Tenant Wins Full Bond Refund Due to Lack of Landlord Counterclaim
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal ruled that the landlord must return the full bond amount to the tenant because the landlord did not file a counterclaim with Tenancy Services as required by law.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to a full refund of their bond if the landlord does not file a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.
📖 Technical summary
The bond is refunded in full to the tenant as the landlord failed to file a counterclaim.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the landlord to pay the full bond amount to the tenant, as the landlord had not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services despite having a claim against the bond.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5073290 1
[2025] NZTT 5073290
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT NORTH SHORE | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA KI ŌKAHUKURA
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Tenant
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Landlord
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. The [COMPANY] is to pay the bond of $3,580.00 (6392763-013) to [NAME] immediately.
Reasons:
1. Both parties attended the hearing.
2. The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The landlord has a claim against the bond but has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.
3. 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.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5073290 2
4. As the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenant.
N Small
13 March 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5073290 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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5073290 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 applied for a refund of the bond.
- The landlord did not file a counterclaim with Tenancy Services as required by law.
- The Residential Tenancies Act requires landlords to file a counterclaim if they seek payment from the bond.
- The landlord's failure to file a counterclaim means the tenant is entitled to a full refund.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The landlord's claim against the bond was not filed as a counterclaim.
- The landlord did not provide the necessary details of the counterclaim to Tenancy Services.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The decision ordered the landlord to pay the full bond amount to the tenant.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the landlord should be allowed to use part of the tenant's bond to cover damages.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the landlord could not use the bond because they did not file a counterclaim with Tenancy Services as required by law.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 22B(2) was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the landlord had not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for 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 with Tenancy Services if they want to use part of the bond.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The fact that the landlord did not file a counterclaim with Tenancy Services was the key piece of evidence.