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

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

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