What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5472192?

The tribunal order states: Anten Kowalewski must pay Alice Neilson $1,928.00 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5472192?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5472192?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5472192?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13722495-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5472192?

The tribunal order states: Anten Kowalewski must pay Alice Neilson $1,928.00 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5472192?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5472192?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5472192?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13722495-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

3190 Mountain Road, Midhirst, RD 24, Stratford 4394 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5472192 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5472192 — net $1,928.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge the bond at the Bond Centre	$500.00	Failure to lodge the bond at the Bond Centre
Refund bond – Presently held by landlord	$1,400.00	Refund bond – Presently held by landlord
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,928.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,928.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5472192 — net $1,928.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge the bond at the Bond Centre	$500.00	Failure to lodge the bond at the Bond Centre
Refund bond – Presently held by landlord	$1,400.00	Refund bond – Presently held by landlord
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,928.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,928.00

Order

Anten Kowalewski must pay Alice Neilson $1,928.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The tenant’s applications for breach of quiet enjoyment and interference with her water supply is dismissed.

Reasons

Only the tenant attended the hearing. I am satisfied the landlord has been served and so the hearing proceeded in his absence.
The tenant seeks refund of her bond, exemplary damages and compensation for failure to lodge the bond at the Bond Centre and exemplary damages and compensation for the landlord interfering with her water supply which she says is also a breach of her quiet enjoyment. Civil burden of proof
As advised to the tenant at the hearing the applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, 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. It is the applicant that must prove their case.
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 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. Bond refund and failure to lodge the bond
The tenant has applied for refund of her bond following the end of the tenancy and exemplary damages and compensation for failing to lodge the bond within the required statutory timeframe.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received (see s 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA)). This applies whether the bond is paid in part or whole. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00 (see s 19(2) and Schedule 1A RTA).
The tenancy agreement records that the tenancy began on 7 July 2025. The tenancy agreement records that the bond payable is $1,400. The tenant says that MSD/WINZ paid the landlord the bond directly on 5 August 2025. She says a payment of $2,100 was made on that date being $1,400 for bond and 2 weeks of rent (at ($350 per week). A payment of $2,100 was shown to me being made on this date on her WINZ online account.
In support of this the tenant also provided a copy of a letter from MSD/WINZ confirming that payments of $1,400 and $700 were made to the landlord.
Text messages between the parties viewed on the tenant’s mobile phone also refer to the tenant noting her payment of the bond of $1400 (and the fact it has not been lodged at the Bond Centre) and, in his reply, the landlord does not dispute the existence of the bond. When a discussion follows about the tenant’s need to pay the final rent owing the landlord’s response is simply that the bond is not to cover such things like final rent (rather than dispute the existence of the bond at all).
The tenant disputes the application of the bond to any sums.
On the basis of all of this evidence, I accept that the $2,100 paid on 5 August 2025 relates to a $1,400 payment to cover the bond (plus 2 weeks rent).
I have made direct enquires with the Bond Centre to confirm the tenant’s position that the bond has not been lodged and I am satisfied that this is the case.
I am therefore satisfied a bond of $1,400 was paid and was not lodged at any point during the tenancy (or even afterwards) at the Bond Centre. This is an unlawful act.
I heard that the bond has not been refunded and it appears from text messages that the landlord has chosen to hold onto it. While that may be the case the landlord thinks the tenant owes him money a landlord cannot unilaterally decide to withhold a bond or decide where to apply it. Of course, if the bond had been lodged at the Bond Centre, as should have been done, the landlord would not have been able to act in this way at all because he would not have been in a position to unilaterally control how the bond was applied at the end of the tenancy.
I now turn to whether the tenant should have the bond refunded as she requests.
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. The landlord has not filed a counterclaim so the bond is refunded in full to the tenant.
Turning to the proven unlawful act of failing to lodge the bond within the statutory time frame the tenant seeks compensation and exemplary damages.
I consider this breach is best addressed by way of an award of exemplary damages rather than compensation because I am not satisfied that the tenant has sufficiently established a loss as a result of the breach that gives rise to compensation.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the court said this: In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is sought. As the Tribunal in Chief Executive, ex parte Edmondson v Walls TT548/92 said: Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it.
If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: a. The intention of the person; b. The effect of the unlawful act; c. The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and d. The public interest
I consider that the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond is intentional. The tenant makes clear reference to the bond not being lodged in her text messages sent at the end of the tenancy but the landlord does not address the issue and has not gone on to lodge the bond. The bond is still not lodged.
The landlord appears to have chosen to retain the bond for sums he thinks the tenant should pay for. The effect on the tenant is that the landlord has been able to do as he pleases with the bond including withholding it at the end of the tenancy from her. A bond is the tenants’ money and must be lodged with the Bond Centre within the statutory time limit to protect the tenants’ interests. Lodging a bond is not a conditional obligation but a mandatory one and it is in the public interest that landlords fulfil their obligations under the RTA. If no penalty is imposed there can be no deterrent.
The landlord has not provided any reasons for his failure to lodge the bond.
Exemplary damages of $500.00 are awarded to the tenant for this unlawful act. This is put at the lower end of the scale because there is no evidence of any other breaches of a similar nature. This sum is in addition to the bond sum of $1400 which is to be refunded to the tenant. Interference with the tenant’s water supply
The tenant says the landlord cut off her water supply to make her leave the property and that this was not right and that this was also a breach of her quiet enjoyment. She seeks compensation and exemplary damages for this.
A landlord must not interfere with the supply of water to the premises, except where the interference is necessary to avoid danger to any person or to enable maintenance or repairs to be carried out. See section 45(2) RTA. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 45(2A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Further, 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.
The tenant says that the home is a rural property. Her water is from a tank driven by a pump which needs power. She is not sure how the landlord interfered with her water, but she says she had none to flush the toilet and so on, so she had to move out. I heard how the landlord lives next door.
I saw the history of the text messages between the parties. The messages are amicable to begin with focusing on lawn cutting, after some months there is a discussion about a visiting bus and the landlord then gave written notice to end the tenancy on 28 October 2025 (a photograph of the notice was sent by text as well as the landlord referring to it being left in the tenant’s mailbox).
The tenant responded to this by text the next day on 29 October giving her own 28 day notice to end the tenancy. The tenant noted the tenancy would end on 23 November but the landlord replied calculating her end date as 26 November. There are then discussions about rent payable and the lodging of the bond.
The next text message in the sequence is a text from the tenant saying she has gone on 5 November 2025. There is no reply from the landlord. On 6 November the tenant apologies for the way the tenancy ended and gives her bank account to provide the bond refund. She refers to there being no water to clean. She sends another email on 7 November referring to needing her bond back and the fact the water was off forcing her out. The landlord then replied on 8 November saying the tenant was only saying sorry because she wanted her bond back and noting that she did not tell the landlord the water was off. The message also addresses other matters such as rent.
On the basis of the evidence before me I am not satisfied that the tenant has sufficiently proven that the landlord interfered with her water supply or interfered with her quiet enjoyment on the basis of turning off or interfering with her water supply. While there may have been a problem with her water, I am not satisfied that it is sufficiently proven that the landlord caused this or that the tenant even alerted the landlord to the problem before she moved out. I would have expected to see the tenant tell the landlord there was a problem with her water supply rather than simply move out and alert the landlord of such a problem afterwards.
This part of the claim is dismissed. Filing fee
The tenant has been successful in part of her application, I consider her success sufficient to order the landlord reimburse her the filing fee for making this Tribunal application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5472192 — Exemplary damages at 3190 Mountain Road, Midhirst, RD 24, Stratford 4394

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5472192 — Exemplary damages at 3190 Mountain Road, Midhirst, RD 24, Stratford 4394

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions