What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5366825?

The tribunal order states: Siti Chen to pay MengQiu Wang $110.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in

How much money was awarded in case 5366825?

Drain Unblocking: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5366825?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5366825?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12979847-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5366825?

The tribunal order states: Siti Chen to pay MengQiu Wang $110.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in

How much money was awarded in case 5366825?

Drain Unblocking: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5366825?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5366825?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12979847-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

24 Hikuawa Road, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5366825 — Exemplary damages

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5366825 — net $110.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Drain unblocking	$460.00		Drain unblocking
Exemplary damages on bond lodgment		$350.00	Exemplary damages on bond lodgment
Total award	$460.00	$350.00
Net award	$110.00
Bond	$470.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$110.00

Both parties attended the hearing on 16 January 2026.

The tenant has applied for the return of her bond and exemplary damages for non-lodgment of the bond after the end of the boarding house tenancy.

The landlord has applied for compensation and refund of the bond.

Did the landlord comply with their obligations regarding bond lodgment?

The bond was not lodged during the 15 month tenancy from 4 March 2024. The bond was only lodged after I directed the landlord to do so at the first hearing on 15 October 2025.

The landlord Ms Wang says that she has initially completed the bond lodgment form for the purpose of using the form as a receipt of bond payment. Ms Wang says that she had assumed that the RTA does not apply to this boarding house tenancy.

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.

By failing to lodge the bond at all during the entire tenancy, I find 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The bond has since been lodged on 20 October 2025.

The landlord says that the decision not to lodge the bond was due to ignorance. However, the tenancy agreement signed by the parties and prepared by the landlord clearly requires the landlord to lodge the bond. The landlord even used a completed bond lodgment form for the purpose of using the form as a receipt of bond payment.

The factor that counts in the landlord’s favour is the subsequent lodgment of the bond shortly after the hearing before me on 15 October 2025.

Having regard to the above factors, I find it just to award exemplary damages of $350.00 against the landlord. In doing so, I have had regard to the landlord’s reason for non-lodgment, the effect of the unlawful act to the tenant, the interests of the tenant, and the public interest to tenants in general to be assured that all landlords lodge the bond within 23 working days from the receipt of the bond.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

I accept the landlord’s evidence that the sink was blocked with hair and a plumber had to be engaged to unblock the drain.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.

There were no pre-tenancy photos showing the condition of the ensuite bathroom vanity at the start of the tenancy. Consequently, the landlord has failed to discharge the onus of proving that the damage to the vanity occurred during the tenancy.

The landlord’s Wechat text to the tenant’s mother confirmed that the landlord does not take issue with the state of the walls, affirming that the landlord is well aware of the state of the walls at the start and after the tenancy had ended.

The landlord’s claims for repairs to the walls and replacement/repairs to the vanity therefore fail.

Only the amounts ordered are proved.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5366825 — net $110.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Drain unblocking	$460.00		Drain unblocking
Exemplary damages on bond lodgment		$350.00	Exemplary damages on bond lodgment
Total award	$460.00	$350.00
Net award	$110.00
Bond	$470.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$110.00

Order

Siti Chen to pay MengQiu Wang $110.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $470.00 immediately apportioned as follows: MengQiu Wang: $110.00 Siti Chen: $360.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 16 January 2026.
The tenant has applied for the return of her bond and exemplary damages for non-lodgment of the bond after the end of the boarding house tenancy.
The landlord has applied for compensation and refund of the bond.

Did the landlord comply with their obligations regarding bond lodgment?

The bond was not lodged during the 15 month tenancy from 4 March 2024. The bond was only lodged after I directed the landlord to do so at the first hearing on 15 October 2025.
The landlord Ms Wang says that she has initially completed the bond lodgment form for the purpose of using the form as a receipt of bond payment. Ms Wang says that she had assumed that the RTA does not apply to this boarding house tenancy.
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.
By failing to lodge the bond at all during the entire tenancy, I find 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The bond has since been lodged on 20 October 2025.
The landlord says that the decision not to lodge the bond was due to ignorance. However, the tenancy agreement signed by the parties and prepared by the landlord clearly requires the landlord to lodge the bond. The landlord even used a completed bond lodgment form for the purpose of using the form as a receipt of bond payment.
The factor that counts in the landlord’s favour is the subsequent lodgment of the bond shortly after the hearing before me on 15 October 2025.
Having regard to the above factors, I find it just to award exemplary damages of $350.00 against the landlord. In doing so, I have had regard to the landlord’s reason for non-lodgment, the effect of the unlawful act to the tenant, the interests of the tenant, and the public interest to tenants in general to be assured that all landlords lodge the bond within 23 working days from the receipt of the bond.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I accept the landlord’s evidence that the sink was blocked with hair and a plumber had to be engaged to unblock the drain.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
There were no pre-tenancy photos showing the condition of the ensuite bathroom vanity at the start of the tenancy. Consequently, the landlord has failed to discharge the onus of proving that the damage to the vanity occurred during the tenancy.
The landlord’s Wechat text to the tenant’s mother confirmed that the landlord does not take issue with the state of the walls, affirming that the landlord is well aware of the state of the walls at the start and after the tenancy had ended.
The landlord’s claims for repairs to the walls and replacement/repairs to the vanity therefore fail.
Only the amounts ordered are proved.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5366825 — Exemplary damages at 24 Hikuawa Road, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5366825 — Exemplary damages at 24 Hikuawa Road, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord comply with their obligations regarding bond lodgment?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord comply with their obligations regarding bond lodgment?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions