What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5493415 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5493415?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5493415?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5493415?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13575360-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5493415 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5493415?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5493415?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5493415?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13575360-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

144A Kolmar Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5493415 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by videoconference on 11 May 2026.
The tenant applicant had gone to work and initially his wife acted as his representative. Later, the Tribunal was also able to hear from the tenant. The Tribunal was assisted by two interpreters.
The tenant applied to the Tribunal on 20 April 2026 for refund of the bond. The application form stated that the tenant paid a bond of $2,000.00. Background
The tenant and his wife lived at the premises from 2 October 2025 to 18 April 2026. A weekly rent of $300.00 was payable. There was no written residential tenancy or flat-share agreement.
I was able to deduce that the “landlord” was in fact the tenant of the entire premises. After the hearing, the tenancy agreement between the owner’s agent (Harcourts) and the landlord was produced. The landlord was renting the premises for $690.00 per week and a bond of $2,760.00 pursuant to a periodic tenancy.
The tenancy agreement provided for a maximum occupancy of three people. The landlord lived downstairs with his wife. Two couples including the tenant and his wife lived upstairs. There was no physical separation between the two areas. The kitchen facilities were shared.
In early 2026 there was discussion about the landlord going back to India and the tenant taking over his tenancy. In an email on 4 March 2026, the landlord emailed Harcourts and (I paraphrase) said he wanted to transfer his tenancy agreement to the tenant. The landlord said (again, I am paraphrasing) that the tenant would refund his bond, so he did not need Harcourts to do so. Jurisdiction
The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is confined to disputes between landlords and tenants in respect of residential tenancies under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The Act applies to every tenancy for residential purposes, with some exceptions.
A flatmate is someone who a tenant agrees may live in the premises with them and share the facilities. In this case, the occupants had exclusive use of their rooms but otherwise were sharing the facilities.
I find that the relationship between the parties was flatmates, not landlord and tenant. The landlord did not part with possession or sublet the premises to the tenant, rather, he shared it with them and others. It follows that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction. Bond Refund
Despite my finding that there is no jurisdiction, I would like to make the following observations.
There was conflicting evidence given about how the “bond” was paid by the tenant to the landlord, and an alleged joint visit to the bank on 22 January 2026. The landlord seemed to be saying that $2,000.00 in cash was given by him to the tenant who later paid it into the landlord’s account. Initially, the tenant seemed to say the same thing, before (when asked to confirm this) stating that the landlord did not pay him anything.
Following the hearing, the landlord explained that he deposited $2,000.00 of his own money in his account and wanted to deposit $2,000.00 in his wife’s account but didn’t have the necessary details. Instead, the money was deposited in the tenant’s account, who agreed to transfer it to the landlord.
It is difficult to understand why the landlord would pay money to the tenant, only for the tenant to repay it, if the purpose was to make a payment to the landlord’s wife. It also does not seem like an obvious way for the tenant to pay the bond to the landlord as part of a transfer of the tenancy.
In his own written response following the hearing, the tenant said (in part): [The landlord] is claiming that he gave me $2,000 in cash, this statement is completely false. I have already clarified this earlier as well. Apart from this, [the landlord] is also claiming that he gave me $2,000 and that I deposited only $2,000. This is also completely false. I am sending you screenshots where you can clearly see that I deposited $2,250, not $2,000.
This explanation is different to the application form, which identified a bond of $2,000.00. I am unable to make sense of the various screenshots of payments and cash deposits provided by the parties. There is no coherent rationale for them.
Ultimately, the evidence does not establish the reason for the payment of $2,000.00 from the tenant to the landlord on 22 January 2026. The payment could have been for the bond, however, the reason for the payment was not documented in any way, and the landlord’s bond was for a different amount.
It is not clear on the available evidence whether any of the sums paid or deposited were bond money or rent money (the landlord said rent payments were missed) or payment for something else. Name Suppression
The tenant requested suppression, but the grounds for doing so are not established.

Order

The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by videoconference on 11 May 2026.
The tenant applicant had gone to work and initially his wife acted as his representative. Later, the Tribunal was also able to hear from the tenant. The Tribunal was assisted by two interpreters.
The tenant applied to the Tribunal on 20 April 2026 for refund of the bond. The application form stated that the tenant paid a bond of $2,000.00. Background
The tenant and his wife lived at the premises from 2 October 2025 to 18 April 2026. A weekly rent of $300.00 was payable. There was no written residential tenancy or flat-share agreement.
I was able to deduce that the “landlord” was in fact the tenant of the entire premises. After the hearing, the tenancy agreement between the owner’s agent (Harcourts) and the landlord was produced. The landlord was renting the premises for $690.00 per week and a bond of $2,760.00 pursuant to a periodic tenancy.
The tenancy agreement provided for a maximum occupancy of three people. The landlord lived downstairs with his wife. Two couples including the tenant and his wife lived upstairs. There was no physical separation between the two areas. The kitchen facilities were shared.
In early 2026 there was discussion about the landlord going back to India and the tenant taking over his tenancy. In an email on 4 March 2026, the landlord emailed Harcourts and (I paraphrase) said he wanted to transfer his tenancy agreement to the tenant. The landlord said (again, I am paraphrasing) that the tenant would refund his bond, so he did not need Harcourts to do so. Jurisdiction
The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is confined to disputes between landlords and tenants in respect of residential tenancies under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The Act applies to every tenancy for residential purposes, with some exceptions.
A flatmate is someone who a tenant agrees may live in the premises with them and share the facilities. In this case, the occupants had exclusive use of their rooms but otherwise were sharing the facilities.
I find that the relationship between the parties was flatmates, not landlord and tenant. The landlord did not part with possession or sublet the premises to the tenant, rather, he shared it with them and others. It follows that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction. Bond Refund
Despite my finding that there is no jurisdiction, I would like to make the following observations.
There was conflicting evidence given about how the “bond” was paid by the tenant to the landlord, and an alleged joint visit to the bank on 22 January 2026. The landlord seemed to be saying that $2,000.00 in cash was given by him to the tenant who later paid it into the landlord’s account. Initially, the tenant seemed to say the same thing, before (when asked to confirm this) stating that the landlord did not pay him anything.
Following the hearing, the landlord explained that he deposited $2,000.00 of his own money in his account and wanted to deposit $2,000.00 in his wife’s account but didn’t have the necessary details. Instead, the money was deposited in the tenant’s account, who agreed to transfer it to the landlord.
It is difficult to understand why the landlord would pay money to the tenant, only for the tenant to repay it, if the purpose was to make a payment to the landlord’s wife. It also does not seem like an obvious way for the tenant to pay the bond to the landlord as part of a transfer of the tenancy.
In his own written response following the hearing, the tenant said (in part): [The landlord] is claiming that he gave me $2,000 in cash, this statement is completely false. I have already clarified this earlier as well. Apart from this, [the landlord] is also claiming that he gave me $2,000 and that I deposited only $2,000. This is also completely false. I am sending you screenshots where you can clearly see that I deposited $2,250, not $2,000.
This explanation is different to the application form, which identified a bond of $2,000.00. I am unable to make sense of the various screenshots of payments and cash deposits provided by the parties. There is no coherent rationale for them.
Ultimately, the evidence does not establish the reason for the payment of $2,000.00 from the tenant to the landlord on 22 January 2026. The payment could have been for the bond, however, the reason for the payment was not documented in any way, and the landlord’s bond was for a different amount.
It is not clear on the available evidence whether any of the sums paid or deposited were bond money or rent money (the landlord said rent payments were missed) or payment for something else. Name Suppression
The tenant requested suppression, but the grounds for doing so are not established.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5493415 — Tenancy dispute at 144A Kolmar Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5493415 — Tenancy dispute at 144A Kolmar Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Frequently asked questions