How much money was awarded in case 5444189?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5444189?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5444189?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13561175-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5444189?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5444189?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5444189?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13561175-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 1, 10 Palm Grove, Berhampore, Wellington Tenancy Tribunal Case 5444189 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5444189 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 $547.50 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

The balance of the bond shall remain with the Bond Centre.

The landlord must pay the tenant $28.00 immediately which is reimbursement of the filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Mr Koning.

The tenant has made an application for his share of the bond. The tenancy is continuing with some of the tenants and the balance of the bond should stay with the Bond Centre.

The tenant moved out and his room was left reasonably clean and tidy and there was no damage. He wants his full share of the bond refunded. The landlord wants the tenant to pay $150 from the bond. This is because the landlord spent some time managing the end of the tenancy.

The tenant had an approved sublease with another person, Mr M. The agreement was for a fixed term for a period of less than 90 days, from 23 December 2025 – 1 February 2026. It is clear in the sub tenancy agreement that Mr M’s tenancy would end on 1 February 2026. Alongside this short tenancy the landlord considered whether Mr M would be a suitable long term tenant. The decision was made not to accept Mr M as a tenant.

It seems that a few days before 1 February Mr M told the other tenants he would not move out and the landlord became involved. The tenant also became involved. Ultimately the matter was resolved and Mr M moved out as expected. The landlord is claiming $150 from the tenant for the time spent when he became aware Mr M might not move out.

Section 44A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) does allow a landlord to claim reasonable expenses from a tenant in respect of a subletting. The claims have always been for the time spent in finding a new tenant, which is reasonable because of the time taken to advertise, arrange viewings, and to do credit and reference checking. The situation here is different, because the landlord was managing the usual end of a fixed term tenancy, and the owner would usually pay for that.

It might well be that the fixed term tenancy only ended properly because the landlord stepped in, but we will never know. I can see from the emails and messages that the tenant spent a lot of time managing the end of the tenancy in those last few days, so this is not a situation where the tenant just sat back and left it all to the landlord.

I am not persuaded the landlord can claim $150 from the tenant. This is because I am not persuaded the tenant did anything wrong, and the fixed term tenancy otherwise ended normally. Any costs relating to managing the process at the end of a tenancy should be paid for by the owner.

Because the tenant has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression is allowed for the same reason. The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest when there is a dispute about a bond at the end of a tenancy. See section 95A RTA.

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 $547.50 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The balance of the bond shall remain with the Bond Centre.
The landlord must pay the tenant $28.00 immediately which is reimbursement of the filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Mr Koning.
The tenant has made an application for his share of the bond. The tenancy is continuing with some of the tenants and the balance of the bond should stay with the Bond Centre.
The tenant moved out and his room was left reasonably clean and tidy and there was no damage. He wants his full share of the bond refunded. The landlord wants the tenant to pay $150 from the bond. This is because the landlord spent some time managing the end of the tenancy.
The tenant had an approved sublease with another person, Mr M. The agreement was for a fixed term for a period of less than 90 days, from 23 December 2025 – 1 February 2026. It is clear in the sub tenancy agreement that Mr M’s tenancy would end on 1 February 2026. Alongside this short tenancy the landlord considered whether Mr M would be a suitable long term tenant. The decision was made not to accept Mr M as a tenant.
It seems that a few days before 1 February Mr M told the other tenants he would not move out and the landlord became involved. The tenant also became involved. Ultimately the matter was resolved and Mr M moved out as expected. The landlord is claiming $150 from the tenant for the time spent when he became aware Mr M might not move out.
Section 44A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) does allow a landlord to claim reasonable expenses from a tenant in respect of a subletting. The claims have always been for the time spent in finding a new tenant, which is reasonable because of the time taken to advertise, arrange viewings, and to do credit and reference checking. The situation here is different, because the landlord was managing the usual end of a fixed term tenancy, and the owner would usually pay for that.
It might well be that the fixed term tenancy only ended properly because the landlord stepped in, but we will never know. I can see from the emails and messages that the tenant spent a lot of time managing the end of the tenancy in those last few days, so this is not a situation where the tenant just sat back and left it all to the landlord.
I am not persuaded the landlord can claim $150 from the tenant. This is because I am not persuaded the tenant did anything wrong, and the fixed term tenancy otherwise ended normally. Any costs relating to managing the process at the end of a tenancy should be paid for by the owner.
Because the tenant has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression is allowed for the same reason. The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest when there is a dispute about a bond at the end of a tenancy. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5444189 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Unit 1, 10 Palm Grove, Berhampore, Wellington

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5444189 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Unit 1, 10 Palm Grove, Berhampore, Wellington

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions