Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5379683 — Rent arrears at 21 Bangor Street, Mataura, Mataura 9712
Decided 11 June 2026 · Published 11 June 2026 · Application 5379683
Landlord favoured
- Rent arrears
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Mataura
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
S Munro
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $2,110.00
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $2,110.00
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rent arrears | $1,650.00 | Rent arrears | |
| Contribution to storage (four weeks | $460.00 | Contribution to storage (four weeks | |
| Net award | $2,110.00 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $2,110.00 |
Claims and awards for application 5379683 — net $2,110.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Rent arrears
- Amount
- $1,650.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rent arrears
Contribution to storage (four weeks
- Amount
- $460.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Contribution to storage (four weeks
Net award
Landlord $2,110.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $2,110.00
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Selwyn Eric Cormack must pay Lyndon Charles Franks and Cathryn Mary Williams $2,110.00 immediately, being rent arrears to 22 August 2024 and a contribution to storage.
Reasons
- All parties attended the hearing in person.
- The tenant appeared with his legal representative Mr Ross. Mr Ross had previously been approved to represent his client.
- The case was first heard on 19 March 2025. A summary was confirmed, issues outlined that need determined and directions made in relation to further applications that the parties indicated would be filed.
- At today’s hearing Mr Ross confirmed that he had not field a cross application because he didn’t know what quantum he would be seeking, as it was for the return of his clients property, and he didn’t know what would be missing until he had his clients belongings returned. Background:
- The tenancy commenced on the 27 July 2023 with weekly rental of $350.00. A tenancy agreement was not signed however it appears that this was an oversight and when realised, a tenancy agreement was delivered to the prison and Mr Cormack signed the Tenancy Agreement and it was returned to the landlord at the end of 2024. There was no bond paid.
- The tenant was arrested in June 2024. I am advised that his application for bail was declined and a further application for Electric Monitoring Bail (EMBail) was refused at the end of July 2024. This effectively meaning that the tenant would not be receiving the opportunity to get bail until sentence. The tenant was sentenced in February 2025.
- The landlord claims that at the time of the arrest the tenant still believed he would be getting bail, He was on remand and the extension date for his bail release kept changing. The landlord claims that the tenant never gave notice yet wished to retain the tenancy believing he was going to be granted bail.
- The landlord then claimed that they signed on to be the agent for the tenant with Work and Income at the end of 2024 to be able to discuss the payment of his rent, as having seen a letter dated 27 June 2024 they tried to get approval for the rent to be paid whilst he was in custody.
- Having been advised on 10 June 2025 that the payments would not be paid the landlord emailed the tenant advising that the tenant would need to sought out the payments himself. The Claim:
- The issues for determination are: a) What is the amount of the rent areas owing? b) Should storage costs of $9091.31, being a $1166.80 invoice for fixing a truck, and $7924.51 for the storage unit be paid by the tenant to the landlord? c) Should a disposal order be made for the tenants’ items in the storage unit? d) Should the Filing fee be reimbursed to the landlord?
What is the amount of the rent areas owing?
- Whilst the landlord originally sought a different amount in the original application, all parties agreed that when breaking it down the claim was for the rent until 24 December 2024 of $8650.00. (the amount had included storage fees)
- While the landlord sought a higher figure, the landlord increased the rent by $15.00 in August 2024, whilst the tenant was still in prison. The landlord claims that this was because rates had gone up significantly.
- Section 24 of the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) sets out the process the landlord must follow if they sought to increase rent.
- The landlord must give the tenant notice in writing of the rent increase. The notice must state the amount of the increase, the date the increased rent will become payable. The notice must be given at least sixty days before the increase takes effect.
- None of the legal requirements were carried out in relation to the rent increase in this case. The landlord stated the increase was discussed in phone conversations with the tenant. However, this is insufficient. Therefore, I have recalculated the alleged arrears using the figure of $350 per week up until 24 December 2025, a total of $8650.00.
- The tenant claims that the landlord knew that the tenant did not receive Electronic Monitoring Bail. (EBail). The landlords had been to the property to assist in getting the property suitable for the application, so they would have known he was not returning when it was declined. However, the landlord states they did not realise this was the end of the applications for bail and that he still maybe returning.
