What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5418750 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5418750?

Rent Arrears: $678.57 awarded to landlord; Painting: $650.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5418750?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5418750?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13020008-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5418750 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5418750?

Rent Arrears: $678.57 awarded to landlord; Painting: $650.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5418750?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5418750?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13020008-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5418750 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5418750 — net $1,328.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 4 July 2025	$678.57	Rent arrears to 4 July 2025
Repairs: painting	$650.00	Repairs: painting
Net award	$1,328.57
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,328.57

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5418750 — net $1,328.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 4 July 2025	$678.57	Rent arrears to 4 July 2025
Repairs: painting	$650.00	Repairs: painting
Net award	$1,328.57
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,328.57

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Shelter Realty Limited As Agents For Jia Liu $1,328.57 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The tenants’ claim for compensation is not proven and is dismissed.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for damage to flooring and damage to the garage door is not proven and is therefore dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on the 21 January 2026.
The tenants lived in the tenancy premises; a brand new 5 bedroom, 3 level townhouse from 1 July 2024 to the 4 July 2025. The tenancy was managed throughout by Shelter Realty Limited (Shelter) and the property manager was Linda, but shortly before the tenancy ended the property manager changed to Ms Z.
The town house is one of six that are in very close proximity and share the same driveway.
The tenants gave notice to end the tenancy. In their notice to end the tenancy it records that they wished to ‘downsize’ to something more affordable.
The tenants filed her application on the 4 October 2025 (3 months after the tenancy ended), they were seeking the bond, they also claimed that the landlord failed to identify any claims that the landlord had against the bond and deliberately withheld the bond being paid out.
The tenants claim that this meant that they been unable to secure new housing. They have had to live in another property one hour outside of Auckland (owned by her but where her family was living) and drive their children to their schools in Auckland, and to work/ study. The tenants seek $8000.00 in compensation for this claim.
The landlord filed their counterclaim on the 19 December 2025, they seek: a. Rent arrears of $678.57 b. Insurance excess paint damage $650.00 c. Insurance excess floor damage $650.00 d. Insurance excess garage door damage. $650.00 The Bond The tenants’ position.
The tenants tell me that they tried to do everything the tenancy managers asked of them at the end of the tenancy as they wanted to ensure that they received the whole bond back to enable them to move to another (more affordable) property. The tenant says that she and her partner had planned to move back to a family home in an area just outside of Auckland for a couple of weeks, wait for the bond to come through and then secure a new home. The tenant provided evidence that showed that she had applied for and was successful in obtaining other tenancy, but she says she could not move forward with those applications until the bond was refunded as she did not have the means to finance another bond.
At the end of the tenancy the tenants cleaned the property and left the keys at the property as instructed by the property manager.
The tenants say that because they needed the bond back they asked Ms Z for an inspection as soon as possible and to advise them of any claims or damages that the landlord proposed to claim from the bond. The tenants provided considerable evidence that supported their submissions, including text messages and emails with the property manager and her manager asking if an inspection had been carried out and if the landlord sought any deductions from the bond. The tenant makes it clear in those text messages and emails the urgency in getting the bond sorted so that she can secure new housing.
Between the 4 and 11 July the tenant repeatedly asks the landlord to let her know, what if any damages are being claimed against the bond. On the 11 July the landlord sent the tenant the following text in response to her text messages asking about the bond and if there were any deductions to be made: Sometime after that, in further text messages where the tenant was trying to understand what charges the landlord proposed to take from the bond the landlord said in response:
The tenants say that Shelter repeatedly ignored their requests for information about what claims that the landlord proposed to make against the bond. There were numerous text messages from the tenant seeking clarity about what deductions would be made and the only responses from the landlord were those shown above.
In early September the landlord sent the tenant a copy of the final inspection but again did not clarify what claims they would make against the bond. They said that they were waiting for the landlord to tell them this information, but they had lost the management of the tenancy so were having some difficulty in getting that information. The tenant then asked for the landlord’s number and details so they could deal with the landlord directly, but the agents refused to give the tenant the number. This left the tenant in a situation where the agents were not willing to tell her what, if any deductions were to be made from the bond, and the tenant had no way of contacting the owner directly.
The tenant then made an application under s22A RTA to the Bond Centre for the bond (It is unclear when this occurred- but the tenant refers to it in correspondence with the landlord where she notes that the landlord opposed the payment of the bond to the tenant on the last day of the notice period) as a consequence of the landlord disputing the bond, the bond was not paid to the tenant.
On the 4 October 2025, having exhausted other mechanisms to finalise the bond the tenant applied to the Tribunal pursuant to s22B RTA for her bond. The tenant also added the claim for $8000 for compensation for delays in the landlord paying out the bond. The landlord’s position.
The property managers say that at the end of the tenancy the owner was upset with the condition of the property. The owner was moving into the premises and ended his contract with the property management company. 1 It appears that the agency did not fully end, as the landlord instructed the property managers to make these claims on the landlord’s behalf.
The landlord says that they conducted a final inspection on the 7 July 2025 only 3 days after the tenancy ended (the Monday following), and produced the inspection report and photographs as evidence in support of their claims.
The property managers submit that they were not getting information from the owner about what claims were to be made, the remedial costs and whether insurance would be claimed. They say that in this vacuum of information they were unable to finalise any claim against the tenants. The property managers also disclosed that there was a dispute between the owner and the agents about what water rates could be claimed.
The property manager says that the landlord has genuine claims against the bond, but that the delay in finalising the claim was that they were waiting on insurance company and tradespeople to finalise quotes that would be needed in evidence. They say that they did not have final instructions from the owner until December 2025 when they filed their counterclaim. The law on bonds.
A bond is defined in the RTA as: [a] sum of money payable or paid under a tenancy agreement as security for the observance and performance of the tenant’s obligations under the agreement and this Act. 2 1 There was conflicting evidence given on this, the property managers said that the owner had ended the property management agreement, but that they had authority to take and continue these proceedings. 2 Section 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The bond is the tenant’s money.
Section 22A and 22B of the RTA provide the mechanisms for how a party (landlord or tenant) can seek payment of the bond. A tenant can seek the bond any time after the tenancy ends under s22A RTA by applying to the Bond Centre. The Chief Executive will give notice to the landlord and the landlord has 10 working days to dispute the payment of the bond to the tenant. If the landlord disputes the payment of the bond, then the Chief Executive must advise the tenant on how to make a claim to the Tribunal. That is what occurred in this case- the tenant made a one-party application for the bond under s22A and the landlord disputed the payment to the tenant. The tenants then filed in the Tribunal.
Section 22B, sets out what happens when a tenant applies to the Tribunal for the return of their bond. It provides: (1) If there is a dispute between the parties as to the payment of a bond, either party may apply to the Tribunal for an order determining to whom the bond, or any part of it, is to be paid. (2) If the tenant applies to the Tribunal and the landlord seeks payment of the bond in whole or in part, the landlord must file an application with the Tribunal that sets out the landlord’s counterclaim. (own emphasis)
There is no time limit set out in the Act on when the landlord is to file an application with the Tribunal under s22B RTA. There is also no requirement for a party to go through the s22A RTA process first.
Usually, claims under s22B RTA, by a tenant are made soon after the Tenancy ends and are given hearing time by the Tribunal soon after. The Tribunal’s usual approach is that if the landlord has not brought a counterclaim by the date of hearing, then the tenant is ordered the bond. The ordering of the bond to the tenant does not prevent the landlord making a claim against the tenant at a later stage, 3 but the landlord has lost the surety of the bond to put towards any award made.
The purpose of s22(2)B RTA is to ensure that tenant’s bonds are not held back, for the length of time that a landlord could make a claim (6 years), and that landlords make and finalise their claims expeditiously.
The complicating factor in this case is that the tenants also filed a claim for $8000 in compensation and this meant that the claim first went to mediation and then had to be given a considerable amount of time for hearing (much longer than time that would be allocated for simple s22B claim). That meant that the claim was not able to be scheduled until the 21 January (claims are not scheduled until after mediation occurs- the mediation occurred on the 10 3 Landlords have six years to make a claim. November and the hearing was scheduled to the first available date for the allocated time needed after that).
I have tried to find cases where the Tribunal or the District Court have made any decision or comment on whether the landlord has any obligation to quantify any claim they have against the bond within a certain period before a hearing date, and in particular whether they forfeit the right to the bond if they do not file a claim within a reasonable time, rather than simply before a hearing. I have not been able to find any cases that deal with the issue directly. Analysis
I consider that the purpose of s22A and s22B RTA is to provide a mechanism where claims against the bond are dealt with expeditiously. I consider that s22B(2) is to ensure that if a landlord has a claim against the bond that they specify their claim and file a counter claims within a reasonable time so that tenants are not left waiting long periods before their bond is paid out. As noted above, this is usually achieved by Tenancy Services setting down a claim under s22B RTA quickly, the complicating factor in this instance was the tenants’ other claim for compensation.
I am satisfied that the tenants took all the steps that were available to them to try and have their bond released to them and to understand what the landlord’s claims against the bond were.
It was only when the landlord filed their counterclaim on the 19 December 2025, five months after the tenancy ended, that the tenants knew with any certainty what the landlord was claiming.
The property managers are professionals who make claims and attend Tribunal hearings on a regular basis. Having reviewed all the evidence, I am left with the view that the agents failed to communicate with tenant and take reasonable steps to formulate the landlord’s claim against the bond. I do not accept their submission that the communication failure was only because they were not getting information from the owner, because the evidence of some claims such as the rent arrears owed, were completely in their hands and yet they did not raise a rent arrears claim with the tenant at any stage until November 2025 in mediation.
That being said, whilst I am satisfied that the landlord’s delay in formulating their claim prevented the bond being paid out, and I view their conduct as unreasonable and ill-advised in the circumstances, it was not a breach of the RTA, and therefore no award can be made to the tenant for compensation. As the tenancy had ended there was no breach of quiet enjoyment. 4 4 Sibilis v Croft [2023] NZDC 8 December 2023, [49]
If a landlord files a counterclaim at any time before the tenant’s application to have their claim on the bond under s22B determined, then the Tribunal must deal with the counterclaim as a claim against the bond.
As there is no breach of the RTA by the landlord there is no basis the tenants’ claim for compensation for the delay in having the bond paid out to her and therefore the tenants’ claim for compensation is dismissed.
I have some sympathy for the genuine distress that the withholding of the bond has caused the tenant. I remind all landlord’s that they should deal with claims against the bond quickly at the end of the tenancy. Failure to do so can have a profound effect on families who are often unable to attain new housing without a bond or must borrow the money for a bond to secure new housing.
During the hearing I asked the agent to explain the reason for the delay in finalising any claim and not paying out the bond. She said that it was as a result of difficulties in getting the information out of the landlord and the tenant’s conduct . Ms Z said “the tenant .. screaming, crying during the phone[calls]. And you know, it's really hard for us to handle,... all these questions while landlord didn't provide us much of information at that time.” I consider that the agent’s answer shows a lack of insight into the effect that the withholding of the bond had on the tenants. The tenants had been polite in their correspondence that I have seen.
I consider that any tenant who was waiting on answers about their bond for months, which would allow their family to move into a new house, would become upset, frustrated and might raise their voice or cry in a phone call to an agent. Ms Z’s answer– that the tenant’s emotional response made it hard for the agent to handle, added weight to my impression that Ms Z had no appreciation that the effect of not having the bond had on the tenants. At no time during the hearing, or in the correspondence did Ms Z acknowledge that the impact on the tenant of not having the bond and the delay in the landlord finalising the claim had on the tenant. The landlord’s claims. Rent.
The landlord is claiming 5 days rent, which they say was owed at the end of the tenancy. The tenant says the claim for rent was not discussed until the matter went to mediation, four months after the tenancy ended. At the hearing Ms Z gave me conflicting accounts of whether the tenant had been asked for rent arrears. She said that she would have sent an email using Linda’s email setting out the rent arrears and amounts owed by the tenant at the end of the tenancy, but when I asked her for that email, she said she could not get it because Linda’s email address had been disabled. I record that I do not consider that this is likely, because the property managers were aware at the time that Linda’s emails were disabled in September 2025 that the tenant was claiming against the bond, and I consider that if a prudent landlord would have kept evidence relevant to that claim. I also note that later in the hearing Ms Z said she probably did not email it but would have telephoned the tenant with the amounts. The tenant disputes ever being told that there were rent arrears owing.
The rent ledger provided by the landlord proves the amount of rent owing.
I have considered whether or not the landlord has mitigated their loss. Under s49 RTA a landlord must mitigate their loss. The Tribunal has previously determined that a landlord that does not seek payment of rent arrears over a long-time loses their opportunity to recover some of the rent because they have not mitigate their loss by bringing the claim to the Tribunal within a reasonable time.
Whilst I consider that the landlord should have brought the rent arrears to the attention of the tenant as soon as the tenancy ended, this is not a situation where the rent arrears increased as a result of the landlord’s failure. Therefore, I am satisfied that the tenants owe the rent claimed, I must award the landlord the full amount of the rent owed. Damage to the property.
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. Painting
The landlord says that at the end of the tenancy, that the tenants filled any dents or scrapes, and painted over the repairs. The landlord says that the paint used by the tenants does not match the paint on the walls and therefore the repairs stand out and the walls need repainting. The landlord also says that some of the plastering has not been done to a professional standard.
The tenants say that they were told by the agents that the marks on the walls, (that the tenant describes as scuff marks), which the tenants’ thought were fair wear and tear for a large 5 bedroom townhouse with children had to be repaired and painted by them. The tenant says that although they didn’t think that they should be responsible for repairing fair wear and tear, that they had a friend of their who is a professional painter, plaster and paint over the defects. They say that the paint was colour matched at Mitre 10.
The landlord provided photographs of the walls that show patch marks that are a different colour than the wall. The Tribunal has previously held that when a tenant completes repairs and those repairs are not the same colour or consistent with wall colour etc, then the tenants are liable for the costs of repair.
As the tenant painted the walls with a mismatched paint, then they are liable for the repairs.
The landlord did not provide me with any quotes for the repainting, and the only document that the landlord provided me in respect of the insurance claim was the insurance policy. The property manager tells me that the owner has made a claim, but I have nothing that supports that submission.
The landlord has sought $650 being the insurance excess for this claim. I am satisfied that the tenant damaged the property, and having considered many other claims for paint damage, I consider that this is likely to be the lesser amount of any claim for repainting multiple walls, I therefore award the landlord $650 as claimed for this damage.
I record that the tenant submitted that she should have been given an opportunity to remediate the paint damage. This is not correct. Once the tenancy is over the landlord does not need to allow the tenant access to complete repairs. The floors.
The landlord says that the tenant has caused damage to the floors by spilling water onto the floor, causing the wooden laminate to shrink or expand, and that the tenant has scratched the floors in the downstairs bedroom.
The tenant disputes that she caused any damage to the floors.
The landlord has the obligation of proving this claim. The landlord did not provide any evidence from a flooring contractor, on the condition of the floors and what might have caused the damage. The only evidence on this claim was inspection photographs and the oral evidence of the agent Ms Z.
I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities, that the tenant caused damage to the floors I say this for reasons that include: a. Ms Z gave evidence that the water or something similar caused the laminate damage. Ms Z has no qualifications or expertise in flooring. There was no evidence from an assessor or flooring contractor on what had caused the laminate to expand and contract. I could not for instance rule out that there was a defect in the laminate/ timber, a defect in the way it was laid, or whether it was suitable for the area it was laid in. b. It was not clear whether the scratches in the down stairs bedroom were present at the beginning of the tenancy, the pre-inspection photographs are not as close up as the defects in the final inspection, which meant that I could not easily compare the two. c. The owner moved items in and had access to the property between the tenant moving out and the final inspection. The tenant’s mother went to go back to the property on the day after the tenancy ended and took pictures showing the owner at the property moving flat pack furniture in. It is possible that any damage may have in the weekend after the tenant moved out, when the landlord was moving items in the tenancy.
I record that the landlord also provided no evidence that supported their claim that they had suffered a loss, there was no details of the insurance claim, and no quotes or invoices that show the floor had been repaired or replaced.
The landlord’s claim against the tenant for damage to the floor is not proven and is therefore dismissed. The garage door.
The landlord claims that the tenants damaged the garage door by denting it.
The tenants deny damaging the garage door and say that the damage was done by neighbours in an incident in the driveway in September 2024. The tenant provided photographs and video that showed that an incident that occurred on the shared driveway, whereby party goers at a neighbouring townhouse were involved in a fight and were throwing items in the driveway. The tenant says that her car that was parked on the driveway was damaged (dented) as a result of items being thrown or being kicked. The tenant says that she reported the incident to Linda who was her property manager at the time, and she believes that the garage door was damaged at the same time.
Having considered the evidence, I am not satisfied that the tenant caused the dent to the garage door, I consider it more than likely the damage occurred in the incident in September 2024.
The landlord’s claim against the tenant for damage to the door is not proven and is therefore dismissed. Name suppression.
The tenant has requested name suppression in her application. Name suppression is given to parties who are wholly or substantially successfully in their claims or defence of a claim or who the Tribunal considers, having heard all of the evidence should be given name suppression. 5
I consider that the tenant should be given name suppression in this instance for the following reasons: a. I consider that at the time the tenant filed her claim she was not aware of the landlord’s counterclaim. b. I consider that it is in the public interest to protect tenants who make a claim under s22B from having their name published. Potential landlords check the orders from the Tribunal, and it can be a barrier to a tenant obtaining a tenancy if they have taken a claim to the Tribunal. If tenants were concerned that by seeking their bond they would be faced with publication, this may be a barrier to them seeking their bond under that section. c. The tenant has been successful in defending two out of four of the landlord’s claims. d. I consider it just in this circumstance.
The landlord has not requested suppression. Filing fee
As neither party has been wholly or substantially successful in their claims the filing fee is not awarded to either party.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5418750 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5418750 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions