What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5301411?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,400.00 (6519332-006) to Ripine

How much money was awarded in case 5301411?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5301411?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5301411?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12986970-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5301411?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,400.00 (6519332-006) to Ripine

How much money was awarded in case 5301411?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5301411?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5301411?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12986970-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

5 Kerrykeel Drive, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5301411 — Rent arrears

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,400.00 (6519332-006) to Ripine Singh, Sukhbir Singh and Fiaavae Singh immediately.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The first hearing was held on 17 November 2025. That hearing was adjourned for further evidence to be produced in relation to the landlord’s claim.
The tenancy began on 6 January 2024 and ended on 24 June 2025 when the tenants were evicted.
There had been two previous Mediator Orders 1 dated 17 December 2024 and 15 May 2025.
The 15 May 2025 order awarded rent arrears of $4,119.18 for rent to 12 May 2025, water rates of $158.24 and the application fee.
The landlord enforced that order by way of an attachment order 2 issued on 11 June 2025 for a judgement debt of $4,304.42 and $258.00 for previous enforcement action. The amount of $50.00 was deducted from the tenant’s income each week
The reason for the discrepancy between the amount of the order dated 12 May 2025 and the judgement debt is not clear, and the landlord did not provide any evidence in relation to this.
The $50.00 per week deductions from the tenant’s income commenced on 25 June 2025 and the most recent deduction was made on 14 January 2026.
At the hearing the tenant said that the debt owed by way of the attachment order was cleared by way of a payment from Work and Income New Zealand but did not provide any evidence to support this.
The landlord applied to the Tribunal on 8 July 2025 for rent arrears and water rates (which partly includes the rent arrears and water rates awarded in the 12 May 2025 order) and vacated costs. The landlord also sought refund of enforcement costs which the Tribunal does not order as the normal process is for this to be claimed at enforcement stage. The landlord provided invoices for the vacated costs claimed.
The tenant has been paying $50.00 per week for the attachment order as well as $30.00 per week to a debt collector (NZ Collections). The landlord did not provide any evidence as to what debt had been referred to the debt collector.
After a break in the hearing, where the landlord was provided with an opportunity to produce this evidence, it was the tenant who provided documentation from NZ Collections. The document states that the total amount lodged was $2,169.42 and the debt with costs referred to the debt collector was $2,789.78.
The tenant has paid $30.00 per week for this debt starting on 4 July 2025 with the most recent payment on 16 January 2026.
The landlord was asked for evidence about the debt referred to the debt collector. At the hearing the landlord said that it was the invoices that had been sent to the debt collector. The invoices are those provided to the Tribunal in 1 TT5067352 and TT5222871 2 TT-2025-092-222871 relation to the vacated costs. The landlord did not provide specific evidence of how this amount was calculated.
Given that the landlord has sent the invoices to the debt collector and the tenant is making weekly payments, it is not clear what, if any further debt the tenant owes the landlord.
The onus is on the applicant to provide sufficient evidence to the Tribunal to prove that their claim is more likely than not to be true. The landlord has not provided sufficient evidence in support of their claim.
On the evidence before me the landlord has enforced claims for vacated costs before the Tribunal has made an order. If the Tribunal were to make an order it may mean that the tenant is paying both to the debt collector and in respect of a Tribunal order.
The landlord was given plenty of opportunity to provide the evidence required. The order from the hearing adjourned on 17 November 2025 stated, “If the landlord does not provide the information required, it may be that their claim is dismissed at the next hearing.” 3
I am not satisfied that the tenant owes any money that has not been sent to the debt collector. The landlord’s claim is dismissed.
As there is no claim awarded to the landlord the bond is released to the tenants.

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,400.00 (6519332-006) to Ripine Singh, Sukhbir Singh and Fiaavae Singh immediately.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The first hearing was held on 17 November 2025. That hearing was adjourned for further evidence to be produced in relation to the landlord’s claim.
The tenancy began on 6 January 2024 and ended on 24 June 2025 when the tenants were evicted.
There had been two previous Mediator Orders 1 dated 17 December 2024 and 15 May 2025.
The 15 May 2025 order awarded rent arrears of $4,119.18 for rent to 12 May 2025, water rates of $158.24 and the application fee.
The landlord enforced that order by way of an attachment order 2 issued on 11 June 2025 for a judgement debt of $4,304.42 and $258.00 for previous enforcement action. The amount of $50.00 was deducted from the tenant’s income each week
The reason for the discrepancy between the amount of the order dated 12 May 2025 and the judgement debt is not clear, and the landlord did not provide any evidence in relation to this.
The $50.00 per week deductions from the tenant’s income commenced on 25 June 2025 and the most recent deduction was made on 14 January 2026.
At the hearing the tenant said that the debt owed by way of the attachment order was cleared by way of a payment from Work and Income New Zealand but did not provide any evidence to support this.
The landlord applied to the Tribunal on 8 July 2025 for rent arrears and water rates (which partly includes the rent arrears and water rates awarded in the 12 May 2025 order) and vacated costs. The landlord also sought refund of enforcement costs which the Tribunal does not order as the normal process is for this to be claimed at enforcement stage. The landlord provided invoices for the vacated costs claimed.
The tenant has been paying $50.00 per week for the attachment order as well as $30.00 per week to a debt collector (NZ Collections). The landlord did not provide any evidence as to what debt had been referred to the debt collector.
After a break in the hearing, where the landlord was provided with an opportunity to produce this evidence, it was the tenant who provided documentation from NZ Collections. The document states that the total amount lodged was $2,169.42 and the debt with costs referred to the debt collector was $2,789.78.
The tenant has paid $30.00 per week for this debt starting on 4 July 2025 with the most recent payment on 16 January 2026.
The landlord was asked for evidence about the debt referred to the debt collector. At the hearing the landlord said that it was the invoices that had been sent to the debt collector. The invoices are those provided to the Tribunal in 1 TT5067352 and TT5222871 2 TT-2025-092-222871 relation to the vacated costs. The landlord did not provide specific evidence of how this amount was calculated.
Given that the landlord has sent the invoices to the debt collector and the tenant is making weekly payments, it is not clear what, if any further debt the tenant owes the landlord.
The onus is on the applicant to provide sufficient evidence to the Tribunal to prove that their claim is more likely than not to be true. The landlord has not provided sufficient evidence in support of their claim.
On the evidence before me the landlord has enforced claims for vacated costs before the Tribunal has made an order. If the Tribunal were to make an order it may mean that the tenant is paying both to the debt collector and in respect of a Tribunal order.
The landlord was given plenty of opportunity to provide the evidence required. The order from the hearing adjourned on 17 November 2025 stated, “If the landlord does not provide the information required, it may be that their claim is dismissed at the next hearing.” 3
I am not satisfied that the tenant owes any money that has not been sent to the debt collector. The landlord’s claim is dismissed.
As there is no claim awarded to the landlord the bond is released to the tenants.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5301411 — Rent arrears at 5 Kerrykeel Drive, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5301411 — Rent arrears at 5 Kerrykeel Drive, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019

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