What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4882500 about?

The tribunal order states: Chen Chang For Infinite Services Limited Acting Agent For Golden Ocan

How much money was awarded in case 4882500?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4882500?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4882500?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10785906-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4882500 about?

The tribunal order states: Chen Chang For Infinite Services Limited Acting Agent For Golden Ocan

How much money was awarded in case 4882500?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4882500?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4882500?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10785906-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room 218, 65 Swanson Road, Henderson, Auckland 0610 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4882500 — Boarding House

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4882500. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Capital Limited must also release the bond of	$2,280.00		Capital Limited must also release the bond of

Chen Chang For Infinite Services Limited Acting Agent For Golden Ocan Capital Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $780.44 immediately, being two weeks rent overpayment from 2 May 2024 until 16 May 2024, and reimbursement of the filing fee.

Chen Chang For Infinite Services Limited Acting Agent For Golden Ocan Capital Limited must also release the bond of $2,280.00 to [The tenant/s], immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenant and the landlord signed a boarding house tenancy agreement on Thursday 2 May 2024. The tenant paid two weeks rent in advance and a six week bond of $2,280.00. the landlord then showed the tenant through the premises and gave her a swipe card to enter the premises.

When the tenant returned the next day with her belongings, the swipe card did not open the doors. The tenant attempted to contact the landlord by telephone, by text and by email but the landlord could not be contacted for several days.

The following Tuesday, having never been able to enter the premises, the tenant returned the swipe card and said that because she had neither been able to enter the premises nor contact the landlord, she was no longer interested in taking the tenancy.

At the hearing today, the landlord said that the tenant could have used the side door of the building for access as the other tenants had done.

The tenant stated that the landlord had not shown her the side-door, and the landlord accepted this.

The tenant has applied for a refund of rent paid in advance and for the bond that she paid in advance, both of which she paid to the landlord.

The landlord in effect never provided the tenant access to the boarding house. Despite the tenant’s thorough efforts to communicate with the landlord about the problem, the landlord was unavailable, firstly he says because he was very busy, and secondly because it was the weekend.

Because of the landlord’s non-performance of the contract from the outset I determine that the tenancy agreement was of no effect.

In the case of a boarding house tenancy, the landlord is not required to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre if it is for no more than 1 week's rent (s 66D(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986).

In this case the bond was $2,280.00 (six weeks’ rent). The landlord has not refunded the bond in full and has not made a counterclaim. Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenant, see Residential Tenancies Act, 1986, section 22B.

Because [The tenant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4882500. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Capital Limited must also release the bond of	$2,280.00		Capital Limited must also release the bond of

Chen Chang For Infinite Services Limited Acting Agent For Golden Ocan Capital Limited must also release the bond of $2,280.00 to [The tenant/s], immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

At the hearing today, the landlord said that the tenant could have used the side door of the building for access as the other tenants had done.

The tenant stated that the landlord had not shown her the side-door, and the landlord accepted this.

The tenant has applied for a refund of rent paid in advance and for the bond that she paid in advance, both of which she paid to the landlord.

Because of the landlord’s non-performance of the contract from the outset I determine that the tenancy agreement was of no effect.

Because [The tenant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4882500 — Boarding House at Room 218, 65 Swanson Road, Henderson, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4882500 — Boarding House at Room 218, 65 Swanson Road, Henderson, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions