Tenant Wins Bond Refund Due to Landlord's Failure to File Counterclaim
📌 In brief
In this case, the Tenancy Tribunal ruled that the tenant is entitled to receive the full bond refund because the landlord did not file a counterclaim as required by law. The landlord was also ordered to pay the filing fee.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to the full bond refund when the landlord fails to file a counterclaim.
📖 What the law says
This rule says that when a landlord receives a bond payment, they must immediately give the person who paid it a signed written receipt. This receipt needs to show the address of the property, the amount and type of payment, the date it was paid, and the name of the person who paid it. The landlord must also send the bond amount to the chief executive within 23 working days, along with a statement.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal awarded the bond to the tenant and ordered the landlord to pay the filing fee.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal awarded the bond to the tenant and ordered the landlord to pay the filing fee after the landlord failed to file a counterclaim as required by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5070511 1
[2025] NZTT 5070511
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT REMOTE LOCATION | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Tenant
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Landlord
TENANCY ADDRESS: Unit/[ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
[NAME] and [NAME] must pay [NAME] and [NAME] $1,427.00 immediately, being bond not lodged with the [COMPANY] and the application filing fee.
Reasons:
1. Both parties attended the hearing.
2. On 31 May 2023 the Tribunal declared the residential premises supplied by the landlord at Unit/[ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] to be unlawful residential premises. The landlord’s claim for unpaid rent and power was dismissed on the grounds that where the Tribunal declares the residential premises to be unlawful, it must not make an order for rent arrears or compensation against the tenant unless, having regard to the special circumstances of the case, it would be unjust not to make the order. See sections 78A(3)(a), (4) and (5) RTA. The Tribunal also ordered termination of the tenancy.
3. The tenants have now applied for the bond. The evidence is that $1,400.00 was paid to the landlord for bond.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5070511 2
4. The landlord has a claim against the bond, but has not filed an application with Tenancy Services.
5. Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenant.
6. I should add that if the landlord had made a cross application for expenses it is unlikely that the Tribunal would have made an order for those expenses to be paid by the tenant because where the Tribunal declares the residential premises to be unlawful, it must not make an order for rent arrears or compensation against the tenant unless, having regard to the special circumstances of the case, it would be unjust not to make the order..
Exemplary damages
7. [NAME] and [NAME] claim the landlord has not lodged the bond with the [COMPANY] within the required time. The information from the [COMPANY] shows that the landlord did not lodge the bond.
8. A landlord must send any bond payment to the [COMPANY] within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
9. In the present case the Tribunal is unable to order exemplary damages because the tenants have not made an application for exemplary damages.
Filing Fee
10. Because the tenant has been successful with the claim the filing fee of $27.00 is ordered to be paid by the landlord.
[NAME]
21 March 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5070511 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/
Reasons:
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The tenant applied for the full bond refund.
- The landlord did not file a counterclaim as required by law.
- The landlord failed to lodge the bond with the specified company within the required timeframe.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The landlord claimed a right to the bond without filing a proper counterclaim.
- The landlord breached the obligation to send the bond payment to the company within 23 working days.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal decided that the tenant is entitled to receive the full bond refund and the landlord must pay the filing fee.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the landlord should receive part of the bond to cover alleged damages or if the tenant should receive the full bond refund.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the tenant should receive the full bond refund because the landlord did not file a counterclaim as required by law.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 22B(2) and 19(1) were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the landlord did not file a counterclaim as required by law, thus entitling the tenant to the full bond refund.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case, the tenant.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure that their landlord files a counterclaim if they wish to receive any portion of the bond.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence that mattered was the lack of a counterclaim filed by the landlord.