What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4916573 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4916573?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4916573?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4916573?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11315762-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4916573 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4916573?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4916573?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4916573?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11315762-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

2 Birdwood road, Pukekohe East, Auckland 2120 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4916573 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

The hearing was scheduled to be held in-person. The tenant did not attend. The landlord, who is overseas, attended by videoconference.

On 15 June 2024 (a year after the end of the tenancy) the tenant applied for refund of the bond of $2,080.00.

The Tribunal has not been provided with a copy of the tenancy agreement. The available information indicates that the tenancy started on 26 June 2021 and the landlord received a termination notice from the tenant on 23 May 2023. Pursuant to this notice, the tenancy ended on 20 June 2023.

At the start of the hearing, the landlord emailed invoices, emails, and a rent summary. Briefly summarised, these raise at least an arguable case that the tenant owes the landlord $4,804.29 for rent to the end of the tenancy and water charges of $245.66 (total $5,049.95). After payment of the bond of $2,080.00 to the landlord, the tenant would still owe a net debt of $2,969.95.

The evidence also indicates that the tenant agreed to the bond being refunded to pay for the rent arrears, although it was not suggested the tenant had signed a bond refund form.

The landlord has a claim against the bond but has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.

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 tenant’s application must be dismissed because the available evidence shows that the landlord may be owed more than the bond.

My reluctance to go further and make an award of rent and water charges in the landlord’s favour was not well received. As noted above, it is a clear legal requirement that landlords must apply to the Tribunal when a dispute over the bond arises more than 2 months after the end of the tenancy. The tenancy ended 18 months ago, so the landlord has had considerable time to file an application. As noted by the mediator on 15 August 2024, in the absence of an application from the landlord, Tenancy Services could have refunded the bond to the tenant. Suppression

I have granted name suppression to the landlord, given that she has successfully defended the tenant’s application. I do so of my own motion pursuant to section 95A(4) of the Act.

Reasons

The hearing was scheduled to be held in-person. The tenant did not attend. The landlord, who is overseas, attended by videoconference.

On 15 June 2024 (a year after the end of the tenancy) the tenant applied for refund of the bond of $2,080.00.

The evidence also indicates that the tenant agreed to the bond being refunded to pay for the rent arrears, although it was not suggested the tenant had signed a bond refund form.

The landlord has a claim against the bond but has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.

The tenant’s application must be dismissed because the available evidence shows that the landlord may be owed more than the bond.

I have granted name suppression to the landlord, given that she has successfully defended the tenant’s application. I do so of my own motion pursuant to section 95A(4) of the Act.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4916573 — Rent arrears at 2 Birdwood road, Pukekohe East, Auckland 2120

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4916573 — Rent arrears at 2 Birdwood road, Pukekohe East, Auckland 2120

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions