Tenantcheck Insights

Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 5050074 — Tenancy dispute

Decided 19 Dec 2024 · Published 19 Dec 2024 · Application 5050074

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

K Stirling

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 5050074 — Tenancy dispute

Decided 19 Dec 2024 · Published 19 Dec 2024 · Application 5050074

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

K Stirling

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

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and the Landlord name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,650.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The applicant]: $550.00 [The first respondent]: $1,100.00

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing.
The applicant has applied for refund of his portion of the bond. The applicant claims that he is a tenant although he did not sign the tenancy agreement. In that regard he paid his share of the bond to the first respondent who in turn paid it to the landlord and it was lodged with the Bond Centre. However, the bond was lodged under the first respondent’s name only because he was the only one who had signed the tenancy agreement at the relevant time.
Whether or not the applicant is also a tenant is arguable.
The tenancy has now ended for the applicant and the first respondent.
The applicant asked the first respondent to refund his share of the bond. However, it is the landlord who has the ability to refund the bond not the first respondent.
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 may be refunded in full to the tenant.
While the bond is recorded in Mr Chander’s name, all parties today agree that Mr Kumar is entitled $550 from the bond and the balance of $1,100 may be paid to Mr Chander. Orders are made accordingly.
As this matter does not involve any breach by the parties, it is not in the Public interest to publish the names of the parties and their names and identifying details are suppressed.

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 5050074 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 5050074?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5050074?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5050074?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11243422-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.