What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4964157?

The tribunal order states: Aaron Li must pay Wendy Jean Oakwood and Christopher Cruz $527.00

How much money was awarded in case 4964157?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4964157?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4964157?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11287565-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4964157?

The tribunal order states: Aaron Li must pay Wendy Jean Oakwood and Christopher Cruz $527.00

How much money was awarded in case 4964157?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4964157?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4964157?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11287565-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 3, 2 Prebble Place, Mission Bay, Auckland 1071 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4964157 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4964157 — net $527.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages for failing to lodge bond	$500.00	Exemplary damages for failing to lodge bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$527.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$527.00

Order

Aaron Li must pay Wendy Jean Oakwood and Christopher Cruz $527.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionTenant Exemplary damages for failing to lodge bond$500.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$527.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant$527.00
All other claims are dismissed

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the tenant against the landlord. There were three aspect to the claim, being: a. Refund of bond b. Exemplary damages for failing to lodge the bond; and c. Water charges.
I convened a hearing on 10 January 2025. Mr Cruz attended in person, and Mr Li by telephone from overseas.
I will consider the claims in turn: Refund of bond
The tenant has received some of his bond back from the landlord directly. The tenant agreed that a proportion of the bond should go to rent, however the tenant considers that the portion of bond returned was short (but the landlord disagrees that is the case).
In any event, at the hearing the tenant agreed that he would not pursue this claim. The tenant states that the difference between the parties assessment of the correct bond refund was quite small, and he was not prepared otherwise to advance this claim.
In effect, the tenant withdraw this claim at the hearing, so that is the end of any dispute over the amount of the bond refunded. Exemplary damages for failing to lodge the bond
The tenant claims exemplary damages on the basis that the landlord has breached section 19 of the RTA, for failing to lodge the bond with the Chief Executive.
Section 19 of the RTA sets out the “Duties of landlord on receipt of bond”, and confirms that the landlord: shall, within 23 working days after the payment is made, forward the amount received to the chief executive, together with a statement of particulars in the approved form signed by the landlord and the tenant.
For the purposes of this provision, the bond is considered to be lodged with the Chief Executive, by lodging the bond with the Bond Centre.
Section 19(2) of the RTA confirms that failure to lodge the bond following the section 19 requirements, is declared to be an unlawful Act, and therefore could be the subject of an order of exemplary damages.
In this case, there is no dispute between the parties that the bond was paid by the tenant prior to the tenancy starting, and that it was not lodged with the Bond Centre. The landlord has to be fair, accepted he has breached his obligations around the bond.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the RTA.
Section 109 relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the Act, which for a failure to lodge the bond, is $1,500.00.
Taking those factors into consideration, I consider that exemplary damages should be ordered. The landlord has not persuaded me that his decision making around failing to lodge the bond was not intentional. The landlord states that he was distracted around the time the bond was paid. It is well known that bonds need to be lodged with the Bond Centre, bonds are tenant’s funds and landlords cannot lawfully hold them outside the 23 working day period after receipt. There was a strong interest for the tenant in having his bond kept securely in the Bond Centre, which it was not, and similarly there is a strong interest for landlords and the public generally, to have a strong and compliant bond system. That relies on bonds being lodged. In this case I consider it would be just to make an order of exemplary damages.
As I explained at the hearing today, the maximum level of exemplary damages for failing to lodge the bond is $1,500.00, but in this case I consider an order at one-third of the maximum would be reasonable, given the evidence before me. That is ordered. Water rates
A dispute arose between the parties, as to liability for water rates. The landlord claimed water charges, but the position taken by the tenant, is that given the premises were not separately metered and as the water supply was shared with other dwellings, that the landlord was not able to charge water costs.
However, it is the case that there is no application before the Tribunal from the landlord, seeking to have the water rates ordered. I express no view in relation to the tenant’s liability to pay the water charges, any such consideration will need to be made under an application from the landlord, seeking those amounts to be paid. At this time, any discussion around liability for water would be academic, and the Tribunal does not adjudicate academic issues.
Accordingly this claim is dismissed, but I record for completeness, that again I am expressing no view as to the merits, if the landlord files an application seeking the water charges, then the Tribunal would consider the matter at that time. Filing fee
Because the tenant has been substantially successful in his claim, I order that the landlord reimburse the filing fee paid to commence this proceeding.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4964157 — net $527.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages for failing to lodge bond	$500.00	Exemplary damages for failing to lodge bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$527.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$527.00

Order

Aaron Li must pay Wendy Jean Oakwood and Christopher Cruz $527.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionTenant Exemplary damages for failing to lodge bond$500.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$527.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant$527.00
All other claims are dismissed

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the tenant against the landlord. There were three aspect to the claim, being: a. Refund of bond b. Exemplary damages for failing to lodge the bond; and c. Water charges.
I convened a hearing on 10 January 2025. Mr Cruz attended in person, and Mr Li by telephone from overseas.
I will consider the claims in turn: Refund of bond
The tenant has received some of his bond back from the landlord directly. The tenant agreed that a proportion of the bond should go to rent, however the tenant considers that the portion of bond returned was short (but the landlord disagrees that is the case).
In any event, at the hearing the tenant agreed that he would not pursue this claim. The tenant states that the difference between the parties assessment of the correct bond refund was quite small, and he was not prepared otherwise to advance this claim.
In effect, the tenant withdraw this claim at the hearing, so that is the end of any dispute over the amount of the bond refunded. Exemplary damages for failing to lodge the bond
The tenant claims exemplary damages on the basis that the landlord has breached section 19 of the RTA, for failing to lodge the bond with the Chief Executive.
Section 19 of the RTA sets out the “Duties of landlord on receipt of bond”, and confirms that the landlord: shall, within 23 working days after the payment is made, forward the amount received to the chief executive, together with a statement of particulars in the approved form signed by the landlord and the tenant.
For the purposes of this provision, the bond is considered to be lodged with the Chief Executive, by lodging the bond with the Bond Centre.
Section 19(2) of the RTA confirms that failure to lodge the bond following the section 19 requirements, is declared to be an unlawful Act, and therefore could be the subject of an order of exemplary damages.
In this case, there is no dispute between the parties that the bond was paid by the tenant prior to the tenancy starting, and that it was not lodged with the Bond Centre. The landlord has to be fair, accepted he has breached his obligations around the bond.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the RTA.
Section 109 relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the Act, which for a failure to lodge the bond, is $1,500.00.
Taking those factors into consideration, I consider that exemplary damages should be ordered. The landlord has not persuaded me that his decision making around failing to lodge the bond was not intentional. The landlord states that he was distracted around the time the bond was paid. It is well known that bonds need to be lodged with the Bond Centre, bonds are tenant’s funds and landlords cannot lawfully hold them outside the 23 working day period after receipt. There was a strong interest for the tenant in having his bond kept securely in the Bond Centre, which it was not, and similarly there is a strong interest for landlords and the public generally, to have a strong and compliant bond system. That relies on bonds being lodged. In this case I consider it would be just to make an order of exemplary damages.
As I explained at the hearing today, the maximum level of exemplary damages for failing to lodge the bond is $1,500.00, but in this case I consider an order at one-third of the maximum would be reasonable, given the evidence before me. That is ordered. Water rates
A dispute arose between the parties, as to liability for water rates. The landlord claimed water charges, but the position taken by the tenant, is that given the premises were not separately metered and as the water supply was shared with other dwellings, that the landlord was not able to charge water costs.
However, it is the case that there is no application before the Tribunal from the landlord, seeking to have the water rates ordered. I express no view in relation to the tenant’s liability to pay the water charges, any such consideration will need to be made under an application from the landlord, seeking those amounts to be paid. At this time, any discussion around liability for water would be academic, and the Tribunal does not adjudicate academic issues.
Accordingly this claim is dismissed, but I record for completeness, that again I am expressing no view as to the merits, if the landlord files an application seeking the water charges, then the Tribunal would consider the matter at that time. Filing fee
Because the tenant has been substantially successful in his claim, I order that the landlord reimburse the filing fee paid to commence this proceeding.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4964157 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 3, 2 Prebble Place, Mission Bay, Auckland 1071

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4964157 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 3, 2 Prebble Place, Mission Bay, Auckland 1071

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