Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5322239 — Tenancy dispute
Decided 31 Mar 2026 · Published 31 Mar 2026 · Application 5322239
Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Adjudicator
J Setefano
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 Tribunal orders suppression of the applicants’ names and identifying details.
- The Tribunal declines jurisdiction to hear the claims against Metro NZ Property Management Limited pursuant to section 248 of the Companies Act 1993.
- The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to make orders against Faramarz (Frank) Rangi in his capacity as a director of Metro NZ Property Management Limited.
- The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to make orders against Zsuzsanna Tantos- Rangi, who was a shareholder but not a landlord or party to the tenancy.
- The application is struck out in its entirety for lack of jurisdiction.
- The applicants may pursue their claims through the liquidation process or other civil proceedings.
Reasons
- [The applicant/s] attended the hearing. The respondents did not attend. I am satisfied that adequate service of the hearing notice was completed and considered it reasonable to proceed with the hearing in the respondents’ absence.
- The tenancy commenced on 8 December 2024 and ended on 20 July 2025. Metro NZ Property Management Limited acted as property manager for the property owner, [The applicant/s]. The tenant, [The applicant/s], paid a bond of $2,080 at the start of the tenancy. Metro NZ Property Management Limited Ltd failed to lodge this bond with the Bond Centre. It also failed to forward $263.82 in utility payments and approximately one month’s rent to the property owner.
- On 3 April 2025, Metro NZ Property Management Limited was placed into liquidation. Faramarz (Frank) Rangi was the sole director of the company. Zsuzsanna Tantos-Rangi was a shareholder of the company but was not a director.
- The liquidator has confirmed that no consent has been given under section 248 of the Companies Act 1993 to allow these proceedings against Metro NZ Property Management Limited to continue. The Law
- Section 248 of the Companies Act 1993 provides that upon liquidation, no legal proceedings may be commenced or continued against the company except with the consent of the liquidator or the leave of the High Court. The Tenancy Tribunal has no jurisdiction to grant such leave.
- Section 77 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) confers jurisdiction on the Tribunal to determine disputes between landlords and tenants arising under tenancy agreements. However, where a company is in liquidation, the Tribunal cannot make orders against that company.
- The Tribunal also has no jurisdiction to make orders against shareholders or directors personally in respect of liabilities incurred by the company as landlord or property manager, unless they are themselves party to the tenancy agreement (which is not the case here). Analysis
- The applications are directed against Metro NZ Property Management Limited, Mr Rangi as its director, and Ms Tantos-Rangi as shareholder. Metro NZ Property Management Limited is now in liquidation, and the liquidator has expressly stated they do not consent to these proceedings continuing. Under section 248 of the Companies Act 1993, the Tribunal therefore has no jurisdiction to determine the application against Metro NZ Property Management Limited.
- The Tribunal also does not have jurisdiction to make orders against Mr Rangi personally in respect of company liabilities. Nor can the Tribunal make any orders against Ms Tantos-Rangi, who was a shareholder but not a director, landlord, or party to the tenancy agreement. Shareholding alone does not create liability under the RTA.
- The appropriate pathway for the applicants is to file a claim with the liquidator of Metro NZ Property Management Limited for the unpaid bond, utilities, and rent, or to seek legal remedies in another forum with appropriate jurisdiction.
- The Tribunal notes that the alleged failure to lodge the bond may warrant referral to Tenancy Services Compliance and Investigations for regulatory or enforcement action, but this does not affect the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Name Suppression
- Under section 95A of the RTA, the Tribunal may, on its own initiative or upon application, order that the name and any identifying details of a party not be published if it considers it appropriate to do so, having regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest.
- In this case, the dispute concerns the failure of a property management company, now in liquidation, to lodge a bond and forward rent and utility payments. The matter was struck out for lack of jurisdiction due to the company’s liquidation and the absence of personal liability of the director or shareholder under the RTA. Neither the property owner nor the tenant contributed to the circumstances giving rise to the dispute.
- The Tribunal is satisfied that publication of their names would serve no useful public purpose and may cause them undue hardship. The matter involves a failed property management company, not misconduct by the tenant or landlord.
- For these reasons, the Tribunal makes an order suppressing the publication of the names and identifying details of the property owner and the tenant. The names of Metro NZ Property Management Limited and its director/shareholder are not suppressed, as their identity is central to the subject matter of the claim and there is a legitimate public interest in disclosure of their role in this dispute.