Tenant's Bond Refund Claim Dismissed by Tenancy Tribunal
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed a tenant's request for a refund of a bond payment of $750.00 because the landlord lived in the same property. The Tribunal determined it had no authority to rule on this type of rental arrangement.
⚖️ Legal holding
The Tenancy Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over arrangements where the property owner shares the premises with the tenant.
📖 Technical summary
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed the claimant's application for a refund of a bond payment due to the nature of the rental arrangement.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed a tenant's application for a refund of a bond payment of $750.00 due to the nature of the rental arrangement, which involved the landlord living in the same property. The Tribunal ruled that it lacked jurisdiction over such arrangements under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5497390 1
[2026] NZTT 5497390
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT REMOTE LOCATION | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Tenant
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Landlord
TENANCY ADDRESS: 19 Verdale Circle, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602
ORDER
1. The application is dismissed.
Reasons:
1. Both parties attended the hearing by video conference.
2. The applicant seeks to have a ‘bond’ she paid of $750.00 refunded to her.
3. The background is that the applicant entered into an agreement with the owner of the property, who lived at the property, to rent a room.
4. She subsequently lost her job and was unable to move in. This was just short of four weeks before she was due to move in.
5. The claim is for the refund of the money she paid to secure the room.
6. I must first determine if the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim.
7. Section 5(1)(n) of the Residential Tenancies Act specifically excludes situations where the owner of the premises shares the premises with the other party. In these cases, the arrangement is not considered a tenancy under the Act and the tenancy tribunal does not have jurisdiction.
8. Given the above I must therefore dismiss the claim.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5497390 2
S Munro
28 May 2026
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5497390 3
Please read carefully: Visit justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals for more information on rehearings and appeals.
Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has happened. For example: • you did not get the letter telling you the date of the hearing, or • the adjudicator improperly admitted or rejected evidence, or • new evidence, relating to the original application, has become available.
You must give reasons and evidence to support your application for a rehearing. A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. You must apply within five working days of the decision using the Application for Rehearing form: justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf
Right of Appeal Both the landlord and the tenant can file an appeal. You should file your appeal at the District Court where the original hearing took place. The cost for an appeal is $260. You must apply within 10 working days after the decision is issued using this Appeal to the District Court form: justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals
Grounds for an appeal You can appeal if you think the decision was wrong, but not because you don’t like the decision. For some cases, there’ll be no right to appeal. For example, you can’t appeal: • against an interim order • a final order, or the failure to make an order, where the amount in dispute on appeal is
less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work, or the failure to make an order, where the value of the
work in dispute on appeal is less than $1000.
Enforcement Where the Tribunal made an order about money or property this is called a civil debt. The Ministry of Justice Collections Team can assist with enforcing civil debt. You can contact the collections team on [PHONE] or go to justice.govt.nz/fines/civil-debt for forms and information.
Notice to a party ordered to pay money or vacate premises, etc. Failure to comply with any order may result in substantial additional costs for enforcement. It may also involve being ordered to appear in the District Court for an examination of your means or seizure of your property.
If you require further help or information regarding this matter, visit tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing- decisions or phone Tenancy Services on [PHONE].
Mēna ka hiahia koe ki ētahi atu awhina, kōrero ranei mo tēnei take, haere ki tenei ipurangi tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, waea atu ki Ratonga Takirua ma runga [PHONE] ranei.
https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals/ https://www.justice.govt.nz/fines/about-civil-debt/ https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions http://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5497390 4
A manaomia nisi faamatalaga poo se fesoasoani, e uiga i lau mataupu, asiasi ifo le matou aupega tafailagi: tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, pe fesootai mai le Tenancy Services i le numera [PHONE].
Reasons:
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed the tenant's application for a refund of a bond payment of $750.00.
What was the dispute about?
The tenant sought a refund of a bond payment she made to secure a rented room, but the landlord lived in the same property.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to dismiss the claim because the arrangement did not qualify as a tenancy under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Section 5(1)(n) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over arrangements where the property owner shares the premises with the tenant.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the tenant who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should be aware that the Tenancy Tribunal may lack jurisdiction if the landlord lives in the same property.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify the evidence or documents that mattered.