Lending money to family NZ: a dad, his daughter and $5,000 nobody wrote down

What everyone thought was agreed

In 2023 his daughter was a student. She asked her dad for help with a trip abroad.

He paid her $5,000 in two payments of $2,500.

They both agreed the money was for the trip. That's the only part they agreed on.

He says it was a loan. It would come back when she sold her car or through automatic payments once she got home.

She says it was a gift. She was a student and she wasn't in a position to pay it back.

She told the tribunal she wouldn't have taken the money if she'd been expected to repay it.

The moment nobody wrote it down

Nothing was put on paper when the money moved. No loan agreement. No note. No email setting out a repayment plan.

The bank transfers carried one word as the reference. "Dad".

Not "loan".

That one word ended up doing a lot of work. It was the only record made on the day, and it didn't say what he later said the deal was.

Time passes

He didn't ask for the money back. Not when she got home from the trip and not through 2024.

He told the tribunal he'd been reluctant to give her that much. He said he wasn't in a position to gift it.

But he never chased it.

The tribunal said that isn't unusual. Plenty of parents don't push hard for money they've lent their kids.

It also said it didn't help his case.

What broke it open

In late 2024 she and her sisters stopped all contact with their dad. The decision gave brief reasons but RNZ reported they weren't detailed.

In February 2025 he filed a claim with the Disputes Tribunal to get the $5,000 back.

He said he had text messages from early 2023 that called the money a loan. He never filed them.

At the hearing in May he said he had a new phone. He'd need to message his partner to send the screenshots through.

They didn't arrive. The tribunal wouldn't adjourn. He'd had three months since lodging the claim to pull his evidence together.

Two stories, one transfer

His version is a loan with a repayment plan. Pay it back when the car sells or start automatic payments after the holiday.

Her version is a gift to a student who asked for help.

She also said he'd given her older sisters money to buy a car each. He denied that. There was no evidence of a pattern either way.

So the tribunal had two people, both sure of what happened, and almost nothing in writing.

That's the part worth sitting with. Neither of them has to be lying for this to happen.

Memories drift. A conversation in a kitchen in 2023 sounds different by 2025. Especially after a family falls out.

The tribunal said as much. Decisions had been made in the meantime that could have changed how either of them saw the deal.

Lending money to family in NZ: what the tribunal does

Between family members the tribunal won't assume money is a loan. The person saying it was a loan has to prove it.

That's different from flatmates, co-workers or friends. RNZ reported the tribunal said those relationships are different.

What the tribunal decided

The tribunal found there was no sign either of them meant to create a legal arrangement at the time. So any deal they had was unenforceable.

It also found there wasn't enough evidence that the money was meant as a loan when it was paid.

The referee said it was entirely possible he did tell her he expected it back. It was equally possible he told her the money was for the trip.

In the referee's words, "there is just no proof either way".

The tribunal also pointed out that text evidence of a loan was central to his claim. He should have seen that coming, it said, and had it ready.

The claim was dismissed. He doesn't get the $5,000 back.

The fix

This isn't a story about a bad dad or an ungrateful daughter. It's a story about $5,000 and no paper.

Everything the tribunal went looking for could have been on one page signed in 2023.

The amount.

Whether it was a loan or a gift.

When it comes back.

How it comes back.

If both of them had signed that before the first $2,500 went out, the question the tribunal couldn't answer would already have an answer. Nobody would be relying on a reference field that said "Dad".

That's what the Friends & Family Loan Agreement is for. It records that the money is a loan, how much it is and the repayment plan. Both people sign before any money moves.

And if the money really is a gift, that's fine too. Writing that down protects the person receiving it. The Gift Agreement does that job.

Either way the answer gets settled at the kitchen table. Not two years later in front of a referee, after the relationship has already gone.

Source: RNZ, Disputes Tribunal weighs in on father-daughter battle over $5k given for overseas trip, 22 September 2025.