What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4909195?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4909195?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4909195?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4909195?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10717419-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4909195?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4909195?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4909195?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4909195?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10717419-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 153 Wyllie Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4909195 — Exemplary damages

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenant applied for refund of her bond and for exemplary damages. Background

The tenancy began on 6 May 2022. There were three tenants when the tenancy began.

Soon after the tenancy began one of the tenants decided to leave. All three signed a Change of Tenant form and a Variation of a Tenancy Agreement form.

In early February 2024 the tenant was arrested and incarcerated. She was released from prison on 18 April 2024. Change of tenant

While this tenant was incarcerated the remaining tenant requested that the previous tenant who had left in May 2022 return to the tenancy to replace this tenant. The landlord agreed to this and drafted a Variation of a Tenancy Agreement form. The form was given to the remaining tenant to get the signatures of all three tenants.

At the hearing the form was produced, and it shows that all three tenants signed the document as well as the Property Manager.

It is this tenant’s evidence that she did not sign the document and would not have been able to do so due to her incarceration. She believes that her signature was forged by the remaining tenant. Tenant’s application

The tenant has applied for her share of the bond to be refunded. She has also applied for exemplary damages against the landlord.

She says that when she was released from prison her tenancy had ended and she had nowhere to live. She said that she was homeless for three weeks.

In relation to the bond, the tenancy continues and the bond of $2,280.00 remains lodged with the Bond Centre.

The bond is in the name of this tenant and the remaining tenant. The third tenant was not added to the bond in 2024. She had been removed in 2022 when she first left the tenancy. Conclusion

On the evidence I am not satisfied that the Property Manager knew that the tenant’s signature may have been forged on the Variation of a Tenancy Agreement form. The tenants had been joint tenants for almost two years so the Property Manager likely presumed that they were friends, and it was plausible that the remaining tenant had obtained the other tenant’s signature on the form.

As discussed at the hearing this tenant may have a claim against the remaining tenant, but this Tribunal is not the correct jurisdiction for such a claim.

Given that the tenancy continues any refund of bond is between the tenants. This may also be a matter that the tenant can pursue in another forum.

The tenant’s claim is dismissed.