Tribunal Orders Partial Bond Refund in Tenancy Dispute
📌 In brief
In a recent Tenancy Tribunal case, the Tribunal ordered a partial refund of the bond to the tenant. The Tribunal found that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy, particularly due to damage caused by the tenant's dog.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is responsible for leaving the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy.
📖 What the law says
This section outlines a tenant's responsibilities, including keeping the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy. It also states that when a tenancy ends, the tenant must leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and remove all rubbish.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal ordered a partial refund of the bond to the tenant.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered a partial refund of the bond to the tenant, finding that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. The Tribunal considered the damage to the door caused by the tenant's dog and found the tenant liable for the repairs.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5048178 1
[2025] NZTT 5048178, 5075168
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT PAPAKURA | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA KI PAPAKURA
APPLICANT: [redacted] Agent For L H Chow
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], Karaka, RD 2, Papakura 2578
INTERIM ORDER ON THE LANDLORD’S CLAIMS
1. The [COMPANY] is to refund $7,550.00 from the bond of $9,000.00 (6371065- 006) to the tenants [NAME] and [NAME] immediately.
2. The balance of the bond of $1,450.00 is to remain at the [COMPANY] towards these items.
Description Landlord Tenant Carpet Cleaning $450.00 Cleaning $250.00 Repairs: door $750.00 Total award $1,450.00 Bond $1,450.00 $7,550.00
Reasons:
1. Both parties attended the hearing.
2. The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
3. The tenant has counterclaimed for damages and exemplary damages against the landlord.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5048178 2
4. I have heard the landlord’s claims in full. I have adjourned the tenant’s claims part-heard to the second day’s fixture on 23 May 2025 to allow the landlord to properly respond.
5. Given the amount of bond paid, and my findings (below) in respect of the landlord’s claims, I consider that it is appropriate that I return the balance of the bond to the tenant forthwith.
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.
7. I find on the evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
8. Only the amounts ordered are proved.
Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?
9. 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.
10. Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
11. Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
12. Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
13. Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5048178 3
person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
14. A door was damaged by the tenant’s dog during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
15. The amounts ordered are proved.
16. 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.
17. Given my above findings, the maximum amount that the landlord could have received from the bond is $1,450.00. Consequently, I consider it appropriate that the balance of the bond of $7,550.00 is returned to the tenant forthwith as the bond is the tenant’s money.
18. I am not releasing the $1,450.00 to the landlord presently because the tenant’s counterclaims, if successful and proved, could well set-off the landlord’s successful claims in their entirely.
19. Therefore, the balance of the bond of $1,450.00 should remain at the [COMPANY] pending full disposal of the tenant’s counterclaims.
J Tam
16 May 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5048178 4
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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5048178 5
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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
- The tenant's dog damaged a door during the tenancy, which was more than fair wear and tear.
- The landlord is entitled to reimbursement for carpet cleaning, general cleaning, and repairs to the door from the bond.
- The bond should be adjusted to cover only the proven damages, and the rest should be refunded to the tenant.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The tenant claimed damages and exemplary damages against the landlord, but these claims were not addressed in this part of the decision.
- The tenant did not provide sufficient evidence to disprove their liability for the damage caused by their dog.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tribunal ordered a partial refund of the bond to the tenant.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the tenant left the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the tenant was responsible for leaving the premises reasonably clean and tidy, particularly due to damage caused by the tenant's dog.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(1)(e) and 49B, were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, especially considering the damage caused by the tenant's dog.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was partially for the tenant, ordering a partial refund of the bond.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
For someone in a similar situation, it means that they must ensure the premises are left reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy to avoid being held responsible for damages.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence included the condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy and the damage caused by the tenant's dog.