What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5290643?

The tribunal order states: Brianna Blackett must pay JI Hwang (also known as James Hwang and Jimin

How much money was awarded in case 5290643?

Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5290643?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5290643?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13542721-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5290643?

The tribunal order states: Brianna Blackett must pay JI Hwang (also known as James Hwang and Jimin

How much money was awarded in case 5290643?

Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5290643?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5290643?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13542721-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat G07, 165 Lake Road, Northcote, Auckland 0627 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5290643 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5290643 — net $278.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond	$250.00	Failure to lodge bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$278.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$278.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5290643 — net $278.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond	$250.00	Failure to lodge bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$278.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$278.00

Order

Brianna Blackett must pay JI Hwang (also known as James Hwang and Jimin Hwang) $278.00 immediately. DescriptionTenant Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond $250.00 Filing fee reimbursement $28.00 Total award $278.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $278.00

Reasons

Introduction

This is an application by the tenant, Mr Ji Hwang (also known as James Hwang and Jimin Hwang), under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”) seeking various orders, including compensation and exemplary damages.
The tenant alleges multiple breaches of the Act by the landlord, including failure to lodge the bond, failure to provide statutory information, breach of quiet enjoyment, discrimination, and failures relating to maintenance and services.
The landlord disputes most of the claims and says that the tenant has not provided evidence to support his allegations.
I heard oral evidence from both parties. No substantive documentary evidence was filed by the tenant despite prior directions. See Hwang v Blackett [2025] NZTT 5290643 (adjournment order) dated 20 November 2025. Procedural history
The tenancy commenced on or about 24 January 2024.
On 15 July 2025, the Tribunal terminated the tenancy and ordered the tenant to pay $15,652.61 to the landlord. See Blackett v Hwang [2025] NZTT 5277241 (substantive hearing) dated 15 July 2025.
On 20 November 2025, the Tribunal issued 2 orders. One order adjourned Mr Hwang’s application against the landlord, which is the present application before me. The other order dismissed the tenant’s rehearing application regarding Blackett v Hwang [2025] NZTT 5277241 (substantive hearing) dated 15 July 2025.
The present application was filed on 22 July 2025.
On 20 November 2025, the Tribunal directed that all evidence must be filed at least 5 working days prior to the hearing and confirmed that the burden of proof lies on the party bringing the claim.
No further evidence was filed by the tenant. Burden of proof
The Tribunal applies the civil standard of proof, namely the balance of probabilities.
The burden of proof rests on the applicant, Mr Hwang.
The tenant largely relied on oral assertions. Where those assertions are inconsistent or unsupported, he cannot discharge the burden of proof.
I have paid close attention to the exchanges during the hearing. In several respects, the tenant’s evidence was unclear or unsupported by any contemporaneous material.
I now turn to each of the tenant’s claims. Failure to lodge bond
JI Hwang 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.
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 accepted that she did not lodge the bond and confirmed she received $2,010. I find she 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.
There is no evidence of aggravating conduct beyond the failure itself. However, there is a public interest in ensuring that landlords comply with their obligation to lodge bonds.
I award exemplary damages of $250. Failure to Provide Receipts for Rent
JI Hwang claims the landlord has not provided receipts for rent paid.
A landlord must provide give the tenant a written receipt for rent paid. See section 29(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 $350.00. See section 29(5) and Schedule 1A RTA).
Mr Hwang said the landlord failed to provide weekly rent statements and failed to keep proper records. He said other landlords provide detailed records and email confirmations.
Ms Blackett said rent was paid by bank transfer and that this constitutes a record.
Section 29(1) of the Act requires a landlord to provide receipts for rent paid in cash. Section 29(4) provides that this requirement does not apply where rent is paid by automatic payment or bank transfer.
The tenant accepted that rent was paid electronically. In those circumstances, the bank record itself is sufficient.
I am not satisfied that Mr Hwang has proved this claim on the balance of probabilities.
The claim is dismissed. Failure to provide Fibre/internet
Mr Hwang said that when he moved in, the fibre connection was not usable and that the ONT box was missing or damaged. He said this prevented him from using the internet for approximately six weeks. He relied on section 45B of the Act.
He said the landlord told him a previous tenant had taken the ONT box.
Ms Blackett denied this and said the property was a relatively new apartment with functioning infrastructure. She said any issues were not her responsibility and suggested the tenant may have caused damage.
Section 45(1)(b) requires the landlord to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Section 45B relates only to permitting fibre installation, not to providing internet services.
There is no general obligation on a landlord to provide internet connectivity, beyond maintaining the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The evidence is conflicting. Mr Hwang alleges there was no ONT box, resulting in no internet for six weeks. However, his claim is unsupported by documents, photographs, or independent evidence.
On the balance of probabilities, I am not satisfied that the tenant has proven that: a. there was a defect attributable to the landlord; or b. the landlord breached any statutory duty.
The claim is dismissed. Failure to provide healthy homes standards and insurance information
JI Hwang claims the landlord did not include healthy homes standards and insurance information in the tenancy agreement. See section 13A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Ms Blackett said she verbally informed the tenant that the property was covered by body corporate insurance.
Ms Blackett could not confirm whether a Healthy Homes statement was included in the tenancy agreement.
In my view, verbal disclosure does not satisfy the requirements of section 13A(2).
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13A(1F)(2) and Schedule 1A RTA.
I find the landlord 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.
However, I am not satisfied that the breach was intentional for the purposes of section 109, for the following reasons: a. I accept that she believed informing the tenant about body corporate insurance was sufficient; and b. the inclusion of an insulation statement in the tenancy agreement suggests she did not fully understand the statutory requirements.
In those circumstances, I do not award exemplary damages. Breach quite enjoyment
JI Hwang claims the landlord has harassed them.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
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". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
Mr Hwang said the landlord attended the property multiple times and that this interfered with his privacy. He also alleged that the landlord’s father contacted him in a threatening manner.
Ms Blackett said she attended in response to complaints about odour from neighbouring occupants and that the tenant consented to entry on each occasion. She denied that her father contacted the tenant.
On the evidence, I am not satisfied that Ms Blackett breached the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment. The visits were complaint-driven and undertaken with the tenant’s consent.
The allegation regarding the landlord’s father is unsupported by evidence.
The claim is dismissed. Heater
Section 45(1)(c) requires landlords to comply with all requirements relating to buildings, health, and safety, as well as comply with healthy homes standards under section 45(1)(bb).
Mr Hwang said the wall heater did not work but did not explain the nature of the fault, when it arose, or whether it was reported.
Ms Blackett said the heater was functional.
No supporting evidence was provided by the tenant. For example, reports, complaints, or communications was provided.
I am not satisfied that the heater was defective during the tenancy and that the landlord failed to maintain it.
The claim is dismissed. Dishwasher
Mr Hwang said the dishwasher was defective and that a button was broken when he moved in.
Ms Blackett said the dishwasher was functional until Mr Hwang damaged it during the tenancy which was recorded in Blackett v Hwang [2025] NZTT 5277241 dated 15 July 2025 at paragraph 32. “The landlord has proven the tenant damaged the dishwasher buttons, that are falling off and taped up. She has not yet had time to investigate whether these buttons can be fixed or if the dishwasher needs to be replaced. ...”
Mr Hwang has not provided any basis for revisiting that finding. Nor has he provided any supporting evidence
The claim is dismissed. Television Set
Mr Hwang said the television did not work.
Ms Blackett said she provided a working television and that it was removed by the tenant.
This issue was also addressed in the earlier Tribunal decision, which found the television was missing at the end of the tenancy.
In Blackett v Hwang [2025] NZTT 5277241 dated 15 July 2025 at paragraph 20, the learned adjudicator recorded that “The television set was missing, and an old less valuable television left in its place that the landlord had to dispose of....”
Mr Hwang has not provided any basis or evidence to revisit that finding.
The claim is dismissed. Washing machine
Section 45(1)(b) requires landlords to maintain premises and Mr Hwang said the washing machine leaked for several months and that he had to use a laundromat. His evidence as to timing varied during the hearing.
Ms Blackett said the issue was raised late and that she offered to inspect and repair it.
Apart from his assertion, Mr Hwang has not provided evidence establishing the existence of a defect or a failure to repair
Ms Blackett’s evidence that she offered to inspect was not rebutted.
I prefer Ms Balckett’s evidence because the learned adjudicator M Pollak ruled against Mr Hwang In Blackett v Hwang [2025] NZTT 5277241 for refusing to allow Ms Blackett to inspect the premises on 25 May 2025, 30 May 2025 and 10 June 2025.
Accordingly, Mr Hwang’s claim must fail. Discrimination
Section 12 prohibits discrimination in granting, renewing, or terminating tenancy.
Mr Hwang said the landlord made comments about his criminal history and called him dangerous.
Ms Blackett said these comments arose from disputes over rent arrears and were unrelated to granting the tenancy.
To succeed under section 12, Mr Hwang must prove that the alleged discrimination arose in relation to granting, renewing, or terminating the tenancy. However, Mr Hwang did not dispute that the tenancy had already been granted and that the comments arose during a dispute about rent arrears.
Accordingly, section 12 was not engaged, and Ms Blackett’s conduct did not fall within its ambit. The claim is dismissed. Filing fee
Because JI Hwang has substantially succeeded with the claims, I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5290643 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat G07, 165 Lake Road, Northcote, Auckland 0627

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5290643 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat G07, 165 Lake Road, Northcote, Auckland 0627

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions