What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5261065?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s further claim of $1,050 against the remaining bond is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5261065?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5261065?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5261065?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12328687-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5261065?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s further claim of $1,050 against the remaining bond is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5261065?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5261065?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5261065?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12328687-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 128 Britomart Street, Berhampore, Wellington Tenancy Tribunal Case 5261065 — Rent arrears

Reasons

The landlord Alister Koning of Koning Properties Limited and the tenants Bayley Pellow and Nick James attended the hearing.

The tenancy has ended.

The landlord has since received $1,636.00 from the bond towards carpet replacement costs through a one-party bond refund process pursuant to section 22A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’).

$3,269.00 of the bond remains with the bond centre presently. The tenants seek the refund of the remaining bond to the tenants.

On this application filed at the Tribunal on 12 May 2025, the landlord has claimed a further $1,050.00 against the remaining bond on two grounds.

Firstly, the landlord seeks $300.00 in compensation for his time spent dealing with the carpet damage and replacement.

I find however that the issue to do with carpet replacement costs has already been satisfied fully by the landlord getting $1,636.00 through a one-party bond refund claim. Landlords are expected to manage their tenancies in a businesslike and professional manner. Any issues on damage to property would necessarily involve landlord spending time to deal with them; I do not consider that the landlord can claim any further amounts towards so-called compensation.

For those reasons, the landlord’s claim for damages of $300.00 must fail.

Secondly, the landlord seeks $750.00 stating that during the course of the tenancy, “I paid out one of the tenants from my own funds so I need to be reimbursed out of the bond for the money”.

During the tenancy, there has been changes made to the tenants’ names; the landlord submits that he has paid one of the original tenant Connor Pritchard $750 of Matthew Griffith’s bond out of the landlord’s own pocket.

However, I find that the landlord can only claim monies from the bond for legitimate matters to do with the tenant’s breach of the tenancy agreement and/or the RTA, which commonly includes rent arrears, outgoings, damages and cleaning costs.

Apart from the issue to do with carpet replacement costs (and time spent dealing with the carpet), there is no allegation that the tenant has breached the tenancy agreement and/or the RTA.

The issues to do with carpet replacement costs and time spent dealing with the carpet have already been addressed with the landlord receiving $1,636.00 from the bond centre and my above finding dismissing the landlord’s claim for $300 lost time.

The landlord’s mistake in paying $750 to one of the tenants lies in him failing to complete the proper paperwork on change of tenants and in paying one of the tenants (Connor) from his own pocket. Those mistakes are the landlord’s own doing and for the landlord to sort out with the respective individual, rather than from the remaining bond.

It would be unfair for the remaining tenants in this case to have to forfeit their part of the bond to alleviate the landlord’s own mistake. I reiterate that the tenant is not in breach of the tenancy agreement and/or the RTA, such as being in rent arrears or owing damages which might justify them losing part of their remaining bond.

The landlord can file a monetary claim against the relevant party/tenant personally for the money that he has incorrectly paid the bond out of his pocket to, separate to these proceedings at the Tribunal.

For those reasons, I dismiss the landlord’s claim of $750.00 against the remaining bond.

Consequently, the remaining bond should now be refunded in full to the tenants.

Order

The landlord’s further claim of $1,050 against the remaining bond is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the remaining bond of $3,269.00 (6194340-005) to Bayley Pellow, Alex James, Tim Searle and Nick James immediately.

Reasons

The landlord Alister Koning of Koning Properties Limited and the tenants Bayley Pellow and Nick James attended the hearing.
The tenancy has ended.
The landlord has since received $1,636.00 from the bond towards carpet replacement costs through a one-party bond refund process pursuant to section 22A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’).
$3,269.00 of the bond remains with the bond centre presently. The tenants seek the refund of the remaining bond to the tenants.
On this application filed at the Tribunal on 12 May 2025, the landlord has claimed a further $1,050.00 against the remaining bond on two grounds.
Firstly, the landlord seeks $300.00 in compensation for his time spent dealing with the carpet damage and replacement.
I find however that the issue to do with carpet replacement costs has already been satisfied fully by the landlord getting $1,636.00 through a one-party bond refund claim. Landlords are expected to manage their tenancies in a businesslike and professional manner. Any issues on damage to property would necessarily involve landlord spending time to deal with them; I do not consider that the landlord can claim any further amounts towards so-called compensation.
For those reasons, the landlord’s claim for damages of $300.00 must fail.
Secondly, the landlord seeks $750.00 stating that during the course of the tenancy, “I paid out one of the tenants from my own funds so I need to be reimbursed out of the bond for the money”.
During the tenancy, there has been changes made to the tenants’ names; the landlord submits that he has paid one of the original tenant Connor Pritchard $750 of Matthew Griffith’s bond out of the landlord’s own pocket.
However, I find that the landlord can only claim monies from the bond for legitimate matters to do with the tenant’s breach of the tenancy agreement and/or the RTA, which commonly includes rent arrears, outgoings, damages and cleaning costs.
Apart from the issue to do with carpet replacement costs (and time spent dealing with the carpet), there is no allegation that the tenant has breached the tenancy agreement and/or the RTA.
The issues to do with carpet replacement costs and time spent dealing with the carpet have already been addressed with the landlord receiving $1,636.00 from the bond centre and my above finding dismissing the landlord’s claim for $300 lost time.
The landlord’s mistake in paying $750 to one of the tenants lies in him failing to complete the proper paperwork on change of tenants and in paying one of the tenants (Connor) from his own pocket. Those mistakes are the landlord’s own doing and for the landlord to sort out with the respective individual, rather than from the remaining bond.
It would be unfair for the remaining tenants in this case to have to forfeit their part of the bond to alleviate the landlord’s own mistake. I reiterate that the tenant is not in breach of the tenancy agreement and/or the RTA, such as being in rent arrears or owing damages which might justify them losing part of their remaining bond.
The landlord can file a monetary claim against the relevant party/tenant personally for the money that he has incorrectly paid the bond out of his pocket to, separate to these proceedings at the Tribunal.
For those reasons, I dismiss the landlord’s claim of $750.00 against the remaining bond.
Consequently, the remaining bond should now be refunded in full to the tenants.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5261065 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 1, 128 Britomart Street, Berhampore, Wellington

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5261065 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 1, 128 Britomart Street, Berhampore, Wellington

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions