What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5421814?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5421814?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5421814?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5421814?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13651655-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5421814?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5421814?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5421814?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5421814?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13651655-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

37 Sunset Street, Hilltop, Taupo 3330 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5421814 — Exemplary damages

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This is a tenant application.
This was a tenancy that commenced on 6 February 2024 and ended on 4 December 2025. The landlord had advised the tenants that she would email their bond refund form through to the bond centre on Monday 8 th December 2025. The landlord did send the bond refund form through to bonds.refunds@tenancy.govt.nz on 8 th December 2025. This was the usual email address that the property manager had used for some years.
However, the bond centre email had changed to bonds@tenancy.govt.nz. I have not been able to find any information on the tenancy website that indicates when the change over occurred.
The landlord and tenant were regularly following up on the progress of the refund. However, the refund form could not be located. The landlord resent the refund form to the bond centre using the wrong email address.
As it was over the Christmas and New Year period the ability for the landlord to speak or communicate with the bond centre was limited. The tenant resent a refund form to the bond centre at the correct address on 6 January 2026. The tenants received their bond within 5 days of lodging their bond refund form. The delay from the end of the tenancy until payment was five and a half weeks.
The tenants seek exemplary damages for the delay in the bond refund, which was caused by the landlord sending the bond refund form to an outdated email address. Standard of proof:
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant 3 to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
In the circumstances of this hearing there is no dispute about the facts. However, the issue for the Tribunal to determine is whether there has been a breach of the RTA and if so, does that warrant the award of exemplary damages. Bond Refund Timeframe
According to Tenancy Services, once a correctly completed and signed bond refund form is received, bond refunds are typically processed within 10 working days (tenancy.govt.nz).
In this case, the bond refund took 5–6 weeks, indicating a delay beyond the standard timeframe.
The landlord submitted the bond refund form to an outdated email address rather than the current bonds@tenancy.govt.nz, which likely contributed to the delay, in addition to the time of year.
Exemplary damages can only be awarded for specific “unlawful acts” listed in the Act, and are intended to punish and deter intentional wrongdoing, not mistakes or negligence.
There is no provision in the RTA making it an unlawful act for a landlord to delay a bond refund due to administrative error, such as using an outdated email address.
For exemplary damages to be awarded, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the landlord acted intentionally (see section 109(3) and cases such as Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust). Simple mistakes or oversight do not meet this threshold.
While the delay is regrettable, exemplary damages are only available for specific unlawful acts committed intentionally. There is no evidence that the landlord acted intentionally or that this conduct constitutes an unlawful act under the RTA. Therefore, exemplary damages are not available in this situation.
The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not the landlord has breached her obligations under the RTA.
The tenant application for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This is a tenant application.
This was a tenancy that commenced on 6 February 2024 and ended on 4 December 2025. The landlord had advised the tenants that she would email their bond refund form through to the bond centre on Monday 8 th December 2025. The landlord did send the bond refund form through to bonds.refunds@tenancy.govt.nz on 8 th December 2025. This was the usual email address that the property manager had used for some years.
However, the bond centre email had changed to bonds@tenancy.govt.nz. I have not been able to find any information on the tenancy website that indicates when the change over occurred.
The landlord and tenant were regularly following up on the progress of the refund. However, the refund form could not be located. The landlord resent the refund form to the bond centre using the wrong email address.
As it was over the Christmas and New Year period the ability for the landlord to speak or communicate with the bond centre was limited. The tenant resent a refund form to the bond centre at the correct address on 6 January 2026. The tenants received their bond within 5 days of lodging their bond refund form. The delay from the end of the tenancy until payment was five and a half weeks.
The tenants seek exemplary damages for the delay in the bond refund, which was caused by the landlord sending the bond refund form to an outdated email address. Standard of proof:
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant 3 to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
In the circumstances of this hearing there is no dispute about the facts. However, the issue for the Tribunal to determine is whether there has been a breach of the RTA and if so, does that warrant the award of exemplary damages. Bond Refund Timeframe
According to Tenancy Services, once a correctly completed and signed bond refund form is received, bond refunds are typically processed within 10 working days (tenancy.govt.nz).
In this case, the bond refund took 5–6 weeks, indicating a delay beyond the standard timeframe.
The landlord submitted the bond refund form to an outdated email address rather than the current bonds@tenancy.govt.nz, which likely contributed to the delay, in addition to the time of year.
Exemplary damages can only be awarded for specific “unlawful acts” listed in the Act, and are intended to punish and deter intentional wrongdoing, not mistakes or negligence.
There is no provision in the RTA making it an unlawful act for a landlord to delay a bond refund due to administrative error, such as using an outdated email address.
For exemplary damages to be awarded, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the landlord acted intentionally (see section 109(3) and cases such as Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust). Simple mistakes or oversight do not meet this threshold.
While the delay is regrettable, exemplary damages are only available for specific unlawful acts committed intentionally. There is no evidence that the landlord acted intentionally or that this conduct constitutes an unlawful act under the RTA. Therefore, exemplary damages are not available in this situation.
The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not the landlord has breached her obligations under the RTA.
The tenant application for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5421814 — Exemplary damages at 37 Sunset Street, Hilltop, Taupo 3330

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5421814 — Exemplary damages at 37 Sunset Street, Hilltop, Taupo 3330

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