Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5426611 — Tenancy dispute
Decided 24 Mar 2026 · Published 24 Mar 2026 · Application 5426611
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
R Harvey-Lane
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
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
- Yun Feng Wu must pay [The tenant/s] $28.00 immediately, being for reimbursement of the filing fee.
Reasons
- The tenant attended the hearing. The landlord did not attend, and the hearing proceeded in their absence.
- The tenancy commenced in September 2024, and the tenant paid a bond for the tenancy. Despite the tenant following up with the landlord several times and issuing a 14-day notice to remedy in November 2025, the landlord failed to lodge the bond.
- In January 2026 the tenant applied to the Tribunal seeking an order that the landlord must lodge the bond. On 10 February 2026 the landlord finally did lodge the bond.
- A landlord is required to forward the bond amount received, within 23 working days after the payment is made, to the chief executive, together with a statement of particulars in an approved form. See section 19(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- The bond has now been lodged, and so the tenant no longer requires that order.
- However, as [The applicant/s] has effectively succeeded with the claim, and compliance by the landlord was only as a result of the Tribunal application, I have reimbursed the filing fee. R Harvey-Lane 24 March 2026