How much money was awarded in case 5404339?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5404339?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5404339?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13236976-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5404339?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5404339?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5404339?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13236976-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5404339 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5404339 about?

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

Order

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

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,280.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant] immediately.

Barfoot & Thompson Limited must pay [The tenant] $28.00 immediately, to reimburse her for the cost of filing this application.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenant applied for her bond to be refunded in full and for reimbursement of the application fee.

Should the bond be refunded to the tenant?

The tenancy ended on 5 May 2025. Since the tenancy ended the tenant has had little to no communication from the landlord about her bond and the reasons for it being withheld. She also states that she requested to attend the exit inspection so she would be aware of any issues at the end of the tenancy. The landlord says it completed one, but did not inform the tenant it was being done or had been done. It also confirmed she was not informed of the intended date of the exit inspection and was not given an opportunity to attend it.

The tenant lodged her application with the Tribunal on 12 December 2025. It has been nearly three months since that date. The landlord has not provided any evidence in defence of the tenant’s claim to have her bond refunded.

The landlord states that there has been a hold up with the owner’s insurer and that it has only just received some invoices this week. It states that it had an intention of filing a counterclaim as it wants to hold the tenant liable for some damage to the premise. It says it was unable to make a counter claim until it received these invoices.

The landlord could have provided evidence in its defence to the tenant’s claim as a pre cursor to a cross application, but it has not.

The landlord has produced no evidence that proves the tenant’s liability for any damages to the property. Such evidence it could have provided was entry and exit inspection reports and photographs, ongoing communications with the tenant about alleged careless or intentional damage and a copy of the insurance policy and the insurance claim(s) made by the owners.

The tenant has proven her bond has been withheld for a significantly long period after the tenancy ended and the landlord, an experienced property management company, has not provided any evidence that proves it has a justifiable reason or any evidence that justifies continuing to withhold the bond.

The bond is therefore to be refunded in full to the tenant. Reimbursement of filing fee

Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.

Because [The applicant] has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression

The tenant applies for non-publication of her name and identifying details.

The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.

The tenant has wholly succeeded in her proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.

Non-publication is ordered.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,280.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant] immediately.
Barfoot & Thompson Limited must pay [The tenant] $28.00 immediately, to reimburse her for the cost of filing this application.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant applied for her bond to be refunded in full and for reimbursement of the application fee.

Should the bond be refunded to the tenant?

The tenancy ended on 5 May 2025. Since the tenancy ended the tenant has had little to no communication from the landlord about her bond and the reasons for it being withheld. She also states that she requested to attend the exit inspection so she would be aware of any issues at the end of the tenancy. The landlord says it completed one, but did not inform the tenant it was being done or had been done. It also confirmed she was not informed of the intended date of the exit inspection and was not given an opportunity to attend it.
The tenant lodged her application with the Tribunal on 12 December 2025. It has been nearly three months since that date. The landlord has not provided any evidence in defence of the tenant’s claim to have her bond refunded.
The landlord states that there has been a hold up with the owner’s insurer and that it has only just received some invoices this week. It states that it had an intention of filing a counterclaim as it wants to hold the tenant liable for some damage to the premise. It says it was unable to make a counter claim until it received these invoices.
The landlord could have provided evidence in its defence to the tenant’s claim as a pre cursor to a cross application, but it has not.
The landlord has produced no evidence that proves the tenant’s liability for any damages to the property. Such evidence it could have provided was entry and exit inspection reports and photographs, ongoing communications with the tenant about alleged careless or intentional damage and a copy of the insurance policy and the insurance claim(s) made by the owners.
The tenant has proven her bond has been withheld for a significantly long period after the tenancy ended and the landlord, an experienced property management company, has not provided any evidence that proves it has a justifiable reason or any evidence that justifies continuing to withhold the bond.
The bond is therefore to be refunded in full to the tenant. Reimbursement of filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because [The applicant] has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
The tenant applies for non-publication of her name and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant has wholly succeeded in her proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5404339 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5404339 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the bond be refunded to the tenant?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Should the bond be refunded to the tenant?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions