What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4961094?

The tribunal order states: Aristotle Binaluyo, Verbena Binaluyo and Jonathan Manalo to pay Ray White

How much money was awarded in case 4961094?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Repaint: $2,300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4961094?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4961094?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10850095-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4961094?

The tribunal order states: Aristotle Binaluyo, Verbena Binaluyo and Jonathan Manalo to pay Ray White

How much money was awarded in case 4961094?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Repaint: $2,300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4961094?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4961094?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10850095-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 4, 29 Commissariat Road, Mount Wellington, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4961094 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4961094 — net $2,327.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repaint	$2,300.00	Repaint
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,327.00
Bond	$3,100.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,327.00

Order

Aristotle Binaluyo, Verbena Binaluyo and Jonathan Manalo to pay Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited As Agent For Elky So Man Siu $2,327.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,100.00 (6468697-012) immediately apportioned as follows: Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited As Agent For Elky So Man Siu: $2,327.00 Aristotle Binaluyo, Verbena Binaluyo and Jonathan Manalo: $773.00

Reasons

Both parties attended this video hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The tenant has applied for refund of the bond.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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. The landlord is not insured.
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. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) 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 tenancy commenced in July 2023. The premises were only 6 months old at that time.
The landlord accepted that at the commencement of the tenancy, there existed 6 marks on the paint work, in particular, those marks were by the TV in the lounge and in the master bedroom.
The landlord carried out an inspection of the premises at the end of the tenancy. A range of marks were noticed on the walls and the landlord obtained a quote for the repair of the marks. The tenant considered that the quote was too expensive and has asked to complete the work themselves.
The landlord acceded to the request.
Upon returning to the premises to carry out the work, the tenants says that they discovered that some repair painting had already been carried out by the landlord. They say that the repair work was of a very poor standard and has made their efforts to repair far more difficult.
The landlord accepted that some repair work had been carried out, but only to the wall in the lounge were a TV bracket remained. They have not applied for compensation for repairs to this area.
The tenant has proceeded to carry out repair work on the paint work. Unfortunately, the repair work has not been to a good and workmanlike standard and appears to have been completed with a slightly different colour.
The landlord has obtained a quote from professional painters to repair the tenant repairs.
The quote records the specific areas of concern as being; • Storage cupboard on ground floor under stairs. • Walls in lounge x3 where the walls have been poorly patched and painted leaving squares of discoloured wall. • Stairwell- gouges in the paint and marks on the wall which needed plastering and painting. • Upstairs bedrooms x3- Incorrectly prepared areas requiring sanding, plastering and painting.
The landlord has proven that the repaint work was done by the tenant and is not fair wear and tear. Having proven that, the burden of disproving liability for the damage falls on the tenant. The tenant is required to disprove liability to the usual civil standard, namely that it is more likely than not.
I consider based on the evidence heard at the hearing and the documentary evidence filed, that I prefer the evidence of the landlord. In those circumstances the tenant having failed to disprove liability, I find in favour of the landlord.
Having reviewed both the photos and the invoice provided, I consider the costs claimed by the landlord to be reasonable.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have not taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. The paint work was almost new at the start of the tenancy. The repaint was for the patched areas only, not a repaint of the whole house.
As Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited As Agent For Elky So Man Siu has wholly succeeded with the claim I must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.
The tenant applied for name suppression. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and the application for name suppression is dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4961094 — net $2,327.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repaint	$2,300.00	Repaint
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,327.00
Bond	$3,100.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,327.00

Order

Aristotle Binaluyo, Verbena Binaluyo and Jonathan Manalo to pay Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited As Agent For Elky So Man Siu $2,327.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,100.00 (6468697-012) immediately apportioned as follows: Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited As Agent For Elky So Man Siu: $2,327.00 Aristotle Binaluyo, Verbena Binaluyo and Jonathan Manalo: $773.00

Reasons

Both parties attended this video hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The tenant has applied for refund of the bond.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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. The landlord is not insured.
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. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) 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 tenancy commenced in July 2023. The premises were only 6 months old at that time.
The landlord accepted that at the commencement of the tenancy, there existed 6 marks on the paint work, in particular, those marks were by the TV in the lounge and in the master bedroom.
The landlord carried out an inspection of the premises at the end of the tenancy. A range of marks were noticed on the walls and the landlord obtained a quote for the repair of the marks. The tenant considered that the quote was too expensive and has asked to complete the work themselves.
The landlord acceded to the request.
Upon returning to the premises to carry out the work, the tenants says that they discovered that some repair painting had already been carried out by the landlord. They say that the repair work was of a very poor standard and has made their efforts to repair far more difficult.
The landlord accepted that some repair work had been carried out, but only to the wall in the lounge were a TV bracket remained. They have not applied for compensation for repairs to this area.
The tenant has proceeded to carry out repair work on the paint work. Unfortunately, the repair work has not been to a good and workmanlike standard and appears to have been completed with a slightly different colour.
The landlord has obtained a quote from professional painters to repair the tenant repairs.
The quote records the specific areas of concern as being; • Storage cupboard on ground floor under stairs. • Walls in lounge x3 where the walls have been poorly patched and painted leaving squares of discoloured wall. • Stairwell- gouges in the paint and marks on the wall which needed plastering and painting. • Upstairs bedrooms x3- Incorrectly prepared areas requiring sanding, plastering and painting.
The landlord has proven that the repaint work was done by the tenant and is not fair wear and tear. Having proven that, the burden of disproving liability for the damage falls on the tenant. The tenant is required to disprove liability to the usual civil standard, namely that it is more likely than not.
I consider based on the evidence heard at the hearing and the documentary evidence filed, that I prefer the evidence of the landlord. In those circumstances the tenant having failed to disprove liability, I find in favour of the landlord.
Having reviewed both the photos and the invoice provided, I consider the costs claimed by the landlord to be reasonable.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have not taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. The paint work was almost new at the start of the tenancy. The repaint was for the patched areas only, not a repaint of the whole house.
As Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited As Agent For Elky So Man Siu has wholly succeeded with the claim I must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.
The tenant applied for name suppression. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and the application for name suppression is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4961094 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 4, 29 Commissariat Road, Mount Wellington,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4961094 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 4, 29 Commissariat Road, Mount Wellington,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions