Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5419198 — Tenancy dispute at 2 Wallace Street, Featherston, Featherston 5710
Published 1 May 2026 · Application 5419198
Tenant favoured
- Filing Fee
- Filing Fee Reimbursement
Order
- Fox Street Holdings Limited must pay Guiseppe (Joe) Patrick Persico $1,828.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionTenant Bond$1,800.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$1,828.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant$1,828.00
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing in Masterton today.
- The Parties entered into a one-year fixed-term tenancy agreement, for a tenancy to start on 26 May 2025.
- Tenant paid a bond to the landlord of $1,800, as well as the first two weeks’ rent in advance.
- It seems agreed between the parties that the prior tenant was still in possession of the tenancy on 26 May 2025, and therefore Mr Persico could not move in. Both parties have different views about precisely what happened; the landlord considers there was a variation of the tenancy and other agreements made with Mr Persico, but I do not need to adjudicate that.
- Ultimately, the tenant has applied to the Tribunal for an order that has bond be refunded. As I explained to the parties at the hearing today, I must make that order because the application falls within section 22B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which confirms that: (1) 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. (2) If the tenant applies to the Tribunal and the landlord seeks payment of the bond in whole or in part, the landlord must file an application with the Tribunal that sets out the landlord’s counterclaim.
- The effect of this provision is that when the tenant applies to the Tribunal for release of the bond in whole or in part, if the landlord wishes to argue that it has any call on that bond, then the landlord “must” file a counterclaim for it. In the absence of a counterclaim, then the Tribunal must order that the bond be released to the tenants, irrespective of the merits of the landlord’s view the bond could be held.
- This means that if the landlord subsequently wishes to pursue any claim against the tenant, the landlord is still able to do so, but if the landlord is successful in the claim, there would not be any bond that the Tribunal could order be released to go toward the landlord’s claim.
- For the above reasons, in the absence of a counterclaim from the landlord, the Tribunal orders that the full bond be refunded to the tenants.