What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5445493 about?

The tribunal order states: Ruby Property Enterprises Limited As Agent For Beaumont Sons Ltd Kim

How much money was awarded in case 5445493?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5445493?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5445493?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14019232-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5445493 about?

The tribunal order states: Ruby Property Enterprises Limited As Agent For Beaumont Sons Ltd Kim

How much money was awarded in case 5445493?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5445493?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5445493?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14019232-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 1, 66 Geraldine Street, Edgeware, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5445493 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5445493 — net $203.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Bond refund - key replacement	$175.00	Bond refund - key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$203.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$203.00

Both parties attended the hearing which was held remotely. Ms Murphy attended with her representative Mr Jose. Mrs Willems and Miss Collie represented the landlord.

The tenant has applied for a refund of the bond on the basis that deductions from the bond were made that she believes were unlawful, and exemplary damages for a number issues that occurred after the tenancy ended.

The tenancy started on 24 August 2024 and ended on 24 December 2025 as a result of the tenant giving notice. Rent was $395.00 a week. The tenant paid a bond of $1,580.00 was paid at the start of the tenancy and held at the Bond Centre.

Is the tenant entitled to a refund of the amount deducted form the bond?

On 3 February 2026 the landlord forwarded the bond refund form to the tenant by email for her to sign. The landlord had completed the form except for the tenant details. The form showed $530.75 was to be refunded to the landlord and the remaining $1,049.26 was to be refunded to the tenant. The landlord had attached invoices for cleaning ($340.00) and key replacement ($175.00) to the email.

The tenant signed the form and the Bond Centre refunded the money as set out on the bond refund form.

The tenant says she did not agree that she was liable for either the cleaning costs or the key replacement costs and that the only reason she had signed the form was because she needed her bond money. The tenant had contacted the landlord prior to 3 February asking for the bond refund to be processed, as she believed the landlord had taken too long to do so. The tenant’s representative said the tenant’s legal advice was to sign the form and then make an application to the Tenancy Tribunal seeking a refund of the sum paid from the bond. Key replacement

Clause 32 of the tenancy agreement contains the following term:

It is not disputed that at the end of the tenancy the tenant returned all the keys the landlord had provided to her.

The tenant had a boarder living with her at the property. The landlord says the tenant told them her boarder had additional keys cut. The landlord says the tenant did not seek consent for any additional keys to be cut and that none were returned. In reliance on the above term the landlord told the tenant she was liable for the cost to replace the locks.

The tenant says she told the landlord she thought her boarder may have had additional keys cut, but did not know whether that had happened or not.

On 6 January 2026, prior to the bond refund form being signed, the landlord emailed the tenant about the locksmith’s invoice, advising that if she was able to pay it separately it would not have to come out of her bond. The tenant replied on 7 January: “I am quite happy for you to take it from the bond.”

The issue here is whether the clause in the tenancy agreement is enforceable or whether it is a null and void agreement. I say this for the following reasons.

Section 40(1)(e)(iv) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires the tenant on the termination of the tenancy to return all keys, and security or pass cards or other devices, provided by the landlord for the use of the tenant.

Section 11, RTA considers agreements between landlords and tenants that include terms that are not in keeping with provisions in the RTA. It states: (1) Any agreement or arrangement, or any provision of any agreement or arrangement, entered into in respect of a tenancy to which this Act applies, that is inconsistent with any of the provisions of this Act, or that purports to exclude, modify, or restrict the operation of any such provision, shall be of no effect unless— (a) the inconsistency, exclusion, modification, or restriction is expressly permitted by this Act; or (b) the Tribunal is satisfied that, having regard to the nature of the tenancy, the provisions of the tenancy agreement, the interests of the parties, and all other relevant circumstances of the case, the inconsistency, exclusion, modification, or restriction should be permitted. (2) Subsection (1) shall not prevent a landlord from waiving voluntarily all or any of the rights and powers conferred on landlords by this Act, or from voluntarily incurring more or more extensive obligations than those that are imposed on landlords by this Act. (3) Any purported waiver by a tenant of any right or power conferred upon tenants by this Act shall be of no effect.

Section 11 means that any agreement entered into in respect of a tenancy which is inconsistent with the provisions of the RTA, particularly where it waives the tenant’s rights under the RTA, shall be of no effect unless it is expressly allowed under the RTA, or the Tribunal is satisfied that in all of the relevant circumstances the inconsistency should be permitted. Under section 11 landlords, but not tenants, are permitted to voluntarily waive their rights and obligations under the RTA and to take on more onerous obligations than those imposed by the RTA. Section 11(3) specifically prevents any agreement which means a tenant is waiving their rights or obligations.

In this case section 40(1)(e)(iv) requires the tenant to return the keys the landlord has provided. It does not require the tenant to return any additional keys the tenant or anyone else has had cut during the tenancy. In addition, the RTA does not include any obligation on a tenant to get the landlord’s permission before making any additional keys.

My view is that most tenants are likely to have extra keys cut so that others, particularly family members living at the premises, are able to enter rather than having to share a key the landlord has provided for each door. I view this as an action tenants are entitled to, under their right to have quiet enjoyment of the premises.

For this reason I see the additional requirements in clause 32 of the tenancy agreement as an inconsistency with, or modification of, the provisions in the RTA that should not be permitted. Effectively if tenant has returned all keys provided by the landlord at the end of the tenancy it is the landlord’s choice (and cost) whether they rekey the premises or not.

That means by virtue of s 11 the requirement in clause 32 is of no effect and the tenant has no liability for the cost of the replacement keys, regardless that she had agreed to pay these costs. Therefore the tenant is entitled to a refund of $175.00 from the bond for replacement keys. Cleaning costs

The tenant is required to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy. This includes inside the premises as well as gardens and lawns. See s 40(1)(e)(iii) RTA.

After the tenancy ended the landlord made the tenant aware that further cleaning and gardening work was required for the premises to be in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. With the permission of the property manager the tenant went back to the property to do this work. However the tenant was unable to complete the cleaning work that day and contacted the property manager to make arrangements to return to complete the cleaning. The parties disagree about what happened after that. Regardless, the tenant did not finish the cleaning and the landlord organised a cleaning company to do the work.

On 2 February the landlord advised the tenant a cleaner had completed the work required. The tenant responded that she had not given her consent for a commercial cleaner to be engaged and would not pay the costs involved. The landlord then emailed the cleaning invoice for $340.00 to the tenant with the bond refund form and the tenant signed the form and returned it. The tenant now seeks repayment of the cleaning costs.

However I find the tenant is not entitled to reimbursement of the cleaning costs. In signing the bond refund form, having received the invoice for the cleaning costs, I find the tenant has agreed to the landlord being paid those costs from the bond.

The tenant could have altered the bond refund form to show she did not agree to the cleaning costs being paid before she signed and returned it to the landlord, or could have refused to sign the form. I understand the tenant’s concern that the landlord had taken longer than she thought reasonable to process the bond payment. However a dispute over part of the bond does not prevent the undisputed of the bond being reimbursed, and the tenant’s email to the landlord on 2 February shows she understood she could make an application directly to the Bond Centre for refund of her bond, including the part of the bond that was not disputed.

For completion I note that the tenant’s obligations set out in section 40 are measured at the date the tenancy ends. A landlord does not have to agree to a tenant returning to tenancy premises after the tenancy has ended to, for example, carry out cleaning work. Likewise a landlord does not have to obtain consent from a tenant before arranging a contractor to carry out work after the end of the tenancy, such as cleaning or rubbish removal work. Exemplary damages claims

Exemplary damages may be awarded when one party has proved that the other party has breached a provision of the RTA which is stated to be an unlawful act, where the unlawful act has been intentionally committed and the Tribunal is satisfied that it would be just to make an award having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.

The landlord has made a number of claims for exemplary damages. However all of the claims relate to issues that have arisen after the tenancy has ended and are not matters where exemplary damages are available. That is, they are not for breaches of provisions in the RTA which are stated to be unlawful acts. For these reasons the tenant’s claim for exemplary damages is dismissed. Reimbursement of the filing fee: As the tenant has partly succeeded with her claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5445493 — net $203.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Bond refund - key replacement	$175.00	Bond refund - key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$203.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$203.00

Both parties attended the hearing which was held remotely. Ms Murphy attended with her representative Mr Jose. Mrs Willems and Miss Collie represented the landlord.

Is the tenant entitled to a refund of the amount deducted form the bond?

The tenant signed the form and the Bond Centre refunded the money as set out on the bond refund form.

Clause 32 of the tenancy agreement contains the following term:

It is not disputed that at the end of the tenancy the tenant returned all the keys the landlord had provided to her.

The tenant says she told the landlord she thought her boarder may have had additional keys cut, but did not know whether that had happened or not.

The issue here is whether the clause in the tenancy agreement is enforceable or whether it is a null and void agreement. I say this for the following reasons.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5445493 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 66 Geraldine Street, Edgeware,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5445493 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 66 Geraldine Street, Edgeware,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant entitled to a refund of the amount deducted form the bond?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant entitled to a refund of the amount deducted form the bond?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.