Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5363549 — Exemplary damages at 209 Great South Road, Drury, Drury 2113, Drury Motel
Published 11 February 2026 · Application 5363549
Tenant favoured
- Exemplary damages
Order
- Registered Suppliers Limited As Agents For Sonny Chen must pay Tereapii Ioaba $3,778.00 immediately as set out in the table below.
- The tenant’s claim for breach of quiet enjoyment is dismissed.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. The landlord was represented by Ms Manoo.
- The tenant’s application includes claims for refund of the bond, failure to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre, breach of quiet enjoyment and reimbursement of the filing fee.
- A Case Conference for these claims was heard on 18 December 2025. Failure to lodge bond
- Ms Ioaba 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, (the “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.
- Ms Ioaba said she paid $3,000.00 bond to the landlord at the start of the tenancy. Ms Manoo agreed this happened.
- Ms Manoo said that because the tenancy only lasted 16 days the bond wasn’t lodged with the Bond Centre by the end of the tenancy. Following the end of the tenancy, Ms Manoo became aware the tenant was making an application to Tenancy Services, so she didn’t lodge the bond with the Bond Centre.
- The RTA does not provide an exception to the landlord’s obligation to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre because the tenancy ended early, or because an application is being made to Tenancy Services by the tenant.
- The landlord 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.
- Ms Manoo explained that she is a professional landlord. The Drury Motel includes many tenancies. It is likely that because of the nature of the accommodation, many of the tenants may be vulnerable to some extent in one way or another.
- Ms Manoo said that she would be filing a claim against the tenant with Tenancy Services today. The tenancy ended on 26 September 2025 and this application was made by Ms Ioaba on 10 October 2025. That is over four months ago. If Ms Manoo was serious about filing a claim against the tenant, I believe she would have done it by now, four and a half months after the tenancy ended. As of today’s date, no claim has been filed by the landlord.
- Section 22B(2) RTA 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.
- When I consider the landlord’s professional status, the amount of bond that is being held and the amount of time that it has been held, I determine the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within 23 days of receiving the bond to be a serious breach. Because of this, I determine that exemplary damages are appropriate in this case, and I award a moderate sum of $750.00. Breach of quiet enjoyment
- Ms Ioaba claims the landlord has breached her right to quiet enjoyment of the premises.
- 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) RTA.
- 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.
- Ms Ioaba said that on her first night in the hotel, 9 September 2025, there were people fighting in the upstairs unit. She said she was already stressed, and she wasn’t able to bring herself to speak to the landlord about this.
- On 17 September 2025 there was another incident which she reported to the landlord, and Mr Chen removed the girl in question.
- Ms Ioaba said there were dogs at the motel and this was not allowed in the tenancy agreement, there was often noise from other tenants inside and outside their units, people would knock on her door from time to time, and there was laughing and thumping noises from other units at night.
- Ms Manoo said she believed Ms Ioaba had no justification for making a complaint, particularly after the assistance that the landlord gave the tenant in getting the tenancy.
- I accept that Ms Ioaba’s quiet enjoyment of the premises was breached by the ongoing incidents and general behaviour of the other people who also had tenancies at the premises. A landlord has an obligation to make sure tenants do not breach other tenant’s quiet enjoyment.
- However I am not persuaded these breaches amounted to a pattern of behaviour that was directed against the tenant. Nor is there enough information to show that Ms Ioaba clearly set out her complaint to the landlord, thereby giving them the opportunity to respond. Therefore I do not find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
- This claim is not proved.
- Because Terearpii Ioaba has substantially succeeded with her claim, I must order reimbursement of the filing fee.