What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5312444 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 (6475164-002) to [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] immediately. The balance bond

How much money was awarded in case 5312444?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5312444?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5312444?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12605740-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5312444 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 (6475164-002) to [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] immediately. The balance bond

How much money was awarded in case 5312444?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5312444?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5312444?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12605740-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room Suite 49, Unit/Flat Floor 8, 185 Victoria Street, Te Tenancy Tribunal Case 5312444 — Cleanliness

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 (6475164-002) to [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] immediately. The balance bond of $1,000 is to be held at the Bond Centre in the name of the remaining tenant, Abby Wong who was not a party to these proceedings.
Smart Property Management Limited is to pay [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] $28 immediately being the filing fee on the application.
The Tribunal declares that Wellington Management Limited trading as Wellington Property Management is not a party to these proceedings because they were not the landlord/property manager at the relevant time in relation to this tenancy.
The Tribunal has removed Sophie Blundell as a party to these proceedings because she was released from the tenancy and repaid her portion of the bond following a change of tenant formally documented and recorded at the Bond Centre on 12 December 2024.

Reasons

The tenant applicants were represented at the hearing by [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s]. The landlord, Smart Property Management Limited (SPM) was represented at the hearing by Shauna Campbell.
The tenants seek refund of their bond following the tenancy ending on 11 February 2025. Despite numerous requests and promises to refund the bond, the landlord did not refund the bond, resulting in this application. The bond refund process has become protracted because there were several changes of property manager and a change of tenant resulting in confusion as to who could release the bond and which tenants were entitled to the bond. Preliminary issue—Adjournment request by additional party
It had been suggested after a prior mediation between the parties that Wellington Management Limited trading as Wellington Property Management (WML) should be joined to these proceedings because they became the property manager following a change of tenancy.
After service of the notice of hearing came to WML’s attention ( it appears that it was served on a related company) Ms Amanda Chisnall contacted the Tribunal, and confirmed in correspondence that she was WML’s representative, the current property managers for a current tenancy at the premises.
Ms Chisnall requested that the hearing be adjourned because she was unavailable to attend. However, she requested if an adjournment was not granted, her attendance be excused noting that WML was not managing the premises for the period in question and that the then property manager, SPM, had already been joined as a party. In a minute dated 21 October 2025, I declined the adjournment stating: “....Ms Chisnall is to advise the correct legal name of Wellington Property Management (which is presumably an incorporated company name). She is also to advise why someone else from her company cannot attend the hearing. If Ms Chisnall provides a good reason why someone else from her company cannot attend the hearing, then their appearance is excused. However, the hearing will proceed. If I find at the hearing that they are liable to the tenants in some respect, then I will consider whether the matter should be further adjourned to enable them to appear. It is not clear from the application who is the landlord responsible for refund of the bond. The tenancy agreement says the landlord is Trust Property Management Limited. The information supplied by the tenants is that subsequent property managers were appointed including Urban Property Management, Wellington Property Management, and Smart Property Management being the last company to act. This issue will need to be determined at the hearing. In the circumstances, the adjournment is declined. However, I will consider further at the hearing whether any adjournment should be granted to enable Wellington Property Management to appear if necessary.
On 22 October 2025, Ms Chisnall provided the Tribunal with the information requested about WML. She did not provide any explanation as to why someone else from WML could not attend the hearing and she made a second request for an adjournment. I issued a second minute sent on 23 October 2025 before the hearing time as follows: Ms Chisnall has contacted the Tribunal in response to my last minute, making a second request for an adjournment on the basis that she is not available for the hearing due to tertiary exams. She has also explained that her company is the current property manager. I accept that Ms Chisnall cannot attend the hearing, but the adjournment request is declined. That is because Ms Chisnall has not given any explanation as to why someone else from her company cannot attend the hearing, as I requested in my last minute. She refers to the current property manager, Fred Paulo. The Tribunal suggests that he attend the hearing. The adjournment is also declined because it appears that the matter in dispute has been ongoing for some time and the tenants, quite rightly, are entitled to have the matter determined without further delay.”
There was no appearance on behalf of WML following service on them of the proceedings. The Tribunal telephoned Fred Paulo from WML for the hearing at the telephone number provided to Tenancy Services in information provided by Ms Chisnall, but the calls diverted to voicemail.
In any event, I have determined that WML was not the property manager of the tenancy which is the subject of these proceedings at the relevant time. This tenancy terminated on 11 February 2025 before WML was appointed as property managers. It follows that WML does not have standing as a party to these proceedings. Issues
The issues to be determined in respect of the tenants’ application for refund of the bond are: Who is the landlord in relation to the tenancy which is the subject of these proceedings; Who are the tenants; Which tenants are entitled to the bond held at the Bond Centre; Has the tenancy ended and should the bond be refunded to the tenants? Background facts
This tenancy was for a fixed term commencing on 11 February 2024 and ending on 8 February 2025. The original tenants were the three tenants that have brought this application and Sophie Blundell. A bond of $4,000 was lodged at the Bond Centre. The bond form shows that each tenant contributed $1,000 towards the bond. With effect on 12 December 2024, Abby Wong replaced Sophie Blundell as a tenant and Abby paid Sophie $1,000 for her share of the bond. All parties signed a change of tenant form that was lodged with the bond centre to record the transfer of the bond into the names of the new and continuing tenants. Therefore, I am satisfied that Sophie Blundell should be removed as a party to this application as she was not a tenant when the tenancy ended nor entitled to the Bond held at the Bond Centre.
The original landlord on the tenancy agreement was Trust Property Management Limited on behalf of Stuart Mills, Robert Cunningham and Roger Coulson. There were several changes of property manager during the tenancy. On or about 24 April 2025, the management of the tenancy was transferred to Urban Property Management (Urban). On 1 February 2025 management of the tenancy was transferred to SPM. It appears from the communications sent to the tenants that the change of manager was also due to a change of owner.
On 13 January 2025, [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] gave Urban written notice that they would not be renewing the tenancy and their last day at the premises would be 9 February 2025. Urban replied noting that 28 days’ notice expired on 11 February 2025 and that would be their final day. When SPM took over management on 31 January, they were aware that these 2 tenants were leaving on 11 February.
[The tenant/s] gave evidence that she telephoned Urban in December 2025 to advise that she would not be renewing the fixed term tenancy but she did not give notice in writing. SPM was not aware that she was not continuing with the tenancy. However, the remaining tenant, Abby Wong, wanted to stay at the premises and had found three new tenants. SPM accepts that the applicant tenants ended their tenancy on 11 February 2025. From that date Abby Wong and three others took over as tenants. However, no change of tenancy documents nor a new tenancy agreement was signed.
The departing tenants requested that SPM conduct an inspection and release their bond. Ms Campbell says that she did an inspection and found that the carpets were messy. However, she has not sought refund of any portion of the bond to cover carpet cleaning by filing an application with the Tribunal or otherwise. She advised the tenants that she would arrange change of tenant documents for everyone to sign. She also says that she told them to recover their share of the bond from the new tenants but this is not recorded in any of her written communications produced in evidence. In any event, this was never actioned and the bond has remained at the Bond Centre in the names of the applicant tenants and Abby Wong.
The applicant tenants continued to request refund of the bond from Ms Campbell. They understood that their tenancy had ended and that SPM needed to refund their bond. Ms Campbell says that because of the changes of property manager she was confused about the process and was unable to establish who had paid the bond and how much. I find her explanation vague and unsatisfactory. I consider it would have been easy for her to check the bond records and action the refund.
Ms Campbell says that she treated the situation as a change of tenancy. Under a change of tenancy arrangement, the original tenancy agreement remains on foot with the new tenants and any continuing tenants liable for the tenancy obligations and the departing tenants released from their obligations. Usually, a change of tenancy is documented with all parties signing a change of tenant form which is then lodged at the Bond Centre so that the Bond is transferred into the names of the new and continuing tenants. The new tenants then pay the departing tenants their share of the bond directly. In this case, no formal change of tenancy documents were signed, no new tenancy was signed, and the bond has remained in the same tenant names.
On 20 August 2025, WML took over management of the premises and the tenancy then in place. The evidence establishes that Abby Wong continued a tenancy with 3 new tenants after 11 February 2025 which was not documented by SPM. Before WML took over, Abby Wong left that tenancy and was replaced as a tenant. WML have indicated that they are in the process of assessing damages at the property and any bond deductions sought as a result. However, I find that the bond amounts held at the Bond Centre for this property relate to the tenancy of these applicant tenants and Abby Wong. Discussions and findings Parties to the tenancy
I accept on the evidence that the tenant applicants and Abby Wong were the tenants when the fixed term ended on 8 February 2025, and SPM was the landlord. Also at that point, the bond held at the Bond Centre was held in the names of the three tenant applicants and Abby Wong and has remained in their names. Term of the tenancy
This fixed term tenancy commenced on 11 February 2024 and expired on 8 February 2025. Section 60A RTA, (the version in force at the time the fixed term expired) provided as follows: (1) On the expiry of a fixed-term tenancy of more than 90 days, the tenancy continues as a periodic tenancy with the same terms as the terms contained in the expired tenancy so far as those terms are consistent with a periodic tenancy. (2) However, the tenancy does not continue as a periodic tenancy if,—...... (d) before the expiry, a party gives notice as mentioned in any of section 50(1)(a) to (b) that terminates the tenancy on or before the expiry or that would do if the tenancy were already periodic.
The notice that could be given under s50(1)(a) to (b) RTA included a notice by a tenant to end a periodic tenancy under s51. Section 51(2B) RTA (in force at the relevant time) provided that a tenant could terminate a periodic tenancy in any case by giving at least 28 days’ notice in writing to the landlord.
Mr Henare and Ms Anderson gave their 28 day notice on 13 January 2025. Urban and subsequently SPM accepted that their tenancy and the tenancy of Ms Robertson ended with effect on 11 February 2025. In giving their notice, I find that the tenancy was terminated for all. It is firmly established that a notice of termination given by one tenant under a joint periodic tenancy is effective to terminate the tenancy for all, even if the other tenants do not agree. 1
While Ms Wong continued to let the premises with three new tenants, this was not done under a change of tenant arrangement involving these tenants. I am satisfied on the evidence that the three applicants here made it clear to the landlord that they wished to terminate the tenancy as they did not wish to renew the fixed term nor allow it to roll over to a periodic tenancy after 8 February 2025. On that basis, they also asked for a bond inspection and for SPM to refund their bond.

Who is entitled to the bond?

The applicant tenants have applied for refund of the bond which is still held at the Bond Centre in their names together with Abby Wong. SPM has confirmed that it is not pursuing any claim against the bond, in respect of the tenancy which ended on 11 February 2025.
Section 22B(2) 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. Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond must be refunded in full to the tenants.
Ms Wong was not a party to this application and she is in a different position to these tenants because she continued to let the premises under some new tenancy arrangement to which these applicants were not parties. It is clear from the evidence that each tenant contributed $1,000 towards the bond. In those 1 McPhee & Heenan, DC Auckland, CIV-2013-004-1768, 29 July 2014 at paragraph [12] and Takarangi v Summitt Property Management Limited [2023] NZDC 11628 circumstances, I consider that the bond of $3,000 must be refunded to the applicants in this case. The remaining bond of $1,000 is to remain at the Bond Centre in Ms Wong’s name. It will be for her to file a separate application (if necessary) for refund of the bond in relation to the later tenancy of the premises in which she was involved.
As the tenants have substantially succeeded with their application, SPM is to reimburse them with the filing fee paid on the application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5312444 — Cleanliness at Room Suite 49, Unit/Flat Floor 8, 185 Victoria Street, Te

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5312444 — Cleanliness at Room Suite 49, Unit/Flat Floor 8, 185 Victoria Street, Te

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Who is entitled to the bond?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Who is entitled to the bond?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions