What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5110348?

The tribunal order states: Ali Anwaryar must pay Lily Pritchard-Davis $940.27 immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 5110348?

Property Damage: $375.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Outgoings: $204.60 awarded to landlord; Rent: $1,485.71 awarded to landlord; Rent 4 Days As Agreed In Tenancy Agr…: $371.42 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5110348?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5110348?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11980440-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5110348?

The tribunal order states: Ali Anwaryar must pay Lily Pritchard-Davis $940.27 immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 5110348?

Property Damage: $375.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Outgoings: $204.60 awarded to landlord; Rent: $1,485.71 awarded to landlord; Rent 4 Days As Agreed In Tenancy Agr…: $371.42 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5110348?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5110348?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11980440-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

2A Lowtherhurst Road, Massey, Auckland 0614 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5110348 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5110348 — net $1,659.73 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent to 17 December 2024	$1,485.71		Rent to 17 December 2024
Rent 4 days as agreed in tenancy agreement	$371.42		Rent 4 days as agreed in tenancy agreement
Outgoings	$204.60		Outgoings
Exemplary damages for failure to lodge bond		$375.00	Exemplary damages for failure to lodge bond
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$2,061.73	$402.00
Net award	$1,659.73
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,659.73

Order

Ali Anwaryar must pay Lily Pritchard-Davis $940.27 immediately.
The bond of $2,600.00 held by the landlord has been apportioned as follows: Ali Anwaryar: $1,659.73 Lily Pritchard-Davis: $940.27

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video conference on 12 June 2025. Background
The parties signed a residential tenancy agreement for a fixed term from 28 June 2024 to 27 December 2024. The tenant vacated on 29 November 2024.
The rent was $650.00 per week. A bond of $2,600.00 was paid but not lodged with the Bond Centre.
O 18 December 2024 the tenant applied to the Tribunal for refund of the bond, exemplary damages for non-lodgement, breach of quiet enjoyment, and a declaration of non-liability for outgoings. Rent Arrears
At the beginning of the tenancy, it was agreed that, because the tenant was moving in four days prior to the start of a full rent week, four days rent would be deducted from the bond at the end of the tenancy. The parties calculated four days rent as $371.42. This would leave $2,228.58 of the bond remaining. The deduction was noted on the tenancy agreement.
There was correspondence between the parties about when the tenancy would end. On 19 November 2024 the tenant gave 28 days’ notice of termination and said she would be moving out on 29 November 2024. This meant the tenancy would end on 17 December 2024.
The correspondence is hard to decipher, but it seems there was a miscommunication between the parties. The landlord thought the tenant was trying to leave without paying rent for the full notice period. The tenant thought the landlord was reneging on previous statements promising to be flexible about the end date.
At the hearing it was clear the parties agreed the tenancy ended on 17 December 2024. It follows that the tenant was responsible for the rent until this date. Both parties agreed that the rent had been paid to 1 December 2024.
I find that the rent was paid to 1 December 2024. This means that the tenant owes 16 days’ rent at the daily rate of $92.86 ($1,485.71).
I find that the landlord is entitled to deduct $371.42 and $1,485.71 from the bond for rent, leaving a remaining balance of $742.87. Outgoings
The tenant explained that she paid utilities based on calculations from the landlord. The landlord had estimated what the tenant and another tenant who lived downstairs owed.
The landlord said copies of the invoices and meter readings along with calculations were provided to the tenant.
The landlord provided a power, gas and water summary, showing how the outgoings between 8 November 2024 and 8 December 2024 were calculated. The landlord calculated the power consumption for the upstairs and downstairs units individually, based on separate meter readings.
The claim for gas was based on a replacement LPG bottle with the cost shared between the upstairs and downstairs units.
There were no separate water meters for the upstairs and downstairs units. The final invoice was based on the actual consumption for water and wastewater less the fixed charges. The upstairs unit (the tenant) was charged 50% of the total cost.
I understood there to be a similar number of occupants in both the upstairs and downstairs apartments. It seems equitable to divide the water charges in two in the absence of separate meters. It would not be equitable to excuse the tenant from paying anything for outgoings, when she has had the benefit of these facilities.
I am not persuaded that there has been a breach of section 39 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) in the way the outgoings were calculated. The outcome is consistent with the substantial merits and justice of the case (section 85 of the Act and Geraghty v Jones [2019] NZDC 3813).
The total amount owing to the landlord for outgoings is $204.60. I find that the tenant is liable to pay this amount. Quiet Enjoyment
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00.
The District Court has said that harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person".
The tenant said the landlord made an unannounced visit to the property to perform repairs to the roof. This was disruptive because the tenant's daughter was having her daytime sleep. The tenant said she was not given at least 24 hours’ notice as required.
The landlord said the tenant asked him to check a blocked sink on 12 August 2024. He tried to unblock the sink and wanted to do some repairs to the roof. The next day the tenant texted telling him that he had not given 48 hours’ notice.
The landlord said he came down from the roof as soon as he received a text from the tenant saying her baby was sleeping, and he should come off the roof. Contrary to the tenant's evidence, the landlord said he did not ignore the tenant’s request, rather he had to pack up first. Since then, he had always given at least 24 hours’ notice.
A landlord is entitled to enter premises to perform necessary repairs or maintenance after giving 24 hours’ notice (section 48 of the Act). While the landlord has an obligation to give notice, the tenant then has an obligation to permit entry.
There is no breach of section 48 of the Act if the landlord enters with the consent of the tenant, freely given, at or immediately before entry. In this case, it is notable that the tenant’s request for maintenance stated that she was out in the morning but would be back around noon. The landlord went to the property at about 4.30pm. I consider that, implicitly, the landlord had been invited to attend to perform maintenance that afternoon. It was not suggested that the landlord had entered without permission. Further, according to the landlord, he stopped work on the roof when the tenant told him it was creating a disturbance. I find there has been no breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment.
The tenant explained that the landlord had approached her asking if she would be willing to donate her embryos to a couple who were trying to conceive. The tenant said this put her in an impossible situation because any refusal to help could have had negative consequences for her tenancy or references.
There is a message from the tenant dated 13 November 2024. The impression is that the tenant was considering the proposal: “If I decide to go ahead with this all I ask is that I be compensated for the length of this process and the donation of the eggs...”.
While this was no doubt a strange topic of conversation, it does not directly concern the landlord and tenant relationship. I am not satisfied that the landlord pressurised the tenant or made her rights under the tenancy in any way subject to her response. The landlord has provided the tenant with a reference. The tenant could have made it clear to the landlord that she did not want to discuss the matter. I find that there has been no breach of the Act. Bond Lodgement
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received.
Breaching this obligation is an “unlawful act” for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00.
The landlord did not lodge the bond and therefore, 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.
The tenant spoke about the hardship the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond had caused. She said it placed her in financial hardship. She could not pay her bills or groceries. She is still paying back the bond to WINZ.
It was really the failure to refund the bond at the end of the tenancy that caused the tenant hardship. Because the landlord had a claim against the bond, as soon as the tenant applied for a refund, the landlord was required to apply to the Tribunal so the dispute could be adjudicated (section 22B of the Act). That did not happen.
Probably because of their miscommunication, the parties could not agree on the amount of bond to be deducted for rent and outgoings. I view this as a neutral factor, involving a mutual misunderstanding.
This was the first time the landlord had rented out the property. The premises had just been built following a subdivision, and the landlord decided to rent the premises until they could be sold in a favourable market. The landlord said they had not previously owned a rental property.
Lodging the bond is a fundamental obligation for landlords and there is a strong public interest in landlords doing so. The landlord did not say they overlooked the requirement to lodge the bond. My impression from the landlord’s explanation was that there was a conscious decision not to lodge, possibly based on a misconception about the need to lodge a bond funded by WINZ.
The landlord said he had always been willing to refund the bond on payment of the outstanding rent arrears and water. That is consistent with an email he sent on 13 December 2024, in which he said the bond could be discussed once the rent and outgoings were paid. However, that is part of the reason why bonds must be lodged: it ensures the money is under the control of an independent third party and cannot be used as a bargaining counter.
In conclusion, the landlord’s failure caused the tenant distress and inconvenience. The landlord has not breached the obligation previously. The landlord did try to reach agreement on the amount of bond to be returned. I consider it would be just to award exemplary damages at a modest level. I award $375.00. Filing Fee
Both parties have had some success. The landlord ought to have filed an application against the bond as required by the Act, in which case the landlord would also have incurred a filing fee. I exercise my discretion in the tenant’s favour and reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5110348 — net $1,659.73 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent to 17 December 2024	$1,485.71		Rent to 17 December 2024
Rent 4 days as agreed in tenancy agreement	$371.42		Rent 4 days as agreed in tenancy agreement
Outgoings	$204.60		Outgoings
Exemplary damages for failure to lodge bond		$375.00	Exemplary damages for failure to lodge bond
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$2,061.73	$402.00
Net award	$1,659.73
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,659.73

Order

Ali Anwaryar must pay Lily Pritchard-Davis $940.27 immediately.
The bond of $2,600.00 held by the landlord has been apportioned as follows: Ali Anwaryar: $1,659.73 Lily Pritchard-Davis: $940.27

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video conference on 12 June 2025. Background
The parties signed a residential tenancy agreement for a fixed term from 28 June 2024 to 27 December 2024. The tenant vacated on 29 November 2024.
The rent was $650.00 per week. A bond of $2,600.00 was paid but not lodged with the Bond Centre.
O 18 December 2024 the tenant applied to the Tribunal for refund of the bond, exemplary damages for non-lodgement, breach of quiet enjoyment, and a declaration of non-liability for outgoings. Rent Arrears
At the beginning of the tenancy, it was agreed that, because the tenant was moving in four days prior to the start of a full rent week, four days rent would be deducted from the bond at the end of the tenancy. The parties calculated four days rent as $371.42. This would leave $2,228.58 of the bond remaining. The deduction was noted on the tenancy agreement.
There was correspondence between the parties about when the tenancy would end. On 19 November 2024 the tenant gave 28 days’ notice of termination and said she would be moving out on 29 November 2024. This meant the tenancy would end on 17 December 2024.
The correspondence is hard to decipher, but it seems there was a miscommunication between the parties. The landlord thought the tenant was trying to leave without paying rent for the full notice period. The tenant thought the landlord was reneging on previous statements promising to be flexible about the end date.
At the hearing it was clear the parties agreed the tenancy ended on 17 December 2024. It follows that the tenant was responsible for the rent until this date. Both parties agreed that the rent had been paid to 1 December 2024.
I find that the rent was paid to 1 December 2024. This means that the tenant owes 16 days’ rent at the daily rate of $92.86 ($1,485.71).
I find that the landlord is entitled to deduct $371.42 and $1,485.71 from the bond for rent, leaving a remaining balance of $742.87. Outgoings
The tenant explained that she paid utilities based on calculations from the landlord. The landlord had estimated what the tenant and another tenant who lived downstairs owed.
The landlord said copies of the invoices and meter readings along with calculations were provided to the tenant.
The landlord provided a power, gas and water summary, showing how the outgoings between 8 November 2024 and 8 December 2024 were calculated. The landlord calculated the power consumption for the upstairs and downstairs units individually, based on separate meter readings.
The claim for gas was based on a replacement LPG bottle with the cost shared between the upstairs and downstairs units.
There were no separate water meters for the upstairs and downstairs units. The final invoice was based on the actual consumption for water and wastewater less the fixed charges. The upstairs unit (the tenant) was charged 50% of the total cost.
I understood there to be a similar number of occupants in both the upstairs and downstairs apartments. It seems equitable to divide the water charges in two in the absence of separate meters. It would not be equitable to excuse the tenant from paying anything for outgoings, when she has had the benefit of these facilities.
I am not persuaded that there has been a breach of section 39 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) in the way the outgoings were calculated. The outcome is consistent with the substantial merits and justice of the case (section 85 of the Act and Geraghty v Jones [2019] NZDC 3813).
The total amount owing to the landlord for outgoings is $204.60. I find that the tenant is liable to pay this amount. Quiet Enjoyment
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00.
The District Court has said that harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person".
The tenant said the landlord made an unannounced visit to the property to perform repairs to the roof. This was disruptive because the tenant's daughter was having her daytime sleep. The tenant said she was not given at least 24 hours’ notice as required.
The landlord said the tenant asked him to check a blocked sink on 12 August 2024. He tried to unblock the sink and wanted to do some repairs to the roof. The next day the tenant texted telling him that he had not given 48 hours’ notice.
The landlord said he came down from the roof as soon as he received a text from the tenant saying her baby was sleeping, and he should come off the roof. Contrary to the tenant's evidence, the landlord said he did not ignore the tenant’s request, rather he had to pack up first. Since then, he had always given at least 24 hours’ notice.
A landlord is entitled to enter premises to perform necessary repairs or maintenance after giving 24 hours’ notice (section 48 of the Act). While the landlord has an obligation to give notice, the tenant then has an obligation to permit entry.
There is no breach of section 48 of the Act if the landlord enters with the consent of the tenant, freely given, at or immediately before entry. In this case, it is notable that the tenant’s request for maintenance stated that she was out in the morning but would be back around noon. The landlord went to the property at about 4.30pm. I consider that, implicitly, the landlord had been invited to attend to perform maintenance that afternoon. It was not suggested that the landlord had entered without permission. Further, according to the landlord, he stopped work on the roof when the tenant told him it was creating a disturbance. I find there has been no breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment.
The tenant explained that the landlord had approached her asking if she would be willing to donate her embryos to a couple who were trying to conceive. The tenant said this put her in an impossible situation because any refusal to help could have had negative consequences for her tenancy or references.
There is a message from the tenant dated 13 November 2024. The impression is that the tenant was considering the proposal: “If I decide to go ahead with this all I ask is that I be compensated for the length of this process and the donation of the eggs...”.
While this was no doubt a strange topic of conversation, it does not directly concern the landlord and tenant relationship. I am not satisfied that the landlord pressurised the tenant or made her rights under the tenancy in any way subject to her response. The landlord has provided the tenant with a reference. The tenant could have made it clear to the landlord that she did not want to discuss the matter. I find that there has been no breach of the Act. Bond Lodgement
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received.
Breaching this obligation is an “unlawful act” for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00.
The landlord did not lodge the bond and therefore, 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.
The tenant spoke about the hardship the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond had caused. She said it placed her in financial hardship. She could not pay her bills or groceries. She is still paying back the bond to WINZ.
It was really the failure to refund the bond at the end of the tenancy that caused the tenant hardship. Because the landlord had a claim against the bond, as soon as the tenant applied for a refund, the landlord was required to apply to the Tribunal so the dispute could be adjudicated (section 22B of the Act). That did not happen.
Probably because of their miscommunication, the parties could not agree on the amount of bond to be deducted for rent and outgoings. I view this as a neutral factor, involving a mutual misunderstanding.
This was the first time the landlord had rented out the property. The premises had just been built following a subdivision, and the landlord decided to rent the premises until they could be sold in a favourable market. The landlord said they had not previously owned a rental property.
Lodging the bond is a fundamental obligation for landlords and there is a strong public interest in landlords doing so. The landlord did not say they overlooked the requirement to lodge the bond. My impression from the landlord’s explanation was that there was a conscious decision not to lodge, possibly based on a misconception about the need to lodge a bond funded by WINZ.
The landlord said he had always been willing to refund the bond on payment of the outstanding rent arrears and water. That is consistent with an email he sent on 13 December 2024, in which he said the bond could be discussed once the rent and outgoings were paid. However, that is part of the reason why bonds must be lodged: it ensures the money is under the control of an independent third party and cannot be used as a bargaining counter.
In conclusion, the landlord’s failure caused the tenant distress and inconvenience. The landlord has not breached the obligation previously. The landlord did try to reach agreement on the amount of bond to be returned. I consider it would be just to award exemplary damages at a modest level. I award $375.00. Filing Fee
Both parties have had some success. The landlord ought to have filed an application against the bond as required by the Act, in which case the landlord would also have incurred a filing fee. I exercise my discretion in the tenant’s favour and reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5110348 — Exemplary damages at 2A Lowtherhurst Road, Massey, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5110348 — Exemplary damages at 2A Lowtherhurst Road, Massey, Auckland 0614

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