How much money was awarded in case 5334581?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5334581?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5334581?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13156906-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5334581?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5334581?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5334581?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13156906-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 208, 37 Symonds Street, Grafton, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5334581 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5334581 about?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5334581 — net $2,108.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Refund of bond (not lodged at Bond Centre by Haven Living Management Limited	$2,080.00	Refund of bond (not lodged at Bond Centre by Haven Living Management Limited
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,108.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,108.00

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.

Haven Living Management Limited As Agent For Yen-Ting Chen and Goodwill Property Management Limited Lily Chen must pay [The tenant/s] $2,108.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing with the assistance of a Mandarin interpreter.

Ms Ling appeared on behalf of the landlord. She explained that she had not personally managed this tenancy, but that Lily Chen, who had been managing this tenancy, was no longer working for the landlord.

This tenancy began on 2 February 2024 and ended on 16 August 2025. The tenancy agreement names Haven Living Management Limited as agent for Yen-Ting Chen as the landlord (“Haven”).

The tenant said that on 18 October 2024 she received an email advising her that there had been a change of landlord, and the new landlord was Goodwill Property Management Limited as agent for Yen-Ting Chen. From that time onwards she dealt with Goodwill, through the property manager Lily Chen.

The tenant seeks orders as follows: a. Refund of her bond of $2,080.00 b. Compensation for breach of Healthy Homes Standards (both heating and water ingress/drainage) c. Reimbursement of the filing fee of $28.00. Bond

The tenant said that she paid a bond of $2,080.00 at the start of the tenancy, as recorded in the tenancy agreement. The tenant produced a copy of her bank records showing the payment.

The tenant explained that there was a dispute about her bond at the end of the tenancy, and although the landlord agreed to refund her bond, they have told her that that they discovered it had not been lodged at the Bond Centre.

Ms Ling confirmed that Goodwill had taken over the tenancy on or about 18 October 2024.

She agreed that there had been an initial dispute about repayment of the tenant’s bond but said that this has been resolved. She said that Goodwill was shocked to discover that Haven had not lodged the bond at the Bond Centre.

Ms Ling said that she had reviewed the file, and could see that Goodwill had asked Haven for all of their documentation regarding this tenancy including the tenancy agreement and the bond lodgement form but, on review, it appeared that Haven had provided all of the requested information except the bond lodgement form.

Ms Ling explained that Ms Chen has spent considerable time attempting to contact the directors of Haven to seek payment of the tenant’s bond, including going to their houses, with no success.

The tenant filed this claim against both Haven and Goodwill. However Haven was placed into liquidation on 13 March 2025. The tenant can now only claim against the liquidators and not against Haven directly. I have therefore only named Goodwill in this decision as Haven’s liquidators have not been served with this application.

I find that Goodwill must refund the tenant’s bond. I make this finding because: a. The tenant had paid a bond of $2,080 as required at the start of the tenancy under the tenancy agreement b. The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The landlord (in this case the current landlord, Goodwill) has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services. c. 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. Because Goodwill has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenant.

I appreciate that this may seem like a harsh result for Goodwill, as the bond was never transferred to them. However I consider this to be an issue for Goodwill, rather than the tenant, because Goodwill took over Haven’s obligations during this tenancy in circumstances where: a. They were aware that a bond of $2,080 was recorded in the tenancy agreement b. Goodwin had the opportunity and obligation to obtain and review all information regarding this tenancy c. Goodwin had an obligation to inform the Bond Centre that there had been a change of landlord and if they had done so they would have discovered that the bond had not been lodged and could have taken steps at that stage to seek payment from Haven d. The tenant had no involvement in the change of landlord process other than receiving notification as to who the new landlord would be e. The tenant was entitled to expect that the bond that she had been paid would be transferred to the name of the new landlord

I note further that Goodwill is likely to have a claim against Haven (through the appointed liquidators) for the bond amount. Healthy Homes

Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that landlords must comply with the Healthy Homes Standards. These standards include various minimum standards for homes including provision of heating in the main living area and ensuring that the home is free from water ingress. Heating

The tenant said that when she moved into the property there was a working heater but that it stopped working and the landlord did not repair it until the water started becoming colder in April 2024.

Ms Ling said that Goodwill were not involved at this stage of the tenancy but she observed that, as the law stood at this time, landlords did not have to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards until 90 days after a new or renewed tenancy, and that the heater was fixed within this time.

I agree that there has been no breach of the Healthy Homes standards. There may be a breach of the landlord’s maintenance obligations, given the length of time that the landlord took to repair the heater, but that tenant has not pursued a maintenance claim and in any event the landlord responsible at the time would have been Haven, not Goodwill. Leak

The tenant said that it was not until June 2025 that the landlord took steps to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards. She said that the landlord then discovered a leak and decided to renovate and paint and that she did not want to stay while this took place. She then gave notice and moved out.

Ms Ling said that the landlord was not informed of any leak and that they understood the property to be compliant with the Healthy Homes standards. However she said that the landlord decided to do an assessment in June 2025 because the date for compliance was 1 July 2025 and the landlord wanted to be absolutely certain that the property complied before that date.

Ms Ling said that she could not see any correspondence regarding a leak or any confirmation of a leak being found. She said that it is possible that there might have been a stain from historic water damage, as the owner decided that the property was looking tired and needed painting. She said that the owner was happy to provide a $40.00 rent reduction during the proposed renovations, but the tenant preferred to move out instead.

The tenant said that she thought there had been a leak but that it might have been a water stain. She agreed that she had been offered a rent reduction but said that she preferred to move out as she did not want the inconvenience of being present while tradespeople were coming and going.

Having reviewed all of the evidence, which includes text correspondence between the tenant and the builder, I am not satisfied that the tenant has proved that there was any water ingress or that the property did not otherwise comply with the Healthy Homes Standards. Filing fee and name suppression

The tenant has been successful in the sense that she has obtained an order for payment of her bond, and would not have done so without filing this claim. I regard her as the substantially successful party and therefore order that the landlord reimburse the filing fee.

The tenant sought and order for name suppression and is entitled to an order as the successful party (see section 95A RTA).

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5334581 — net $2,108.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Refund of bond (not lodged at Bond Centre by Haven Living Management Limited	$2,080.00	Refund of bond (not lodged at Bond Centre by Haven Living Management Limited
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,108.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,108.00