Tenant Wins Partial Bond Refund Due to Lack of Counterclaim
📌 In brief
In this case, the Tenancy Tribunal decided that a tenant could receive a partial bond refund because the landlord did not file a counterclaim as required by law. The landlord claimed ignorance but was told that ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to a partial bond refund when the landlord fails to file a counterclaim as required by law.
📖 Technical summary
Tenant entitled to partial bond refund due to landlord's failure to file a counterclaim.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal ruled that a tenant is entitled to a partial bond refund when the landlord failed to file a counterclaim as required by Section 22B(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5237331 1
[2025] NZTT 5237331
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT [Event location suppressed]
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Tenant
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Landlord
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
2. The Bond Centre must pay the bond of $2,240.00 (bond number BN-00024611) to the tenant.
3. The balance of the bond of $1,600.00 is to remain at the Bond Centre.
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. The landlord claims that they were unaware that they needed to file a counterclaim.
3. Ignorance of the law however, is no excuse.
4. Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’) 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.
5. I consider that section 22B(2) RTA applies even though the landlord is only seeking for the bond to be retained and continue to be held at the Bond Centre.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5237331 2
6. The parties (namely the landlord and the tenant) have a dispute on whether the tenant’s portion of her bond should be refunded to her after she has vacated the premises. The tenant has duly filed her application to the Tribunal pursuant to section 22B(1) RTA in April 2025.
7. Once the tenant has applied for all or part of the bond, it is mandatory for the landlord to file a counterclaim.
8. Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim, part of the bond totalling $2,240.00 is refunded to the tenant, as requested by this tenant.
9. It is in order for the landlord to require the remaining tenants to top up the bond as required under the tenancy agreement, to $3,840.00. In the event of breach, the landlord is entitled to apply to the Tribunal for a monetary order and/or for an order terminating the tenancy under section 56 RTA after issuance of a 14 day breach notice.
10. I consider the above procedure to be fair and appropriate in dealing with disputes regarding the return of the bond.
11. In the upshot, it is my finding that the outgoing tenant is entitled to the refund of part of her bond, as requested, forthwith.
[NAME] 11 June 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5237331 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 [NAME]/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 [NAME]/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.[NAME]/disputes/enforcing-decisions https://www.[NAME]/disputes/enforcing-decisions http://www.[NAME]/disputes/enforcing-decisions/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5237331 4
A manaomia nisi faamatalaga poo se fesoasoani, e uiga i lau mataupu, asiasi ifo le matou aupega tafailagi: [NAME]/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 as required by law.
- The landlord failed to file a counterclaim despite having a claim against the bond.
- The law requires the landlord to file a counterclaim when the tenant requests a bond refund.
- The landlord's ignorance of the legal requirement does not excuse their failure to act.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The landlord claimed they were unaware of the need to file a counterclaim.
- The landlord attempted to retain the entire bond without filing a counterclaim.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The decision ruled that the tenant is entitled to a partial bond refund due to the landlord's failure to file a counterclaim.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the tenant was entitled to a partial bond refund after moving out.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided in favour of the tenant because the landlord did not file a counterclaim as required by law.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Section 22B(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the landlord had not filed a counterclaim as required by law.
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 their landlord files a counterclaim if they wish to retain any portion of the bond.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify the evidence or documents that mattered.