Tenant Successfully Claims Bond Refund from Landlord
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal ruled that the tenant was entitled to a bond refund of $1,548.25 from the landlord, as the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. The Tribunal also awarded the tenant reimbursement for filing fees and determined that the landlord's claims for compensation and repairs were partially valid.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to have their bond refunded if they meet their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
📖 What the law says
This section outlines a tenant's responsibilities, including paying rent on time, keeping the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and leaving the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition with all rubbish removed when the tenancy ends. In this case, the Tribunal found the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy.
This section states that a tenant is responsible for the actions of anyone they allow onto the property, if those actions would have broken the tenancy agreement had the tenant done them. If someone intentionally or carelessly damages the property while the tenant is there, it's assumed the tenant allowed that person to be there.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal ordered the landlord to pay the tenant $1,548.25 from the bond, while also apportioning the remaining bond funds.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal ruled that the tenant was entitled to a bond refund of $1,548.25 from the landlord, as the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. The Tribunal also awarded the tenant reimbursement for filing fees and determined that the landlord's claims for compensation and repairs were partially valid.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5136251 1
[2025] NZTT 5136251, 5139709
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT AUCKLAND | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA KI TĀMAKI MAKAURAU
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: Unit/Flat [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE], Columbia Apartments
ORDER
1. [COMPANY] [NAME] to pay [NAME] $1,548.25 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
2. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,360.00 (5906818-012) immediately apportioned as follows:
[NAME]: $1,548.25
[COMPANY] [NAME]: $811.75 Description Landlord Tenant Cleaning $563.50 Repairs $361.65 Replace appliances $136.10 Replace carpet $460.00 Filing fee reimbursement $27.00 Total award $1,548.25 Bond $1,548.25 $811.75
Reasons:
1. [NAME] attended the hearing for the landlord.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5136251 2
2. [NAME] attended the hearing and was represented by [NAME] during the hearing.
3. This is a cross-application for unit 6D/[ADDRESS].
4. The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
5. The tenant has applied to have their bond refunded.
Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?
6. 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 (the “RTA”).
7. The premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy. In particular the bathroom and kitchen were not clean, and the carpets needed cleaning. The tenant accepted this but suggested the landlord could have given the tenant a further opportunity to bring their contractor back to have another attempt at cleaning the premises.
8. After the tenancy has ended it is the landlord’s prerogative to decide whether they ask the tenant to have another attempt at cleaning, or whether they make their own arrangements to clean the apartment. In the circumstances I consider the cleaning bill for the apartment including carpets to be reasonable, and it is awarded in full.
9. The landlord seeks compensation to replace a number of appliances that they say were damaged during the tenancy. Photographs were provided that show the microwave and toaster to be rusty and significantly damaged at the end of the tenancy, when they were not at the beginning of the tenancy. The frame of a chair was also broken, and a shower curtain was heavily soiled with mould. Both of these items needed replacing. A clothes rack was also damaged during the tenancy.
10. The landlord stated that all items were approximately five years old at the beginning of the tenancy.
11. The amounts ordered are proved.
12. The landlord claimed for a new sandwich press, a shoe rack, a vacuum cleaner and a rice cooker. Insufficient information was provided by the landlord to show that the condition of these items was such that they needed replacing at the end of the tenancy. These claims are not proved.
Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5136251 3
13. A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
14. The landlord claimed that during the tenancy the tenant damaged the splashback in the kitchen and this needed replacing. The tenant accepted responsibility for the damage to the splashback and also accepted or partially accepted damage to a smoke detector, a fridge socket, the silicon sealant in the bathroom and kitchen, and blockage of the sink and hand basin.
15. The landlord claimed for repairs to three towel rails where the plastic has deteriorated and broken. The tenant considered the damage to be wear and tear. I accept the damage is more than fair wear and tear, but I take into account the age and condition of the towel rails at the beginning of the tenancy in making an award.
16. The landlord claimed for replacing a window latch that had become loose. I consider this to be wear and tear and not a result of careless on the part of the tenant.
17. The landlord claimed for replacement of a power socket which had come away from the wall in the bathroom. The tenant stated there appeared no reason why it couldn’t be re-attached to the wall. The landlord couldn’t refute this, and I accept it. I have awarded a reduced amount to cover the cost of repair.
18. The landlord also claimed for repairing four areas where sticky hooks had pulled off the wall and caused damage to the paint. The hooks had been put up by a previous tenant and had been there for several years. The tenant was of the view that such hooks are not permanent fixtures and as such the damage they caused should be considered fair wear and tear. I agree with the tenant on this appraisal.
19. The landlord claimed full replacement cost of $920.00 for a carpet that was installed in the premises four months before the end of the tenancy, and which by the end of the tenancy had significant wear marks in it. Photographs prove the damage.
20. The tenant considered the damage could have been caused by a leak that had stained the previous carpet. I consider this submission speculative and give it little weight.
21. In my view, although the carpet is damaged and the landlord has clearly suffered some loss, the carpet is still in an acceptable condition for a rental property such as this, and does not warrant replacing. I have made an award of 50% of the claim based on what I consider to be the landlord’s loss.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5136251 4
22. In all the claims for repairs and compensation, I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
Loss of rent
23. The landlord claims that because the tenant returned the premises in a very poor state, they were unable to rent the property for three weeks longer than usual between tenancies and have therefore should be compensated $1,770.00 for three weeks loss of rent.
24. The tenant stated that the landlord did not conduct any viewings at the end of the tenancy, so wasn’t in a position to relet the property quickly in any case.
25. Although the property did need a thorough clean, some repairs and the replacement of some appliances, in my view there was no large or complex work that was required. A certain amount of downtime between tenancies is inevitable and is a cost of running this commercial enterprise. If the landlord had conducted an inspection towards the end of the tenancy to assess the condition of the premises, they could have arranged tradespeople to conduct the work immediately after the vacate date and downtime would have been no more than usual.
26. I do not consider the damage to the premises to be significant enough to warrant compensation for lost rent.
27. This claim is not proved.
28. [NAME] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
C Lamdin
29 April 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5136251 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.
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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5136251 6
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 tenant accepted responsibility for leaving the premises not reasonably clean and tidy, especially the bathroom and kitchen.
- The tenant acknowledged damage to several appliances and items like the microwave, toaster, chair frame, and shower curtain.
- The tenant was held responsible for damage to the splashback in the kitchen and other minor damages like the smoke detector and fridge socket.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The tenant argued that the landlord could have given them another chance to clean the premises properly.
- The tenant claimed that some of the damages, like the window latch and sticky hooks, were due to fair wear and tear rather than negligence.
- The tenant suggested that the damage to the carpet could have been caused by a leak, implying it was not their fault.
- The tenant contested the landlord's claim for lost rent, arguing that the landlord did not conduct timely inspections or viewings to minimize downtime.
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 pay the tenant $1,548.25 from the bond and reimburse the filing fees.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about the bond refund and the responsibility for cleaning and repairs at the end of the tenancy.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the tenant was entitled to a bond refund because the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy, but also found that the landlord's claims for repairs were partially valid.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40 and 41 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was whether the tenant met their obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the tenant, who brought the case for a bond refund.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure that the premises are left reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy to be eligible for a bond refund.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Photographs showing the condition of the premises and the extent of damage were important evidence.