Tenantcheck Insights

Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 4697569 — Tenancy dispute

Decided 25 Oct 2023 · Published 25 Oct 2023 · Application 4697569

Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Location

New Zealand

Tribunal region

Adjudicator

R Merrett

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.

Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 4697569 — Tenancy dispute

Decided 25 Oct 2023 · Published 25 Oct 2023 · Application 4697569

Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Location

New Zealand

Tribunal region

Adjudicator

R Merrett

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.

Order

Red Chili Property Management Limited As Agent For John And Lynda Grimshaw must pay [The tenant/s] $20.44 immediately, being the Tribunal application fee.
The Bond Centre is to pay the remaining bond of $731.23 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Callister represented the landlord.
The tenants have applied for refund of the remaining bond. The landlord has a claim against the bond but has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.
Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) 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 remaining bond is refunded in full to the tenants.
The tenants have been successful in their claim and are therefore entitled to payment of the Tribunal application fee.
The tenants applied, in their application for a suppression order. Section 95A of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply). The tenants have been wholly successful, and the limited exceptions set out in s 95A do not apply. I therefore make an order that the tenants’ names and identifying details be suppressed.

Topics & place

Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).

NO ADDRESS

Residential Tenancies Act sections

s22B(2), s95A

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4697569 about?

The tribunal order states: Red Chili Property Management Limited As Agent For John And Lynda

How much money was awarded in case 4697569?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4697569?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4697569?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9566445-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.