What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4926636?

The tribunal order states: Neel Avery must pay Shika Shivanjali Ram and Sheenal Sriya Kumar $2,653.75

How much money was awarded in case 4926636?

Cleaning: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Electricity: $126.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4926636?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4926636?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10871980-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4926636?

The tribunal order states: Neel Avery must pay Shika Shivanjali Ram and Sheenal Sriya Kumar $2,653.75

How much money was awarded in case 4926636?

Cleaning: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Electricity: $126.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4926636?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4926636?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10871980-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

66 Zelda Avenue, Clover Park, Auckland 2023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4926636 — Exemplary damages

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4926636 — net $2,653.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$180.00		Carpet Cleaning
Electricity	$126.25		Electricity
Release bond		$2,460.00	Release bond
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond		$500.00	Failure to lodge bond
Total award	$306.25	$2,960.00
Net award		$2,653.75
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$2,653.75

The tenant attended this video hearing.

The landlord did not attend the hearing by Teams video link. Telephone calls were made to the landlord at the allocated hearing time on the number provided. All calls went to voicemail. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing had been given. I am satisfied that notice of the hearing was given.

This matter was part heard at a mediation hearing on 13 August 2024.The mediator recorded an agreement between the parties for payment by the tenant of carpet cleaning ($180.00) and electricity costs ($126.25). The tenant is ordered to pay those sums to the landlord.

The issues remaining to be considered by the Tribunal were; • Release of the bond. • Exemplary damages for failure to lodge the bond. • Painting costs and rent arrears.

Importantly, the mediator’s order confirms that the landlord was to lodge an application with Tenancy Services outlining his claims to the bond. The landlord has failed to lodge a claim with Tenancy Services.

Section 22B(2) 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. As the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenant.

The tenant claims the landlord failed to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the required period.

A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received (see s.19(1) RTA). This applies whether the bond is paid in part or whole.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00 (see s 19(2) and Schedule 1A RTA.

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 has committed an unlawful act. The landlord has not provided any reasons for his failure to lodge the bond. Exemplary damages of $500.00 are awarded to the tenant.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4926636 — net $2,653.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$180.00		Carpet Cleaning
Electricity	$126.25		Electricity
Release bond		$2,460.00	Release bond
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond		$500.00	Failure to lodge bond
Total award	$306.25	$2,960.00
Net award		$2,653.75
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$2,653.75

Order

Neel Avery must pay Shika Shivanjali Ram and Sheenal Sriya Kumar $2,653.75 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

The tenant attended this video hearing.
The landlord did not attend the hearing by Teams video link. Telephone calls were made to the landlord at the allocated hearing time on the number provided. All calls went to voicemail. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing had been given. I am satisfied that notice of the hearing was given.
This matter was part heard at a mediation hearing on 13 August 2024.The mediator recorded an agreement between the parties for payment by the tenant of carpet cleaning ($180.00) and electricity costs ($126.25). The tenant is ordered to pay those sums to the landlord.
The issues remaining to be considered by the Tribunal were; • Release of the bond. • Exemplary damages for failure to lodge the bond. • Painting costs and rent arrears.
Importantly, the mediator’s order confirms that the landlord was to lodge an application with Tenancy Services outlining his claims to the bond. The landlord has failed to lodge a claim with Tenancy Services.
Section 22B(2) 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. As the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenant.
The tenant claims the landlord failed to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the required period.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received (see s.19(1) RTA). This applies whether the bond is paid in part or whole.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00 (see s 19(2) and Schedule 1A RTA.
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 has committed an unlawful act. The landlord has not provided any reasons for his failure to lodge the bond. Exemplary damages of $500.00 are awarded to the tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4926636 — Exemplary damages at 66 Zelda Avenue, Clover Park, Auckland 2023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4926636 — Exemplary damages at 66 Zelda Avenue, Clover Park, Auckland 2023

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