What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5164872?

The tribunal order states: 786 Management Services Limited trading as Lion Lodge is to pay Shane

How much money was awarded in case 5164872?

Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5164872?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5164872?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11695499-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5164872?

The tribunal order states: 786 Management Services Limited trading as Lion Lodge is to pay Shane

How much money was awarded in case 5164872?

Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5164872?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5164872?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11695499-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room 2C, 533 Hibiscus Coast Highway, Hatfields Beach, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5164872 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5164872 — net $327.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: failure to lodge bond	$300.00	failure to lodge bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$327.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$327.00

Order

786 Management Services Limited trading as Lion Lodge is to pay Shane Thomas Moore $327.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Mr Moore, the tenant, and Mr Peerbhai, representing the landlord, both attended the teleconference hearing.
The tenant has applied for failure to lodge the bond, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee, following the end of the boarding house tenancy.
The landlord said during the hearing that they recently filed a cross-application. The landlord’s cross-application was in the process of assessment by Tenancy Services, was not scheduled to be heard with the tenant’s application and will be scheduled to be heard separately.
The parties agree the tenancy ended on 28 January 2025, and had begun on 13 December 2024, so it was a short tenancy of just over 6 weeks duration. Weekly rent was $375.00.
The tenant said he paid a bond of $1,500.00 to the landlord before he moved into the property on 13 December 2024, as well as $750.00 for rent in advance.
The landlord confirmed they received the tenant’s bond of $1,500.00, paid in cash, on the date the tenant signed the tenancy agreement, which was on 11 December 2024.
The landlord said the tenant asked them about whether they had lodged the bond, but the property manager was away over the Christmas holidays. The landlord said the tenant then gave them notice in a letter dated 23 January 2025 that he was going to move out on 28 January 2025. The landlord said they then asked the tenant whether he would prefer they formally lodge the bond, in which case the tenant might have to wait for the bond to be released to him, or whether the tenant wished them to pay the bond to him directly instead. Initially, the landlord indicated the tenant said he wanted the landlord to lodge the bond and then the tenant agreed for the landlord to pay him the bond directly. The landlord said the full bond of $1,500.00 was paid directly to the tenant on 29 January 2025, the day after he moved out, which was confirmed by the tenant.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord confirmed they received the tenant’s bond of $1,500.00 on 11 December 2024 and acknowledged that the bond was not lodged within the 23 working days’ time frame. I calculate that 23 working days from 11 December 2024, the date the bond was paid to the landlord, taking into account public holidays on 25 & 26 December 2024 and on 1 and 2 January 2025, would be 17 January 2025. The landlord acknowledged they never lodged the bond and paid it in full to the tenant on 29 January 2025. Therefore, as the landlord did not lodge the bond within 23 working days of receiving it, I find they have 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The issue of whether an act is intentional has been considered in situations of damage caused in a tenancy. There, damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
Similarly, in this situation, the landlord allowed a situation to continue knowing that not acting would result in the bond being lodged late. As such, I find that the landlord committed this unlawful act intentionally.
I have dealt with the intent of the landlord above. The landlord said they have lodged other tenants’ bonds in their living complex in a timely manner and this bond was not lodged because of the Christmas holiday season and then because the tenant gave notice that he was moving out. The tenant said he found it stressful and was anxious that his bond had not been lodged by the landlord. He believed the landlord had no intention of lodging the bond, which was disputed by the landlord. Bonds are held in trust on the tenant’s behalf. In my view, it is in the public interest for bonds to be lodged as quickly as possible after receipt of the tenant’s money. There is also a public interest in tenants knowing their funds are safe and held in trust in a neutral Bond Centre, in the event of any disputes.
The maximum level of exemplary damages is $1,500. In this case I consider an order of less than one third of the maximum would be indicated. The landlord has committed an unlawful act, and I accept that there has been an impact for the tenant. However, I consider as mitigating factors that the tenant gave notice on 23 January 2025 to move out on 28 January 2025, the landlord then started discussing with the tenant what he wished them to do with the bond given he was moving out, and that the bond was then paid in full back to the tenant on 29 January 2025, the day after the tenant moved out. So, whilst the landlord did not lodge the bond by 17 January 2025, the full bond was returned to the tenant 12 days after the deadline for the landlord to lodge the bond on 17 January 2025, which was a short period after the deadline. I therefore order exemplary damages of $300.00. Filing fee
Because Shane Thomas Moore has been successful with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5164872 — net $327.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: failure to lodge bond	$300.00	failure to lodge bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$327.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$327.00

Order

786 Management Services Limited trading as Lion Lodge is to pay Shane Thomas Moore $327.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Mr Moore, the tenant, and Mr Peerbhai, representing the landlord, both attended the teleconference hearing.
The tenant has applied for failure to lodge the bond, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee, following the end of the boarding house tenancy.
The landlord said during the hearing that they recently filed a cross-application. The landlord’s cross-application was in the process of assessment by Tenancy Services, was not scheduled to be heard with the tenant’s application and will be scheduled to be heard separately.
The parties agree the tenancy ended on 28 January 2025, and had begun on 13 December 2024, so it was a short tenancy of just over 6 weeks duration. Weekly rent was $375.00.
The tenant said he paid a bond of $1,500.00 to the landlord before he moved into the property on 13 December 2024, as well as $750.00 for rent in advance.
The landlord confirmed they received the tenant’s bond of $1,500.00, paid in cash, on the date the tenant signed the tenancy agreement, which was on 11 December 2024.
The landlord said the tenant asked them about whether they had lodged the bond, but the property manager was away over the Christmas holidays. The landlord said the tenant then gave them notice in a letter dated 23 January 2025 that he was going to move out on 28 January 2025. The landlord said they then asked the tenant whether he would prefer they formally lodge the bond, in which case the tenant might have to wait for the bond to be released to him, or whether the tenant wished them to pay the bond to him directly instead. Initially, the landlord indicated the tenant said he wanted the landlord to lodge the bond and then the tenant agreed for the landlord to pay him the bond directly. The landlord said the full bond of $1,500.00 was paid directly to the tenant on 29 January 2025, the day after he moved out, which was confirmed by the tenant.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord confirmed they received the tenant’s bond of $1,500.00 on 11 December 2024 and acknowledged that the bond was not lodged within the 23 working days’ time frame. I calculate that 23 working days from 11 December 2024, the date the bond was paid to the landlord, taking into account public holidays on 25 & 26 December 2024 and on 1 and 2 January 2025, would be 17 January 2025. The landlord acknowledged they never lodged the bond and paid it in full to the tenant on 29 January 2025. Therefore, as the landlord did not lodge the bond within 23 working days of receiving it, I find they have 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The issue of whether an act is intentional has been considered in situations of damage caused in a tenancy. There, damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
Similarly, in this situation, the landlord allowed a situation to continue knowing that not acting would result in the bond being lodged late. As such, I find that the landlord committed this unlawful act intentionally.
I have dealt with the intent of the landlord above. The landlord said they have lodged other tenants’ bonds in their living complex in a timely manner and this bond was not lodged because of the Christmas holiday season and then because the tenant gave notice that he was moving out. The tenant said he found it stressful and was anxious that his bond had not been lodged by the landlord. He believed the landlord had no intention of lodging the bond, which was disputed by the landlord. Bonds are held in trust on the tenant’s behalf. In my view, it is in the public interest for bonds to be lodged as quickly as possible after receipt of the tenant’s money. There is also a public interest in tenants knowing their funds are safe and held in trust in a neutral Bond Centre, in the event of any disputes.
The maximum level of exemplary damages is $1,500. In this case I consider an order of less than one third of the maximum would be indicated. The landlord has committed an unlawful act, and I accept that there has been an impact for the tenant. However, I consider as mitigating factors that the tenant gave notice on 23 January 2025 to move out on 28 January 2025, the landlord then started discussing with the tenant what he wished them to do with the bond given he was moving out, and that the bond was then paid in full back to the tenant on 29 January 2025, the day after the tenant moved out. So, whilst the landlord did not lodge the bond by 17 January 2025, the full bond was returned to the tenant 12 days after the deadline for the landlord to lodge the bond on 17 January 2025, which was a short period after the deadline. I therefore order exemplary damages of $300.00. Filing fee
Because Shane Thomas Moore has been successful with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5164872 — Exemplary damages at Room 2C, 533 Hibiscus Coast Highway, Hatfields Beach,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5164872 — Exemplary damages at Room 2C, 533 Hibiscus Coast Highway, Hatfields Beach,

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