Tenant Wins Bond Refund for Unclean Premises
📌 In brief
The tenant successfully claimed a bond refund from the landlord because the rental property was not clean enough. The Tribunal dismissed other claims related to rent arrears and advertising costs.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to a bond refund if the premises were not provided in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal ordered the landlord to return the bond but dismissed all other claims.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tribunal ordered the landlord to return the bond of $2,760.00 to the tenant due to the premises not being provided in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The remaining claims were dismissed.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5120879 1
[2025] NZTT 5120879, 5119835
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT PAPAKURA | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA KI PAPAKURA
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. [COMPANY] As Agent For [NAME] must return the bond of $2,760.00 to [NAME] immediately.
2. The remaining claims by the parties are dismissed.
Reasons:
1. Both parties attended the rehearing.
2. The landlord seeks rent arrears to 16 January 2025 due to the tenant unilaterally withdrawing from the fixed term tenancy which is due to end in December 2025. The landlord also seeks costs to readvertise the premises. New tenants were found and took over the tenancy on 23 January 2025.
3. The tenant seeks a full refund of their bond paid of $2,760.00 and one week’s rent in advance of $690.00. The tenant never moved into the premises complaining that the carpet in the premises was ingrained with pet hair which could not be removed.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5120879 2
4. I find on the evidence that the premises were not provided by the landlord in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. I accept the evidence from the tenant’s professional carpet cleaners that:
During our service, [NAME] observed a significant amount of pet hair deeply embedded in the carpet fibres, particularly in the corners of the house. Despite thorough cleaning, including professional carpet washing, it was noted that the pet hair remained lodged within the fibres and could not be fully removed. [NAME] also advised that due to the depth of the pet hair within the carpet, it is likely to continue surfacing with regular vacuuming.
We confirm that despite our best efforts, complete removal of the pet hair was not achievable due to its deep entanglement within the carpet…
5. There was no contrary professional evidence from the landlord that the premises were provided in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, without the irremovable pet hair identified by the tenant’s carpet cleaners.
6. However, I also consider that the tenant had unreasonably refused the landlord’s offer to have their professional carpet cleaners to re-clean the premises. I consider the breach by the landlord to be capable of remedy and a reasonable tenant ought to have allowed the landlord one opportunity to remedy the failure to provide the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
7. Weighing the parties’ respective breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, I consider that substantive justice and merits of the case lies with the landlord being able to retain one week’s rent. All remaining claims by the landlord should be dismissed in the circumstances.
8. This finding recognises my conclusion that the landlord has first breached their obligation in terms of cleanliness and secondly, the tenant also acted unreasonably in not allowing the landlord to remedy the failure.
9. The upshot is that the tenant were justified in not moving into the premises but their failure to allow the landlord to remedy the breach meant that a week’s rent may be retained by the landlord.
10. The unlodged bond should now be returned to the tenant forthwith.
[NAME]
10 March 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5120879 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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5120879 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 tenant's professional carpet cleaners observed significant pet hair embedded in the carpet.
- The landlord did not provide contrary professional evidence that the premises were clean.
- The tenant was justified in not moving into the premises due to the unclean conditions.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The landlord offered to have their own professional carpet cleaners re-clean the premises.
- The tenant unreasonably refused the landlord’s offer to clean the premises.
- The landlord is entitled to retain one week’s rent due to the tenant's unreasonable refusal.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tribunal ordered the landlord to return the bond to the tenant but dismissed all other claims.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the landlord should return the bond due to unclean premises and whether the tenant owed rent arrears.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the premises were not provided in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, thus the landlord must return the bond. Other claims were dismissed as the breach was considered capable of remedy.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 54 was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the evidence showing that the premises were not provided in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case, as they received the bond refund.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation might be entitled to a bond refund if the premises are not provided in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence from professional carpet cleaners showing the presence of ingrained pet hair in the carpet mattered.