What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4856300?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,900.00 (3074079-012) to Ruiliang Nie,

How much money was awarded in case 4856300?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4856300?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4856300?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10563780-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4856300?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,900.00 (3074079-012) to Ruiliang Nie,

How much money was awarded in case 4856300?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4856300?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4856300?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10563780-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

11 Vogel Street, Mount Victoria, Wellington 6011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4856300 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

The Tribunal has received an application from the tenants for a bond release.

The tenancy commenced in 2020. Over the course of the years, there have been regular changes to the tenants, by way of variation to the tenancy agreement. By the end of the tenancy in 2024, the outgoing tenants were completely different to those who commenced the tenancy in 2020.

What occurred with the bond was not particularly uncommon. The new incoming tenant paid the outgoing tenant their share of the bond directly. That payment did not go through the landlord, but the landlord says that change of tenant forms were completed and sent to the Bond Centre.

In any event at the end of the tenancy, the landlord agreed that the bond should be released to the tenants. While initially the landlord sought $100.00 of the bond, at the hearing today the landlord agreed the full bond should be released to the applicants.

Also at the hearing today, the tenants confirmed that they had paid the outgoing tenants their share of the bond.

However, when the bond release form was provided to the Bond Centre, the Bond Centre declined to release the bond because there were additional tenants on their records as being tenants. As I explained to the tenants today, the Bond Centre won’t release any bond unless they are satisfied that they are correctly releasing the money to the correct parties. At the end of the day, the bond is the tenant’s money, and the Bond Centre have a duty to ensure it is correctly released.

Ultimately the landlord agrees that at the end of the tenancy the five tenants who are the applicants were the correct tenants, and I accept that they had reimbursed any outgoing tenants their portion of the bond, so the bond should be viewed as entirely under the names of these current applicants.

I direct that the Bond Centre release the full bond to these five applicants.

Ms Abraham-Smith has claimed general damages. As I explained at the hearing, I can see no basis for this. The bond was not released because there was a mismatch of names for the tenants in the Bond Centre. The system was working as it should, in that the Bond Centre would not release the bond without a Tribunal order, because their records differed as to who was the owner of that bond money.

In the absence of see a legal breach on the part of the landlord, I can see no basis for making an order that the landlord pay general damages for mental suffering on the part of Ms Abraham-Smith.

Reasons

The Tribunal has received an application from the tenants for a bond release.

Also at the hearing today, the tenants confirmed that they had paid the outgoing tenants their share of the bond.

I direct that the Bond Centre release the full bond to these five applicants.

In the absence of see a legal breach on the part of the landlord, I can see no basis for making an order that the landlord pay general damages for mental suffering on the part of Ms Abraham-Smith.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4856300 — Tenancy dispute at 11 Vogel Street, Mount Victoria, Wellington 6011

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4856300 — Tenancy dispute at 11 Vogel Street, Mount Victoria, Wellington 6011

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Property management

Frequently asked questions