- However, I am concerned that they thought this would be the case after remaining in custody having pleaded guilty in about August 2024 and being sentenced in February 2025.
- The tenant states that he was under the impression from the landlord that his rent would be paid for by WINZ given the landlord had told him it would be and not to worry about it. He therefore does not accept that he was still liable for rent.
- The tenant claims that at the very least when EMBail was declined at the end of July the tenancy should have come to an end on 1 August 2025. He relied on what he was told, that the rent would be paid up to six months.
- The tenant claims he was unaware of the email the landlord sent him on the 10 June 2025 stating he was liable for his back rent. I do not accept that he would not have received that correspondence. In any event this was after the date the rent was claimed for.
- The tenant claims that he became aware that the tenancy had ended when he rang the landlord after Christmas, about the 26 th December and was told the landlords were at his house cleaning it and putting items into storage. He claims that he said they should have told him because he would have arranged people to clean it and store his belongings.
- The landlord claims the end date of the Tenancy was the 24 December because they thought Work and Income would pay six months of rent and that from the time of the arrest until 24 December was a six month time frame.
- The Residential Tenancies Act outlines very clearly how a landlord or a tenant is able to bring a tenancy agreement to an end. Neither the landlord nor the tenant took the appropriate action to end the tenancy. There were a number of options to the landlord to bring this tenancy to an end and for the tenant too, the very least, an agreement to end the tenancy could have occurred, avoiding ongoing rent costs and storage costs.
- The tenant claims he thought the tenancy should have come to an end around July when EMBail was denied and would accept the 1 st August as the end date, yet it did not at the time because he relied on the landlord advising him that Work and Income would pay for six months and he need not worry. He states he would have been able to store his belongings and had the people available to remove his belongings had he known.
- The landlord chose that the tenancy would end on 24 December, the end of the 6 month period that they believed they would have rent paid, then arranged for the storage of the tenants’ belongings. The landlord did not consent to the release the belongings until the rent was paid.
- Both parties must take steps to mitigate their losses. The landlord should have been aware that the tenant was not returning, far earlier than the December date, when they chose to end the tenancy. Whilst they were under the mistaken belief that they would be paid for six months, they were wrong and whilst the tenant thought the Landlords interpretation of this was right, it was wrong.
- Having considered all of the evidence I find that the earliest the tenancy could come to an end, protecting both parties from additional costs would have been the tenant providing 21 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy.
- The tenant accepts the tenancy should have come to an end on 1 August, that may have been the earliest that notice could have been given. Therefore, on the balance of probabilities I find that the tenancy should have been terminated on 21 days’ notice after the 1 August. Taking into consideration 21 days’ notice, rent of $350 per week and part payment of $100 that was made for the week of 18-25 July, the amount for the rent outstanding is therefore calculated as $1650.00 as at 22 August 2025.
- I find that this is the amount that is therefore owed by the tenant to the landlord. Should storage costs of $9091.31, being a $1166.80 invoice for fixing a truck, and $7924.51 for the storage unit be paid by the tenant to the landlord?
- The landlord advised the tenant that they were placing his belongings into a storage unit when they say the tenancy ended. The Residential Tenancies Act again outlines the obligations of a landlord in relation to disposal or storage of tenant’s belongings.
- The law is as follows:
- If the landlord seeks the disposal of goods, the tenant left at the premises at the end of the tenancy. The landlord must a. be unable to contact the tenant. b. is unable to agree with the tenant on a period for the tenant to collect the goods. c. agreed on a period for the tenant was to collect the goods, but the tenant failed to collect the goods within that time.
- And It is not practicable for the landlord to the return the goods to the tenant. The value of the goods is below the cost of storing, transporting and selling them. Therefore, the landlord may dispose of the goods. See sections 62(3)(b), 62B(2) and (3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- If some of the goods have a value above the cost of storing, transporting and selling them. The landlord must sell these goods at a reasonable market price.
- The landlord may deduct any amount owing from the sale proceeds, and must pay the balance to the Bond Centre. See sections 62(3)(b), 62B(2),(3) and (4), 62C(1)(b),(2) and (3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986). The landlord may dispose of any goods that have no saleable value.
- The invoice for the storage was rendered from the landlord’s own business.
- The first time the landlord made an application in relation to the disposal of tenants’ goods is this current application and this was field on 3 November 2025. Eleven months after placing them in storage. The tenant was unable to retain his goods until the invoice and rent was paid. The landlord now seeks an order to dispose of the tenants’ goods. If this was done at the outset such costs would not have been incurred as the tenant would have arranged to collect his belongings.
- The tenant states he did not consent to the storage of the goods and could have arranged to collect the belongs but was unable to because the landlord would not release his items until he had what was owed to him paid. This was also stated to the Tribunal at the hearing in March.
- An invoice was rendered to the tenant, again from the applicant’s own business for work carried out on the tenant’s truck. Again, this work was not consented to. The tenant seeks the reimbursement of this amount.
- I discussed the issue of Jurisdiction for this invoice and the parties agreed I could deal with this invoice as part of the storage costs to enable the amount to fall within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. This invoice amount was deducted from the amount the truck was sold for. The landlord sold it on behalf of the tenant to assist him.
- There is no information regarding how much the work that was carried out possibly increased the value of the truck and therefore I do not accept it should be reimbursed. The tenant arguably got more for the truck because of this work being completed.
- I am not satisfied that the claim to reimburse is therefore proven.
- The invoice for the storage unit was for the end of December 2024 until 4 September 2025.
- The invoice to the tenant was again from the landlords business who owned the storage unit and claimed that the items would not be returned until the tenant paid the outstanding rent and storage fees.
- The storage fee was $100 per week and included the charge of 4 people to carry out the removal of items ($3,067.68) two being friends of the tenants. However, they have not been paid and the landlord said when he gets ‘paid’ from this, the hearing, he will pay them, alternatively if he doesn’t get money from the hearing, they were the tenant’s responsibility being his friends.
- When the case was before the Tribunal on the 19 March it is recorded that the tenant wanted to uplift his goods from the container. The landlord opposed this saying that he would like to retain possession of the goods so that in the event he is successful tin the Tribunal that he can sell the good to repay any money owing to him.
- Adjudicator Prowse drew the party’s attention to Section 33 of the Residential Tenancies Act that states that the landlord shall not be entitled to seize or dispose of any of the tenants’ goods as security for or in payment of any money owing by way of rent.
- However, that has not been taken on board and the property remains in the storage unit. Both parties acknowledging that no one reached out to arrange to get them back before today’s hearing.
- Whilst the landlord in this application seeks an order for disposal, there is agreement that the items will be collected on Sunday 21 st June.
- It is surprising to say the least that the law in relation to the Residential Tenancies Act has not been complied with in this case, had it been these issues would not have escalated the costs. The tenant, even having been released from Prison on 20 August 2025 has failed to make an application to the Tribunal. The landlord having only made his on 3 November 2025. Both parties indicating at the last hearing in March that they were filing more applications and failed to do so. The tenant therefore must take some responsibility in relation to the storage fees. He knew his items were in storage and failed to take action.
- Having considered all of the submissions and evidence submitted, I do not accept that the full costs of the storage is proven. The tenant was able and was willing to arrange to have his items collected when he was advised in December that the landlord was taking this action.
- Given Section 33 of the Act, the landlord is not entitled to continue to retain the items and claim rental for the storage container therefore I am not prepared to award the full amount claimed.
- Had both parties followed their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act in relation to residential tenancies the costs and inconvenience to both parties would have been avoided. Neither party mitigated their losses.
- Having considered all of the evidence I make an award of four weeks cost of storage to be paid to the tenant.
Should the Filing fee be reimbursed to the landlord?
- The landlord has not been substantially successful, so I am not awarding the . filing fee
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s24, s33, s62(3)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: rent arrears
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5379683?
The tribunal order states: Selwyn Eric Cormack must pay Lyndon Charles Franks and Cathryn Mary
How much money was awarded in case 5379683?
Contribution To Storage (Four Weeks: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,650.00 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5379683?
The primary dispute was Rent arrears.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5379683?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13705011-Tribunal_Order.pdf.