Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5297925 — Tenancy dispute at Room 2, 320 Parnell Road, Parnell, Auckland 1052, Parnell
Decided 6 Oct 2025 · Published 6 Oct 2025 · Application 5297925
- Boarding House
- Filing Fee
Order
- [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $788.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
Reasons
- Both parties attended the remote hearing.
- The tenant has applied for a refund of her bond from the landlord and reimbursement of her filing fee.
- The background to this matter is somewhat complicated. The landlord said that he entered into an agency agreement with Housing Kiwis Limited (“HKL”).
- Under that agreement, HKL was to refer boarding house tenants to the landlord’s boarding house. In return, HKL would be paid a commission by the landlord.
- The tenant signed a boarding house tenancy agreement prepared by HKL. The agreement is dated 5 May 2025. The agreement has been signed by the tenant and HKL. The agreement shows Parnell Pines Limited as the landlord and HKL as agent.
- The relevant terms of the agreement were; • Rent $400.00 per week • Bond$760.00 • Power and water outgoings to be paid by the tenant weekly. • The tenancy was to commence on 6 May 2025 and was “intended to last for 28 days of more”.
- The landlord said that the terms of the tenancy agreement prepared by HKL were wrong and that they did not comply with the terms of his agreement with HKL. The landlord said that the rent was to be $520.00 per week with a bond of $520.00. The landlord said that as the bond had been the equivalent of one weeks rent or less, he had not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre.
- The tenant provided written evidence from the Ministry of Social Development confirming that two separate payments had been made by the Ministry to the landlord on 6 May 2025. One payment was for $760.00 and the second for $800.00.
- The tenant moved into the premises on 6 May 2025.
- The tenant subsequently provided the landlord with written notice of her wish to terminate the tenancy, and she left the premises on 19 May 2025.
- The landlord said that the bond that should have been paid was $520.00. The tenancy, having been intended to last for 28 days or more, the tenant has not given the required notice. The landlord therefor seeks to retain the bond.
- Under the agreement between the landlord and HKL, the landlord is what is known as the principal. HKL is the agent of the principal.
- Apparent authority (also known as ostensible authority) refers to a situation where an agent appears to have the authority to act on behalf of another (the principal), even if the agent does not have actual authority. This concept is relevant in tenancy matters especially when dealing with property managers or letting agents.
- Apparent authority arises when the principal, by words or conduct, leads a third party (such as the tenant] to reasonably believe that the agent has authority to act on behalf of the principal. If the tenant relies on the agent’s apparent authority, the principal may be bound by the agents actions, even if the agent exceeded their actual authority.
- In the circumstances as applied above, I consider the following to be relevant in deciding if the agent had apparent authority; • HKL held themselves out to the tenant as being the agent of the landlord. • The tenant signed an agreement prepared by HKL. • The tenant arranged for payments to be made by MSD to the landlord, not HKL. • The tenant moved into the landlord’s premises and was allowed to stay there by the landlord.
- In those circumstances, I find that HKL had apparent authority and that the landlord is bound by the actions of the agent.
- The tenant has paid $760.00 to the landlord by way of a payment from MSD as her bond.
Is the tenant entitled to release of her bond ?
- Section 66C(1)(a) RTA provides that a boarding house tenancy agreement must contain a statement of whether the tenancy is intended to last for 28 days or more.
- The High Court in Portfolio Property Management Limited v Clutterbuck [2013] NZHC 3165 held that “the fact that s.66C requires a statement of whether the tenancy is intended to last 28 days or more is not, in my view, a stipulation for a fixed term for a boarding house tenancy. Instead it is intended to fulfil the requirement of the definition of a boarding house tenancy in s.66B, that it must be intended to (or in fact) last for 28 days or more. It may be that parties have is a specific term in mind, and this can be included in a tenancy agreement. However, it does not mean a tenancy becomes a fixed term tenancy, subject to the fixed term tenancy provisions in the Act, or that part 2A becomes redundant. Both tenant and landlord are still able to terminate in accordance with part 2A.”( the emphasis is mine).
- Section 66V RTA provides that “a tenant under a boarding house tenancy may terminate the tenancy by giving at least 48 hours’ notice to the landlord”.
- The tenant has provided the landlord with the appropriate notice to terminate the tenancy under section 66V RTA. The tenant is entitled to the release of her bond.
- As [The tenant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must order the landlord to reimburse the filing fee.
- The landlord applied for name suppression. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter. The landlord’s application is dismissed.