What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4911573?

The tribunal order states: Wendy McCormack and Martin Leslie McCormack must pay Online Rentals

How much money was awarded in case 4911573?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $356.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,920.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4911573?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4911573?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10697180-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4911573?

The tribunal order states: Wendy McCormack and Martin Leslie McCormack must pay Online Rentals

How much money was awarded in case 4911573?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $356.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,920.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4911573?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4911573?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10697180-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

66D Boundary Road, Claudelands, Hamilton 3214 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4911573 — Rent arrears

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4911573 — net $376.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 3 June 2024	$1,920.00	Rent arrears to 3 June 2024
Repairs	$356.00	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$376.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$376.44

Wendy McCormack and Martin Leslie McCormack must pay Online Rentals Limited As Agent For Louise And Rangi Albert $376.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,920.00 (6055616-005) to Online Rentals Limited As Agent For Louise And Rangi Albert immediately.

Reasons

Ms McCann and Ms Chen attended the hearing for the landlord. Mrs McCormack attended on behalf of herself and Mr McCormack.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 3 June 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Mrs Mc Cormack agreed with the arrears owing.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: •there were marks on the walls in the kitchen where a clock and decals had been; •the front door frame and window frame/s in the kitchen had holes and gaps puttied but not painted; •there were areas on walls in the lounge, including where brackets for a television had been, that had been puttied. Some of the areas had been partially painted.

Mrs McCormack acknowledged that she had puttied the areas affected and had partially painted areas in the lounge.

I am satisfied that more work was needed to repair the affected areas.

Mrs McCormack believed the amount claimed was more than reasonable for the work required. I understand she has worked in the past as a painter and decorator. However I am satisfied that the amount claimed is reasonable and the cost the landlord/owner has had to pay for the work needed to be completed.

Mrs McCormack left the remains of a small tin of paint. The property manager disputes that the paint was the correct colour for the walls. The evidence presented does not enable me to conclude whether the paint was not the correct colour or not. Mrs McCormack acquired the paint rather than buying it. I make no reduction in the amount the landlord is entitled to.

The amounts ordered are proved.

As the landlord ahs been successful in its claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4911573 — net $376.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 3 June 2024	$1,920.00	Rent arrears to 3 June 2024
Repairs	$356.00	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$376.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$376.44

Order

Wendy McCormack and Martin Leslie McCormack must pay Online Rentals Limited As Agent For Louise And Rangi Albert $376.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,920.00 (6055616-005) to Online Rentals Limited As Agent For Louise And Rangi Albert immediately.

Reasons

Ms McCann and Ms Chen attended the hearing for the landlord. Mrs McCormack attended on behalf of herself and Mr McCormack.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 3 June 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Mrs Mc Cormack agreed with the arrears owing.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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.
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.
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.
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.
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 person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: •there were marks on the walls in the kitchen where a clock and decals had been; •the front door frame and window frame/s in the kitchen had holes and gaps puttied but not painted; •there were areas on walls in the lounge, including where brackets for a television had been, that had been puttied. Some of the areas had been partially painted.
Mrs McCormack acknowledged that she had puttied the areas affected and had partially painted areas in the lounge.
I am satisfied that more work was needed to repair the affected areas.
Mrs McCormack believed the amount claimed was more than reasonable for the work required. I understand she has worked in the past as a painter and decorator. However I am satisfied that the amount claimed is reasonable and the cost the landlord/owner has had to pay for the work needed to be completed.
Mrs McCormack left the remains of a small tin of paint. The property manager disputes that the paint was the correct colour for the walls. The evidence presented does not enable me to conclude whether the paint was not the correct colour or not. Mrs McCormack acquired the paint rather than buying it. I make no reduction in the amount the landlord is entitled to.
The amounts ordered are proved.
As the landlord ahs been successful in its claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4911573 — Rent arrears at 66D Boundary Road, Claudelands, Hamilton 3214

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4911573 — Rent arrears at 66D Boundary Road, Claudelands, Hamilton 3214

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions