APIA Blog

RSS Feed

Bond - it is the tenant’s money

Tuesday, January 26, 2021


We generally understand and talk about bonds as security deposits; on the one hand, they give a landlord the peace of mind to rent to a stranger and on the other hand cushion a tenant against onerous financial burden should a claim be made against him at the end of the tenancy. What we tend to be less mindful of is that ultimately, the bond is the tenant’s money and the law recognises it as such.

What does this mean in practice? Most straightforwardly, it means that landlords have no automatic right to the bond. And we see that clearly play out in certain aspects of the bond process. For example, while landlords ‘collect’ the bond, we don't get to hold on to it. We are required to forward* the full amount with Tenancy Services Bond Centre within 23 working days of receipt. (Indeed, we’ve become all too familiar with shocking accounts of rogue landlords hoarding thousands of dollars worth of bond illegally only to be heavily sanctioned by the Tenancy Tribunal.) We cannot access the bond in part or in full without either the tenant’s consent (co-signed bond refund form) or pursuant to a Tribunal order.

What is more imperceptible but not less important is what happens when a tenant makes an application to the Tribunal for the bond to be refunded whilst the landlord has reason to believe that she is entitled to that same bond (in part or in whole). How will the Tribunal treat these competing claims?

If the landlord, in response to the tenant’s application, makes a cross-application to lay claim to the bond then the Tribunal will hear from both parties and adjudge their respective merits. If the landlord makes no such cross-application expecting to simply put forward her claim to the bond as a response at the hearing, she will not be heard at all. The Tribunal will award the full amount of the bond to the tenant and depending on the outcome rest of the tenant’s claim, order the landlord to reimburse the tenant’s filing fee.

Though this sounds counterintuitive and perhaps even unreasonable, it is how the Residential Tenancies Act intends:

S22B(2) of the Act states that 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. We have seen instances where the Tribunal has followed s22B(2) strictly and declined to even hear the landlord’s case let alone assessing its merits.

S22B tends not to receive a lot of attention though it is no less consequential to landlords. If anything, it is a reminder that landlording is a business that necessitates good attention to detail, prompt action and sound knowledge of the Tribunal process. So if you and your outgoing tenant cannot agree on how the bond is to be apportioned and the tenant subsequently makes takes you to the Tribunal to have the bond refunded, be sure to file a cross-application within the allotted time to have your side of the story heard. 

* Correction made 27 January per Peter Lewis' comment below.

 


Recent Posts


Tags

business finance extractor fan Investor story buying rules kiwibuild income relationship structure retaliatory notice HHS rental wof election 2017 water bill Zodiak Management house prices auckland council renovation productivity trespass reserve bank minor dwelling warm up new zealand early termination insurance investment strategy capital gain first home buying trademe housing bubble Landlording holiday house HHGA commerce commission Level 4 market rent market banking debt enforcement LIM interest only interest limitation Market report negotiation RBNZ shortland chartered accountants opes partners RTAA 2019 legal cost development mindset rental market auckland sublease barfoot and thompson Q&A property cycle tenancy tribunal scotney williams nzpif buyer's agent property value legal watercare short term rental inspection property apprentice data security Holler anz equity inflation initio television covid-19 mortgage Property (Relationships) Act rent heat pump twg report Case study unitary plan election2020 p lab bond form khh housing affordability short-term rental positive cash flow meth re agent rta reform landlord wealth creation lvr sale and purchase sale and purchas HSWA damage bond rta DTI How to shower dome tenancy services rtaa2020 quiet enjoyment heater yield will heating property maintenance gluckman report asbestos maintenance debt to income Sponsored post brightline insulation tenancy issues Standards New Zealand rent arrears Kris Pedersen Mortgages and Insurance meth contamination warren buffett rent control privacy education ventilation Must knows government daikin rent increase Question and answer partners Tribunal case study property recycling equity worksafe property management bad tenant management tenant housing package boarding house lockdown airbnb wins winz robert kiyosaki termination bankruptcy Gluckman ask an expert buying CCC parry v inglis investor cat ring-fencing principal and interest letting ocr travel bubble Editor's Choice speculator beginner investor personal growth interest deductibility Guest blog apia Jeff Bezos CoreLogic return interest rates Investment tip cash-flow ird tax letting fee fixed-term tenancy TCIT off the plan financial advisers act smoke alarm clnz Must know cgt building anti-social behaviour subdivision advice trust skill shortage

Archive

Introducing Our Partners
Principal Sponsor - Kris Pedersen Mortgages & Insurance logo Gold Sponsor - Barfoot & Thompson logo Gold Sponsor - CoreLogic logo Property Apprentice logo The Insulation Warehouse logo The Renovation Team logo The New Zealand Property Investors' Federation logo