Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 5279589 — Rent arrears at Room 1, 30A Grand Drive, Remuera, Auckland 1050

Decided 21 Aug 2025 · Published 21 Aug 2025 · Application 5279589

Rent arrears

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Location

Auckland

Tribunal region

Adjudicator

N Walker

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

The Bond Centre is to pay $1,440.00 of the bond to Melissa Rachael Yates immediately.
The balance of the bond of $2,560.00 is to remain at the Bond Centre.

Reasons

The landlord and the tenant, Melissa Yates, attended the hearing by video. Attempts were made to join Bridie O’Sullivan to the hearing by telephone, but all calls went to voicemail.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond.
The tenancy had commenced in March 2022, but Melissa Yates joined the tenancy in August 2024.
On 20 January 2025 the landlord served the tenants with 90 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy. The last day of the tenancy was to be 19 May 2025.
On the last day of the tenancy Melissa Yates vacated the premises and she left New Zealand five days later.
When Ms Yates sought return of her bond through the Tribunal, she learnt that the other tenant, Bridie O’Sullivan had communicated with the landlord on 16 May 2025 advising that she was having difficulty finding new accommodation and she asked for an extension of the tenancy. The landlord agreed for an extension until 1 August 2025. Ms Yates was not a party to any of the communication including the request for the extension or the response from the landlord. Ms O’Sullivan was aware that Ms Yates had left the tenancy and therefore that she was not seeking the extension on behalf of them both. Ms Yates’ evidence is that she was not advised that there had been an extension.
While the continuation of the tenancy is described as an extension, I consider that it is a new tenancy only between Ms O’Sullivan and the landlord. While the landlord was not aware that Ms O’Sullivan was acting alone it cannot be said that she was representing herself and Ms Yates when she continued to live at the premises. She therefore must be solely responsible for any costs owing for the period from when Ms Yates vacated (after being given notice) until the tenancy finally ended on 1 August 2025.
At the hearing the landlord claimed that rent arrears were owed when the tenancy ended on 1 August 2025. The landlord has a claim against the bond but has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.
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. Even if an application had been filed, my view is that Ms O’Sullivan should be responsible for the rent arrears.
Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in part to Ms Yates. The change of tenant form signed by Ms Yates has been produced and that form confirms that she contributed $1,440.00 toward the bond. The remaining bond of $2,560.00 is to be considered as Ms O’Sullivan’s contribution to be available for any claim filed.

Topics & place

Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).

Rent arrears Auckland

Residential Tenancies Act sections

s22B(2)

Key findings

Dispute theme: rent arrears

Property management

RENTEX LIMITED (respondent)

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5279589 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay $1,440.00 of the bond to Melissa Rachael Yates

How much money was awarded in case 5279589?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5279589?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5279589?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12299719-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Reasons

The landlord and the tenant, Melissa Yates, attended the hearing by video. Attempts were made to join Bridie O’Sullivan to the hearing by telephone, but all calls went to voicemail.

The tenant has applied for refund of the bond.

The tenancy had commenced in March 2022, but Melissa Yates joined the tenancy in August 2024.

On 20 January 2025 the landlord served the tenants with 90 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy. The last day of the tenancy was to be 19 May 2025.

On the last day of the tenancy Melissa Yates vacated the premises and she left New Zealand five days later.

When Ms Yates sought return of her bond through the Tribunal, she learnt that the other tenant, Bridie O’Sullivan had communicated with the landlord on 16 May 2025 advising that she was having difficulty finding new accommodation and she asked for an extension of the tenancy. The landlord agreed for an extension until 1 August 2025. Ms Yates was not a party to any of the communication including the request for the extension or the response from the landlord. Ms O’Sullivan was aware that Ms Yates had left the tenancy and therefore that she was not seeking the extension on behalf of them both. Ms Yates’ evidence is that she was not advised that there had been an extension.

While the continuation of the tenancy is described as an extension, I consider that it is a new tenancy only between Ms O’Sullivan and the landlord. While the landlord was not aware that Ms O’Sullivan was acting alone it cannot be said that she was representing herself and Ms Yates when she continued to live at the premises. She therefore must be solely responsible for any costs owing for the period from when Ms Yates vacated (after being given notice) until the tenancy finally ended on 1 August 2025.

At the hearing the landlord claimed that rent arrears were owed when the tenancy ended on 1 August 2025. The landlord has a claim against the bond but has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.

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. Even if an application had been filed, my view is that Ms O’Sullivan should be responsible for the rent arrears.

Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in part to Ms Yates. The change of tenant form signed by Ms Yates has been produced and that form confirms that she contributed $1,440.00 toward the bond. The remaining bond of $2,560.00 is to be considered as Ms O’Sullivan’s contribution to be available for any claim filed.