What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5379020?

The tribunal order states: Ross McGunnigle must pay Liezl Almado and Stephen Ian Hardy $1,400.00

How much money was awarded in case 5379020?

The reconciled net award was $1,400.00.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5379020?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5379020?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13637925-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5379020?

The tribunal order states: Ross McGunnigle must pay Liezl Almado and Stephen Ian Hardy $1,400.00

How much money was awarded in case 5379020?

The reconciled net award was $1,400.00.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5379020?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5379020?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13637925-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

398B Hereford Street, Linwood, Christchurch 8011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5379020 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5379020 — net $1,400.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Bond refund	$1,400.00	Bond refund
Net award	$1,400.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,400.00

Order

Ross McGunnigle must pay Liezl Almado and Stephen Ian Hardy $1,400.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below. DescriptionTenant Bond refund $1,400.00 Total award $1,400.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $1,400.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place by videoconference.
This was a 4 ½ year tenancy that began in February 2021 and ended in October 2025.
The tenant has applied for bond refund and compensation for stress following the end of the tenancy due to the landlord seeking compensation for painting.
The bond belongs to the tenant unless the landlord proves a claim against the bond.
Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim.
The landlord has filed a counterclaim seeking $6152.00 for paint damage repairs. Burden of proof
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”.
This obligation carried by the party making the claim is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The general principle is that a tenant has no liability for damage to the premises.
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy that 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.
The landlord claimed that the tenant damaged the paintwork at the premises due to dents and marks on the walls and seeks the sum of $6152.00 in compensation based on a quote provided.
The tenant disputed the claim and whilst acknowledging that there were some marks on the walls claimed that this was associated with normal living in the house and they left the premises in a good condition.
Both parties provided photographs.
Having considered the evidence I find that the landlord has failed to prove the claim on the balance of probabilities for the following reasons: (a)The landlord stated that the premises were last painted 6-7 years ago which was some years before this tenancy began. (b)There were no entry photographs provided to show the condition of the premises at the beginning of the tenancy. (c)The only exit photographs provided were filed by the tenant and showed some small marks to walls but no obvious damage. (d)The photographs and videos provided by the landlord were taken some weeks following the end of the tenancy after painting had begun. Although they showed where touch ups were being done it was not possible to ascertain whether the marks underneath were damage or wear and tear as they were already covered. (e)The landlord only provided one quote from a contractor which recorded it was for interior and exterior painting and included walls and ceilings. The landlord stated that the work was actually done by himself and not all celings were painted. (f)As this tenancy was a long tenancy and in the absence of entry and exit inspection reports from the landlord I find that the landlord has failed to prove that there was damage to the paintwork during the tenancy that was beyond fair wear and tear in normal use of the premises. (g)Therefore, the claim is dismissed.

Should the landlord pay compensation for stress to the tenant?

The tenant claimed that the landlord caused him stress at the end of the tenancy. He stated he was told by the landlord not to worry about the walls and then following the end of the tenancy the landlord told him that he was responsible for wall damage.
The landlord denied telling the tenant he did not need to worry about the walls.
It is acknowledged that when parties are in dispute this causes stress.
The Tenancy Tribunal was established to resolve disputes between landlords and tenants and the tenant filed a claim for the bond and compensation due to the parties being in dispute at the end of the tenancy.
The statements referred to were verbal statements and the evidence is in conflict. As there is no corroboration filed by either party the Tribunal is not able to make a finding regarding this communication.
Therefore, this claim for compensation is dismissed. Filing fee
As both parties have paid a filing fee and neither party has been wholly successful with their claim I decline to order either party to reimburse the other party’s filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5379020 — net $1,400.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Bond refund	$1,400.00	Bond refund
Net award	$1,400.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,400.00

Order

Ross McGunnigle must pay Liezl Almado and Stephen Ian Hardy $1,400.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below. DescriptionTenant Bond refund $1,400.00 Total award $1,400.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $1,400.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place by videoconference.
This was a 4 ½ year tenancy that began in February 2021 and ended in October 2025.
The tenant has applied for bond refund and compensation for stress following the end of the tenancy due to the landlord seeking compensation for painting.
The bond belongs to the tenant unless the landlord proves a claim against the bond.
Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim.
The landlord has filed a counterclaim seeking $6152.00 for paint damage repairs. Burden of proof
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”.
This obligation carried by the party making the claim is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The general principle is that a tenant has no liability for damage to the premises.
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy that 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.
The landlord claimed that the tenant damaged the paintwork at the premises due to dents and marks on the walls and seeks the sum of $6152.00 in compensation based on a quote provided.
The tenant disputed the claim and whilst acknowledging that there were some marks on the walls claimed that this was associated with normal living in the house and they left the premises in a good condition.
Both parties provided photographs.
Having considered the evidence I find that the landlord has failed to prove the claim on the balance of probabilities for the following reasons: (a)The landlord stated that the premises were last painted 6-7 years ago which was some years before this tenancy began. (b)There were no entry photographs provided to show the condition of the premises at the beginning of the tenancy. (c)The only exit photographs provided were filed by the tenant and showed some small marks to walls but no obvious damage. (d)The photographs and videos provided by the landlord were taken some weeks following the end of the tenancy after painting had begun. Although they showed where touch ups were being done it was not possible to ascertain whether the marks underneath were damage or wear and tear as they were already covered. (e)The landlord only provided one quote from a contractor which recorded it was for interior and exterior painting and included walls and ceilings. The landlord stated that the work was actually done by himself and not all celings were painted. (f)As this tenancy was a long tenancy and in the absence of entry and exit inspection reports from the landlord I find that the landlord has failed to prove that there was damage to the paintwork during the tenancy that was beyond fair wear and tear in normal use of the premises. (g)Therefore, the claim is dismissed.

Should the landlord pay compensation for stress to the tenant?

The tenant claimed that the landlord caused him stress at the end of the tenancy. He stated he was told by the landlord not to worry about the walls and then following the end of the tenancy the landlord told him that he was responsible for wall damage.
The landlord denied telling the tenant he did not need to worry about the walls.
It is acknowledged that when parties are in dispute this causes stress.
The Tenancy Tribunal was established to resolve disputes between landlords and tenants and the tenant filed a claim for the bond and compensation due to the parties being in dispute at the end of the tenancy.
The statements referred to were verbal statements and the evidence is in conflict. As there is no corroboration filed by either party the Tribunal is not able to make a finding regarding this communication.
Therefore, this claim for compensation is dismissed. Filing fee
As both parties have paid a filing fee and neither party has been wholly successful with their claim I decline to order either party to reimburse the other party’s filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5379020 — Tenancy dispute at 398B Hereford Street, Linwood, Christchurch 8011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5379020 — Tenancy dispute at 398B Hereford Street, Linwood, Christchurch 8011

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should the landlord pay compensation for stress to the tenant?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should the landlord pay compensation for stress to the tenant?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions