What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4757219?

The tribunal order states: Wei Zhou must pay Tapihana Paratene $120.44 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4757219?

Compensation: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4757219?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4757219?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10293747-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4757219?

The tribunal order states: Wei Zhou must pay Tapihana Paratene $120.44 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4757219?

Compensation: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4757219?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4757219?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10293747-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 2, 2 Kelvin Road, Papakura, Papakura 2110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4757219 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4757219 — net $120.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation – incorrect termination notice	$100.00	Compensation – incorrect termination notice
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$120.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$120.44

Both parties attended the hearing on 2 May 2025.

The tenant has applied for refund of the bond, compensation for maintenance work he performed, exemplary damages for wrongful termination and reimbursement of the filing fee. Background

The tenant signed a residential tenancy starting on 21 December 2018. The tenancy had an initial fixed term of 6 months and then continued as a periodic tenancy. The landlord gave a 60-day notice of termination on 5 May 2023 for the purpose of putting the property on the market for sale. The tenant vacated the property on 14 August 2023.

Although the tenancy agreement records that a bond of $2,400.00 was paid in cash on 21 December 2018, it became clear during the hearing that in fact no monetary bond was paid, and nothing was lodged with the Bond Centre.

When the tenancy started, the tenant was working for the landlord’s then- partner, Mr Aldred, as a part-time building contractor. When the tenant needed a new place to live, they wanted to help and offered the premises for rent.

Renovation work was being performed at the property before the tenant moved in. The landlord did not have the funds available to remedy a problem with earlier plumbing work. The tenant did not have funds for the bond of $2,400.00.

It was agreed that the tenant would perform works at the property to the value of the bond. The landlord says it was understood that, if the tenant left the property in good condition, the bond would be refunded at the end of the tenancy.

The landlord says there were significant rent arrears at the end of the tenancy on 24 August 2023 ($6,229.00) the carpets were stained, and the property was not reasonably clean. The tenant provided photographs showing the condition of the property when he left, and the landlord said she had a video of the premises (which I decided not to view).

Is the landlord liable for failure to lodge the bond?

Section 22B(2) of the 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.

The landlord has a claim against the bond but has not filed a cross-application. The usual position in these circumstances is that the bond (being the tenant’s money) is refunded to the tenant.

This case is unusual because the “bond” took the form of the value of services rendered. No money changed hands. Under the Act, a “bond” is defined as “...any sum of money payable or paid under a tenancy agreement as security for the observance and performance of the tenant’s obligations...but does not include any sum payable or paid by way of rent.”

In my view, there was no “bond” as defined under the Act. There was no monetary payment from the tenant. There was instead a transfer of value by way of the performance of services by the tenant. This means there is no “bond” to refund.

The performance of building services by the tenant is not a nullity however, because the work was performed for reasons arising out of the relationship of landlord and tenant. The tenant is entitled to raise the value of those services as a set-off against any claim made by the landlord (Hamilton Ice Arena v Perry Developments [2002] NZLR 309 at [37]). But the landlord has not received a sum of money that ought to have been lodged with the Bond Centre, or which ought to have been returned at the end of the tenancy. There was no bond to lodge or refund.

If, as seems likely, the tenant’s application was really a claim for refund of an overpayment of rent, rather than for refund of the bond, the tenant can still pursue this, but it will be necessary to file an application claiming the overpayment together with evidence an overpayment has occurred. The landlord indicated that she intends to file an application for rent arrears and other issues mentioned above.

A landlord may not require a tenant to provide any form of security for the tenancy other than a bond or a guarantee (section 18A of the Act). “Security” means any interest in property, or the power to exercise a right of the tenant, or the means to obtain money from a third party.

I have considered whether the landlord is in breach of section 18A of the Act. I find that the performance of services by the tenant in lieu of payment of a bond does not mean the landlord required an impermissible form of security. The value of the services provided does not meet the definition of “security” in my view. The landlord received the benefit of those building services but obtained no rights over any property, or power to exercise the tenant’s rights, and did not obtain any means to obtain money from a third party if the tenant did not comply with his obligations.

In conclusion, although the facts are unusual, I find that the landlord is not in breach of the provisions of the Act relating to bonds.

Did the landlord terminate the tenancy without grounds?

The tenant says the landlord did not give the correct period of notice and the reason given in the termination notice (an intended sale) was not bona fide because the house was not put on the market and has not been sold.

The landlord explained that real estate agents provided a market analysis on 1 May and 25 July 2023 but there were two obstacles to the property being marketed for sale. The real estate agent advised that the property could not be sold in its present condition and required renovation. After a couple of months, the residential housing market started to fall. The landlord decided to postpone the sale and the property was not put on the market.

I agree with the tenant that the landlord did not give the correct length of notice. Section 51(2)(a) of the Act requires 90 days’ notice to be given if the premises are to be put on the market within 90 days of termination for the purposes of sale. Only 60 days’ notice was given. The tenant did not say this insufficient notice caused him any difficulties, and the landlord said she did not do anything to hurry the tenant to leave. The 90-day period following the notice dated 5 May 2023 would have expired on 3 July 2023. The tenant left on 14 August 2023.

It was a breach of section 51 and of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment to terminate his tenancy on insufficient notice. However, in the event the tenant had more than 90 days to vacate. Any physical or mental inconvenience suffered by the tenant was minor. I award $100.00 to vindicate the tenant’s rights.

I am not satisfied that the termination notice was invalid because it was not given for the reason relied on. The landlord produced market analysis by different real estate agents in May and July 2023 which I consider show there was a genuine intention to sell the property when the notice was given and for some period afterwards.

Section 51(2)(a) of the Act only requires that the landlord is to put the premises on the market within 90 days of the termination date. It does not require the property to be on the market when a termination notice is served. The landlord appears to have had grounds not to proceed with marketing when circumstances changed, and the Act is silent about whether a notice is invalid if grounds exist when it is given but not when it takes effect.

Under Section 60AA of the Act a landlord must not give notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.

The landlord explained that she had previously rented the property through a property manager and had not managed any tenancies directly. She acknowledged having not checked the rules and did not know that 90 days’ notice had to be given. The landlord said she made a mistake. I accept the landlord’s evidence that she did not know the wrong notice period had been given.

In any event, the question is whether the landlord knew she was not entitled to give notice. For the reasons already explained, when the notice was given the landlord intended to market the property for sale. It follows that the landlord was entitled to give notice for that reason even though the notice period was wrong. I decline to award exemplary damages and have already awarded $100.00 to uphold the tenant’s rights.

Is the tenant entitled to compensation for work on a fence?

The tenant claimed the cost of materials for repairing a fence which he said blew over in the wind ($431.96). The tenant relied on a quotation (not an invoice) dated 7 August 2023.

The landlord said the fence was damaged when the tenant’s partner reversed her vehicle into it about 9 months into the tenancy (i.e., sometime in 2019).

During the hearing, both parties referred to a document headed “Work at 2/2 Kelvin Road Papakura”. This listed renovation work to be done at the property and indicated whether the cost of this work was to be borne by the landlord or the tenant. Mr Aldred said the document had been prepared in June/July 2023. There is no reference to the fence, which tends to suggest the fence was not damaged at that time.

On the limited evidence available, I am not satisfied that the tenant has incurred a maintenance cost (fixing the fence) which ought to have been met by the landlord. Filing fee

The tenant has succeeded in showing that his rights were breached. I award the filing fee.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4757219 — net $120.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation – incorrect termination notice	$100.00	Compensation – incorrect termination notice
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$120.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$120.44

Both parties attended the hearing on 2 May 2025.

The tenant has applied for refund of the bond, compensation for maintenance work he performed, exemplary damages for wrongful termination and reimbursement of the filing fee. Background

Is the landlord liable for failure to lodge the bond?

The landlord has a claim against the bond but has not filed a cross-application. The usual position in these circumstances is that the bond (being the tenant’s money) is refunded to the tenant.

In conclusion, although the facts are unusual, I find that the landlord is not in breach of the provisions of the Act relating to bonds.

Did the landlord terminate the tenancy without grounds?

Under Section 60AA of the Act a landlord must not give notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.

Is the tenant entitled to compensation for work on a fence?

The tenant claimed the cost of materials for repairing a fence which he said blew over in the wind ($431.96). The tenant relied on a quotation (not an invoice) dated 7 August 2023.

The landlord said the fence was damaged when the tenant’s partner reversed her vehicle into it about 9 months into the tenancy (i.e., sometime in 2019).

On the limited evidence available, I am not satisfied that the tenant has incurred a maintenance cost (fixing the fence) which ought to have been met by the landlord. Filing fee

The tenant has succeeded in showing that his rights were breached. I award the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4757219 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Flat 2, 2 Kelvin Road, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4757219 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Flat 2, 2 Kelvin Road, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the landlord liable for failure to lodge the bond?

Did the landlord terminate the tenancy without grounds?

Is the tenant entitled to compensation for work on a fence?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the landlord liable for failure to lodge the bond?

Did the landlord terminate the tenancy without grounds?

Is the tenant entitled to compensation for work on a fence?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions