What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5449470 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 5449470?

Suppression Of The [Tenant’S] Name A…: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5449470?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage, Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5449470?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13343270-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5449470 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 5449470?

Suppression Of The [Tenant’S] Name A…: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5449470?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage, Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5449470?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13343270-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5449470 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5449470. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
suppression of the [Tenant’s] name and identifying details. 2. Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For David Lin must pa	$28.00		suppression of the [Tenant’s] name and identifying details. 2. Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For David Lin must pa

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the [Tenant’s] name and identifying details.
Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For David Lin must pay [the tenants] $28.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,720.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately to [The tenant/s]

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears from 28 November 2025 to 2 December 2025. The amount claimed is $342.86. According to the parties this sum has been retained by the bond centre.
The tenant gave the landlord a 21 day notice on 11 November 2025 which expired on 2 December 2025. They wanted to move out on 28 November 2025. The tenant asked if she could leave earlier and the full bond could be refunded. She did not hear back from the landlord.
The tenant and her family left the premises on 28 November but subsequently, the landlord asked her to attend to a number of issues with the property including aspects which the tenant did not consider her responsibility. This included repairing holes in the walls and clearing mould from the garage, amongst other things.
The tenant said the landlord (Joanna) said if she attended to these aspects, that the bond would be refunded in full.
The tenant attended to remedying all the landlord’s concerns and on 25 December she sent an email to the landlord advising the steps that had been taken to remedy the landlord’s concerns, advising: “As per your instruction now everything has been attended and sorted, we expect the full bond to be returned.”
The landlord denied assuring the tenant her full bond would be returned, however the tenant was adamant on this front and said attending to the additional items were time consuming and caused her stress. Analysis
A tenant is liable to pay rent up until the expiry of a 21 day notice, unless a prior agreement to the contrary is reached.
The tenant was technically liable to pay rent up to 2 December 2025.
I consider, however, that the principle of estoppel is at play here.
The Tribunal may make any orders that the High Court or District Court may make under any enactment or rule of law relating to contracts (see s 78(1)(h) Residential Tenancies Act 1986). This includes equitable remedies such as estoppel.
A party claiming an equitable estoppel must establish that: a. A belief or expectation has been created or encouraged through some action, representation, or omission to act by the other party; b. The belief or expectation has been reasonably relied on to their detriment; c. It would be unconscionable for the party against whom the estoppel is alleged to depart from the belief or expectation.
The underlying principle of equitable estoppel is to prevent the exercise of strict legal rights in circumstances where the exercise of them would be unconscionable. This principle is entirely consistent with the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal (Stella & Carey v Bay of Islands Realty Limited & Kirkman [2016] NZTT Kaikohe 4051975 & 4053657), in particular s 85(2) RTA, provides that: The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.
A considerable amount of additional work was undertaken by the tenant after leaving the property. In her email of 20 December 2025, the tenant advised the landlord: “Cleaning items completed Pantry door (back and front) Garage ceiling all Mold Cleaned All Wall Areas around the staircase Both the Inside and the outside of the Entry wardrope area and also been cleaned. Laundry tub, surrounding walls, and the large adjacent wall (where shoe racks and laundry were stacked, as per photos) Tape and residue removal from the lounge/dining ceiling All Walls in the Ground floor have been Cleaned Upstairs ensuite corner, towel rail, and shower door Both bathrooms glasses have been cleaned as requested All ground floor walls have been thoroughly cleaned, all staircase walls and doors have been cleaned, and all mold has been fully removed. Please refer to the attached photos for clear evidence of the completed work. In addition, the pink cover that was placed by us to cove the hold caused by the water company has now been removed, and the hole is currently visible. This was not caused by us and has been left as found after the water company’s work, We Informed you about this hole during our rats issue, We suspected that this was the place where the rats used to access the house. It is extremely unreasonable for us to be required to carry out lawn maintenance a second time; however, this has also been done to avoid further dispute. I find this situation very unacceptable. Time that should be spent with my family is instead being spent repeatedly cleaning the property. We have acted in good faith and complied with every request. Given that all items have now been completed and supported with photographic evidence, I request that our full bond be returned as soon as possible.”
The landlord replied to advise additional issues had to now be attended to and the tenant then replied: “Garage key The key for the internal garage access is already with you. You personally checked and confirmed the key in front of me when we met at the property. Hole next to the valve box cover The hole in the wall was caused by rats, which is why it had been covered with the colourful board. This was not a recent issue and had been present for a long time. Jimmy is well aware of this and the rat problem in the house, and this matter was discussed with him previously. Unfortunately, after this no action was taken from the management side to resolve the issue. As we had no other option, and take controls on our own hand, whereas the board was used to cover the hole as a temporary measure to prevent further rat entry. we shouldn't be discussing these things now I had also sent a video explaining this, and I have attached the video again here for your reference. Weeding and rubbish removal The weeding around the front and back gardens, including the garden beds, has been completed. All rubbish from the lawn has been removed, and the old appliances that were stored in the front yard have also been cleared. Old advertising post The old advertising post attached to the retaining wall has been removed I would also like to note that we have been addressing new items raised each day, which has required significant time and effort, including during the Christmas holiday period. At this stage, all requested items have now been completed. As per your instruction now everything has been attended and sorted, we expect the full bond to be returned.”
The tenants in my view have gone over and beyond to attend to all the landlord’s requests and made it clear this was in the expectation the bond will be refunded in full.
I accept the tenant’s evidence that the landlord said words to the effect the full bond would be refunded if the additional work was attended to. The tenant was adamant on this front and presented as a clear and reliable witness, likely to have a good memory of what was said.
I consider these words and actions created a belief or expectation that the tenant would indeed get the full bond refunded if all items were attended to. I simply do not accept the tenant would have done all this work unless she was going to get the full return of the bond.
The tenant relied on that assurance by then spending a lot of time and stress attending to the items the landlord wanted to be remedied (most likely, in terms of time, to the value of the disputed sum).
The tenant has suffered a loss because the landlord now asserts it is entitled to rely on its strict legal rights to retain the balance of the bond and says it made no such promise to the tenant.
I consider it would be unconscionable for the party against whom the estoppel is alleged – the landlord - to depart from the belief or expectation. The tenant and her family have clearly spent a lot of time remedying the issues.
The tenant is entitled to name suppression and return of her filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5449470. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
suppression of the [Tenant’s] name and identifying details. 2. Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For David Lin must pa	$28.00		suppression of the [Tenant’s] name and identifying details. 2. Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For David Lin must pa

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the [Tenant’s] name and identifying details.
Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For David Lin must pay [the tenants] $28.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,720.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately to [The tenant/s]

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears from 28 November 2025 to 2 December 2025. The amount claimed is $342.86. According to the parties this sum has been retained by the bond centre.
The tenant gave the landlord a 21 day notice on 11 November 2025 which expired on 2 December 2025. They wanted to move out on 28 November 2025. The tenant asked if she could leave earlier and the full bond could be refunded. She did not hear back from the landlord.
The tenant and her family left the premises on 28 November but subsequently, the landlord asked her to attend to a number of issues with the property including aspects which the tenant did not consider her responsibility. This included repairing holes in the walls and clearing mould from the garage, amongst other things.
The tenant said the landlord (Joanna) said if she attended to these aspects, that the bond would be refunded in full.
The tenant attended to remedying all the landlord’s concerns and on 25 December she sent an email to the landlord advising the steps that had been taken to remedy the landlord’s concerns, advising: “As per your instruction now everything has been attended and sorted, we expect the full bond to be returned.”
The landlord denied assuring the tenant her full bond would be returned, however the tenant was adamant on this front and said attending to the additional items were time consuming and caused her stress. Analysis
A tenant is liable to pay rent up until the expiry of a 21 day notice, unless a prior agreement to the contrary is reached.
The tenant was technically liable to pay rent up to 2 December 2025.
I consider, however, that the principle of estoppel is at play here.
The Tribunal may make any orders that the High Court or District Court may make under any enactment or rule of law relating to contracts (see s 78(1)(h) Residential Tenancies Act 1986). This includes equitable remedies such as estoppel.
A party claiming an equitable estoppel must establish that: a. A belief or expectation has been created or encouraged through some action, representation, or omission to act by the other party; b. The belief or expectation has been reasonably relied on to their detriment; c. It would be unconscionable for the party against whom the estoppel is alleged to depart from the belief or expectation.
The underlying principle of equitable estoppel is to prevent the exercise of strict legal rights in circumstances where the exercise of them would be unconscionable. This principle is entirely consistent with the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal (Stella & Carey v Bay of Islands Realty Limited & Kirkman [2016] NZTT Kaikohe 4051975 & 4053657), in particular s 85(2) RTA, provides that: The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.
A considerable amount of additional work was undertaken by the tenant after leaving the property. In her email of 20 December 2025, the tenant advised the landlord: “Cleaning items completed Pantry door (back and front) Garage ceiling all Mold Cleaned All Wall Areas around the staircase Both the Inside and the outside of the Entry wardrope area and also been cleaned. Laundry tub, surrounding walls, and the large adjacent wall (where shoe racks and laundry were stacked, as per photos) Tape and residue removal from the lounge/dining ceiling All Walls in the Ground floor have been Cleaned Upstairs ensuite corner, towel rail, and shower door Both bathrooms glasses have been cleaned as requested All ground floor walls have been thoroughly cleaned, all staircase walls and doors have been cleaned, and all mold has been fully removed. Please refer to the attached photos for clear evidence of the completed work. In addition, the pink cover that was placed by us to cove the hold caused by the water company has now been removed, and the hole is currently visible. This was not caused by us and has been left as found after the water company’s work, We Informed you about this hole during our rats issue, We suspected that this was the place where the rats used to access the house. It is extremely unreasonable for us to be required to carry out lawn maintenance a second time; however, this has also been done to avoid further dispute. I find this situation very unacceptable. Time that should be spent with my family is instead being spent repeatedly cleaning the property. We have acted in good faith and complied with every request. Given that all items have now been completed and supported with photographic evidence, I request that our full bond be returned as soon as possible.”
The landlord replied to advise additional issues had to now be attended to and the tenant then replied: “Garage key The key for the internal garage access is already with you. You personally checked and confirmed the key in front of me when we met at the property. Hole next to the valve box cover The hole in the wall was caused by rats, which is why it had been covered with the colourful board. This was not a recent issue and had been present for a long time. Jimmy is well aware of this and the rat problem in the house, and this matter was discussed with him previously. Unfortunately, after this no action was taken from the management side to resolve the issue. As we had no other option, and take controls on our own hand, whereas the board was used to cover the hole as a temporary measure to prevent further rat entry. we shouldn't be discussing these things now I had also sent a video explaining this, and I have attached the video again here for your reference. Weeding and rubbish removal The weeding around the front and back gardens, including the garden beds, has been completed. All rubbish from the lawn has been removed, and the old appliances that were stored in the front yard have also been cleared. Old advertising post The old advertising post attached to the retaining wall has been removed I would also like to note that we have been addressing new items raised each day, which has required significant time and effort, including during the Christmas holiday period. At this stage, all requested items have now been completed. As per your instruction now everything has been attended and sorted, we expect the full bond to be returned.”
The tenants in my view have gone over and beyond to attend to all the landlord’s requests and made it clear this was in the expectation the bond will be refunded in full.
I accept the tenant’s evidence that the landlord said words to the effect the full bond would be refunded if the additional work was attended to. The tenant was adamant on this front and presented as a clear and reliable witness, likely to have a good memory of what was said.
I consider these words and actions created a belief or expectation that the tenant would indeed get the full bond refunded if all items were attended to. I simply do not accept the tenant would have done all this work unless she was going to get the full return of the bond.
The tenant relied on that assurance by then spending a lot of time and stress attending to the items the landlord wanted to be remedied (most likely, in terms of time, to the value of the disputed sum).
The tenant has suffered a loss because the landlord now asserts it is entitled to rely on its strict legal rights to retain the balance of the bond and says it made no such promise to the tenant.
I consider it would be unconscionable for the party against whom the estoppel is alleged – the landlord - to depart from the belief or expectation. The tenant and her family have clearly spent a lot of time remedying the issues.
The tenant is entitled to name suppression and return of her filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5449470 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5449470 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions