What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5301990?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $900.00 to Khia Ming Lim immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 5301990?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5301990?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5301990?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13468143-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5301990?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $900.00 to Khia Ming Lim immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 5301990?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5301990?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5301990?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13468143-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

16 Carrickdawson Drive, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5301990 — Cleanliness

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $900.00 to Khia Ming Lim immediately.
The remaining claims are dismissed.
Khia Ming Lim shall return the key and curtain by placing them in the landlords’ mailbox and confirming by text message. If this has not already been completed, it must be done no later than 5:00pm on Friday, 24 April 2026.

Reasons

This application concerns a residential tenancy between Khia Ming Lim (tenant) and Kam Chan and Sophia Chan (landlords). The tenancy commenced on 10 February 2025 and ended on 11 June 2025. The weekly rent was $300.00 and a bond of $900.00 was paid.
The tenant applies for refund of the bond and seeks further relief including compensation and exemplary damages arising from alleged breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”). The landlords oppose the claims and raise concerns regarding cleaning, damage, and items not returned, but have not filed a cross-application. Background
A prior Tribunal determination confirmed that this arrangement was a residential tenancy to which the Act applies. That issue is not revisited.
The tenant alleges a pattern of conduct by the landlords including failure to lodge the bond, failure to provide a tenancy agreement, unlawful entry, breaches of quiet enjoyment and privacy, and resulting emotional and financial harm.
The landlords deny most allegations. They say they relied on incorrect advice regarding the application of the Act, did not intend to breach their obligations, and that issues at the end of the tenancy arose from the tenant’s conduct. Issues
The issues for determination are: •whether the bond should be refunded; •whether exemplary damages should be awarded for failure to lodge the bond under section 19; •whether breaches of sections13, 38, or 48 of the Act are established; •whether compensation should be awarded; •whether the Tribunal can consider the landlords’ claims in the absence of a cross-application; •whether the tenant is entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee under section 102; and •whether suppression should be granted under section 95. Relevant Law
Section 13 of the Act requires a tenancy agreement to be in writing and obliges the landlord to provide a signed copy to the tenant before the tenancy commences.
Section 19 requires a landlord to lodge any bond within 23 working days. Failure to do so is an unlawful act.
Section 22B(2) provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenant.
Section 38 provides that a tenant is entitled to quiet enjoyment and that the landlord must not interfere with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy.
Section 48 governs landlord entry and restricts entry to circumstances including tenant consent or lawful inspection with proper notice, except in genuine emergencies.
Sections 77 and 78 confirm that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to matters properly before it.
Section 95 governs suppression and requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that publication would cause significant hardship that outweighs the public interest in open justice.
Section 102 governs reimbursement of the filing fee.
Section 109 provides that where the Tribunal is satisfied that a landlord has committed an unlawful act, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages.
The Tribunal determines matters on the balance of probabilities. Findings must be based on sufficiently reliable evidence. Bond Refund
It is undisputed that the tenant paid a bond of $900.00.
The landlords did not file a cross-application seeking compensation or deductions from the bond. The tenant does not consent to any deduction.
The Tribunal cannot make orders in favour of the landlords in the absence of a properly filed claim. This reflects both jurisdictional limits under sections 77 and 78 and the requirements of procedural fairness.
Accordingly, there is no lawful basis to withhold any portion of the bond. The full bond of $900.00 is to be refunded to the tenant. Failure to Lodge Bond
The evidence establishes that the bond was not lodged within the timeframe required by section 19. This constitutes a breach of the Act and an unlawful act.
The question is whether exemplary damages should be awarded. Such damages are punitive and require consideration of intent, culpability, and the need for deterrence.
I accept the landlords’ evidence that they relied on incorrect advice regarding whether the tenancy fell within the Act. While this does not excuse non-compliance, the evidence does not establish a deliberate or reckless disregard of known obligations.
In those circumstances, although a breach of s 19 is established, the threshold for exemplary damages is not met and they are declined. Tenancy Agreement
The tenant says he was not provided with a copy of the signed tenancy agreement.
Section 13 requires that a copy be provided. The landlords’ explanation that they delayed due to concerns about the tenant’s visa status does not relieve them of their statutory obligation.
I am satisfied that there was non-compliance with section 13.
However, no quantifiable loss has been established as arising from that failure. No monetary award is made. Alleged Breaches of Quiet Enjoyment and Unlawful Entry
The tenant alleges a series of breaches relating to unlawful entry and interference with quiet enjoyment.
The primary incident concerns events on 11 June 2025, the day the tenancy ended. The tenant says that after vacating and attempting to arrange a final inspection, the landlady entered the premises at approximately 8:45pm in his absence, conducted an inspection, and raised concerns regarding cleanliness and missing items. He says this occurred without consent, without notice, and outside lawful hours. He disputes the landlords’ claim that entry was required due to an emergency, including alleged heavy rain and open windows, and refers to weather reports and video evidence said to contradict this.
The landlords dispute this. They say the tenant gave permission for entry verbally by phone. Alternatively, they say entry was justified due to concern about the premises, including open windows and potential weather-related damage. They deny any unlawful conduct.
The tenant also alleges a broader pattern of conduct, including monitoring through security cameras, questioning of guests, and an incident involving a visitor, said to have been questioned about her presence and belongings. The tenant says this conduct was intrusive and caused him to feel under surveillance.
The landlords deny these allegations. They say they did not engage in such conduct, or that any interaction was minimal and reasonable. They also say they were not present at the relevant times due to work commitments. Assessment – entry on 11 June 2025
Section 48 restricts entry to circumstances including consent, lawful inspection, or genuine emergency.
The key issues are whether consent was given and whether an emergency existed.
The tenant denies giving consent. The landlords say consent was given verbally. There is no independent evidence conclusively establishing either position.
The landlords rely on an emergency justification. The tenant disputes this and refers to evidence suggesting weather conditions did not support such a claim. However, the material before the Tribunal does not allow a clear and reliable finding to be made on whether an emergency existed at the relevant time.
Given these competing accounts and lack of sufficiently reliable corroboration, I am not satisfied that it is more likely than not that the entry was unlawful. Assessment – quiet enjoyment and privacy
Section 38 protects the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment, including freedom from unreasonable interference with peace, comfort, and privacy.
The tenant’s allegations of monitoring, questioning of guests, and surveillance are serious. However, they are disputed and not supported by sufficiently clear independent evidence.
Even if some interaction occurred, not all landlord conduct amounts to a breach. The Tribunal must be satisfied that the conduct was unreasonable, intrusive, or persistent.
On the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that a pattern of conduct amounting to a breach of section 38 has been established. Conclusion on sections 38 and 48
The tenant’s allegations are serious but not proven on the balance of probabilities. Accordingly, no breach of sections 38 or 48 are established. Compensation Claims
The tenant seeks compensation for stress, health impacts, and financial consequences.
While I accept the dispute has been distressing, compensation requires a proven breach and causal loss.
As the substantive breaches have not been established, there is no basis for compensation. These claims are dismissed. Landlords’ Claims
The landlords raised concerns regarding cleaning, damage, missing items, and retention of keys and a curtain.
However, no cross-application was filed.
The Tribunal cannot determine or award compensation on those matters without a properly filed claim. Accordingly, no orders are made in favour of the landlords. Return of Key and Curtain
The hearing was held on 11 February 2026. At that time, the parties agreed that the tenant would return the key and curtain by placing them in the landlords’ mailbox and confirming by text message before the end of that week.
To the extent that this has not already occurred, it is necessary to formalise a clear deadline to ensure compliance and finality of this matter. Filing Fee
The Tribunal must take a broad approach to success, distinguishing between procedural and substantive success.
The tenant has obtained refund of the bond. However, that outcome arises because the landlords did not file a cross-application.
The tenant has not succeeded on the substantive claims advanced, nor on claims for compensation or exemplary damages.
The landlords have been substantially successful in defending those claims.
Accordingly, the tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful. The filing fee is not awarded. Suppression
The tenant seeks suppression.
The threshold under section 95 requires significant hardship outweighing the public interest in open justice.
While the matter has been stressful, there is no evidence of exceptional hardship. The threshold is not met.
Suppression is declined for the tenant.
I have also considered suppression for the landlords. Although they have been substantially successful in their defence, success alone is not sufficient.
Suppression is also declined for the landlords. Decision
The tenant is entitled to refund of the full bond.
A breach of section 19 is established but does not justify exemplary damages.
A breach of section 13 is established but does not result in compensation.
The remaining claims are not proven and are dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5301990 — Cleanliness at 16 Carrickdawson Drive, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5301990 — Cleanliness at 16 Carrickdawson Drive, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions