What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5182231 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5182231?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5182231?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5182231?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12231712-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5182231 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5182231?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5182231?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5182231?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12231712-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5182231 — Rent arrears

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details.
The application is dismissed on the basis that [The Tenant] does not have standing to bring this claim.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [The Tenant] was represented by [the Director]. I refer to the respondent party in this decision as The Tenant for ease of reference even though I have ultimately found that they were not a tenant.
[The Tenant] has filed a claim in the Tribunal seeking repayment of three bonds paid for three rooms in a “room by room” tenancy (not a boarding house). [The director] explained that [the Tenant] is a construction company that provides accommodation for its employees as required.
He said that [the Tenant] paid three bonds on 11 March 2024 for tenancies beginning on 12 March 2024 for the following employees: a. [employee 1] - $1,040.00 b. [employee 2] - $1,040.00 c. [employee 3] - $1,040.00.
[The Director] said that all three tenancies have now ended but that [the Landlord] did not lodge the bonds with the Bond Centre and has refused to repay them.
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.
[The Landlord] has not filed a claim against the three bonds (which she acknowledges were not lodged with the Bond Centre) but she disputes the claim on the basis that: a. [The Tenant] does not have standing to bring this claim, as while they may have paid the bonds on behalf of their employees, her contractual relationship was with the individual tenants; and b. She is entitled to retain the bonds for [employee 2] and [employee 3] to cover rent arrears, electricity and damage, and half the bond for [employee 1] for rent arrears 1 . Does [the Tenant] have standing to bring this claim?
[The Tenant] says that it had a contractual relationship with [the Landlord] to provide accommodation for their staff. [The Director] said that [the Landlord] was well aware that the [the Tenant] paid the bonds directly on behalf of their employees and would, at least initially, pay rent on their behalf.
[The Director] said that he asked for tenancy agreements and bond lodgement forms but [the Landlord] never provided copies of either.
[The Landlord] disagrees. She accepts that the Tenant paid the bonds and rent for a period but says that her agreements were with the individual employees. She says that she has no contractual arrangement with the Tenant.
It is not uncommon for construction companies to provide accommodation for their employees. This is usually done in one of two different ways: a. The construction company enters into a residential tenancy agreement as a “tenant” and is responsible as the tenant but sublets the property to their employees; b. The individual employees enter into tenancy agreements with the landlord, but the construction company pays the bond and/or rent on behalf of the employees. 1 [the Landlord] said that she had not yet paid the balance of [employee 1]’s bond to him as he had nominated payment to the Tenant directly and she did not have bank account details for payment
The question for determination is whether [the Tenant] or the individual employees were the tenant. The issue is a significant one because only a tenant has standing to bring a claim in the Tribunal for recovery of their bond.
Section 2 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 defines a tenant as the “grantee” of residential premises under a tenancy agreement.
This matter first came before the Tribunal on 29 May 2025. Neither party had filed a written tenancy agreement and so it was not clear who the landlord had granted the tenancy to. The matter was adjourned to allow the parties time to file evidence on this issue.
At the hearing today only [the Tenant] had filed evidence. [the Director] had filed copies of email and text correspondence with [the Landlord] during the tenancies.
[The Landlord] had not filed any evidence but stated at the hearing today that she held written tenancy agreements with [employee 1], [employee 2] and [employee 3]. She sent the first page of each agreement to the Tribunal during the hearing, copied to [the Director] for review.
None of the agreements are signed or dated. I note however that they are filled out in [the Landlord]’s handwriting, with the exception of the section for “tenant’s details” which are filled out in each case in different writing. [The Landlord] said that the tenants filled this section out themselves. She said that she had intended to finalise and complete the agreements but had never gotten round to doing so.
[The Director] was surprised to discover that tenancy agreements existed as he said that he had repeatedly asked [the Landlord] for copies and for bond lodgement forms throughout the tenancy but had never been provided with copies of either.
The tenancy agreements, although unsigned, are consistent with [the Landlord]’s position that, while [the Tenant] may have paid the bonds on behalf of the three tenants, it was not itself a tenant, and the individual employees were tenants.
Having reviewed all the correspondence I note that the documentation of these tenancies was very confusing, there were no completed tenancy agreements and there was considerable confusion about who was living at the property and monies owing. I suspect that the parties did not really turn their mind to this issue or consider the significance of clarifying who the contracting parties were.
I have carefully reviewed the correspondence filed by [the Tenant] in advance of the hearing today. In my view that correspondence supports the position that the tenancies were granted to the individual tenants, and not [the Tenant], because: a. The messages between the landlord and [the Tenant] on 12 March 2024 refer to multiple tenancy agreements and appear to contemplate that the employees could give notice individually; b. [The Tenant] refers to paying rent on behalf of their employees rather than directly as a tenant; c. The correspondence refers to the employees taking over responsibility for paying rent themselves; and d. On 15 August 2024, when [the Landlord] was having difficulty with rent and electricity and gas payments owed by the employees, [the Director] responded stating: “That’s for you to negotiate with your tenants. Not me. You seriously can’t expect me to be involved with that. As of the end of this week all tenancies are private again between you and the tenants”
I find that [the Tenant] is not a “tenant” as no tenancy was granted to it. The tenancies were granted to the individual employees. They are the tenants and are the only parties with standing to seek recovery of their bonds.
The claim by [the Tenant] for refund of the bonds is therefore dismissed. The employee tenants may wish to bring applications in their own names if they seek recovery of their bonds. Name suppression
As not substantive orders have been made with respect to the bonds I do not consider that there is any public interest in the publication of this decision. I have therefore suppressed both the landlord and tenant’s names and identifying details (together with the names of the employees).

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details.
The application is dismissed on the basis that [The Tenant] does not have standing to bring this claim.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [The Tenant] was represented by [the Director]. I refer to the respondent party in this decision as The Tenant for ease of reference even though I have ultimately found that they were not a tenant.
[The Tenant] has filed a claim in the Tribunal seeking repayment of three bonds paid for three rooms in a “room by room” tenancy (not a boarding house). [The director] explained that [the Tenant] is a construction company that provides accommodation for its employees as required.
He said that [the Tenant] paid three bonds on 11 March 2024 for tenancies beginning on 12 March 2024 for the following employees: a. [employee 1] - $1,040.00 b. [employee 2] - $1,040.00 c. [employee 3] - $1,040.00.
[The Director] said that all three tenancies have now ended but that [the Landlord] did not lodge the bonds with the Bond Centre and has refused to repay them.
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.
[The Landlord] has not filed a claim against the three bonds (which she acknowledges were not lodged with the Bond Centre) but she disputes the claim on the basis that: a. [The Tenant] does not have standing to bring this claim, as while they may have paid the bonds on behalf of their employees, her contractual relationship was with the individual tenants; and b. She is entitled to retain the bonds for [employee 2] and [employee 3] to cover rent arrears, electricity and damage, and half the bond for [employee 1] for rent arrears 1 . Does [the Tenant] have standing to bring this claim?
[The Tenant] says that it had a contractual relationship with [the Landlord] to provide accommodation for their staff. [The Director] said that [the Landlord] was well aware that the [the Tenant] paid the bonds directly on behalf of their employees and would, at least initially, pay rent on their behalf.
[The Director] said that he asked for tenancy agreements and bond lodgement forms but [the Landlord] never provided copies of either.
[The Landlord] disagrees. She accepts that the Tenant paid the bonds and rent for a period but says that her agreements were with the individual employees. She says that she has no contractual arrangement with the Tenant.
It is not uncommon for construction companies to provide accommodation for their employees. This is usually done in one of two different ways: a. The construction company enters into a residential tenancy agreement as a “tenant” and is responsible as the tenant but sublets the property to their employees; b. The individual employees enter into tenancy agreements with the landlord, but the construction company pays the bond and/or rent on behalf of the employees. 1 [the Landlord] said that she had not yet paid the balance of [employee 1]’s bond to him as he had nominated payment to the Tenant directly and she did not have bank account details for payment
The question for determination is whether [the Tenant] or the individual employees were the tenant. The issue is a significant one because only a tenant has standing to bring a claim in the Tribunal for recovery of their bond.
Section 2 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 defines a tenant as the “grantee” of residential premises under a tenancy agreement.
This matter first came before the Tribunal on 29 May 2025. Neither party had filed a written tenancy agreement and so it was not clear who the landlord had granted the tenancy to. The matter was adjourned to allow the parties time to file evidence on this issue.
At the hearing today only [the Tenant] had filed evidence. [the Director] had filed copies of email and text correspondence with [the Landlord] during the tenancies.
[The Landlord] had not filed any evidence but stated at the hearing today that she held written tenancy agreements with [employee 1], [employee 2] and [employee 3]. She sent the first page of each agreement to the Tribunal during the hearing, copied to [the Director] for review.
None of the agreements are signed or dated. I note however that they are filled out in [the Landlord]’s handwriting, with the exception of the section for “tenant’s details” which are filled out in each case in different writing. [The Landlord] said that the tenants filled this section out themselves. She said that she had intended to finalise and complete the agreements but had never gotten round to doing so.
[The Director] was surprised to discover that tenancy agreements existed as he said that he had repeatedly asked [the Landlord] for copies and for bond lodgement forms throughout the tenancy but had never been provided with copies of either.
The tenancy agreements, although unsigned, are consistent with [the Landlord]’s position that, while [the Tenant] may have paid the bonds on behalf of the three tenants, it was not itself a tenant, and the individual employees were tenants.
Having reviewed all the correspondence I note that the documentation of these tenancies was very confusing, there were no completed tenancy agreements and there was considerable confusion about who was living at the property and monies owing. I suspect that the parties did not really turn their mind to this issue or consider the significance of clarifying who the contracting parties were.
I have carefully reviewed the correspondence filed by [the Tenant] in advance of the hearing today. In my view that correspondence supports the position that the tenancies were granted to the individual tenants, and not [the Tenant], because: a. The messages between the landlord and [the Tenant] on 12 March 2024 refer to multiple tenancy agreements and appear to contemplate that the employees could give notice individually; b. [The Tenant] refers to paying rent on behalf of their employees rather than directly as a tenant; c. The correspondence refers to the employees taking over responsibility for paying rent themselves; and d. On 15 August 2024, when [the Landlord] was having difficulty with rent and electricity and gas payments owed by the employees, [the Director] responded stating: “That’s for you to negotiate with your tenants. Not me. You seriously can’t expect me to be involved with that. As of the end of this week all tenancies are private again between you and the tenants”
I find that [the Tenant] is not a “tenant” as no tenancy was granted to it. The tenancies were granted to the individual employees. They are the tenants and are the only parties with standing to seek recovery of their bonds.
The claim by [the Tenant] for refund of the bonds is therefore dismissed. The employee tenants may wish to bring applications in their own names if they seek recovery of their bonds. Name suppression
As not substantive orders have been made with respect to the bonds I do not consider that there is any public interest in the publication of this decision. I have therefore suppressed both the landlord and tenant’s names and identifying details (together with the names of the employees).

Tenancy Tribunal case 5182231 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5182231 — Rent arrears

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