What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4766197 about?

The tribunal order states: George Onkon must pay [The tenant/s] $1,170.44 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4766197?

Compensation: Bond and WINZ deductio…: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Disposal Of Goods: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4766197?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4766197?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10928050-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4766197 about?

The tribunal order states: George Onkon must pay [The tenant/s] $1,170.44 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4766197?

Compensation: Bond and WINZ deductio…: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Disposal Of Goods: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4766197?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4766197?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10928050-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

90C Coronation Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4766197 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4766197 — net $1,170.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: Bond and WINZ deduction taken	$150.00	Bond and WINZ deduction taken
Compensation: Disposal of goods	$1,000.00	Disposal of goods
Net award	$1,170.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,170.44

Order

[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,170.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionTenant Filing fee reimbursement $20.44 Compensation: Bond and WINZ deduction taken $150.00 Compensation: Disposal of goods $1,000.00 Total award $1,170.44 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $1,170.44

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Nahar Singh Sran had the assistance of a Punjabi interpreter and a support worker, Kavita Upadhyay from Pathways.
This is a tenant application. The initial application was for compensation of goods that the landlord disposed of, reimbursement of the filing fee, compensation for money taken from the bond and WINZ refund and for unlawful termination of the tenancy.
Mr Singh Sran was a tenant at a boarding house. The landlord evicted the tenant forcefully with the help of other tenants at the boarding house. Despite discussions on the legitimacy of the termination, Mr Singh Sran did not wish to pursue a claim against the landlord for unlawful termination of the tenancy.
The sole claims for me to deal with are the reimbursement of the filing fee, compensation for the loss of his goods and for loss of $150.00 from the bond and WINZ money at the end of the tenancy. Disposal of tenant’s goods
At the end of the tenancy the tenant was not able to remove any of his belongings from the property. The landlord and 2 other tenants evicted the tenant and put all his property onto the side of the road.
The landlord also issued the tenant with a trespass notice on the day of the eviction and said he would call the police if the tenant was seen at the property by the landlord or the other tenants.
The tenant was recovering from a serious physical illness and eventually a serious mental health problem, exacerbated by living on the streets without food or money for weeks after the landlord’s eviction. Subsequently the police located Mr Singh Sran and took him back to Middlemore hospital, where he remained for some time due to his poor physical and mental health status.
I have experience of the serious physical health illness the tenant suffered and an awareness of the paralysis and physical limitations on a person during and recovering from this illness. This was disclosed to the parties.
The landlord says the tenant was difficult and caused problems with other tenants. Despite this I cannot help but consider the tenant was significantly more vulnerable than most tenants given his health status and limitations during the tenancy. The landlord had regular contact with health and social providers that frequented the tenant’s room during the tenancy. These agencies could have assisted the landlord with Mr Singh Sran if he had communicated any antisocial problems with them.
While I do not have to consider the tenants behaviour as I am not looking at unlawful termination, that does not affect a landlord’s obligations to a tenant if property is left behind at the end of a tenancy.
Mr Singh Sran itemised property that he lost such as religious artifacts and symbols brought from India, all his clothing, shoes, personal items, documentation, such as bank statements, drivers’ licence, and educational documents. The items of greatest value and concern to Mr Singh Sran were the religious items.
The RTA sets out the process that landlords must follow when tenants leave items at the property. Landlords must be familiar with the process to avoid claims against them.
Sections 62-62F RTA set out the process to be followed before disposing of any tenant belongings left in the premises at the end of a tenancy. The first step is for the landlord to discharge their obligations in s62(2) and (3) which provide: (2) If the tenant leaves on the premises goods that are neither foodstuffs or perishable goods, the landlord must, immediately after taking possession of the premises, make all reasonable efforts to contact the tenant and to agree with the tenant on a period within which the tenant is to collect the goods. (3) If the landlord is unable to contact the tenant or to agree on a period with the tenant, or if the tenant fails to collect the goods within the agreed period, the landlord must ensure that any personal documents belonging to the tenant are securely stored and must deal with the other goods either: (a) in accordance with section 62A; or (b) by securing them in safe storage and by applying to the Tribunal in accordance with section 62B.
The landlord confirmed in the hearing that he and the other two tenants that were helping to get rid of the tenant, packed up his property and left it on the roadside at the time he evicted the tenant. The landlord advised the property was, clothing, bedding, shoes, and personal items.
The landlord disposed of the tenant’s property immediately at the time of the eviction. Due to his physical health, lack of time to pack and the nature of the eviction, the tenant was unable to take his property with him. He was unable to return as the landlord said at the hearing, he would have called the police if he turned up to get his property. The landlord did not follow the process as set out in the RTA and strongly refutes that he had any further obligation towards the tenant after he evicted them.
The landlord rejected my analysis of a landlord obligation under the RTA, when disposal of tenant’s property after termination of a tenancy. The landlord feels so strongly about this that he said if I award any costs against him for disposal of the tenant’s property, he will be appealing the decision to the District Court.
I am satisfied that because the landlord disposed of Mr Singh Sran’s property without his approval nor the Tribunals authority, that he should be compensated for that loss.
Mr Singh Sran has difficulty in quantifying his personal effects, clothing, shoes, and religious items. It is for him to prove the value of the loss. There are no records of what was left on the roadside by the landlord.
Given the lack of proof regarding the value of the items lost it is impossible to calculate the value of the good disposed of. Therefore, it is reasonable that, instead of ordering an amount for any goods, I order compensation because the landlord failed to follow the process set out in the RTA for disposal of goods.
I order the landlord to compensate the tenant $1000.00 for the landlord breach. Bond and WINZ refund
The tenant advised that sometime after the end of the tenancy the landlord gave him a refund of the bond he paid and reimbursed some WINZ money paid to the landlord on the tenant’s behalf.
However, the landlord took $150.00 from the money that was the tenants. The landlord charged a $100.00 fee for going the bank to get cash and delivery of money and deducted $50.00 from the bond refund for having to apply for the refund of the bond.
The landlord said he was entitled to charge the tenant $100.00 for the trouble of going to the bank to get cash to repay the tenant. He could not recall taking $50.00 out of the bond money.
Ms Kavita Upadhyay from Pathways was involved in the refund of the tenant’s money from the landlord after the tenancy. On 20 November 2023, the landlord emailed, Ms Upadhyay to say he would get the money, minus the $100.00 for cash and delivery. The tenant and landlord met and at the bank and the money was given to the tenant.
The landlord emailed Kavita on 16 November 2023 to advise that he was taking a further $50.00 from the bond money as a “surcharge for going through official formality to get refund and possible waiting”.
I find that the landlord has taken $150.00 of the tenant’s money without the right to do so. I order that the landlord refund the $150.00 to the tenant immediately. Suppression and Filing Fee
The tenant has applied for suppression of his name and details. As the tenant has been successful with his application, I will grant suppression.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4766197 — net $1,170.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: Bond and WINZ deduction taken	$150.00	Bond and WINZ deduction taken
Compensation: Disposal of goods	$1,000.00	Disposal of goods
Net award	$1,170.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,170.44

Order

[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,170.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionTenant Filing fee reimbursement $20.44 Compensation: Bond and WINZ deduction taken $150.00 Compensation: Disposal of goods $1,000.00 Total award $1,170.44 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $1,170.44

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Nahar Singh Sran had the assistance of a Punjabi interpreter and a support worker, Kavita Upadhyay from Pathways.
This is a tenant application. The initial application was for compensation of goods that the landlord disposed of, reimbursement of the filing fee, compensation for money taken from the bond and WINZ refund and for unlawful termination of the tenancy.
Mr Singh Sran was a tenant at a boarding house. The landlord evicted the tenant forcefully with the help of other tenants at the boarding house. Despite discussions on the legitimacy of the termination, Mr Singh Sran did not wish to pursue a claim against the landlord for unlawful termination of the tenancy.
The sole claims for me to deal with are the reimbursement of the filing fee, compensation for the loss of his goods and for loss of $150.00 from the bond and WINZ money at the end of the tenancy. Disposal of tenant’s goods
At the end of the tenancy the tenant was not able to remove any of his belongings from the property. The landlord and 2 other tenants evicted the tenant and put all his property onto the side of the road.
The landlord also issued the tenant with a trespass notice on the day of the eviction and said he would call the police if the tenant was seen at the property by the landlord or the other tenants.
The tenant was recovering from a serious physical illness and eventually a serious mental health problem, exacerbated by living on the streets without food or money for weeks after the landlord’s eviction. Subsequently the police located Mr Singh Sran and took him back to Middlemore hospital, where he remained for some time due to his poor physical and mental health status.
I have experience of the serious physical health illness the tenant suffered and an awareness of the paralysis and physical limitations on a person during and recovering from this illness. This was disclosed to the parties.
The landlord says the tenant was difficult and caused problems with other tenants. Despite this I cannot help but consider the tenant was significantly more vulnerable than most tenants given his health status and limitations during the tenancy. The landlord had regular contact with health and social providers that frequented the tenant’s room during the tenancy. These agencies could have assisted the landlord with Mr Singh Sran if he had communicated any antisocial problems with them.
While I do not have to consider the tenants behaviour as I am not looking at unlawful termination, that does not affect a landlord’s obligations to a tenant if property is left behind at the end of a tenancy.
Mr Singh Sran itemised property that he lost such as religious artifacts and symbols brought from India, all his clothing, shoes, personal items, documentation, such as bank statements, drivers’ licence, and educational documents. The items of greatest value and concern to Mr Singh Sran were the religious items.
The RTA sets out the process that landlords must follow when tenants leave items at the property. Landlords must be familiar with the process to avoid claims against them.
Sections 62-62F RTA set out the process to be followed before disposing of any tenant belongings left in the premises at the end of a tenancy. The first step is for the landlord to discharge their obligations in s62(2) and (3) which provide: (2) If the tenant leaves on the premises goods that are neither foodstuffs or perishable goods, the landlord must, immediately after taking possession of the premises, make all reasonable efforts to contact the tenant and to agree with the tenant on a period within which the tenant is to collect the goods. (3) If the landlord is unable to contact the tenant or to agree on a period with the tenant, or if the tenant fails to collect the goods within the agreed period, the landlord must ensure that any personal documents belonging to the tenant are securely stored and must deal with the other goods either: (a) in accordance with section 62A; or (b) by securing them in safe storage and by applying to the Tribunal in accordance with section 62B.
The landlord confirmed in the hearing that he and the other two tenants that were helping to get rid of the tenant, packed up his property and left it on the roadside at the time he evicted the tenant. The landlord advised the property was, clothing, bedding, shoes, and personal items.
The landlord disposed of the tenant’s property immediately at the time of the eviction. Due to his physical health, lack of time to pack and the nature of the eviction, the tenant was unable to take his property with him. He was unable to return as the landlord said at the hearing, he would have called the police if he turned up to get his property. The landlord did not follow the process as set out in the RTA and strongly refutes that he had any further obligation towards the tenant after he evicted them.
The landlord rejected my analysis of a landlord obligation under the RTA, when disposal of tenant’s property after termination of a tenancy. The landlord feels so strongly about this that he said if I award any costs against him for disposal of the tenant’s property, he will be appealing the decision to the District Court.
I am satisfied that because the landlord disposed of Mr Singh Sran’s property without his approval nor the Tribunals authority, that he should be compensated for that loss.
Mr Singh Sran has difficulty in quantifying his personal effects, clothing, shoes, and religious items. It is for him to prove the value of the loss. There are no records of what was left on the roadside by the landlord.
Given the lack of proof regarding the value of the items lost it is impossible to calculate the value of the good disposed of. Therefore, it is reasonable that, instead of ordering an amount for any goods, I order compensation because the landlord failed to follow the process set out in the RTA for disposal of goods.
I order the landlord to compensate the tenant $1000.00 for the landlord breach. Bond and WINZ refund
The tenant advised that sometime after the end of the tenancy the landlord gave him a refund of the bond he paid and reimbursed some WINZ money paid to the landlord on the tenant’s behalf.
However, the landlord took $150.00 from the money that was the tenants. The landlord charged a $100.00 fee for going the bank to get cash and delivery of money and deducted $50.00 from the bond refund for having to apply for the refund of the bond.
The landlord said he was entitled to charge the tenant $100.00 for the trouble of going to the bank to get cash to repay the tenant. He could not recall taking $50.00 out of the bond money.
Ms Kavita Upadhyay from Pathways was involved in the refund of the tenant’s money from the landlord after the tenancy. On 20 November 2023, the landlord emailed, Ms Upadhyay to say he would get the money, minus the $100.00 for cash and delivery. The tenant and landlord met and at the bank and the money was given to the tenant.
The landlord emailed Kavita on 16 November 2023 to advise that he was taking a further $50.00 from the bond money as a “surcharge for going through official formality to get refund and possible waiting”.
I find that the landlord has taken $150.00 of the tenant’s money without the right to do so. I order that the landlord refund the $150.00 to the tenant immediately. Suppression and Filing Fee
The tenant has applied for suppression of his name and details. As the tenant has been successful with his application, I will grant suppression.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4766197 — Tenancy dispute at 90C Coronation Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4766197 — Tenancy dispute at 90C Coronation Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

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