What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5100608?

The tribunal order states: Anna Champney must pay Lena Tran $1,027.00 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5100608?

Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5100608?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5100608?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11429516-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5100608?

The tribunal order states: Anna Champney must pay Lena Tran $1,027.00 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5100608?

Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5100608?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5100608?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11429516-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room 312, 421 Queen Street, Auckland Central, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5100608 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5100608 — net $1,027.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failing to lodge bond	$1,000.00	Failing to lodge bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,027.00
Bond	$380.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,027.00

Order

Anna Champney must pay Lena Tran $1,027.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $380.00 (6551305-006) to Lena Tran immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 4 th February 2025.
The tenant applied for refund of the bond and exemplary damages for the landlord not lodging the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
The landlord made a cross-application seeking general compensation on behalf of the other tenants and cleaning costs. 5100608, 51216482 Background
The tenancy was originally for a fixed term from 14 th July 2024 until 14 th October 2024.
The tenancy was for a single room in a three-bedroom apartment in the CBD.
There were two other tenants living in the other two rooms.
The apartment was of a relatively modest size, totalling 41 square metres. The three tenants had a single bathroom to share between them.
During the tenancy, the other two tenants complained to the landlord about their loss of quiet enjoyment of the bathroom and noises coming from this tenant’s room. The other tenants also complained about this tenant or her guest having smoked cannabis at the premises.
On 21 st September 2024, the landlord told the tenant that she needs to leave the following day as she had broken the law of smoking drugs, that her boyfriend was living there which was a breach of the contract and that they made noises upsetting the other tenants.
The tenant rightfully sent the landlord a link from the Tenancy Services website informing the landlord that she could not simply kick her out overnight.
On 29 th September 2024, by agreement the tenant moved out.
The landlord also said that when the tenant left, she did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The tenant had paid a bond of $380.00 to the landlord. The landlord refused to release the bond to the tenant citing the issues mentioned above.
It was only when the tenant had requested her bond back using a 14-day notice on 4 th October 2024, the landlord lodged the bond with the Bond Centre on 10 th October 2024. The tenant’s application
Before I consider the tenant’s application, I make an observation that this tenancy was filled with flaws and unlawful acts by the landlord.
Firstly, it would be virtually impossible to ensure that the tenants are able to have quiet enjoyment of the premises with having three separate adult tenants living in a small apartment sharing a single bathroom.
Although a tenant must not cause or permit interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the landlord's other tenants or of anyone else living in the neighbourhood (see section 40(2)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”)), every tenant is entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises and the landlord must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable 5100608, 51216483 peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant (see section 38 RTA).
No tenant can be guaranteed quiet enjoyment of the premises if they are renting a single small room in a small apartment sharing a bathroom.
Secondly, the tenancy agreement itself was unlawful.
The tenancy agreement signed by the parties was a custom-made agreement that purported to be an official “Tenancy Services Residential Tenancies Agreement”. However, it is clear that it had been altered from the official form as the form has unlawful clauses such as a letting fee.
The tenancy agreement did not have the legally required contents under section 13A RTA and had no reference to insulation, insurance or the Healthy Homes Standards.
It also stipulated “house rules” that would not be enforceable and included conditions such as a $20.00 penalty fee for not cleaning the common areas.
During the tenancy, there was a time when the landlord essentially told the tenant off for taking a heater from the lounge into her own room and for her using too much electricity.
Thirdly, the landlord tried to terminate the fixed-term tenancy without proper grounds and fourthly, did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
If the tenant had applied for exemplary damages based on everything above, more could have been granted in the tenant’s favour.
As the tenant had only sought for exemplary damages for not lodging the bond in time, I will consider that unlawful act only for the exemplary damages.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) RTA.
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 RTA.
There is no dispute that the landlord did not lodge the bond within the required time. 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.
The landlord explained that she had not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre as the tenant was initially unsure that she would stay until the end of the 5100608, 51216484 tenancy. Oddly, the “fixed-term tenancy” included a clause where the tenant could terminate the tenancy with two weeks’ notice.
The landlord said that the tenant only confirmed that she would stay for the entire duration of the tenancy on 18 th August 2024 but that was already 25 working days since the bond had been received.
The bond was only sent to the Bond Centre on 7 th October 2024 after the tenant gave the landlord an official 14-day notice. This was more than a week after the tenant had already moved out.
Before the tenant gave her 14-day notice to request the bond, the landlord had told the tenant that she would not get her bond back for various reasons. Having the bond held at the Bond Centre is designed to avoid this exact situation of power-imbalance.
At the hearing, the landlord confirmed that she had not lodged the bond of the other two remaining tenants despite them having lived there longer than this tenant. The landlord tried to explain that they were more like friends. I cannot see how that is a valid reason for not lodging the bond with the Bond Centre.
I find that tenant has proven that the landlord had intentionally breached her obligation by not sending the bond to the Bond Centre within the required time. The tenant should not have been subjected to the abuse of power by the landlord and there is public interest in denouncing such behaviour.
This is a serious breach. I order the landlord to pay the tenant $1,000.00 as exemplary damages for failing to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre. The landlord’s cross-application
The landlord tried to make general compensation claims on behalf of the other tenants living at the address.
The other tenants have no standing in a case between this tenant and the landlord.
Therefore, the general compensation claim is not considered.
I also do not find that this tenant has caused interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the other tenants in any case. This tenant had simply used the spaces provided and it was the tenant’s right to use the space as she did.
It is correct that the tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for any unlawful purpose. Smoking marijuana is an unlawful purpose which is an unlawful act.
However, the tenant denied smoking marijuana herself and she said that she was unfamiliar with what her guest had been smoking. 5100608, 51216485
I do not find that the tenant had intentionally used the premises or permitted the premises to be used for any unlawful purpose.
In relation to cleaning fees of $190.00 sought by the landlord, having seen the photos I do not find that it is such that warrants any compensation awarded for the landlord given that the “mess” left by the tenant was minimal.
As such, I dismiss the landlord’s application.
Therefore, I order the bond held at the Bond Centre to be refunded to the tenant.
Also, as the tenant had wholly succeeded with this application, the landlord must reimburse the tenant’s filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5100608 — net $1,027.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failing to lodge bond	$1,000.00	Failing to lodge bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,027.00
Bond	$380.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,027.00

Order

Anna Champney must pay Lena Tran $1,027.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $380.00 (6551305-006) to Lena Tran immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 4 th February 2025.
The tenant applied for refund of the bond and exemplary damages for the landlord not lodging the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
The landlord made a cross-application seeking general compensation on behalf of the other tenants and cleaning costs. 5100608, 51216482 Background
The tenancy was originally for a fixed term from 14 th July 2024 until 14 th October 2024.
The tenancy was for a single room in a three-bedroom apartment in the CBD.
There were two other tenants living in the other two rooms.
The apartment was of a relatively modest size, totalling 41 square metres. The three tenants had a single bathroom to share between them.
During the tenancy, the other two tenants complained to the landlord about their loss of quiet enjoyment of the bathroom and noises coming from this tenant’s room. The other tenants also complained about this tenant or her guest having smoked cannabis at the premises.
On 21 st September 2024, the landlord told the tenant that she needs to leave the following day as she had broken the law of smoking drugs, that her boyfriend was living there which was a breach of the contract and that they made noises upsetting the other tenants.
The tenant rightfully sent the landlord a link from the Tenancy Services website informing the landlord that she could not simply kick her out overnight.
On 29 th September 2024, by agreement the tenant moved out.
The landlord also said that when the tenant left, she did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The tenant had paid a bond of $380.00 to the landlord. The landlord refused to release the bond to the tenant citing the issues mentioned above.
It was only when the tenant had requested her bond back using a 14-day notice on 4 th October 2024, the landlord lodged the bond with the Bond Centre on 10 th October 2024. The tenant’s application
Before I consider the tenant’s application, I make an observation that this tenancy was filled with flaws and unlawful acts by the landlord.
Firstly, it would be virtually impossible to ensure that the tenants are able to have quiet enjoyment of the premises with having three separate adult tenants living in a small apartment sharing a single bathroom.
Although a tenant must not cause or permit interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the landlord's other tenants or of anyone else living in the neighbourhood (see section 40(2)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”)), every tenant is entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises and the landlord must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable 5100608, 51216483 peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant (see section 38 RTA).
No tenant can be guaranteed quiet enjoyment of the premises if they are renting a single small room in a small apartment sharing a bathroom.
Secondly, the tenancy agreement itself was unlawful.
The tenancy agreement signed by the parties was a custom-made agreement that purported to be an official “Tenancy Services Residential Tenancies Agreement”. However, it is clear that it had been altered from the official form as the form has unlawful clauses such as a letting fee.
The tenancy agreement did not have the legally required contents under section 13A RTA and had no reference to insulation, insurance or the Healthy Homes Standards.
It also stipulated “house rules” that would not be enforceable and included conditions such as a $20.00 penalty fee for not cleaning the common areas.
During the tenancy, there was a time when the landlord essentially told the tenant off for taking a heater from the lounge into her own room and for her using too much electricity.
Thirdly, the landlord tried to terminate the fixed-term tenancy without proper grounds and fourthly, did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
If the tenant had applied for exemplary damages based on everything above, more could have been granted in the tenant’s favour.
As the tenant had only sought for exemplary damages for not lodging the bond in time, I will consider that unlawful act only for the exemplary damages.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) RTA.
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 RTA.
There is no dispute that the landlord did not lodge the bond within the required time. 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.
The landlord explained that she had not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre as the tenant was initially unsure that she would stay until the end of the 5100608, 51216484 tenancy. Oddly, the “fixed-term tenancy” included a clause where the tenant could terminate the tenancy with two weeks’ notice.
The landlord said that the tenant only confirmed that she would stay for the entire duration of the tenancy on 18 th August 2024 but that was already 25 working days since the bond had been received.
The bond was only sent to the Bond Centre on 7 th October 2024 after the tenant gave the landlord an official 14-day notice. This was more than a week after the tenant had already moved out.
Before the tenant gave her 14-day notice to request the bond, the landlord had told the tenant that she would not get her bond back for various reasons. Having the bond held at the Bond Centre is designed to avoid this exact situation of power-imbalance.
At the hearing, the landlord confirmed that she had not lodged the bond of the other two remaining tenants despite them having lived there longer than this tenant. The landlord tried to explain that they were more like friends. I cannot see how that is a valid reason for not lodging the bond with the Bond Centre.
I find that tenant has proven that the landlord had intentionally breached her obligation by not sending the bond to the Bond Centre within the required time. The tenant should not have been subjected to the abuse of power by the landlord and there is public interest in denouncing such behaviour.
This is a serious breach. I order the landlord to pay the tenant $1,000.00 as exemplary damages for failing to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre. The landlord’s cross-application
The landlord tried to make general compensation claims on behalf of the other tenants living at the address.
The other tenants have no standing in a case between this tenant and the landlord.
Therefore, the general compensation claim is not considered.
I also do not find that this tenant has caused interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the other tenants in any case. This tenant had simply used the spaces provided and it was the tenant’s right to use the space as she did.
It is correct that the tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for any unlawful purpose. Smoking marijuana is an unlawful purpose which is an unlawful act.
However, the tenant denied smoking marijuana herself and she said that she was unfamiliar with what her guest had been smoking. 5100608, 51216485
I do not find that the tenant had intentionally used the premises or permitted the premises to be used for any unlawful purpose.
In relation to cleaning fees of $190.00 sought by the landlord, having seen the photos I do not find that it is such that warrants any compensation awarded for the landlord given that the “mess” left by the tenant was minimal.
As such, I dismiss the landlord’s application.
Therefore, I order the bond held at the Bond Centre to be refunded to the tenant.
Also, as the tenant had wholly succeeded with this application, the landlord must reimburse the tenant’s filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5100608 — Exemplary damages at Room 312, 421 Queen Street, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5100608 — Exemplary damages at Room 312, 421 Queen Street, Auckland Central, Auckland

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