What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4970933 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders name suppression to apply for the tenant only.

How much money was awarded in case 4970933?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4970933?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4970933?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13516191-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4970933 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders name suppression to apply for the tenant only.

How much money was awarded in case 4970933?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4970933?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4970933?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13516191-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

25 Sovereign Street, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4970933 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4970933 — net $7,227.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Bond refund	$7,200.00	Bond refund
Filing fee	$27.00	Filing fee
Net award	$7,227.00
Bond	$7,200.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$7,227.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4970933 — net $7,227.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Bond refund	$7,200.00	Bond refund
Filing fee	$27.00	Filing fee
Net award	$7,227.00
Bond	$7,200.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$7,227.00

Order

The Tribunal orders name suppression to apply for the tenant only.
Tony Roberts (AKA Anthony John Marsden Roberts), Kylie Lipscombe and Simon Lipscombe to pay [the tenant/s] the sum of $7,227.00 immediately, comprising the tenant’s bond payment of $7,200.00 and the filing fee of $27.00.

Reasons

This is a dispute where the tenant, [the tenant/s], seeks to get his bond back which was paid to the ‘landlord’, and otherwise not lodged with the Bond Centre or repaid to the tenant. The bond is being unlawfully held by the landlord’s agent.
The Tribunal has had a number of previous hearings in this matter, as set out in the previous order from 2 March 2026. However, from the 2 March 2026 decision, an application for rehearing was granted, and I directed that a video hearing be convened in order to finalise the tenant’s bond refund claim. A video hearing was convened today (29 April 2026). [The tenant/s] and Mr Roberts attended, but there was no appearance by the Lipscombes.

BACKGROUND

As noted in my prior order, the background is involved. However as it relates to the matter to be decided today, the background can be summarised as follows:
The tenant in this case is [the tenant/s]. On 11 December 2023, [the tenant/s] entered into a tenancy agreement for premises at 25 Sovereign Street, Flat Bush, Auckland. The tenancy commenced on 26 January 2024.
The tenancy agreement recorded the landlord as Simon and Kylie Lipscombe. The agreement records the agent of the landlord as “The Property Group Limited” (TPGL), and the contact person was “Tony Roberts”. The relevant portion of the tenancy agreement is as follows:
[the tenant/s] paid $7,200 of bond.
[the tenant/s] tried getting his bond back, that was unsuccessful.
On 14 August 2024, [the tenant/s] filed an application with the Tribunal, listing two respondents, that is ‘The Property Group Limited’ and Tony Roberts. [The tenant/s] sought the recovery of his bond of $7,200 and the recovery of $2,700 which he says was paid to Mr Roberts that was not paid to the owner.
The matter came before two prior adjudicators, the end result being that on 9 June 2025, Adjudicator Singh ordered that TPGL was to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre immediately. I note that there was no appearance by TPGL at that hearing.
TPGL applied for a rehearing on the basis that it was not the landlord and had nothing to do with this tenancy or Mr Roberts. A hearing was convened 2 March 2026 to decide whether the rehearing requested by TPGL would be approved. In attendance was [the tenant/s], Mr Roberts, and TPGL (represented by Mr McDonald and Ms Mystry).
TPGL advised they have had nothing to do with this tenancy, other than as a respondent to these claims. Mr Roberts confirmed that was correct, and confirmed that it was an administrative error to have recorded in the tenancy agreement that the agent was ‘The Property Group Limited’, rather it should have been ‘The Rental Group Limited’.
Mr Roberts confirmed that the bond had been received, but states it is sitting in the bank account for The Rental Group Limited, which he claims to be unable to access, although no evidence supporting that has been provided.
At that hearing I reviewed the Companies Register, and noted that The Property Group Limited had been removed from the register and that the last director was recorded as Mr Roberts (Mr Roberts confirmed that was himself).
The application for rehearing was granted. Plainly a miscarriage of justice had occurred, because an order was made that TPGL pay money when they were not involved with the tenancy. I directed that a further video hearing be convened, and that the Lipscombes be joined as respondents, that order stating: Having reviewed the file, I have also determined that Kylie and Simon Lipscombe should be joined to this proceeding. I have reached that view given the tenancy agreement records that the Lipscombe’s are the landlords, and further the file includes communications where they have been in contact with Mr Roberts chasing up the bond paid by [the tenant/s] (which Mr Roberts responded that it was in “our trust account” which I take to mean his company’s account). The file also includes a property management agreement between the Lipscombes and The Rental Group Limited, which Mr Roberts signed on behalf of that company. Tenancy law is a subset of contract law. It is well settled that when an agent enters into a contract on behalf of the principal, that the contract is not with the agent, but the principal. The agent in this case was The Rental Group Limited, and the principal the Lipscombes. It would be appropriate therefore, applying the usual approach with contract disputes, that the principal be a party to the application, and to that extent I directed the Lipscomes be joined as co-respondents with Mr Roberts. From here, Tenancy Services will schedule a further video hearing before myself, so that I can hear from [the tenant/s], Mr Roberts and the Lipscombes around [the tenant/s]’s bond release application. I record for the avoidance of doubt, that if [the tenant/s]’s application is successful, then an order could be made that the bond be repaid by Mr Roberts and / or the Lipscombes.
A further video hearing was scheduled and convened today on 29 April 2026.

POSITION OF THE PARTIES

[The tenant/s] simply seeks an order that his bond be refunded as well as the filing fee he paid. [The tenant/s] notes that he paid the bond to Mr Roberts, and simply put, Mr Roberts is wrongly holding it.
Mr Roberts agrees that the bond should be released. Mr Roberts states that as the former director, there is no concern that the bond should be refunded, but Mr Roberts says that as the company has been struck off the register, he cannot effect the payment to [the tenant/s]. Again Mr Roberts claims to be blocked from accessing the money in the company’s bank account, but again, no other evidence has been presented supporting that, or what efforts Mr Roberts made to have it returned to [the tenant/s].
Mr Roberts submits that the order should be made for the refund. Mr Roberts says that the order should have been made against ‘The Rental Group Limited’ but as that company has been removed from the register, ultimately the Lipscombes have the remaining obligation to refund the bond.
Mr Roberts accepts that it was his responsibility as director to ensure that the bond was lodged by the administration team, but it was not lodged because of an administrative error.

ANALYSIS

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the tenant seeking recovery of his bond.
The RTA is clear, when a landlord receives a bond payment, the money must be lodged with the Bond Centre within 23 working days (section 19, Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA)). In this case it was not, and there is no dispute regarding that.
Mr Roberts says that the money is still sitting in the bank account for The Rental Group Limited, but has provided no evidence of that.
The only conclusion that can be reached is that the money is being unlawfully held by the landlord, or the landlord’s agent, and it must be returned to the Tenant.

Who should the order be made against?

I find that the order should be made against both the Lipscombes and Mr Roberts personally for these reasons.
The term ‘landlord’ is defined in the RTA as being the grantor of a tenancy, and where appropriate, an agent of the landlord.
I accept that the grantor of the tenancy was the Lipscombes. They are recorded on the tenancy agreement as being the landlords, and it is also plain from communications on file that they have acted as the landlord.
I also find that Mr Roberts personally must be viewed as the landlord for these reasons.
Firstly, the tenancy agreement records that The Property Group Limited was the agent and Mr Roberts was the contact person. As we now know, The Property Group Limited had nothing to do with this tenancy, there was no contract with that company, the only remaining valid legal person as agent on the contract was therefore Mr Roberts. To put that another way, when entering into the tenancy agreement, [the tenant/s] could not enter into the agreement with The Property Group Limited as agent; the only other legal person must therefore be Mr Roberts as agent.
Even if I were wrong in my above assessment, I would find that the interests of justice would support a finding that it would be appropriate to find that Mr Roberts, in his personal capacity, is the agent of the landlord. In taking this approach, I note section 85 of the RTA which defines how the Tribunal must approach disputes, and confirms that the Tribunal is not bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations, legal forms or technicalities: 85 Manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. (2) The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.
The reasons I consider that Mr Roberts personally must be deemed the landlord are these: a. The contract was entered into via an agent for the landlord. There was no agreement involving The Property Group Limited as agent; it must be an agency with someone else, and it would be reasonable to conclude that the agent was Mr Roberts, as Mr Roberts was recorded specifically on the agreement and [the tenant/s]’s dealings were with Mr Roberts. b. The evidence of the Lipscombes is that they were dealing with Mr Roberts. For example, in an earlier Tribunal order from 7 October 2025, the adjudicator noted: The property owners confirmed Roberts acted as their agent when they moved overseas. The tenant likewise stated that Tony Roberts was the person he dealt with throughout the tenancy, until Tony Roberts moved in approximately March/April 2024. c. Mr Roberts signed the tenancy agreement with his signature “As Agent for the Landlord”, not as a representative of the agent. d. As above, there was no valid contract with The Property Group Limited.
I am also minded that well before The Rental Group Limited was removed from the Companies Register on 24 January 2025, that Mr Roberts was clearly aware the bond was sitting in the company’s bank account (if that is where the money is), and as a director of the Company he had a responsibility to act. The emails plainly show inaction on Mr Robert’s part. The file includes the following: a. In an email on 5 July 2024 from Mr Roberts to the Lipscombes, in response to the landlord raising concerns with Mr Roberts about the bond, Mr Roberts replied: I can see the bond is still sitting in our trust account, I am not 100% confident as to why this wasn’t lodged, but as we don’t have a signed bond form I suspect our new office girl has got confused on our obligation - at least that is good news. To transfer that to you, of which we can do to the account you provided for rent to be paid to, I will need a confirmation from the tenant that he authorizes this to be sent to you. I am sure you have discussed that with him but if you could reply stating he confirms for that to be transferred to you I’d appreciate that. Mr Roberts then faced only two options for his company to meet its legal obligations, that was lodge the bond in the Bond Centre or repay it to [the tenant/s]. For reasons which are not clear, Mr Robert’s did not elect either. b. In any event, the landlord followed up with Mr Roberts on 10 July 2024 and 11 July 2024. c. Mr Roberts replied on 12 July 2024 that the payment would be made “with our month end payments”. d. When the payment was not made as promised, the landlord followed up on 21 July 2024, with Mr Roberts stating there had been an IT issue, and that the payment would be made on 23 July 2024. e. The landlord responded on 27 September 2024 again confirming the bond had still not been paid. Mr Roberts replied, promising to have the bond money transferred the following Tuesday. f. On 2 October 2024 the Lipscombes again contacted Mr Roberts saying the bond had not been received. g. On 3 October 2024 Mr Roberts replied that the bond would be forwarded ASAP.
Ultimately the bond has not been paid to the Bond Centre, nor repaid to [the tenant/s] or transferred to the Lipsombes.
I am not persuaded that this is a case of a simple isolated error. In that regard, I note that Mr Roberts has filed an earlier claim with the Tribunal (application 5040081) where the tenancy agreement was, like [the tenant/s]’s, with “The Property Group Limited”. In that case, when Mr Roberts filed the application with the Tribunal, he did so stating the landlord was “The Property Group Limited”.
This is an exceptional case, and I conclude the fair and just outcome is to find that Mr Roberts is the landlords agent as well as his company, meaning the is liable with the Lipscombes to pay the bond money received back to the tenant in full. Name suppression.
The Tribunal has previously ordered name suppression for the tenant, that is to continue.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4970933 — Tenancy dispute at 25 Sovereign Street, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4970933 — Tenancy dispute at 25 Sovereign Street, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

POSITION OF THE PARTIES

ANALYSIS

Who should the order be made against?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

POSITION OF THE PARTIES

ANALYSIS

Who should the order be made against?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions