What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5024088?

The tribunal order states: Onil Gulati Trustee Limited must pay Healthcare Of New Zealand Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5024088?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $5,250.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5024088?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5024088?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11181371-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5024088?

The tribunal order states: Onil Gulati Trustee Limited must pay Healthcare Of New Zealand Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5024088?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $5,250.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5024088?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5024088?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11181371-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

12 Polo Prince Drive, Totara Park, RD 1, Auckland 2576 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5024088 — Rent arrears

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5024088 — net $10,477.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$5,250.00	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Bond (with landlord	$5,200.00	Bond (with landlord
Net award	$10,477.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$10,477.00

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via teleconference.

The tenant has applied for refund of the bond, return of overpaid rent and the filing fee. The landlord did not dispute the claims and has committed to paying the full amount early next week.

The landlord has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.

Section 22B RTA provides: (1) If there is a dispute between the parties as to the payment of a bond, either party may apply to the Tribunal for an order determining to whom the bond, or any part of it, is to be paid. (2) If the tenant applies to the Tribunal and the landlord seeks payment of the bond in whole or in part, the landlord must file an application with the Tribunal that sets out the landlord’s counterclaim.

The requirement for the landlord to file a counterclaim is mandatory. Therefore, because the landlord has not done so, the bond is refunded in full to the tenant. This does not prevent the landlord from filing a claim against the tenant at a later date. It just means that, if the landlord’s claim is successful, there is no bond to put towards any monetary award made. Rent overpaid

Rent of $5,250.00 was overpaid and is returned by consent. Bond not lodged

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986). 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 explained the failure to lodge the bond in this instance as an administrative oversight. He acknowledged the landlord is experienced and manages a number of residential tenancies. There is no record of prior failures and I accept in this instance the failure was not intentional and make no order for exemplary damages. I record the circumstances here as a public record in case of any future such failures. Filing fee

Because Healthcare Of New Zealand Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5024088 — net $10,477.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$5,250.00	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Bond (with landlord	$5,200.00	Bond (with landlord
Net award	$10,477.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$10,477.00

Order

Onil Gulati Trustee Limited must pay Healthcare Of New Zealand Limited $10,477.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via teleconference.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond, return of overpaid rent and the filing fee. The landlord did not dispute the claims and has committed to paying the full amount early next week.
The landlord has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.
Section 22B RTA provides: (1) If there is a dispute between the parties as to the payment of a bond, either party may apply to the Tribunal for an order determining to whom the bond, or any part of it, is to be paid. (2) If the tenant applies to the Tribunal and the landlord seeks payment of the bond in whole or in part, the landlord must file an application with the Tribunal that sets out the landlord’s counterclaim.
The requirement for the landlord to file a counterclaim is mandatory. Therefore, because the landlord has not done so, the bond is refunded in full to the tenant. This does not prevent the landlord from filing a claim against the tenant at a later date. It just means that, if the landlord’s claim is successful, there is no bond to put towards any monetary award made. Rent overpaid
Rent of $5,250.00 was overpaid and is returned by consent. Bond not lodged
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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986). 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 explained the failure to lodge the bond in this instance as an administrative oversight. He acknowledged the landlord is experienced and manages a number of residential tenancies. There is no record of prior failures and I accept in this instance the failure was not intentional and make no order for exemplary damages. I record the circumstances here as a public record in case of any future such failures. Filing fee
Because Healthcare Of New Zealand Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5024088 — Rent arrears at 12 Polo Prince Drive, Totara Park, RD 1, Auckland 2576

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5024088 — Rent arrears at 12 Polo Prince Drive, Totara Park, RD 1, Auckland 2576

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