.00	Bond refund
Exemplary damages: Not lodging bond	$750.00	Not lodging bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,170.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,170.44

Lavinia Nonu and Pete Watson both attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. Philip Lewellyn Giles was called at the scheduled time on the telephone number provided to the Tribunal but he did not answer.

Lavinia Nonu 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.

Ms Nonu stated that when the tenancy began on 21 September 2018, WINZ paid the $1,400.00 bond directly to Philip Lewellyn Giles. Ms Nonu provided the agreement she signed with WINZ on 19 September 2018, for this to happen.

During the tenancy Philip Lewellyn Giles sold the property to Pete Watson.

When the tenancy ended on 26 May 2024, Ms Nonu applied to the Bond Centre to have her bond refunded. The Bond Centre advised her that a bond had never been lodged in her name or for that address. The conclusion I draw is that Philip Lewellyn Giles did not lodge the bond for this tenancy with the Bond Centre. I find Philip Lewellyn Giles 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.

Failing to lodge a bond is a serious breach of a landlord’s obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986. A bond is a tenant’s money that is being held as security against the tenancy. Not lodging a bond undermines the confidence society is entitled to have in the business of residential tenancies. In this case it has serious direct consequences. I consider $750.00 to be a moderate to high amount of exemplary damages to be awarded against a landlord for a first breach of this section.

When a bond is being held by the Residential Tenancies Trust Account, section 21A of the RTA requires a landlord to notify the Chief Executive of either a change in the landlord’s particulars, or a change in the landlord’s interest in the tenancy agreement.

Mr Watson stated that he had presumed the bond had been lodged with the Tribunal [sic].

When Mr Watson purchased the property in question, he inherited the tenancy and the landlord’s liabilities that go with the tenancy. If Mr Watson had complied with his obligations under section 21A of the RTA at the time that he purchased the property, he would have likely discerned the problem within a timeframe in which he could have addressed the issue with the vendor. In not doing so Mr Watson disabused himself of the opportunity to remedy a problem that was his as the landlord, and not Ms Nonu’s as the tenant.

For the above reasons, I determine that Mr Watson is personally liable for refunding Ms Nonu’s bond.

Because Lavinia Nonu has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4920257 — net $2,170.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Bond refund	$1,400.00	Bond refund
Exemplary damages: Not lodging bond	$750.00	Not lodging bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,170.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,170.44

Order

Pete Watson and Philip Lewellyn Giles are jointly and severally liable for, and must pay Lavinia Nonu $1,420.44 immediately as refund for the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
Phillip Lewellyn Giles must pay Lavinia Nonu $750.00 immediately in exemplary damages.

Reasons

Lavinia Nonu and Pete Watson both attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. Philip Lewellyn Giles was called at the scheduled time on the telephone number provided to the Tribunal but he did not answer.
Lavinia Nonu 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.
Ms Nonu stated that when the tenancy began on 21 September 2018, WINZ paid the $1,400.00 bond directly to Philip Lewellyn Giles. Ms Nonu provided the agreement she signed with WINZ on 19 September 2018, for this to happen.
During the tenancy Philip Lewellyn Giles sold the property to Pete Watson.
When the tenancy ended on 26 May 2024, Ms Nonu applied to the Bond Centre to have her bond refunded. The Bond Centre advised her that a bond had never been lodged in her name or for that address. The conclusion I draw is that Philip Lewellyn Giles did not lodge the bond for this tenancy with the Bond Centre. I find Philip Lewellyn Giles 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.
Failing to lodge a bond is a serious breach of a landlord’s obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986. A bond is a tenant’s money that is being held as security against the tenancy. Not lodging a bond undermines the confidence society is entitled to have in the business of residential tenancies. In this case it has serious direct consequences. I consider $750.00 to be a moderate to high amount of exemplary damages to be awarded against a landlord for a first breach of this section.
When a bond is being held by the Residential Tenancies Trust Account, section 21A of the RTA requires a landlord to notify the Chief Executive of either a change in the landlord’s particulars, or a change in the landlord’s interest in the tenancy agreement.
Mr Watson stated that he had presumed the bond had been lodged with the Tribunal [sic].
When Mr Watson purchased the property in question, he inherited the tenancy and the landlord’s liabilities that go with the tenancy. If Mr Watson had complied with his obligations under section 21A of the RTA at the time that he purchased the property, he would have likely discerned the problem within a timeframe in which he could have addressed the issue with the vendor. In not doing so Mr Watson disabused himself of the opportunity to remedy a problem that was his as the landlord, and not Ms Nonu’s as the tenant.
For the above reasons, I determine that Mr Watson is personally liable for refunding Ms Nonu’s bond.
Because Lavinia Nonu has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4920257 — Exemplary damages at 424 Old Te Atatu Road, Te Atatu Peninsula, Auckland 0610,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4920257 — Exemplary damages at 424 Old Te Atatu Road, Te Atatu Peninsula, Auckland 0610,

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