How much money was awarded in case 5245652?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5245652?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5245652?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12461559-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5245652?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5245652?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5245652?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12461559-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

42 Hill Road, Palm Beach, Waiheke Island 1081 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5245652 — Rent arrears

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5245652 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the [The tenant/s] name.

Auckland Property Management Limited must pay the [The tenant/s] $27.00 immediately.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,740.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by telephone on 24 September 2025. The tenant attended the hearing. Ms C Burbery, representative of Auckland Property Managed Limited (APM), attended the hearing for APP.

The tenant has applied for refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Who is the landlord?

This tenancy ended in July 2021. Ms Burbery said that APM has not managed the premises since May 2021. Ms Burbery has provided the name and phone number of the person she believes to be the landlord.

Neither party has access to the original tenancy agreement. The tenant provided a variation to the tenancy agreement which was signed by the parties in January 2020. This form is on APM letterhead and signed by a representative of APM. There is reference to the “Owner” but it does not state who the owner is.

I have been provided with two documents from the Bond Centre. The first is the original bond lodgement form. This form records another agency as the landlord. The second document is an email from APM advising the Bond Centre that it has taken over management of the tenancy.

Section 2 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA)provides that: 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, where appropriate, includes— ... (b) a former landlord; and ....(e) an agent of a landlord [emphasis added]

If there has been a change in landlord, this appears to have not been notified to the Bond Centre as required by 21A2 of the RTA.

As the tenant’s claim is a claim for refund the bond and the bond records provide that APM is the landlord, I am satisfied that it is appropriate for APM to be named as the landlord for these proceedings.

Should the bond be returned to the tenant?

During the hearing, Ms Burbery said that while there was a small amount of rent arrears, she was happy for the bond to be refunded to the tenant.

Section 22B(2) of the RTA 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. As the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenant. Filing fee:

Section 102(4) of the RTA provides that if a party has been wholly successful in her or her claim, the Tribunal must [emphasis added] order the respondent party to reimburse the applicant for the filing fee paid for the application.

The tenant has been wholly successful with his claim. For this reason, I order reimbursement of the filing fee and suppression of the tenant’s name.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the [The tenant/s] name.
Auckland Property Management Limited must pay the [The tenant/s] $27.00 immediately.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,740.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by telephone on 24 September 2025. The tenant attended the hearing. Ms C Burbery, representative of Auckland Property Managed Limited (APM), attended the hearing for APP.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Who is the landlord?

This tenancy ended in July 2021. Ms Burbery said that APM has not managed the premises since May 2021. Ms Burbery has provided the name and phone number of the person she believes to be the landlord.
Neither party has access to the original tenancy agreement. The tenant provided a variation to the tenancy agreement which was signed by the parties in January 2020. This form is on APM letterhead and signed by a representative of APM. There is reference to the “Owner” but it does not state who the owner is.
I have been provided with two documents from the Bond Centre. The first is the original bond lodgement form. This form records another agency as the landlord. The second document is an email from APM advising the Bond Centre that it has taken over management of the tenancy.
Section 2 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA)provides that: 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, where appropriate, includes— ... (b) a former landlord; and ....(e) an agent of a landlord [emphasis added]
If there has been a change in landlord, this appears to have not been notified to the Bond Centre as required by 21A2 of the RTA.
As the tenant’s claim is a claim for refund the bond and the bond records provide that APM is the landlord, I am satisfied that it is appropriate for APM to be named as the landlord for these proceedings.

Should the bond be returned to the tenant?

During the hearing, Ms Burbery said that while there was a small amount of rent arrears, she was happy for the bond to be refunded to the tenant.
Section 22B(2) of the RTA 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. As the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenant. Filing fee:
Section 102(4) of the RTA provides that if a party has been wholly successful in her or her claim, the Tribunal must [emphasis added] order the respondent party to reimburse the applicant for the filing fee paid for the application.
The tenant has been wholly successful with his claim. For this reason, I order reimbursement of the filing fee and suppression of the tenant’s name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5245652 — Rent arrears at 42 Hill Road, Palm Beach, Waiheke Island 1081

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5245652 — Rent arrears at 42 Hill Road, Palm Beach, Waiheke Island 1081

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Who is the landlord?

Should the bond be returned to the tenant?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Who is the landlord?

Should the bond be returned to the tenant?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions