Tenantcheck Insights

Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 4795457 — Tenancy dispute

Decided 22 Mar 2024 · Published 22 Mar 2024 · Application 4795457

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

G Baker

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 4795457 — Tenancy dispute

Decided 22 Mar 2024 · Published 22 Mar 2024 · Application 4795457

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

G Baker

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.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing by telephone.
The landlord was telephoned twice on the telephone number provided in the application and in the tenancy agreement. The telephone call was not connected and it was not possible to leave a message.
The landlord subsequently contacted the Tribunal’s remote registry to say that two calls had been received but he was not connected.
The tenant has applied for refund of their bond following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has indicated in email correspondence to the Tribunal on the morning of the hearing that it has a claim against the tenant, but has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.
Section 22B RTA provides: (1) If there is a dispute between the parties as to the payment of a bond, either party may apply to the Tribunal for an order determining to whom the bond, or any part of it, is to be paid. (2) If the tenant applies to the Tribunal and the landlord seeks payment of the bond in whole or in part, the landlord must file an application with the Tribunal that sets out the landlord’s counterclaim. [My emphasis added]
The requirement for the landlord to file a counterclaim is mandatory. Therefore, because the landlord has not done so, the bond must be refunded in full to the tenant.
This does not prevent the landlord from subsequently filing a claim against the tenant. However, if the landlord’s subsequent claim is successful, the bond will not be available at the Bond Centre to meet any amount owing to the landlord.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Topics & place

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

NO ADDRESS

Residential Tenancies Act sections

s22B

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4795457 about?

The published order could not be summarised from available data.

How much money was awarded in case 4795457?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4795457?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4795457?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10118370-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.