Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5465410 — Tenancy dispute
Decided 23 Jun 2026 · Published 23 Jun 2026 · Application 5465410
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
B King
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 both parties’ names and identifying details.
- The Bond Centre is to pay $1,300.00 from the bond ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video/ teleconference. Background
- [The tenant/s] and her partner entered into a fixed term tenancy agreement for a term from 11 September 2025 to 10 September 2026.
- A bond of $2,600.00 was paid. The bond lodgement form records that $1,300.00 was paid by [The tenant/s] and $1,300.00 by her partner.
- A family violence incident occurred on 29 January 2026. [The tenant/s] was arrested and bail conditions prevented her from returning to the premises.
- As a result, the property manager e-mailed her on 10 February: We are writing in relation to the tenancy at [Tenancy address suppressed]. to clarify the current tenancy arrangements. As your name remains on the tenancy agreement, we wanted to check whether you wish to remain as a tenant at the property, or whether you would like us to provide information about bringing removed from the tenancy by way of a change of tenant amendment. There is absolutely no obligation to proceed with any change, and we're not making any assumptions about your intentions. We simply want to ensure our records accurately reflect how you would like to proceed and confirm whether you wish to remain jointly liable under the tenancy. If you would like to discuss this, or if you would prefer to remain on the tenancy as things currently stand, please let us know.”
- [The tenant/s] replied on the same day: “At this point in time, I have no intentions on leaving the tenancy at [Tenancy address suppressed]. All of my personal property still remains at [Tenancy address suppressed] and I currently have no way of getting this back until I can speak with my lawyer, hopefully on the 16th so I would appreciate if we could set up a meeting with management at a time where I could also have my advocate...... come along with me.”
- On 17 March, [The tenant/s] gave notice of withdrawal from the tenancy on family violence grounds 1 . That was actioned by the landlord. Her obligations under the tenancy ended on 19 March and she has paid rent up to that date. No orders are sought about rent.
- A new tenant was found for the tenancy. The new tenant paid a bond of $1,300.00 which has been lodged, with the result that there is now a total bond of $3,900.00 held at the Bond Centre for the tenancy, instead of the $2,600.00 required by the agreement.
- [The tenant/s] asked the landlord to release her bond and to help with recovery of her belongings from the premises.
- In relation to [The tenant/s]’s belongings, the landlord’s position as set out on 12 March was that, “Regarding retrieving personal belongings, the property is currently occupied, and we do not have possession, so we are unable to assist with access. Any arrangements may need to be coordinated with the police in accordance with your bail conditions. We will cooperate with police if required.”
- On 8 April 2026, the landlord asked the Bond Centre to release [The tenant/s]’s bond to her. The tenant’s partner did not consent. 1 S.56B RTA Claims
- [The tenant/s] needs access to her bond.
- She also says that damages should be awarded for the landlords’ failure to fairly and impartially support her through the difficult process of the joint tenancy ending.
- [The tenant/s]’s application initially sought orders about access to her belongings but she now has legal advice and is appropriately addressing those issues as relationship property matters. Bond
- The landlord supports release of [The tenant/s] bond. The question for the Tribunal is whether the bond payment made by her can be released without the consent of her partner, who remains a tenant under the agreement.
- The Tribunal has jurisdiction to resolve disputes between landlords and tenants, not between tenants. Here, the “tenant” is [The tenant/s] and her partner jointly.
- The bond lodgement form shows that the original bond was paid by [The tenant/s] and her partner equally.
- Her partner agreed to a variation by which [The tenant/s] was released from the tenancy, a new tenant replaced her and the new tenant paid a bond of $1,300.00. Agreement to those changes must be taken as her consent to [The tenant/s]’s bond being released to her, as part of the variation. Otherwise, a bond of more that 4 weeks rent would be held for the tenancy, which is not permitted. 2
- [The tenant/s]’s partner will be left in the same position as previously, ie. with a bond of $2,600.00 held to secure the current tenants’ joint obligations.
- The Tribunal can therefore make an Order releasing [The tenant/s]’s bond contribution to her. The landlord consents. Damages
- Essentially [The tenant/s]’s position is that the property manager seemed more supportive of her partner’s interests in dealing with the situation, and did not provide reasonable opportunity for separate discussions about her rights and options with she and her support people.
- I do not doubt the stress and difficulty of the situation [The tenant/s] was/ is in, or the sincerity of her perceptions about that lack of support. 2 S.18(1) RTA
- It is not appropriate that the Tribunal try to assess that. What the Tribunal has to decide is whether; a.the evidence proves, on balance, a breach of the landlord’s obligations under the RTA: and b.only if a breach has been proved, what redress would be just.
- Here, I find no breach of the landlord’s obligations under the RTA proved.
- When the property manager became aware of the situation she appropriately contacted [The tenant/s] to make sure she was aware of her position and options and to ascertain her intentions about the tenancy.
- When the Notice of Withdrawal was given it was processed and the withdrawal implemented as it should have been.
- The communications show that the landlord’s intention at least, was to deal with the tenants without favour.
- It’s position in relation to recovery of [The tenant/s]’s belongings, that it was a matter between she and her partner and not something the landlord should become involved in, is correct.
- Given that the landlord consents to the order made and has tried to achieve the same outcome itself without the Tribunal’s help, it would not be fair to order reimbursement of the filing fee.