Tenantcheck Insights

Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 4925514 — Tenancy dispute

Decided 30 Oct 2024 · Published 30 Oct 2024 · Application 4925514

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

R Morgan

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 4925514 — Tenancy dispute

Decided 30 Oct 2024 · Published 30 Oct 2024 · Application 4925514

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

R Morgan

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.

Order

Hof Investments Limited Margaret and Walter Hensch must pay [The tenant/s] $27.00 immediately, being the filing fee on this application.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,260.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenants attended by the video link provided.
Mr Hensch attended part of the hearing for the landlord, by telephone. After discussing some procedural matters, I indicated that I would hear from the tenants and then Mr Hensch. Mr Hensch did not wait for the tenants to speak. I again indicated that I would like to hear from the tenant’s first. The call to Mr Hensch ended shortly after that request. I attempted to call him back, but the call went to voicemail.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The landlord says that it has a claim against the bond but has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services. Mr Hensch said that landlord has not had time to do so, even though the tenancy ended in May 2025 and this application was filed in July.
Bond is tenant’s money, unless and until a landlord proves a claim to it. Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 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. Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenants.
As the tenants were the successful party, I have also awarded reimbursement of the application fee and granted their request for suppression of their details.

Topics & place

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

NO ADDRESS

Residential Tenancies Act sections

s22B(2)

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4925514 about?

The tribunal order states: Hof Investments Limited Margaret and Walter Hensch must pay [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 4925514?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4925514?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4925514?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11009976-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.