What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4608770?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $250.00 (5362285-004) to Jenny Hayes

How much money was awarded in case 4608770?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4608770?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4608770?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9811420-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4608770?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $250.00 (5362285-004) to Jenny Hayes

How much money was awarded in case 4608770?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4608770?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4608770?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9811420-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

24 Wattle Grove, Maungaraki, Lower Hutt 5010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4608770 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

The application seeks rent arrears and storage costs.

The tenancy ended in March 2020.

The application was set down for a telephone hearing today, 8 January 2024. No telephone number was provided for Mr Leota.

Ms Hayes participated in the hearing.

Ms Hayes explained that Mr Leota boarded with her for several years.

At the beginning of the boarding arrangement Mr Leota paid a bond of $250 (the equivalent of two weeks’ rent), which she paid to the Bond Centre.

She had a basic written contract with Mr Leota, which she has since misplaced.

Mr Leota ended the boarding arrangement abruptly by sending a message to Ms Hayes’ partner and then leaving the property the next day. He left behind a substantial amount of his belongings which he retrieved over the course of the next three months.

Mr Leota paid his rent on time during the tenancy. Ms Hayes waited for Mr Leota to take action to retrieve his bond after the end of the tenancy, but he never did.

Ms Hayes seeks the bond on the grounds that Mr Leota did not give adequate notice to terminate the tenancy, and that she stored his belongings for a period of approximately three months.

The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) does not apply to house sharing / boarding arrangements 1 .

The Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine disputes relating to any tenancy to which the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 applies 2 . The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in respect of house sharing / boarding arrangements.

Therefore, I must conclude that the Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine Ms Hayes’ claims for rent arrears and storage costs.

However, a party may make an application to the Tenancy Tribunal seeking an order determining to whom the bond is to be paid, and the Tribunal may make such an order 3 .

In this instance, Ms Hayes paid the bond to the Bond Centre in error, on the mistaken understanding that she was obliged to do so. The obligation to lodge bonds comes from the RTA, which did not apply to this arrangement.

The bond should be put back into Ms Hayes’ possession.

Given that more than three and half years have passed since the end of the tenancy, it seems that Mr Leota does not intend to seek a refund of the bond. However if he should ever do so, and a dispute arises about whether he is entitled to the bond, either party may bring that dispute to the Disputes Tribunal.