What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5193432?

The tribunal order states: Scott Gordon must pay Christopher Ian Petrie Dickens and Huyen Thi Ngoc

How much money was awarded in case 5193432?

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

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5193432?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5193432?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12015986-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5193432?

The tribunal order states: Scott Gordon must pay Christopher Ian Petrie Dickens and Huyen Thi Ngoc

How much money was awarded in case 5193432?

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

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5193432?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5193432?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12015986-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

139B Luckens Road, West Harbour, Auckland 0618 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5193432 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5193432 — net $1,617.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Refund of the bond	$840.00	Refund of the bond
Exemplary damages: failing to lodge the bond	$750.00	failing to lodge the bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,617.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,617.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5193432 — net $1,617.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Refund of the bond	$840.00	Refund of the bond
Exemplary damages: failing to lodge the bond	$750.00	failing to lodge the bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,617.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,617.00

Order

Scott Gordon must pay Christopher Ian Petrie Dickens and Huyen Thi Ngoc Nguyen $1,617.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the two telephone hearings that took place on 14 April and 9 June 2025. Christopher Dickens attended both hearings for the tenants. Scott Gordon (preferred name “Scott”) attended both hearings and his attorney, Tracey Lynch, attended the second hearing on 9 June 2023.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond from Scott and exemplary damages for Scott’s failure to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre.
I repeat the background facts laid out in the order dated 14 April 2025 for convenience. Background facts and evidence The tenant case
This was a fixed term tenancy between the tenants and Scott, as the landlord, that commenced on 29 April 2024 and was to end on 28 April 2025. The premises were located in the same building that Scott owned and occupied as his home, with the tenants describing the premises as “underneath the house”. The tenancy agreement records that the weekly rent was $420 including power, water, and gas. The tenants paid two weeks rent in advance and two weeks rent as bond on 23 April 2024.
In or about November 2024, the tenants became aware that the property was advertised for mortgagee sale on Trade Me. Mr Dickens rang Tenancy Services for advice and found out during the call that the bond had not been lodged with the Bond Centre. He also says that he received advice that both parties were still bound by the terms of the tenancy and that he should stay until the fixed term ended. He also says that he was given assurances by Scott that he was dealing with the mortgagee and taking matters to Court, but the tenancy was safe.
On 17 January 2025, the tenants met a woman at the premises who advised that she was the new owner (“the new owner”) after purchasing the property at a mortgagee sale. She provided the tenants with a certificate of title to the property showing that she and another person were now the registered owners. They discussed the tenancy, and the new owner advised the tenants that she believed that the premises were not lawful residential premises, and she did not wish to continue the tenancy for that reason. Mr Dickens says that the new owners gave them notice to vacate the premises.
On 18 February 2025, the tenants came home to find that the landlord had been evicted from the property. The tenants subsequently vacated the property.
The new owner had obtained a possession order from the Tenancy Tribunal under section 65 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) on the grounds that they were now the registered owner of the premises following a mortgagee sale. The new owner enforced the Tribunal order which resulted in Scott being evicted.
The tenants seek refund of the bond paid to Scott and exemplary damages for his failure to lodge the bond at the Bond Centre. The landlord case
Scott acknowledged that he received $840 bond from the tenants and that he did not lodge it with the Bond Centre as required by the RTA. At the first hearing, he apologised to the tenants for what happened regarding their tenancy and said he would refund their bond. He also explained that his failure to lodge the bond at the Bond Centre was an administrative error and not intentional. At the relevant time he was under significant stress because of the steps being taken by the mortgagee. Despite diarising the date for lodging the bond, he missed it.
Scott and his attorney, however, claim that Scott was no longer the landlord after the new owner obtained possession of the premises. They say it is the new owner who became the landlord and the tenants and must pursue the new owner for the bond.
They repeated claims made in a previous Tribunal hearing under application 5143529 that Scott was unlawfully evicted from his home. Scott claims that the new owner was not entitled to possession of the premises because the mortgagee sale by which ownership was transferred to the new owner was unlawful. Scott claims he has filed proceedings in the High Court challenging the lawfulness of the mortgagee sale and a decision is pending. Scott also claims that the Tribunal should not have made a possession order in favour of the applicant until the High Court issued its decision. They also suggest that the new owner gained possession by unlawful means.
However, the Tribunal ruled in orders under application 5143529 that it had jurisdiction to make a possession order under section 65, regardless of Scott’s claims about the legality of the mortgagee sale process. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider or evaluate other (undetermined) claims before the High Court and is not required to do so when considering a section 65 application. 1

Is Scott required to refund the bond?

There is no dispute that the tenants paid their bond to Scott when the tenancy started, and he has not refunded it to them. He says that the tenants must look to the new owner for the bond because the new owner effectively became the landlord when the mortgagee sale and purchase was settled.
See section 19(1) RTA provides that a landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. Scott did not lodge the bond he received from the tenants with the Bond Centre while he was the landlord, and he has retained those funds. 1 Applicant v Scott Gordon [2025] NZTT 5143529, Order dismissing rehearing application dated 8 April 2025 at paragraphs [10]-[12]
Sections 58 and 43 of the RTA are relevant when determining who is liable to refund the bond to the tenants: 58 Mortgagee or other person becoming entitled to possession (1) Where a mortgagee or other person becomes entitled (as against the landlord) to possession of the premises, the following provisions shall apply: (a) the tenancy shall continue notwithstanding that the mortgagee or other person has become entitled (as against the landlord) to possession of the premises: (b) for the purposes of sections 15, 21A, and 43, the mortgagee or other person shall be deemed to have acquired the landlord’s interest in the premises, and the provisions of those sections, with any necessary modifications, shall apply accordingly:.... 43 Disposition of landlord’s interest (1) Where the landlord disposes of his or her interest in the premises to any other person (in this section referred to as the purchaser), the following provisions shall apply:......(d) subject to any lawful claim made to the Tribunal before the date of settlement, the landlord’s interest in any bond paid by the tenant shall pass to the purchaser on the earlier of the date of settlement or the date of possession.
When the new owner settled the purchase of the premises following a mortgagee sale and became entitled to possession, sections 58 and 43 provided: a. this tenancy continued; and b. the new owner was deemed to acquire the landlord’s (Scott’s) interest in the premises for the purposes of sections 15, 21A and 43 RTA; and c. subject to any lawful claim made to the Tribunal before settlement, the landlord’s (Scott’s) interest in any bond paid by the tenant passed to the new owner on the earlier of the date of settlement or the date of possession.
On settlement, the new owner was entitled to have their interest in the tenancy agreement and any bond held at the Bond Centre recorded in their name. See section 21A(2) RTA. However, it was not possible to do that because Scott did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre. Scott originally indicated in the first hearing that he would refund the tenants their bond money, but he has not done so. He and his attorney argue that the new owner became the landlord, and she is liable to refund the bond.
I consider that it would be a grossly unfair and unjust result were a landlord able to avoid liability for refunding a bond held by them, simply because the premises were transferred to a third party (whether by mortgagee sale or otherwise), in circumstances where the landlord has not transferred the bond to the third party and has not lodged it with the Bond Centre.
Section 85 RTA requires the Tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, and it is not bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.
I consider that the provisions of the RTA are not intended to operate so as to enable Scott to avoid refunding bond money he still holds. Sections 21A, 43 and 58 necessarily assume that a landlord has sent any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received as required by section 19. The only sensible interpretation is that the provisions allow the landlord’s interest in a bond that has been lodged with the Bond Centre to be transferred to a new owner/landlord. Where no bond is lodged, the provisions do not apply.
Bond money belongs to tenants and in the absence of a claim against the bond by a landlord, bond money must be refunded to tenants when the tenancy ends.
I am satisfied that this tenancy has ended. Scott is holding the bond and did not lodge any lawful claim to the bond before the new owner settled the purchase of the premises. Therefore, Scott is liable to refund the bond of $840 to the tenants. An order is made accordingly.

Is Scott liable for exemplary damages for failing to lodge the bond?

There is no dispute that Scott did not send the bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment was received, in breach of 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.
In breaching section 19(1) Scott 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.
Scott claims that failure to lodge the bond was an oversight and not intentional. He says he had diarised the lodgement date but then missed it. He also claims that he was already under significant stress because of the steps being taken by the mortgagee. I am not persuaded that this explanation mitigates the breach, given that Scott received the bond a week before the tenancy started, and could have lodged it immediately.
I am satisfied that the matter of intention in terms of s109 has been established in that Scott failed to adopt a robust process to ensure that the bond was paid to the Bond Centre. A landlord ought to know that if they do not have good processes failing to lodge the bond is a likely consequence.
The effect on the tenants has been to cause stress and anxiety. The interest of the tenants has been prejudiced because the bond is the tenants’ money. The failure to lodge the bond in this case has left the tenants in a compromised position and prevented exactly what the system is designed to protect which is the availability of the bond. It is of significant interest to tenants and the public that tenant bonds are held securely by the Bond Centre as stakeholder as intended by Parliament and that landlords comply with their obligations under the RTA.
I am satisfied it is just to require Scott to pay exemplary damages. The maximum amount that can be awarded under the Act for this unlawful act is $1,500.00. The District Court has said in past cases that the maximum should be reserved for the worst case. In this case I am satisfied an amount of $750.00 is appropriate because Scott has continued to hold the bond and failed to either lodge it with the Bond Centre or return it directly to the tenants, despite the tenancy ending several months ago. Exemplary damages are so ordered.
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with their claims, they are also entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5193432 — Exemplary damages at 139B Luckens Road, West Harbour, Auckland 0618

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5193432 — Exemplary damages at 139B Luckens Road, West Harbour, Auckland 0618

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is Scott required to refund the bond?

Is Scott liable for exemplary damages for failing to lodge the bond?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is Scott required to refund the bond?

Is Scott liable for exemplary damages for failing to lodge the bond?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions