What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5185391?

The tribunal order states: Surenda Sharma must pay Liza Jean Margaret Rack $777.00 immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 5185391?

Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5185391?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5185391?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11883347-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5185391?

The tribunal order states: Surenda Sharma must pay Liza Jean Margaret Rack $777.00 immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 5185391?

Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5185391?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5185391?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11883347-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

25 Trevor McMiken Drive, Patumahoe, Pukekohe 2679 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5185391 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5185391 — net $777.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Not lodging the bond within prescribed period	$750.00	Not lodging the bond within prescribed period
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$777.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$777.00

Order

Surenda Sharma must pay Liza Jean Margaret Rack $777.00 immediately. DescriptionTenant Exemplary damages: Not lodging the bond within prescribed period $750.00 Filing fee reimbursement $27.00 Total award $777.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $777.00

Reasons

Mr Sharma, the landlord, attended the hearing via video.
Ms Rack, the tenant, attended the hearing via teleconference.
Liza Jean Margaret Rack claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
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 (“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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Ms Rack’s submissions
Ms Rack emphasises that the bond was only lodged on 9 March 2025, five months after she moved in, and only after she filed an application with the Tribunal. Ms Rack submits that Mr Sharma acted only because of her complaint, as previous attempts to contact him about the bond were ignored. She also notes that the property had no bond record for the previous tenant, suggesting a pattern of non-compliance.
Additionally, Ms Rack alleges that Mr Sharma pressured her to withdraw the dispute once it was filed, sending her messages with excuses and offering to pay the bond in cash. She feels bullied by his behaviour and submits that there is no valid excuse for the delay, especially since she had provided evidence of her attempts to resolve the matter directly with him. She submits that the screenshots she submitted to the Tribunal support her claims of his unresponsiveness and subsequent attempts to dissuade her from pursuing the complaint.
In summary, Ms Rack seeks accountability for Mr Sharma's failure to comply with the RTA, highlighting the stress and inconvenience caused by his actions. She insists that the bond was lodged only due to her Tribunal application and that his behaviour demonstrates a disregard for legal obligations and tenant rights. Mr Sharma’s submissions
Mr Sharma acknowledges his failure to lodge the bond within the required 23 working days under the RTA and apologises for the delay. He attributes his non-compliance to personal hardships, including the deaths of five family members within six months, which required multiple trips to Fiji for funerals and rituals. Additionally, he mentions financial strain caused by Ms Rack initially missing three consecutive rent payments, though she later rectified this.
Despite these challenges, Mr Sharma confirms that he eventually lodged the bond on 9 March 2025, albeit late, and accepts responsibility for the oversight. He expresses remorse and requests leniency from the Tribunal, citing his difficult circumstances as mitigating factors. He emphasises that he has now complied with the law and hopes to move forward.
Mr Sharma denies any malicious intent and refutes Ms Rack’s claim of bullying, framing his messages as attempts to resolve the matter informally. He maintains that his actions were influenced by his personal struggles rather than a deliberate disregard for his legal obligations.
Under section 19(1)(b) of the RTA, Mr Sharma must lodge the bond with the Bond Centre by 30 October 2024. However, Mr Sharma did not lodge the bond until 9 March 2025, resulting in a delay of 4 months and 10 days. I find that Mr Sharma has committed an unlawful act. Exemplary damages
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 bond was only lodged on 9 March 2025, 5 months and 6 days after the tenancy began, and only after Ms Rack applied with the Tribunal on 3 March 2025. While Mr Sharma cited personal hardships, including family bereavements and financial difficulties, these circumstances do not entirely excuse the prolonged delay, particularly given Ms Rack's documented efforts to resolve the matter directly.
I consider this a serious breach warranting exemplary damages. Mr Sharma's late compliance only after Ms Rack filed her application seeking the Tribunal’s intervention, combined with evidence of attempts to dissuade Ms Rack from pursuing her claim, demonstrates a disregard for his statutory obligations. This conduct undermines the protective purpose of the bond system.
Accordingly, Mr Sharma is ordered to pay Ms Rack exemplary damages of $750 under section 109(1)(a) of the RTA. This amount reflects the gravity of the breach while accounting for the landlord's personal circumstances. The award serves to deter future non-compliance and affirm tenants' rights to timely bond lodgement. Filing fee
Because Liza Jean Margaret Rack has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5185391 — net $777.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Not lodging the bond within prescribed period	$750.00	Not lodging the bond within prescribed period
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$777.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$777.00

Order

Surenda Sharma must pay Liza Jean Margaret Rack $777.00 immediately. DescriptionTenant Exemplary damages: Not lodging the bond within prescribed period $750.00 Filing fee reimbursement $27.00 Total award $777.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $777.00

Reasons

Mr Sharma, the landlord, attended the hearing via video.
Ms Rack, the tenant, attended the hearing via teleconference.
Liza Jean Margaret Rack claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
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 (“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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Ms Rack’s submissions
Ms Rack emphasises that the bond was only lodged on 9 March 2025, five months after she moved in, and only after she filed an application with the Tribunal. Ms Rack submits that Mr Sharma acted only because of her complaint, as previous attempts to contact him about the bond were ignored. She also notes that the property had no bond record for the previous tenant, suggesting a pattern of non-compliance.
Additionally, Ms Rack alleges that Mr Sharma pressured her to withdraw the dispute once it was filed, sending her messages with excuses and offering to pay the bond in cash. She feels bullied by his behaviour and submits that there is no valid excuse for the delay, especially since she had provided evidence of her attempts to resolve the matter directly with him. She submits that the screenshots she submitted to the Tribunal support her claims of his unresponsiveness and subsequent attempts to dissuade her from pursuing the complaint.
In summary, Ms Rack seeks accountability for Mr Sharma's failure to comply with the RTA, highlighting the stress and inconvenience caused by his actions. She insists that the bond was lodged only due to her Tribunal application and that his behaviour demonstrates a disregard for legal obligations and tenant rights. Mr Sharma’s submissions
Mr Sharma acknowledges his failure to lodge the bond within the required 23 working days under the RTA and apologises for the delay. He attributes his non-compliance to personal hardships, including the deaths of five family members within six months, which required multiple trips to Fiji for funerals and rituals. Additionally, he mentions financial strain caused by Ms Rack initially missing three consecutive rent payments, though she later rectified this.
Despite these challenges, Mr Sharma confirms that he eventually lodged the bond on 9 March 2025, albeit late, and accepts responsibility for the oversight. He expresses remorse and requests leniency from the Tribunal, citing his difficult circumstances as mitigating factors. He emphasises that he has now complied with the law and hopes to move forward.
Mr Sharma denies any malicious intent and refutes Ms Rack’s claim of bullying, framing his messages as attempts to resolve the matter informally. He maintains that his actions were influenced by his personal struggles rather than a deliberate disregard for his legal obligations.
Under section 19(1)(b) of the RTA, Mr Sharma must lodge the bond with the Bond Centre by 30 October 2024. However, Mr Sharma did not lodge the bond until 9 March 2025, resulting in a delay of 4 months and 10 days. I find that Mr Sharma has committed an unlawful act. Exemplary damages
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 bond was only lodged on 9 March 2025, 5 months and 6 days after the tenancy began, and only after Ms Rack applied with the Tribunal on 3 March 2025. While Mr Sharma cited personal hardships, including family bereavements and financial difficulties, these circumstances do not entirely excuse the prolonged delay, particularly given Ms Rack's documented efforts to resolve the matter directly.
I consider this a serious breach warranting exemplary damages. Mr Sharma's late compliance only after Ms Rack filed her application seeking the Tribunal’s intervention, combined with evidence of attempts to dissuade Ms Rack from pursuing her claim, demonstrates a disregard for his statutory obligations. This conduct undermines the protective purpose of the bond system.
Accordingly, Mr Sharma is ordered to pay Ms Rack exemplary damages of $750 under section 109(1)(a) of the RTA. This amount reflects the gravity of the breach while accounting for the landlord's personal circumstances. The award serves to deter future non-compliance and affirm tenants' rights to timely bond lodgement. Filing fee
Because Liza Jean Margaret Rack has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5185391 — Exemplary damages at 25 Trevor McMiken Drive, Patumahoe, Pukekohe 2679

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5185391 — Exemplary damages at 25 Trevor McMiken Drive, Patumahoe, Pukekohe 2679

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