What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5263485?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,720.00 (6044938-006) to Sumeet

How much money was awarded in case 5263485?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5263485?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5263485?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12085756-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5263485?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,720.00 (6044938-006) to Sumeet

How much money was awarded in case 5263485?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5263485?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5263485?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12085756-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

313A Adelaide Road, Newtown, Wellington 6021 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5263485 — Rent arrears

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,720.00 (6044938-006) to Sumeet Hassan Asad Anwar and Humna Asad immediately.
All other applications are dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the tenants against the landlord.
Both parties appeared at the hearing in Wellington today.
The tenants claim a refund of their bond, and also a refund of a cleaning charge.

BACKGROUND

The parties entered into a one-year fixed-term tenancy, running between 18 June 2024 and 29 June 2025.
The tenant’s position is that their child developed respiratory problems, which they relate to the tenancy, and for that reason, they requested that the tenancy end early.
Following discussion, the landlord agreed that the tenancy could end early, but the parties agreed that the tenants would take an active role in finding a replacement tenant.
Ultimately, a replacement tenant was found, that was Emma. It is the case that Emma advised the tenants that if she were to take the premises, it would need to be commercially cleaned, and the tenants proceeded to have the premises cleaned. I will discuss this further below.
The tenancy ended on 24 May 2025, just over a month prior to the end of the fixed term period.
The landlord considers there were rent arrears owing as well as break lease costs, and that those amounts should be deducted from the Bond. The tenants dispute that.
The tenants filed this application with the Tribunal, but no application has been filed by the landlord.

APPLICANTS CLAIMS

At the hearing, the tenants confirmed their claims are as follows: a. Refund of the bond ($1,720.00); and b. Reimbursement of cleaning costs ($191.00)

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.

ANALYSIS

There are two claims, and I explained to the parties at the hearing what the outcome of those claims would be, so this written decision simply records that outcome. Claim 1 – Bond refund
The tenants dispute that they owe any further money to the landlord, and they seek a full refund of their bond.
The landlord’s position is that the tenant owes rent arrears prior to Emma starting her tenancy on 25 May 2025. The landlord also considers that the tenants owe $195.00 of break lease costs. Analysis
The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the tenants at the end of the tenancy, seeking recovery of their bond.
Section 22B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 applies, that provision confirms that: (1) If there is a dispute between the parties as to the payment of a bond, either party may apply to the Tribunal for an order determining to whom the bond, or any part of it, is to be paid. (2) If the tenant applies to the Tribunal and the landlord seeks payment of the bond in whole or in part, the landlord must file an application with the Tribunal that sets out the landlord’s counterclaim.
The effect of this provision is that when the tenant applies to the Tribunal for release of the bond in whole or in part, if the landlord wishes to argue that it has any call on that bond, then the landlord “must” file a counterclaim for it. In the absence of a counterclaim, then the Tribunal must order that the bond be released to the tenants.
This means that if the landlord subsequently wishes to pursue any claim against the tenant such as for the rent arrears and break lease fee, the landlord is still able to do so, but if the landlord is successful in the claim, there would not be any bond that the Tribunal could order be released to go toward the landlord’s claim. If the landlord files a claim with the Tribunal, it will be scheduled for a hearing on another day.
For the above reasons, in the absence of a counterclaim from the landlord, the Tribunal orders that the full bond be refunded to the tenants. Claim 2 – Cleaning costs
The tenant states that they received a message from the incoming tenant (Emma) that she would need the premises to be commercially cleaned if she was to rent it. The tenants raised this with the landlord who recommended that they proceed with that cleaning.
The landlord states that there was an agreement with the incoming tenant that the property be commercially cleaned. The landlord states that this was not an arrangement or requirement from the landlord. Analysis
The RTA sets out the requirements that exist between a landlord and tenant. In terms of cleaning, the only obligation on the tenant is to return the premises to the landlord reasonably clean and tidy. There is no obligation on a tenant to have the premises commercially cleaned at the end of the tenancy, and if the landlord required that, then the landlord would be making an unlawful request.
In this case however, the request to have the premises commercially cleaned did not come from the landlord, it came from the incoming tenant, Emma.
It is important to note that the tenancy in question was a fixed-term tenancy which the tenants requested to end early. The landlord could have dug in their toes and refused to consent to ending it early, but they were agreeable to the tenants finding a replacement tenant, and assuming the replacement tenant was acceptable to the landlord, the landlord agreed to end the tenancy early. That is entirely lawful.
Within the context of agreeing that Emma would take over the premises, Emma requested that the tenants have the premises commercially cleaned. While there was no obligation on the tenants (or landlord) to agree to have the premises commercially cleaned, it was nevertheless a lawful request that Emma could have made as the incoming tenant.
When the tenants raised this matter with the landlord, the landlord did not direct or require that the tenants pay for the commercial cleaning, but did appropriately encourage the tenants to have that work done so as to secure Emma’s tenancy. In my view that was wise, because if the cleaning was not undertaken, then there was a real prospect that Emma would have declined to rent the premises, so the tenants would have been stuck in the tenancy until the end of the fixed term period, about a month later.
The tenants had the cleaning completed at their cost, Emma signed a new tenancy agreement, and the tenancy ended early.
But there is no basis for the tenants to now claim that cost from the landlord, because the landlord did not require that the tenants have the premises commercially cleaned.
The tenants also argued that the landlord could have accepted other tenants and if the landlord did so, then the tenancy could have ended sooner. I cannot see that would be relevant to this claim, because there needs to be a nexus between a breach of the landlord’s obligation and this cleaning claim. But I note for completeness, there is no obligation in law for a landlord to accept any particular tenant, such as the first prospective tenant to offer to rent the premises. Even if viewed within the assignment provisions of the RTA, a landlord is able to set conditions on an assignment.
For the above reasons, the tenants’ claim for cleaning cost reimbursement must be dismissed.

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,720.00 (6044938-006) to Sumeet Hassan Asad Anwar and Humna Asad immediately.
All other applications are dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the tenants against the landlord.
Both parties appeared at the hearing in Wellington today.
The tenants claim a refund of their bond, and also a refund of a cleaning charge.

BACKGROUND

The parties entered into a one-year fixed-term tenancy, running between 18 June 2024 and 29 June 2025.
The tenant’s position is that their child developed respiratory problems, which they relate to the tenancy, and for that reason, they requested that the tenancy end early.
Following discussion, the landlord agreed that the tenancy could end early, but the parties agreed that the tenants would take an active role in finding a replacement tenant.
Ultimately, a replacement tenant was found, that was Emma. It is the case that Emma advised the tenants that if she were to take the premises, it would need to be commercially cleaned, and the tenants proceeded to have the premises cleaned. I will discuss this further below.
The tenancy ended on 24 May 2025, just over a month prior to the end of the fixed term period.
The landlord considers there were rent arrears owing as well as break lease costs, and that those amounts should be deducted from the Bond. The tenants dispute that.
The tenants filed this application with the Tribunal, but no application has been filed by the landlord.

APPLICANTS CLAIMS

At the hearing, the tenants confirmed their claims are as follows: a. Refund of the bond ($1,720.00); and b. Reimbursement of cleaning costs ($191.00)

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.

ANALYSIS

There are two claims, and I explained to the parties at the hearing what the outcome of those claims would be, so this written decision simply records that outcome. Claim 1 – Bond refund
The tenants dispute that they owe any further money to the landlord, and they seek a full refund of their bond.
The landlord’s position is that the tenant owes rent arrears prior to Emma starting her tenancy on 25 May 2025. The landlord also considers that the tenants owe $195.00 of break lease costs. Analysis
The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the tenants at the end of the tenancy, seeking recovery of their bond.
Section 22B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 applies, that provision confirms that: (1) If there is a dispute between the parties as to the payment of a bond, either party may apply to the Tribunal for an order determining to whom the bond, or any part of it, is to be paid. (2) If the tenant applies to the Tribunal and the landlord seeks payment of the bond in whole or in part, the landlord must file an application with the Tribunal that sets out the landlord’s counterclaim.
The effect of this provision is that when the tenant applies to the Tribunal for release of the bond in whole or in part, if the landlord wishes to argue that it has any call on that bond, then the landlord “must” file a counterclaim for it. In the absence of a counterclaim, then the Tribunal must order that the bond be released to the tenants.
This means that if the landlord subsequently wishes to pursue any claim against the tenant such as for the rent arrears and break lease fee, the landlord is still able to do so, but if the landlord is successful in the claim, there would not be any bond that the Tribunal could order be released to go toward the landlord’s claim. If the landlord files a claim with the Tribunal, it will be scheduled for a hearing on another day.
For the above reasons, in the absence of a counterclaim from the landlord, the Tribunal orders that the full bond be refunded to the tenants. Claim 2 – Cleaning costs
The tenant states that they received a message from the incoming tenant (Emma) that she would need the premises to be commercially cleaned if she was to rent it. The tenants raised this with the landlord who recommended that they proceed with that cleaning.
The landlord states that there was an agreement with the incoming tenant that the property be commercially cleaned. The landlord states that this was not an arrangement or requirement from the landlord. Analysis
The RTA sets out the requirements that exist between a landlord and tenant. In terms of cleaning, the only obligation on the tenant is to return the premises to the landlord reasonably clean and tidy. There is no obligation on a tenant to have the premises commercially cleaned at the end of the tenancy, and if the landlord required that, then the landlord would be making an unlawful request.
In this case however, the request to have the premises commercially cleaned did not come from the landlord, it came from the incoming tenant, Emma.
It is important to note that the tenancy in question was a fixed-term tenancy which the tenants requested to end early. The landlord could have dug in their toes and refused to consent to ending it early, but they were agreeable to the tenants finding a replacement tenant, and assuming the replacement tenant was acceptable to the landlord, the landlord agreed to end the tenancy early. That is entirely lawful.
Within the context of agreeing that Emma would take over the premises, Emma requested that the tenants have the premises commercially cleaned. While there was no obligation on the tenants (or landlord) to agree to have the premises commercially cleaned, it was nevertheless a lawful request that Emma could have made as the incoming tenant.
When the tenants raised this matter with the landlord, the landlord did not direct or require that the tenants pay for the commercial cleaning, but did appropriately encourage the tenants to have that work done so as to secure Emma’s tenancy. In my view that was wise, because if the cleaning was not undertaken, then there was a real prospect that Emma would have declined to rent the premises, so the tenants would have been stuck in the tenancy until the end of the fixed term period, about a month later.
The tenants had the cleaning completed at their cost, Emma signed a new tenancy agreement, and the tenancy ended early.
But there is no basis for the tenants to now claim that cost from the landlord, because the landlord did not require that the tenants have the premises commercially cleaned.
The tenants also argued that the landlord could have accepted other tenants and if the landlord did so, then the tenancy could have ended sooner. I cannot see that would be relevant to this claim, because there needs to be a nexus between a breach of the landlord’s obligation and this cleaning claim. But I note for completeness, there is no obligation in law for a landlord to accept any particular tenant, such as the first prospective tenant to offer to rent the premises. Even if viewed within the assignment provisions of the RTA, a landlord is able to set conditions on an assignment.
For the above reasons, the tenants’ claim for cleaning cost reimbursement must be dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5263485 — Rent arrears at 313A Adelaide Road, Newtown, Wellington 6021

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5263485 — Rent arrears at 313A Adelaide Road, Newtown, Wellington 6021

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

APPLICANTS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

APPLICANTS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions