What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5327378?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $400.58 (BN-00024016) immediately to

How much money was awarded in case 5327378?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5327378?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5327378?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13042673-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5327378?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $400.58 (BN-00024016) immediately to

How much money was awarded in case 5327378?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5327378?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5327378?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13042673-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

6 Beswick Place, Birkdale, Auckland 0626 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5327378 — Rent arrears

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $400.58 (BN-00024016) immediately to Hayley Austin.
The tenants must remove the motorcycle from the premise by 5:00pm on 8 February 2026. If the motorcycle has not been removed by this date and time, the landlord may dispose of the motorcycle however it sees fit and may pass on the disposal costs incurred to Mr Message.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing today. The landlord was represented by Kaka Wang from Barfoot & Thompson. The owner, Tony Nguyen, also attended the hearing. The two tenants self- represented.
Mr Wang left part way through the hearing, stating he was unwell and was going straight to A & E. The owner continued to represent the landlord party until the end of the hearing. Maria Lovell from Barfoot & Thompson attended the hearing remotely over the telephone after Mr Wang’s departure. Background
An Order was made on 14 October 2025 by Adjudicator Young terminating the tenancy and granting possession to the landlord at 11:59pm on Monday 20 October 2025. This Order also awarded $2,599.42 to the landlord, to be paid out of the $3,000.00 bond held by the bond centre. The remaining $400.58 bond was to be retained by the Bond Centre.
The tenants did not attend the 14 November 2025 hearing.
The tenants applied for a rehearing of the 14 November Order.
On 27 October 2025, Adjudicator Young directed that a rehearing consideration hearing take place before him, to decide whether a rehearing should be granted. This Order included a stay of proceedings on the basis that the tenants must pay weekly rent when due in the meantime, with the first payment to be made on 31 October 2025, or the tenancy would immediately terminate.
The landlord applied for enforcement of the Order on the basis that the payment due on 31 October was not made.
The tenants were evicted on 11 November 2025.
As at the date of the eviction, the tenants owed rent arrears of $214.29. This rent arrears amount takes into account the $2,599.42 the landlord had received from the tenants’ bond to cover the rent arrears of $2,571.42 and the $28.00 filing fee awarded on 14 October 2025.
On 10 December 2025, Adjudicator King granted the rehearing and directed the tenants to provide by email to the Tribunal and to the landlord, by 23 December 2025, the following: a. An application setting out any claims they want considered about the tenancy; b. Any evidence they want considered in support of their application; c. Any evidence they want considered in response to the landlord’s rent arrears claim.
Adjudicator King also directed the landlord to file and serve on the tenants any evidence in reply to the tenants’ claims, no later than 12 January 2026.
The tenants were confused about the direction and thought they could bring their counterclaims to today’s hearing and have those claims heard along with the rehearing of the landlord’s rent arrears claim. I have confirmed to the tenants that they need to make a separate application through Tenancy Services if they want their claims heard and that I could not hear those claims today. They confirmed that they will call Tenancy Services to get help with completing the online form.
Mr Wang came to the hearing unprepared and without an up-to-date rent summary. He claimed he had not provided the end of tenancy rent summary because the landlord had not received any evidence to support the tenants claim that the $2,571.42 rent arrears awarded to the landlord on 14 October 2025 was inaccurate. I do not accept that the landlord did not have to provide an accurate rent summary to the Tribunal at today’s hearing to prove the exact amount of rent owing as of 20 October 2025 and the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
At my request, Mr Wang called the office and got an updated rent summary sent to the Tribunal. This rent summary proved: a. On 20 October 2025, the tenants owed the landlord $1,500.00 in rent arrears; and b. On 11 November 2025 (the tenants eviction date) they owed the landlord $214.29 in rent arrears.
I also asked Mr Nguyen to get Mr Wang to ask the office whether Barfoot& Thompson had received three WINZ overpayments of $375.00 each as Ms Austin claimed these amounts had been incorrectly paid by WINZ to Barfoot and Thompson after the 11 November 2025 eviction. Mr Wang left the hearing before passing on this information. Mr Nguyen refused to call Barfoot & Thompson to obtain this information as he stated that he had only ever dealt with Mr Wang and did not know any of the other staff in the Glenfield office.
The Tribunal contacted Ms Maria Lovell, from Barfoot & Thompson, over the phone during the hearing. She confirmed that the landlord had received a $375.00 overpayment from WINZ on 12 November 2025, that Barfoot &Thompson had used $214.29 to offset the rent arrears and repaid the balance of $160.71 to WINZ. Ms Lovell also confirmed that Barfoot &Thompson had not received any further overpayments from WINZ.
The premise was rented for $750.00 per week. Mr Message and Ms Austin confirmed they each paid half the rent, being $375.00 per person.
Ms Austin has provided rent records that prove all her rent payments were made by WINZ directly in full and on time.
Mr Message provided bank statements which prove he missed three rent payments during the tenancy.
Because the tenants are jointly and severely liable under the tenancy agreement for any debt owed to the landlord, Ms Austin’s bond has been used to pay the rent arrears owed by Mr Message. As such, I have ordered the remaining bond of $400.58 be paid solely to Ms Austin.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenants have proven today that the rent records provided to the Tribunal for 14 October 2025 hearing were incorrect. The tenants did not owe $2,571.42 to that date. They owed $1,500.00. Adjudicator Young had made his 14 October 2025 Order based on inaccurate rent records.
The evidence provided by Ms Maria Lovell proves: a. The tenancy ended on 11 November 2025; b. The rent arrears owing at the end of the tenancy was $214.29; c. The $214.29 was paid on 12 November 2025, by WINZ; and d. As of 12 November 2025, the tenants did not owe the landlord any rent arrears. Disposal of goods
Mr Message confirms he left a motorcycle at the premise after the end of the tenancy, because it is not working.
Mr Message has agreed at the hearing today to have this removed from the premise by 5:00pm on Sunday 8 February 2026. He also confirmed that he understood that failure to do so will result on the landlord disposing of it and charging him for the disposal costs.
The landlord must keep receipts proving the disposal costs incurred.

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $400.58 (BN-00024016) immediately to Hayley Austin.
The tenants must remove the motorcycle from the premise by 5:00pm on 8 February 2026. If the motorcycle has not been removed by this date and time, the landlord may dispose of the motorcycle however it sees fit and may pass on the disposal costs incurred to Mr Message.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing today. The landlord was represented by Kaka Wang from Barfoot & Thompson. The owner, Tony Nguyen, also attended the hearing. The two tenants self- represented.
Mr Wang left part way through the hearing, stating he was unwell and was going straight to A & E. The owner continued to represent the landlord party until the end of the hearing. Maria Lovell from Barfoot & Thompson attended the hearing remotely over the telephone after Mr Wang’s departure. Background
An Order was made on 14 October 2025 by Adjudicator Young terminating the tenancy and granting possession to the landlord at 11:59pm on Monday 20 October 2025. This Order also awarded $2,599.42 to the landlord, to be paid out of the $3,000.00 bond held by the bond centre. The remaining $400.58 bond was to be retained by the Bond Centre.
The tenants did not attend the 14 November 2025 hearing.
The tenants applied for a rehearing of the 14 November Order.
On 27 October 2025, Adjudicator Young directed that a rehearing consideration hearing take place before him, to decide whether a rehearing should be granted. This Order included a stay of proceedings on the basis that the tenants must pay weekly rent when due in the meantime, with the first payment to be made on 31 October 2025, or the tenancy would immediately terminate.
The landlord applied for enforcement of the Order on the basis that the payment due on 31 October was not made.
The tenants were evicted on 11 November 2025.
As at the date of the eviction, the tenants owed rent arrears of $214.29. This rent arrears amount takes into account the $2,599.42 the landlord had received from the tenants’ bond to cover the rent arrears of $2,571.42 and the $28.00 filing fee awarded on 14 October 2025.
On 10 December 2025, Adjudicator King granted the rehearing and directed the tenants to provide by email to the Tribunal and to the landlord, by 23 December 2025, the following: a. An application setting out any claims they want considered about the tenancy; b. Any evidence they want considered in support of their application; c. Any evidence they want considered in response to the landlord’s rent arrears claim.
Adjudicator King also directed the landlord to file and serve on the tenants any evidence in reply to the tenants’ claims, no later than 12 January 2026.
The tenants were confused about the direction and thought they could bring their counterclaims to today’s hearing and have those claims heard along with the rehearing of the landlord’s rent arrears claim. I have confirmed to the tenants that they need to make a separate application through Tenancy Services if they want their claims heard and that I could not hear those claims today. They confirmed that they will call Tenancy Services to get help with completing the online form.
Mr Wang came to the hearing unprepared and without an up-to-date rent summary. He claimed he had not provided the end of tenancy rent summary because the landlord had not received any evidence to support the tenants claim that the $2,571.42 rent arrears awarded to the landlord on 14 October 2025 was inaccurate. I do not accept that the landlord did not have to provide an accurate rent summary to the Tribunal at today’s hearing to prove the exact amount of rent owing as of 20 October 2025 and the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
At my request, Mr Wang called the office and got an updated rent summary sent to the Tribunal. This rent summary proved: a. On 20 October 2025, the tenants owed the landlord $1,500.00 in rent arrears; and b. On 11 November 2025 (the tenants eviction date) they owed the landlord $214.29 in rent arrears.
I also asked Mr Nguyen to get Mr Wang to ask the office whether Barfoot& Thompson had received three WINZ overpayments of $375.00 each as Ms Austin claimed these amounts had been incorrectly paid by WINZ to Barfoot and Thompson after the 11 November 2025 eviction. Mr Wang left the hearing before passing on this information. Mr Nguyen refused to call Barfoot & Thompson to obtain this information as he stated that he had only ever dealt with Mr Wang and did not know any of the other staff in the Glenfield office.
The Tribunal contacted Ms Maria Lovell, from Barfoot & Thompson, over the phone during the hearing. She confirmed that the landlord had received a $375.00 overpayment from WINZ on 12 November 2025, that Barfoot &Thompson had used $214.29 to offset the rent arrears and repaid the balance of $160.71 to WINZ. Ms Lovell also confirmed that Barfoot &Thompson had not received any further overpayments from WINZ.
The premise was rented for $750.00 per week. Mr Message and Ms Austin confirmed they each paid half the rent, being $375.00 per person.
Ms Austin has provided rent records that prove all her rent payments were made by WINZ directly in full and on time.
Mr Message provided bank statements which prove he missed three rent payments during the tenancy.
Because the tenants are jointly and severely liable under the tenancy agreement for any debt owed to the landlord, Ms Austin’s bond has been used to pay the rent arrears owed by Mr Message. As such, I have ordered the remaining bond of $400.58 be paid solely to Ms Austin.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenants have proven today that the rent records provided to the Tribunal for 14 October 2025 hearing were incorrect. The tenants did not owe $2,571.42 to that date. They owed $1,500.00. Adjudicator Young had made his 14 October 2025 Order based on inaccurate rent records.
The evidence provided by Ms Maria Lovell proves: a. The tenancy ended on 11 November 2025; b. The rent arrears owing at the end of the tenancy was $214.29; c. The $214.29 was paid on 12 November 2025, by WINZ; and d. As of 12 November 2025, the tenants did not owe the landlord any rent arrears. Disposal of goods
Mr Message confirms he left a motorcycle at the premise after the end of the tenancy, because it is not working.
Mr Message has agreed at the hearing today to have this removed from the premise by 5:00pm on Sunday 8 February 2026. He also confirmed that he understood that failure to do so will result on the landlord disposing of it and charging him for the disposal costs.
The landlord must keep receipts proving the disposal costs incurred.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5327378 — Rent arrears at 6 Beswick Place, Birkdale, Auckland 0626

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5327378 — Rent arrears at 6 Beswick Place, Birkdale, Auckland 0626

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions