What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4794093 about?

The tribunal order states: Queens Property Management Limited Salvia Leite must pay [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 4794093?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Refund Deposit (Key Money: $760.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4794093?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4794093?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10115814-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4794093 about?

The tribunal order states: Queens Property Management Limited Salvia Leite must pay [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 4794093?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Refund Deposit (Key Money: $760.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4794093?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4794093?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10115814-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4794093 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4794093 — net $780.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Refund deposit (key money	$760.00	Refund deposit (key money
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$780.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$780.44

Order

Queens Property Management Limited Salvia Leite must pay [The tenant/s] $780.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which I held by phone. Ms Leite represented the landlord. Background
On 23 December 2023, the tenant viewed the premises and then completed an application to be accepted as a tenant.
On 28 December 2023 the landlord emailed the tenant a signed tenancy agreement for him to sign with a confirmation that it was offering him the tenancy which was to commence on 19 January 2024.
The landlord required a deposit equivalent to 2 weeks’ rent and credit check fees.
On 30 December 2023, the tenant paid $720.00 (equivalent to 1 week’s rent) and $40.00 towards the credit check fees, a total of $760.00. He never signed the tenancy agreement, nor did he make any other payments.
The tenant then advised the landlord that his situation had changed and that he would not be able to accept the offer of the tenancy.
The landlord started looking for a new tenant on 2 January 2024 and a new tenant began renting the premises on 3 February 2024.
The tenant asked for his ‘bond’ to be refunded. The landlord refused, saying the amount he paid was a non-refundable deposit.

Should the deposit the tenant paid be refunded?

The basic facts in this case are not disputed. Ms Leite confirmed that the payment made by the tenant was not a bond, but (part) payment of a non- refundable deposit to secure the tenancy.
The difficulty the landlord faces is this. The tenant did not sign the tenancy agreement. Nor did he pay bond or rent. So, there was no contract between the parties, only an offer by the landlord which the tenant considered but then decided not to accept.
While considering the landlord’s offer, the tenant was asked to pay a non- refundable deposit to secure the tenancy, which he did. Ms Leite confirmed that if the tenancy had proceeded, the payment would have been applied to rent.
Section 17 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides: Requiring key money prohibited (1) Subject to subsection (4), no person shall, without the prior consent of the Tribunal, require the payment of key money in respect of— (a) the grant, continuance, extension, variation, or renewal of any tenancy agreement; or (b) the assignment of a tenant’s interest under any tenancy agreement; or (c) the subletting of the whole or any part of the premises by a tenant. (2) Nothing in subsection (1) limits or affects section 44A (which entitles a landlord to recover reasonable expenses on consenting to the tenant’s assigning, subletting, or parting with possession of the premises, or to termination of the tenancy by agreement). (3) The requiring of key money in contravention of subsection (1) is hereby declared to be an unlawful act. (3A) A landlord who contravenes subsection (1) commits an infringement offence and is liable to a fine or an infringement fee specified in Schedule 1B. (4) Subsection (1) shall not apply to any of the following: (a) any sum required or received for an option to enter into a tenancy agreement if the sum does not exceed 1 week’s rent payable under the agreement, and, upon the option being exercised, the sum is refunded or is applied toward the rent: (b) any sum that the landlord is authorised by any other provision of this Act to require or receive: (c) [Repealed] (d) any payment of a prescribed class.
From the evidence the landlord gave, the payment made by the tenant was not a bond. Usually, a landlord would require a bond equivalent to 4 weeks’ rent.
Ms Leite confirmed that the payment was a deposit, a non-refundable one, to secure the tenancy.
Section 17(4) RTA means that the landlord could ask for 1 week’s rent while the tenant was exercising his option to enter the tenancy agreement, but no more than that. Had the tenancy proceeded, that amount would have had to be refunded or applied to rent.
Here, the landlord required 2 weeks’ rent and credit check fees, which is prohibited by section 17 RTA, although the tenant only paid 1 week’s rent and a part payment towards the credit check fees.
Had the tenancy proceeded (by which I mean that had the tenant accepted the landlord’s offer by signing the tenancy agreement) the payment the tenant made would either have had to be refunded or applied to rent. Ms Leite confirmed that it would have been applied to rent.
Because the tenancy did not proceed (the tenant did not accept the offer by signing the tenancy agreement and paying either rent or bond) the deposit he paid must be refunded to him. It was the required payment of key money in respect of the ‘grant of any tenancy agreement’ which is prohibited by section 17(1)(a) RTA and was for an amount greater than 1 week’s rent so does not fall within the exception set out in section 17(4)(a) RTA. Result
The landlord must pay the tenant $760.00 immediately being a refund of prohibited key money for the grant of the tenancy, referred to by the landlord as a non-refundable deposit. The landlord must also pay the tenant’s Tribunal filing fee. In total, the landlord must pay the tenant $780.44. Name suppression
Both parties sought a name suppression order. The tenant is entitled to name suppression as the application is successful. The landlord is not entitled to name suppression as its defence is unsuccessful – see section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4794093 — net $780.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Refund deposit (key money	$760.00	Refund deposit (key money
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$780.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$780.44

Order

Queens Property Management Limited Salvia Leite must pay [The tenant/s] $780.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which I held by phone. Ms Leite represented the landlord. Background
On 23 December 2023, the tenant viewed the premises and then completed an application to be accepted as a tenant.
On 28 December 2023 the landlord emailed the tenant a signed tenancy agreement for him to sign with a confirmation that it was offering him the tenancy which was to commence on 19 January 2024.
The landlord required a deposit equivalent to 2 weeks’ rent and credit check fees.
On 30 December 2023, the tenant paid $720.00 (equivalent to 1 week’s rent) and $40.00 towards the credit check fees, a total of $760.00. He never signed the tenancy agreement, nor did he make any other payments.
The tenant then advised the landlord that his situation had changed and that he would not be able to accept the offer of the tenancy.
The landlord started looking for a new tenant on 2 January 2024 and a new tenant began renting the premises on 3 February 2024.
The tenant asked for his ‘bond’ to be refunded. The landlord refused, saying the amount he paid was a non-refundable deposit.

Should the deposit the tenant paid be refunded?

The basic facts in this case are not disputed. Ms Leite confirmed that the payment made by the tenant was not a bond, but (part) payment of a non- refundable deposit to secure the tenancy.
The difficulty the landlord faces is this. The tenant did not sign the tenancy agreement. Nor did he pay bond or rent. So, there was no contract between the parties, only an offer by the landlord which the tenant considered but then decided not to accept.
While considering the landlord’s offer, the tenant was asked to pay a non- refundable deposit to secure the tenancy, which he did. Ms Leite confirmed that if the tenancy had proceeded, the payment would have been applied to rent.
Section 17 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides: Requiring key money prohibited (1) Subject to subsection (4), no person shall, without the prior consent of the Tribunal, require the payment of key money in respect of— (a) the grant, continuance, extension, variation, or renewal of any tenancy agreement; or (b) the assignment of a tenant’s interest under any tenancy agreement; or (c) the subletting of the whole or any part of the premises by a tenant. (2) Nothing in subsection (1) limits or affects section 44A (which entitles a landlord to recover reasonable expenses on consenting to the tenant’s assigning, subletting, or parting with possession of the premises, or to termination of the tenancy by agreement). (3) The requiring of key money in contravention of subsection (1) is hereby declared to be an unlawful act. (3A) A landlord who contravenes subsection (1) commits an infringement offence and is liable to a fine or an infringement fee specified in Schedule 1B. (4) Subsection (1) shall not apply to any of the following: (a) any sum required or received for an option to enter into a tenancy agreement if the sum does not exceed 1 week’s rent payable under the agreement, and, upon the option being exercised, the sum is refunded or is applied toward the rent: (b) any sum that the landlord is authorised by any other provision of this Act to require or receive: (c) [Repealed] (d) any payment of a prescribed class.
From the evidence the landlord gave, the payment made by the tenant was not a bond. Usually, a landlord would require a bond equivalent to 4 weeks’ rent.
Ms Leite confirmed that the payment was a deposit, a non-refundable one, to secure the tenancy.
Section 17(4) RTA means that the landlord could ask for 1 week’s rent while the tenant was exercising his option to enter the tenancy agreement, but no more than that. Had the tenancy proceeded, that amount would have had to be refunded or applied to rent.
Here, the landlord required 2 weeks’ rent and credit check fees, which is prohibited by section 17 RTA, although the tenant only paid 1 week’s rent and a part payment towards the credit check fees.
Had the tenancy proceeded (by which I mean that had the tenant accepted the landlord’s offer by signing the tenancy agreement) the payment the tenant made would either have had to be refunded or applied to rent. Ms Leite confirmed that it would have been applied to rent.
Because the tenancy did not proceed (the tenant did not accept the offer by signing the tenancy agreement and paying either rent or bond) the deposit he paid must be refunded to him. It was the required payment of key money in respect of the ‘grant of any tenancy agreement’ which is prohibited by section 17(1)(a) RTA and was for an amount greater than 1 week’s rent so does not fall within the exception set out in section 17(4)(a) RTA. Result
The landlord must pay the tenant $760.00 immediately being a refund of prohibited key money for the grant of the tenancy, referred to by the landlord as a non-refundable deposit. The landlord must also pay the tenant’s Tribunal filing fee. In total, the landlord must pay the tenant $780.44. Name suppression
Both parties sought a name suppression order. The tenant is entitled to name suppression as the application is successful. The landlord is not entitled to name suppression as its defence is unsuccessful – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4794093 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4794093 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the deposit the tenant paid be refunded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the deposit the tenant paid be refunded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions