What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5221191?

The tribunal order states: Huayin Investment Limited must pay Veronica Jacomb $627.00 immediately

How much money was awarded in case 5221191?

Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5221191?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5221191?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11939324-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5221191?

The tribunal order states: Huayin Investment Limited must pay Veronica Jacomb $627.00 immediately

How much money was awarded in case 5221191?

Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5221191?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5221191?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11939324-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

46 Bollard Avenue, New Windsor, Auckland 0600 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5221191 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5221191. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages	$600.00		Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement

Order

Huayin Investment Limited must pay Veronica Jacomb $627.00 immediately calculated as shown in the table below.
To the extent that this award in not paid, Veronica Jacomb may deduct it from rent payable.
The tenant’s other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by telephone. The tenant attended and Mr Tian attended for the landlord. Background
Mr Tian attended the hearing of the tenant’s previous application which resulted in an order on 27 March 2025 declaring that this was a tenancy subject to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) and that the landlord’s termination notice was invalid.
Mr Tian confirmed that he had authority from those in control of the landlord company. The problem was that he did not have good knowledge of the situation that has initiated the tenant’s application. As it has turned out, for reasons that are given below, that has not been critical. But if the tenant has the need to make another application to the Tribunal concerning this tenancy, it will expect someone in a senior position in the company, who has comprehensive knowledge of the situation, to represent the landlord. If language is a barrier, the landlord can request an interpreter and one will be provided at no cost to the landlord.
The tenant has a tiny home and a container which sit on a part of the landlord’s campground. Such a situation would normally be excluded from the Act, but in this case the Tribunal found that the parties agreed that the Act would apply.
What now concerns the tenant is the landlord’s plans to develop the campground and adjacent land. According to the landlord’s application for consent for the development, if the development proceeds, an area of land which includes the land occupied by the tenant, will vest in Auckland Council for public use. That will mean that the tenant will no longer be able to occupy the land.
If it comes to that, the tenant wants the landlord to move her to another part of the campground that she can lawfully occupy or move her to a suitable site elsewhere. One of her concerns is the considerable cost of moving her tiny home and container and she would expect the landlord to pay those costs. Unlawful Premises
The tenant’s application refers to s36 of the Act which concerns legal impediments to occupation of the tenancy premises for residential purposes. It obliges the landlord to take all reasonable steps to ensure that there are no such impediments at the commencement of the tenancy.
At present, there are no such impediments and if they arise due to the vesting described above, they did not exist at the commencement of the tenancy. It follows that s36 does not apply here and any claims relating to it must be dismissed. Quiet Enjoyment
Under 38(2) of the Act the landlord must not cause or permit any interference with the peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the tenant’s use of the premises. This is to protect the tenant’s right to have quiet enjoyment of the premises.
If the landlord proceeds with its development plans, it is possible, perhaps likely, that there will be an interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises. That may result in the tenant being entitled to compensation or exemplary damages, or both. But the tenant has not suffered any ill effects of the landlord’s proposed development, and so there has not been any breach of s38. Without a breach, the Tribunal cannot consider granting a remedy and so any claim under s38 must be dismissed. Bond
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received (s19(1) of the Act).
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00.
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 landlord has failed to lodge the tenant’s bond in the sum of $600 that she paid when the tenancy commenced in February 2024.
I accept that the landlord may not have appreciated that it had that obligation until the Tribunal made its order on 27 March. But it has known, or should have known, of the obligation from that time. That is over two months ago and well over the 23 working days that the Act allows.
I find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act by failing to lodge the bond and that there should be an award of exemplary damages. It is important for the tenant to have the security of the bond held by the Bond Centre and it is an obligation that landlords should take seriously.
I note that the landlord denied that this was a tenancy even though it wrote to WINZ prior to the tenancy beginning requesting payment of rent and bond and described Ms Jacomb as a “permanent tenant”. This failure to lodge the bond is, in my view, a continuation of the landlord’s lack of consideration for the tenant’s rights and interests.
I find that an award of $600 is appropriate. I would point out to the landlord that if they do not now lodge the bond, there will be a continuing breach that could result in another award of exemplary damages against them. They would therefore be well advised to lodge the bond promptly. Filing Fee
The tenant has had some success and so I have awarded the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5221191. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages	$600.00		Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement

Order

Huayin Investment Limited must pay Veronica Jacomb $627.00 immediately calculated as shown in the table below.
To the extent that this award in not paid, Veronica Jacomb may deduct it from rent payable.
The tenant’s other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by telephone. The tenant attended and Mr Tian attended for the landlord. Background
Mr Tian attended the hearing of the tenant’s previous application which resulted in an order on 27 March 2025 declaring that this was a tenancy subject to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) and that the landlord’s termination notice was invalid.
Mr Tian confirmed that he had authority from those in control of the landlord company. The problem was that he did not have good knowledge of the situation that has initiated the tenant’s application. As it has turned out, for reasons that are given below, that has not been critical. But if the tenant has the need to make another application to the Tribunal concerning this tenancy, it will expect someone in a senior position in the company, who has comprehensive knowledge of the situation, to represent the landlord. If language is a barrier, the landlord can request an interpreter and one will be provided at no cost to the landlord.
The tenant has a tiny home and a container which sit on a part of the landlord’s campground. Such a situation would normally be excluded from the Act, but in this case the Tribunal found that the parties agreed that the Act would apply.
What now concerns the tenant is the landlord’s plans to develop the campground and adjacent land. According to the landlord’s application for consent for the development, if the development proceeds, an area of land which includes the land occupied by the tenant, will vest in Auckland Council for public use. That will mean that the tenant will no longer be able to occupy the land.
If it comes to that, the tenant wants the landlord to move her to another part of the campground that she can lawfully occupy or move her to a suitable site elsewhere. One of her concerns is the considerable cost of moving her tiny home and container and she would expect the landlord to pay those costs. Unlawful Premises
The tenant’s application refers to s36 of the Act which concerns legal impediments to occupation of the tenancy premises for residential purposes. It obliges the landlord to take all reasonable steps to ensure that there are no such impediments at the commencement of the tenancy.
At present, there are no such impediments and if they arise due to the vesting described above, they did not exist at the commencement of the tenancy. It follows that s36 does not apply here and any claims relating to it must be dismissed. Quiet Enjoyment
Under 38(2) of the Act the landlord must not cause or permit any interference with the peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the tenant’s use of the premises. This is to protect the tenant’s right to have quiet enjoyment of the premises.
If the landlord proceeds with its development plans, it is possible, perhaps likely, that there will be an interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises. That may result in the tenant being entitled to compensation or exemplary damages, or both. But the tenant has not suffered any ill effects of the landlord’s proposed development, and so there has not been any breach of s38. Without a breach, the Tribunal cannot consider granting a remedy and so any claim under s38 must be dismissed. Bond
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received (s19(1) of the Act).
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00.
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 landlord has failed to lodge the tenant’s bond in the sum of $600 that she paid when the tenancy commenced in February 2024.
I accept that the landlord may not have appreciated that it had that obligation until the Tribunal made its order on 27 March. But it has known, or should have known, of the obligation from that time. That is over two months ago and well over the 23 working days that the Act allows.
I find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act by failing to lodge the bond and that there should be an award of exemplary damages. It is important for the tenant to have the security of the bond held by the Bond Centre and it is an obligation that landlords should take seriously.
I note that the landlord denied that this was a tenancy even though it wrote to WINZ prior to the tenancy beginning requesting payment of rent and bond and described Ms Jacomb as a “permanent tenant”. This failure to lodge the bond is, in my view, a continuation of the landlord’s lack of consideration for the tenant’s rights and interests.
I find that an award of $600 is appropriate. I would point out to the landlord that if they do not now lodge the bond, there will be a continuing breach that could result in another award of exemplary damages against them. They would therefore be well advised to lodge the bond promptly. Filing Fee
The tenant has had some success and so I have awarded the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5221191 — Exemplary damages at 46 Bollard Avenue, New Windsor, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5221191 — Exemplary damages at 46 Bollard Avenue, New Windsor, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions