Tenant's Bond Partially Returned by Tenancy Tribunal
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal decided to partially return the bond to the landlord due to specific damages found in the apartment, while dismissing claims for lawn maintenance.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to have the bond partially returned if they leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, except for specific damages.
📖 What the law says
This rule states that a tenant must keep the rented property reasonably clean and tidy. When the tenancy ends, the tenant must leave the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and remove all their belongings and rubbish.
This rule outlines the landlord's responsibilities, including providing the property in a reasonable state of cleanliness and maintaining it in a reasonable state of repair. It also requires landlords to comply with health and safety requirements for the property.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal ordered the bond to be partially paid to the landlord and dismissed the claim for lawn maintenance.
📜 Headnote Official document
In a Tenancy Tribunal case, the bond was partially returned to the landlord due to specific damages, while claims for lawn maintenance were dismissed.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5071297 1
[2025] NZTT 5071297
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT [Event location suppressed]
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
2. [NAME] and [NAME] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,666.83 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
3. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,280.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows:
[The landlord/s]: $1,666.83
[NAME] and [NAME]: $613.17
Description Landlord Tenant Carpet Cleaning $315.00 Insurance excess (x 2) $1,100.00 Cleaning: and rubbish removal $224.83 Filing fee reimbursement $27.00 Total award $1,666.83 Bond $1,666.83 $613.17
4. The claim for lawns is dismissed.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5071297 2
Reasons:
1. Both parties attended the hearing by video.
2. The hearing held on 29 January 2025 was adjourned to enable service to be affected on [NAME].
3. [NAME] provided a text message to the other tenants authorising them to represent him at the hearing. I am satisfied that [NAME] was served with the proceedings and had notice of this hearing.
4. The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?
5. At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
6. The landlord claimed for cleaning and rubbish removal. The evidence of the tenants is that much of the rubbish for removal (chest of drawers, TV, lawnmower, paint cans) was present at the premises when they moved in. I note that the exit report records “bed base, lawn mower and wooden cabinets to stay” suggesting that they belong to the landlord. Unfortunately, there are only two photographs of the garage area before the tenancy commenced. I accept the tenant’s evidence that only the cupboard left behind belonged to them. Therefore, I have reduced the invoice by $115.00 for most of the rubbish removal.
7. The landlord claimed for lawns. The landlord produced an entry report and an exit report. The photographs from the entry report show that the lawns were longer than at the end of the tenancy. Also, I note that the exit inspection was carried out on 10 September 2024, four days after the tenancy ended. So, allowing for four days growth for the lawns I determine that the lawns when the tenancy ended were much tidier than at the beginning of the tenancy.
8. I acknowledge that there is an obligation on the landlord to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness (section 45(1) RTA) and on the tenant to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition (section 40(1)(e)(iii) RTA). Given this evidence it is likely that the tenants understanding of what the landlord considered “reasonably clean” was influenced by the way that they received the premises from the landlord at the start of the tenancy. Given the evidence, I determine that the tenants should not be responsible for mowing the lawns after the tenancy ended. The landlord’s claim is dismissed.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5071297 3
9. The landlord has claimed in respect of carpet replacement. The landlord did not know how old the carpet was. It was not new at the commencement of the tenancy because it is noted in the entry inspection report on 7 November 2023, “commercially cleaned new dark grey carpet…” While it is described as “new” it must have been in a new condition because otherwise there would be no need to commercially clean new carpet.
10. The tenant had a [NAME] at the premises by agreement with the landlord. The tenant said that there were two rooms that the [NAME] was not allowed to go in to and was prevented from doing so.
11. The landlord seeks insurance excess of $550.00 per room for carpet replacement. There were six rooms (lounge, hallway and four bedrooms) where the carpet was replaced, and the insurance claim was accepted so the excess totals $3,300.00.
12. The question is whether all six rooms were damaged by the tenant’s [NAME]. The exit inspection report dated 10 September 2024 refers to two rooms where the carpet was damaged. For bedroom 3 the comment on the report is, “[NAME] pee smell. Has been professionally cleaned.” For the entrance hall the comment is, “Has ben professionally cleaned. Strong smell of [NAME] urine throughout this area.”
13. For the remaining carpeted rooms, the comment in the report is either “carpeted, professionally clean” or “carpeted, clean”.
14. The landlord produced an email dated 12 September 2024 from [NAME] the company which carried out the carpet cleaning. That email states “If this was my own house I would cut out the area of carpet by in the hall and remove it from the house before getting a report done. I think this area of carpet will need to be removed regardless of what action you take. It will also be much more difficult to locate urine in other rooms with odour still emanating from the hall carpet”. There is no evidence that the landlord followed this advice.
15. The landlord produced an insurance assessment carried out by [NAME] dated 27 September 2024. That assessment states that the “customer has had a tenant in their rental property with a [NAME]. The [NAME] has used the house as a toilet and peed in multiple rooms at multiple times.”
16. While the assessment recommended removal of the carpet there is no evidence that the carpet in all six rooms was damaged, especially given the evidence from the carpet cleaner.
17. After considering all the evidence I am not satisfied that the tenant has damaged all the carpet in the premises. There is evidence that two areas, the hallway and bedroom 3, were damaged by the tenant. I therefore award two amounts of the insurance excess to the landlord.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5071297 4
18. Because [[NAME]] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. For the same reason I suppress the landlord’s name.
[NAME] 22 May 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5071297 5
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.
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].
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/
Reasons:
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The landlord was awarded two insurance excesses for carpet damage.
- The landlord was awarded costs for general cleaning and rubbish removal, but with a reduction.
- The landlord was reimbursed the filing fee because they largely succeeded with their claim.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The landlord's claim for insurance excess for all six rooms of carpet damage was rejected due to insufficient evidence.
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 bond to be partially returned to the landlord and dismissed the claim for lawn maintenance.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about the amount of bond to be returned to the landlord and whether the tenant was responsible for lawn maintenance.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to partially return the bond to the landlord because the tenant left the premises reasonably clean and tidy, except for specific damages. The claim for lawn maintenance was dismissed because the lawns were tidier at the end of the tenancy.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(1)(e) and 45(1) were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy and the specific damages found in the apartment.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was partly for and partly against the person who brought the case, as the bond was partially returned to the landlord while the claim for lawn maintenance was dismissed.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
For someone in a similar situation, it means that if they leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, except for specific damages, they may be entitled to have part of the bond returned.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence and documents that mattered included the exit report, photographs of the premises, and the testimony of the tenants.