What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5216491?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $870.00 (6554394-013) to Susan Mathew

How much money was awarded in case 5216491?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Other: $870.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5216491?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5216491?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11909170-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5216491?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $870.00 (6554394-013) to Susan Mathew

How much money was awarded in case 5216491?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Other: $870.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5216491?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5216491?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11909170-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room 3, Unit/Flat Unit 28, 182 Flat Bush School Road, Flat Tenancy Tribunal Case 5216491 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5216491 — net $27.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Other	$870.00	Other
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$27.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$27.00

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $870.00 (6554394-013) to Susan Mathew As Agent For Mariam Mathew immediately.

Reasons

This is a reserved decision. The landlord attended the hearing which was conducted on 28 May 2025 by telephone. The tenant did not attend the hearing.
The landlord is seeking payment of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Was the tenant served notice of these proceedings in accordance with section 91A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 apply?
The landlord lodged the application to the Tribunal on 27 March 2025, which is more than 2 months after the tenancy terminated.
Section 91A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that where an application is filed more than two months after the end of the tenancy, the usual service rules no longer apply.
Section 91A(2) provides that in those circumstances, the application must be served either personally on the tenant, on someone over the age of 16 living at address where the tenant now lives, or by post to an address provided by the tenant within two months before the application was made.
However, on 20 March 2025, section 91A(2) was amended by, among other changes, the addition of section 91A(2)(e) which provides: (2)If the landlord files an application more than 2 months after the termination of the tenancy to which it relates, any notice or other document required to be served on the tenant relating to the application must be given to or served on the tenant— ... (e) if the landlord files the application no later than 2 years after the termination of the tenancy to which it relates, by transmission to an email address given by the tenant as an address for service; or
Usually for an address given by one party to another to be an address for service, the party giving the address must have explicitly stated that it was being provided as address for service. I note that the template tenancy agreements from Tenancy Services allow the parties to record an email address and state that this is as an address for service.
The standard tenancy agreement was not used for this tenancy. The agreement does record the parties’ email addresses but does not state that they are addresses for service.
The tenant was served notice of this hearing at the same email address as stated in the tenancy agreement and in the bond lodgement form. I have obtained a copy of the bond lodgement form which records the tenant’s email address. The words “address for service” appear to have slipped over to the back page of the form and are not recorded next to the email address. However, the back page of the form states: Tenant’s address for service: If you provide an email address, we will use this as the primary means for communication. If we need to contact you at a street address during your tenancy we will use the address of the rented property or the address for service you give us. A new address for service is required after the tenancy has ended.
I believe that it would have been clear to the tenant when signing this form that the email address was being provided to Tenancy Services as an address for services for matters relating to the bond.
This application relates solely to the bond. I find that the combined effect of recording his email address in the Bond Lodgement form and in the tenancy agreement (both of which are signed by the tenant) the tenant has indicated in writing that he may be served for matters relating to the bond at this email address.
I find that the tenant was served notice of these proceedings. The hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence.

Is this tenancy an excluded tenancy?

The preliminary matter I must determine, is whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider this claim. The Tribunal can only consider disputes in relation to residential tenancies which fall within the RTA. Section 77 of the RTA relates to the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal, and states: (1) The Tribunal has, subject to the Limitation Act 2010, jurisdiction to determine in accordance with this Act any dispute that— (a) exists between a landlord and a tenant or between a landlord and the guarantor of a tenant; and (b) relates to any tenancy to which this Act applies or to which this Act did apply at any material time.
The term ‘landlord’ is defined in section 2 as meaning: landlord, in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, means the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement;
And similarly ‘tenant’ as: tenant, in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, means the grantee of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement;
The term ‘residential premises’ is defined in section 2 as: residential premises means any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence, whether or not the occupation or intended occupation for residential purposes is or would be unlawful
The term ‘tenancy’ is defined in section 2 as: tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent; and includes any tenancy of residential premises implied or created by any enactment; and, where appropriate, also includes a former tenancy
Section 5 of the RTA sets out a range of situations when the tenancy will be ‘excluded’ from the RTA. Of particular relevance is subsection (1)(n), which confirms that the RTA will not apply: where the premises, not being a boarding house, continue to be used, during the tenancy, principally as a place of residence by the landlord or the owner of the premises or by any member of the landlord’s or owner’s family:
While the RTA confirms that certain circumstances become ‘excluded tenancies’, the RTA also confirms that the parties can agree to contract back into the RTA. This ability if found in section 8(1) of the RTA: Nothing in any of sections 5 to 7 shall prevent the parties to a tenancy that would otherwise be excluded from this Act by virtue of any of the provisions of those sections, being a tenancy of any premises used or intended to be used for residential premises, from agreeing in writing that all or any of the provisions of this Act shall apply in respect of the tenancy, either without modification or with such modifications as they may so agree.
The written agreement does not specifically state that the RTA applies. However, clause 4 of the agreement provides: “A bond of $870 will be held by the landlord in accordance with the Residential Tenancies Act”.
Section 19(1)(b) of the RTA provides that within 23 days of receipt of the bond, the landlord must lodge it with the Bond Centre. The Bond Centre’s records show that the bond was lodged with the Bond Centre.
The District Court has confirmed that payment of the bond to the Bond Centre is an indication that may support the parties intended for the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 to apply (Featherston v Barfoot & Thompson Ltd (as agents for Kavvas Family Trust) DC North Shore, CIV- 2015-044-455, 10 July 2015).
I find that the parties have agreed to contract into the RTA for the purposes of the bond. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the matter.

Should the landlord be paid the bond?

The landlord says the bond should be paid to the landlord because the landlord has paid a sum equivalent to that amount to the Ministry of Social Development.
Prior to the commencement of the tenancy, the bond was paid by the Ministry of Social Development on behalf of the tenant. The landlord has provided evidence that she paid a sum equivalent to the bond to the Ministry of Social Development in the form of a bank statement and an email acknowledging the payment from the Ministry of Social Development.
The landlord said she made this payment to the Ministry of Social Development because the tenant was repeatedly asking her to repay the bond but was not cooperating with her when she would asked him to complete the bond return form.
Clearly this is not ideal. The system is designed for the Bond Centre to return the bond to the tenant directly. However, I am satisfied that a sum equivalent to the bond was paid to the Ministry of Social Development as repayment of the tenant’s bond. The Ministry of Social Development is a government department and can be trusted to deal with this payment appropriately.
Section 85 is a provision in the RTA which relates to decision making of the Tribunal and confirms that the Tribunal should looks to a fair resolution of the dispute, taking into account substantial merits and justice, not necessarily strict legal rights and technicalities.
I find that in this case, a fair resolution is for the bond to be paid to the landlord. Filing fee:
Susan Elizabeth Mathew has wholly succeeded with the claim. For this reason, I order reimbursement of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5216491 — net $27.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Other	$870.00	Other
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$27.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$27.00

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $870.00 (6554394-013) to Susan Mathew As Agent For Mariam Mathew immediately.

Reasons

This is a reserved decision. The landlord attended the hearing which was conducted on 28 May 2025 by telephone. The tenant did not attend the hearing.
The landlord is seeking payment of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Was the tenant served notice of these proceedings in accordance with section 91A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 apply?
The landlord lodged the application to the Tribunal on 27 March 2025, which is more than 2 months after the tenancy terminated.
Section 91A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that where an application is filed more than two months after the end of the tenancy, the usual service rules no longer apply.
Section 91A(2) provides that in those circumstances, the application must be served either personally on the tenant, on someone over the age of 16 living at address where the tenant now lives, or by post to an address provided by the tenant within two months before the application was made.
However, on 20 March 2025, section 91A(2) was amended by, among other changes, the addition of section 91A(2)(e) which provides: (2)If the landlord files an application more than 2 months after the termination of the tenancy to which it relates, any notice or other document required to be served on the tenant relating to the application must be given to or served on the tenant— ... (e) if the landlord files the application no later than 2 years after the termination of the tenancy to which it relates, by transmission to an email address given by the tenant as an address for service; or
Usually for an address given by one party to another to be an address for service, the party giving the address must have explicitly stated that it was being provided as address for service. I note that the template tenancy agreements from Tenancy Services allow the parties to record an email address and state that this is as an address for service.
The standard tenancy agreement was not used for this tenancy. The agreement does record the parties’ email addresses but does not state that they are addresses for service.
The tenant was served notice of this hearing at the same email address as stated in the tenancy agreement and in the bond lodgement form. I have obtained a copy of the bond lodgement form which records the tenant’s email address. The words “address for service” appear to have slipped over to the back page of the form and are not recorded next to the email address. However, the back page of the form states: Tenant’s address for service: If you provide an email address, we will use this as the primary means for communication. If we need to contact you at a street address during your tenancy we will use the address of the rented property or the address for service you give us. A new address for service is required after the tenancy has ended.
I believe that it would have been clear to the tenant when signing this form that the email address was being provided to Tenancy Services as an address for services for matters relating to the bond.
This application relates solely to the bond. I find that the combined effect of recording his email address in the Bond Lodgement form and in the tenancy agreement (both of which are signed by the tenant) the tenant has indicated in writing that he may be served for matters relating to the bond at this email address.
I find that the tenant was served notice of these proceedings. The hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence.

Is this tenancy an excluded tenancy?

The preliminary matter I must determine, is whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider this claim. The Tribunal can only consider disputes in relation to residential tenancies which fall within the RTA. Section 77 of the RTA relates to the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal, and states: (1) The Tribunal has, subject to the Limitation Act 2010, jurisdiction to determine in accordance with this Act any dispute that— (a) exists between a landlord and a tenant or between a landlord and the guarantor of a tenant; and (b) relates to any tenancy to which this Act applies or to which this Act did apply at any material time.
The term ‘landlord’ is defined in section 2 as meaning: landlord, in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, means the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement;
And similarly ‘tenant’ as: tenant, in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, means the grantee of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement;
The term ‘residential premises’ is defined in section 2 as: residential premises means any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence, whether or not the occupation or intended occupation for residential purposes is or would be unlawful
The term ‘tenancy’ is defined in section 2 as: tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent; and includes any tenancy of residential premises implied or created by any enactment; and, where appropriate, also includes a former tenancy
Section 5 of the RTA sets out a range of situations when the tenancy will be ‘excluded’ from the RTA. Of particular relevance is subsection (1)(n), which confirms that the RTA will not apply: where the premises, not being a boarding house, continue to be used, during the tenancy, principally as a place of residence by the landlord or the owner of the premises or by any member of the landlord’s or owner’s family:
While the RTA confirms that certain circumstances become ‘excluded tenancies’, the RTA also confirms that the parties can agree to contract back into the RTA. This ability if found in section 8(1) of the RTA: Nothing in any of sections 5 to 7 shall prevent the parties to a tenancy that would otherwise be excluded from this Act by virtue of any of the provisions of those sections, being a tenancy of any premises used or intended to be used for residential premises, from agreeing in writing that all or any of the provisions of this Act shall apply in respect of the tenancy, either without modification or with such modifications as they may so agree.
The written agreement does not specifically state that the RTA applies. However, clause 4 of the agreement provides: “A bond of $870 will be held by the landlord in accordance with the Residential Tenancies Act”.
Section 19(1)(b) of the RTA provides that within 23 days of receipt of the bond, the landlord must lodge it with the Bond Centre. The Bond Centre’s records show that the bond was lodged with the Bond Centre.
The District Court has confirmed that payment of the bond to the Bond Centre is an indication that may support the parties intended for the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 to apply (Featherston v Barfoot & Thompson Ltd (as agents for Kavvas Family Trust) DC North Shore, CIV- 2015-044-455, 10 July 2015).
I find that the parties have agreed to contract into the RTA for the purposes of the bond. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the matter.

Should the landlord be paid the bond?

The landlord says the bond should be paid to the landlord because the landlord has paid a sum equivalent to that amount to the Ministry of Social Development.
Prior to the commencement of the tenancy, the bond was paid by the Ministry of Social Development on behalf of the tenant. The landlord has provided evidence that she paid a sum equivalent to the bond to the Ministry of Social Development in the form of a bank statement and an email acknowledging the payment from the Ministry of Social Development.
The landlord said she made this payment to the Ministry of Social Development because the tenant was repeatedly asking her to repay the bond but was not cooperating with her when she would asked him to complete the bond return form.
Clearly this is not ideal. The system is designed for the Bond Centre to return the bond to the tenant directly. However, I am satisfied that a sum equivalent to the bond was paid to the Ministry of Social Development as repayment of the tenant’s bond. The Ministry of Social Development is a government department and can be trusted to deal with this payment appropriately.
Section 85 is a provision in the RTA which relates to decision making of the Tribunal and confirms that the Tribunal should looks to a fair resolution of the dispute, taking into account substantial merits and justice, not necessarily strict legal rights and technicalities.
I find that in this case, a fair resolution is for the bond to be paid to the landlord. Filing fee:
Susan Elizabeth Mathew has wholly succeeded with the claim. For this reason, I order reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5216491 — Tenancy dispute at Room 3, Unit/Flat Unit 28, 182 Flat Bush School Road, Flat

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5216491 — Tenancy dispute at Room 3, Unit/Flat Unit 28, 182 Flat Bush School Road, Flat

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is this tenancy an excluded tenancy?

Should the landlord be paid the bond?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is this tenancy an excluded tenancy?

Should the landlord be paid the bond?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions