Tenant wins bond compensation and exemplary damages in Tenancy Tribunal ruling
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal ruled in favour of the tenant, awarding $324.83 for exemplary damages and utility compensation. The landlord failed to lodge the bond as required by law, leading to the damages award.
⚖️ Legal holding
A landlord must lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within 23 working days under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
📖 What the law says
When a landlord receives a bond payment, they must give the person who paid a written receipt. The landlord must also send the bond amount to the chief executive within 23 working days of receiving it.
A landlord or tenant can ask the Tenancy Tribunal to order another person to pay exemplary damages if that person has committed an unlawful act. For certain unlawful acts related to bonds, this application must be made no later than 12 months after the tenancy ends.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal awarded the tenant $324.83 for exemplary damages and utility compensation, dismissing other claims.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal awarded the tenant $324.83 for exemplary damages and utility compensation, dismissing other claims in a dispute over a room-by-room tenancy agreement. The Tribunal found the landlord's failure to lodge the bond was a breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, warranting exemplary damages.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 4998142 1
[2025] NZTT 4998142, 5093368
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT REMOTE LOCATION | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Tenant
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Landlord
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. [NAME] must pay [NAME] $324.83 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
Description Landlord Tenant Exemplary damages for non-lodgement of the bond $150.00 Utility compensation $150.00 Carpet Cleaning: Wall damage $150.00 Cleaning $60.00 Remaining bond balance $234.83 Total award $210.00 $534.83 Net award $324.83 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $324.83
2. The remaining claims are dismissed.
Reasons:
Background and Jurisdiction
1. This dispute arises from a room-by-room tenancy at a residential property that began on 6 February 2024 and ended on 24 August 2024. Rent was set at $250 per week and the tenant paid a bond of $750 at the start of the tenancy. Initially,
__________________________________________________________________________________ 4998142 2
the parties entered into a “House Sharing Agreement”. However, on 2 December 2024, the Tribunal determined that the agreement constituted a residential tenancy within the meaning of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Accordingly, both parties’ rights and responsibilities must be determined under the RTA.
2. The tenant seeks a refund of the bond balance ($234.83) and $1,000 in compensation for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond and for alleged breaches of the Healthy Homes Standards. The landlord, in turn, seeks to retain the balance of the bond and makes further claims for rent arrears, utility charges, property damage, lock replacement, and cleaning costs.
3. The onus is on each party to prove their respective claims to the civil standard of proof — on the balance of probabilities.
The tenant’s claims
Did the Landlord Fail to Lodge the Bond?
4. Under section 19(1) of the RTA, a landlord who receives a bond must lodge it with the Bond Centre within 23 working days. The landlord failed to do so, stating that she did not believe the arrangement was covered by the Act. That belief is not a lawful excuse for non-compliance.
5. The Tribunal has already determined that the RTA applies to this tenancy. As a result, the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond is a breach of section 19. This breach justifies an award of exemplary damages, which may be ordered under section 109(1) of the Act where the breach is intentional. While the landlord may not have acted maliciously, she deliberately chose not to lodge the bond, even though she accepted a substantial sum from the tenant. The obligation to lodge a bond is a fundamental protection for tenants and landlords alike.
6. Taking into account the nature of the breach and the landlord’s partial refund of the bond ($515.17), I find that exemplary damages are warranted but at the lower end of the scale. The landlord is ordered to pay the tenant $150.00 in exemplary damages.
Were Utility Charges Lawfully Imposed?
7. Under section 39 of the RTA, a landlord may only charge tenants for outgoings such as electricity and water if the charges reflect actual usage. The tenant disputes the fairness of the landlord’s utility charges, which were based on an arbitrary equal division among occupants rather than metered or actual consumption.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 4998142 3
8. The landlord’s approach is not compliant with section 39. Although the monetary value of the disputed charges is minimal, the principle is important. Since the charges were imposed contrary to the RTA and no accurate recalculation is possible, I find it fair and pragmatic to award the tenant $150.00 as compensation for incorrectly applied utility charges.
Did the Premises Comply with the Healthy Homes Standards?
9. Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, landlords must comply with all requirements in relation to buildings, health, and safety, including the Healthy Homes Standards. The tenant alleges that the property was cold, damp, and drafty, citing faulty windows and mould. However, the tenant has not provided any independent evidence such as inspection reports, photographs, or ventilation assessments to support these claims.
10.The landlord denies any breach and argues that the house was warm and dry when appropriately ventilated, and that mould developed due to the tenant’s failure to open windows. While the Tribunal does not dismiss the tenant’s lived experience, a claim of non-compliance must be supported by objective evidence. In the absence of such evidence, the Tribunal dismisses this claim.
Can the Tribunal Order the Landlord to Comply with Legal Requirements in Future?
11.The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to determining current disputes under the RTA. It does not operate as a general oversight body or issue directions in anticipation of future tenancies. This part of the tenant’s application is dismissed as outside the Tribunal’s scope.
The landlord’s claims
Rent Arrears and Lock Change
12.The landlord claims one day’s rent ($35.71) and the cost of a lock change ($253.76) on the basis that the tenant did not return the keys at the end of the tenancy. The tenant disputes this, stating that there was a breakdown in the relationship, and he could not to return to the property on the end date to return the keys.
13.Lock replacement is generally the landlord’s cost unless the tenant has lost or withheld the keys. There is insufficient evidence that the tenant failed to return the keys or caused a security concern. Accordingly, these claims are dismissed.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 4998142 4
Utility Charges
14.As addressed above, the landlord’s method of dividing utilities was not compliant with the Act. The claim for $0.44 is dismissed.
Wall Damage and Cleaning Costs
15.During the tenancy, a tenant must not intentionally or carelessly cause damage, or permit an other person to damage the premises. See section 40(2)(a) RTA.
16.At the end of the tenancy, tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. See section 40(1)(e)(iii) RTA..
17.The landlord seeks $437.00 for damage to bedroom walls and $120.00 for cleaning costs, including dog excrement and general mess. She has provided photographs and a statement from [NAME]. However, the tenant disputes these claims and points to pre-existing wear and tear, as well as damage not attributable to his dog.
18.Regarding the wall damage, the full claim of $437 for wall damage appears excessive given that some damage was pre-existing. However, the evidence is not conclusive regarding the full extent of the damage or whether it exceeded normal wear and tear. I allow a partial deduction from the bond of $150 for minor repairs.
19.On cleaning, the photos indicate that additional work was required, but the claim is not fully supported. Given the evidence and competing narratives, I allow a partial cleaning cost of $60.00.
Filing fee
20.As both parties have had some success with their claims, I do not order either party to reimburse the filing fee.
[NAME]
24 March 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 4998142 5
Please read carefully: Visit justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals for more information on rehearings and appeals.
Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has happened. For example: • you did not get the letter telling you the date of the hearing, or • the adjudicator improperly admitted or rejected evidence, or • new evidence, relating to the original application, has become available.
You must give reasons and evidence to support your application for a rehearing. A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. You must apply within five working days of the decision using the Application for Rehearing form: justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf
Right of Appeal Both the landlord and the tenant can file an appeal. You should file your appeal at the District Court where the original hearing took place. The cost for an appeal is $260. You must apply within 10 working days after the decision is issued using this Appeal to the District Court form: justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals
Grounds for an appeal You can appeal if you think the decision was wrong, but not because you don’t like the decision. For some cases, there’ll be no right to appeal. For example, you can’t appeal: • against an interim order • a final order for the payment of less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work worth less than $1000.
Enforcement Where the Tribunal made an order about money or property this is called a civil debt. The Ministry of Justice Collections Team can assist with enforcing civil debt. You can contact the collections team on [PHONE] or go to justice.govt.nz/fines/civil-debt for forms and information.
Notice to a party ordered to pay money or vacate premises, etc. Failure to comply with any order may result in substantial additional costs for enforcement. It may also involve being ordered to appear in the District Court for an examination of your means or seizure of your property.
If you require further help or information regarding this matter, visit tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing- decisions or phone Tenancy Services on [PHONE].
Mēna ka hiahia koe ki ētahi atu awhina, kōrero ranei mo tēnei take, haere ki tenei ipurangi tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, waea atu ki Ratonga Takirua ma runga [PHONE] ranei.
https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals/ https://www.justice.govt.nz/fines/about-civil-debt/ https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions http://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 4998142 6
A manaomia nisi faamatalaga poo se fesoasoani, e uiga i lau mataupu, asiasi ifo le matou aupega tafailagi: tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, pe fesootai mai le Tenancy Services i le numera [PHONE].
Reasons:
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The landlord failed to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within 23 working days, which is a breach of the Act.
- The landlord's belief that the arrangement was not covered by the Act was not a lawful excuse for not lodging the bond.
- The landlord deliberately chose not to lodge the bond, which justifies an award of exemplary damages.
- The landlord's method of dividing utility charges was not compliant with the Act because it was based on an arbitrary division.
- The landlord was allowed a partial deduction from the bond for wall damage, acknowledging some damage was not pre-existing.
- The landlord was allowed a partial cleaning cost because photos indicated additional work was required.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The landlord's claim for rent arrears and lock change was dismissed due to insufficient evidence that the tenant failed to return keys.
- The tenant's claim regarding non-compliance with Healthy Homes Standards was dismissed due to a lack of objective evidence.
- The tenant's request for the Tribunal to order future compliance with legal requirements was dismissed as outside its scope.
- The landlord's full claim for wall damage was considered excessive given some damage was pre-existing and evidence was not conclusive.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal awarded the tenant $324.83 for exemplary damages and utility compensation, dismissing other claims.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was over a room-by-room tenancy agreement, focusing on the landlord's failure to lodge the bond and incorrect utility charges.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided in favour of the tenant, finding the landlord's failure to lodge the bond was a breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, warranting exemplary damages.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 19 and 109, were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the landlord's failure to lodge the bond within the required timeframe, which was a clear breach of the Act.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the tenant who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure their landlord complies with the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, particularly regarding bond lodgment and utility charges.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Photographs and statements from the tenant and landlord were presented, along with the bond details and utility charges.