Tenant Wins Bond Release from Landlord
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal ruled that the landlord must release the bond to the tenants after confirming that the bond had been allocated to the tenancy.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to receive their bond if the landlord confirms its allocation to the tenancy.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal ordered the landlord to release the bond to the tenants.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the landlord to release the bond to the tenants after confirming that the bond had been allocated to the tenancy.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5066568 1
[2025] NZTT 5066568
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT AUCKLAND | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA KI TĀMAKI MAKAURAU
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Tenant
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Landlord
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. The [COMPANY] is to pay the bond of $3,200.00 (BN-00093127 ) to [NAME] and [NAME] immediately.
Reasons:
1. On 6 March 2025, this Tribunal made an order for, among other things, the [COMPANY] to release the bond of $3,200.00 to the tenants.
2. On 08 May 2025, this Tribunal granted the tenant’s application for a rehearing to determine the issue of the bond, which the tenant says was not held at the [COMPANY].
3. The rehearing took place on 30 May 2025. It was adjourned to allow the landlord to contact the [COMPANY] and arrange for the sum it had paid as the tenant’s bond to be allocated to this tenancy.
4. A further hearing was scheduled to take place on 11 June 2025.
5. The [COMPANY] has confirmed that the bond has been allocated to this tenancy.
6. I award the bond to the tenant.
7. The hearing scheduled for tomorrow is cancelled.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5066568 2
K Henry
11 June 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5066568 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 for the payment of less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work worth 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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5066568 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:
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The landlord confirmed the bond has been allocated to the tenancy.
- The tenant applied for a rehearing due to the bond not being held at the landlord.
- The rehearing was granted to determine the issue of the bond allocation.
- The bond amount of $3,200.00 was confirmed and awarded to the tenant.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The tenant's claim that the bond was not held at the landlord was initially unresolved.
- The need for the landlord to contact the relevant company to allocate the bond was a procedural step.
- The requirement for a further hearing was necessary before confirmation of bond allocation.
- The possibility of cancellation of the scheduled hearing on 11 June 2025 depended on the bond allocation confirmation.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the landlord to release the bond to the tenants.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the landlord should release the bond to the tenants.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided in favour of the tenants because the landlord confirmed that the bond had been allocated to the tenancy.
Which laws or rules were applied?
No specific laws or rules were mentioned in the judgment.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the confirmation by the landlord that the bond had been allocated to the tenancy.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure that the landlord confirms the allocation of the bond to the tenancy.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify the evidence or documents that mattered.