What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5422239 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 5422239?

Immediately, Being: $1,060.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5422239?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5422239?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13724163-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5422239 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 5422239?

Immediately, Being: $1,060.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5422239?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5422239?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13724163-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5422239 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant had a representative. The landlord (Rentcare) was represented by Mr Bentley.

The three other tenants named on the tenancy agreement at the time have been included in the application. This is standard practice for Tenancy Services. The other tenants have made it clear that they do not want to take part in the hearing. I find the issue is narrow and only relates to the tenant and Rentcare, so I have removed them from the application.

The tenant joined an existing tenancy in July 2024. At the request of her new flatmates she completed a bond lodgement form and paid $1,060 as her contribution to the bond. Her evidence is this was sent to Mr Jason Whitty at Rentcare. When the tenant left the tenancy in August 2025 she was not able to get her share of the bond refunded. This is because the landlord had used the bond money to pay rent.

In reply, the landlord said there was a flat decision to use the money to pay rent arrears and this dispute is between tenants and should be determined at the Disputes Tribunal. In the alternative, the landlord said there was no conclusive evidence that Mr Whitty knew the money was intended as bond. The rent ledger provided by Mr Bentley during the hearing shows the $1,060 was credited as rent on 26 July 2024, and this was because of some applications in their system which allocated money received to rent first.

The tenant provided me with supporting documents which show the tenant withdrew $1,060 from her account on 26 July 2024. Her flatmate sent a message telling her to send the bond form to the accounts receivable email at Rentcare and to pay the bond into Rentcare’s bank account. He said “send me a screen shot of the confirmation so I can fire that through to Jason”. The tenant provided a copy of the email showing she attached the bond form and there is a reply from accounts receivable saying thank you. Finally, I was provided with a copy of a message from Mr Whitty to the flatmate saying thanks. That was dated 2 August 2024 and the message reads:

This is the tenant’s claim to prove. Rentcare has not provided me with any supporting documentation to show there was a decision by the flatmates to use the bond money for rent. I am persuaded by the message on 2 August that that Mr Whitty knew the $1,060 was intended as a bond. This payment should have been lodged with the Bond Centre. An order is made for the money to be paid by the landlord immediately.

Because the tenant has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

The tenant has made an application for suppression. Section 95A RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest.

The tenant’s name is suppressed because the tenant is the most successful party. The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest in names when bond money is used for rent.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant had a representative. The landlord (Rentcare) was represented by Mr Bentley.

Because the tenant has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

The tenant’s name is suppressed because the tenant is the most successful party. The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest in names when bond money is used for rent.

immediately, being	$1,060.00		immediately, being
for the bond and	$28.00		for the bond and

immediately, being	$1,060.00		immediately, being
for the bond and	$28.00		for the bond and

Tenancy Tribunal case 5422239 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5422239 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions