What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5183418 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5183418?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5183418?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5183418?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12281546-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5183418 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5183418?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5183418?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5183418?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12281546-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5183418 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing which was held by teleconference, represented by one of its trustees. The tenants did not attend.

The tenancy ended on 7 May 2018. The landlord brought this application on 2 March 2025, seeking compensation for damage to the premises and for unpaid water rates.

The delay in bringing the application meant that there were questions about service of the application on the tenants, which were discussed at a prior case conference.

In the interim, I have considered whether, in any event, the landlord’s claims can be considered, or are precluded by operation of the Limitation Act 2010.

The Limitation Act applies to any claims before the Tribunal. Section 77(1) RTA makes the Tribunal’s jurisdiction specifically subject to the Limitation Act.

The relevant provision of the Limitation Act is s.11, which provides that it is a defence to a money claim, if the defendant proves that the date on which the claim is filed is at least 6 years after the date of the act or omission on which the claim is based.

That must be the case here. Any breach by the tenants will have occurred during the tenancy, which ended more than 6 years before the claim was filed.

The landlord became aware of the acts/ omissions on which its claims are based at the end of the tenancy, so the late knowledge provisions of the Limitation Act do not apply.

I therefore find that the landlords’ claims for compensation must be dismissed.

A bond of $1,900.00 is held in dispute. It is alleged the tenants sought to have it released to them by forging the landlord’s signature.

The evidence suggests that the landlord has incurred losses due to the tenants’ breach of their obligations during the tenancy.

I have considered whether, although, a money claim is precluded by s.11 Limitation Act, the Tribunal could nevertheless make an Order that the bond be refunded to the landlord, if satisfied the claims have substantive merit.

My finding is that is that it can’t.

The only basis on which the Tribunal could Order the tenants’ bond to be paid to the landlord, would be to satisfy an entitlement to compensation. For the reasons given, the landlord’s compensation claim cannot be upheld.

Reasons