Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5273663 — Rent arrears at 25 Cambria Road, Devonport, Auckland 0624
Decided 11 Aug 2025 · Published 11 Aug 2025 · Application 5273663
Mixed / unclear
- Rent arrears
Order
- Anne Louisa Mary Haviland to pay CDC Investments Limited $27.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $27.00 (3071718-013) to CDC Investments Limited immediately.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- The landlord has applied for rent arrears of $1,740.00 for an undefined period, a full refund of the $1,740.00 bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
- The parties agreed to the terms and conditions set out in a Consent Order which was recorded by Adjudicator Kee on 30 April 2024, under application numbers 4800082 and 4823442 (“Consent Order”).
- The tenant is challenging the Consent Order in the District Court at NorthShore, under appeal number CIV-2024-044-000889. She confirmed she did not seek a stay of enforcement proceedings of the Consent Order when she filed her notice of appeal.
- The landlord has confirmed that it has applied for a Tribunal Order confirming the $7,000.00 of rent arrears agreed to by the parties in the Consent Order and an order for the Bond Centre to pay it the full bond of $1,740.00 to offset some of this rent it says the tenant still owes it. It states that the Tribunal must pay the bond, as the $7,000.00 rent arrears recorded in the Consent Order is still enforceable, and the bond will offset part of that debt.
- An appeal to the District Court does not act as an automatic grant of a stay of enforcement proceedings (Refer to s117 (1)) of the RTA). The tenant should have also applied to the District Court for a stay of enforcement proceedings, so as not to prejudice the outcome of the appeal, at the time that she appealed the Consent Order. She did not. The landlord says this gives the Tribunal jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Consent Order that relate to rent arrears and to refund it the bond to cover part of those rent arrears.
How much is owed for rent?
- The landlord’s application records that it is seeking $1,740.00 rent arrears for an undefined period and that the tenancy ended on 26 May 2024. Additionally, the landlord has not provided rent records which support the $1,740.00 rent arrears claim. When questioned the landlord was unsure whether the tenant had made any payments towards the rent areas awarded by the Tribunal in the Consent Order and/or if she had paid rent in full and on time from the date of the Consent Order until the end of the tenancy. It also stated it found the application form confusing and did not really understand if it had to make another claim for rent arrears to make its application for a full refund of the bond.
- The rent arrears to 30 April 2024, recorded in the Consent Order, are part of the claims the District Court will address during the appeal hearing, which is set down to be heard on 18 November 2025. It is not open to the Tribunal to rehear any of the claims that are the subject of this appealed Consent Order. The principles of res judicata prevent the Tribunal from doing so.
- Had the landlord made an application for rent arrears incurred post the 30 April 2024 Consent Order, and supported the application by an accurate rent summary for the post Consent Order period of the tenancy, it would have been open to me to award those new rent arrears and to refund part or all of the bond to cover those new rent arrears as this period of the tenancy is not covered by the appealed Consent Order
- The landlord was unclear what rent arrears it was applying for and did not provide sufficient evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities the tenant did not pay all or part of her rent from 1 may to 26 May 2024. Its claim for $1,740.00 rent arrears for that period is therefore dismissed. Should the Tribunal refund the bond to the landlord as part of the enforcement of the 30 April 2024 Consent Order?
- Section 22B(1) of the RTA states: “If there is a dispute between the parties as to the payment of a bond, either party may apply to the Tribunal for an order determining to whom the bond, or any part of it, is to be paid”.
- The landlord did not apply for a refund of the bond in its initial application 4800082 and therefore the bind is not mentioned in the Consent Order. The landlord has made a further application for a refund of the bond, as one part of its enforcement of the Consent Order.
- The tenant has confirmed she has not made an application for a stay of enforcement proceedings as part of her notice of appeal filed in the District Court.
- Section 117 (10) of the RTA states: “The filing of a notice of appeal under this section shall not operate as a stay of proceedings, unless the Tribunal or a District Court Judge, on application, so determines”.
- Therefore, it is open to the landlord to seek to enforce the 30 April 2024 Consent Order, by applying for the bond to be refunded, in conjunction with pursuing other avenues of enforcement for the remaining Consent Order debt.
- During the hearing I gave an indication that I did not think I had the jurisdiction to order the $1,740.00 bond to be refunded to the landlord because of the appeal. On reflection, and after further review of the relevant provisions of the RTA, I am satisfied the Consent Order remains enforceable until a stay of enforcement proceedings is granted by the District Court, or the Consent Order is overturned by the District Court. Therefore, the landlord is legally entitled to a refund of the bond to offset the money awarded to the landlord in the enforceable Consent Order and I cannot refuse to make that order.
- It remains open to the tenant to make a late application to the District Court for a stay of enforcement of the Consent Order. That would also act as a stay of enforcement of this Order, as the landlord would have no claim over the bond, other than in relation to the monies awarded to it in the enforceable Consent Order. Reimbursement of the filing fee
- Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
- Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with its claim, I must reimburse the filing fee.