How much money was awarded in case 4336754?

Cleaning: $1,080.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $224.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $240.00 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $678.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4336754?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4336754?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9108649-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4336754?

Cleaning: $1,080.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $224.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $240.00 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $678.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4336754?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4336754?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9108649-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

178 Woodlands Park Road, Titirangi, Auckland 0604 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4336754 — Cleanliness

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4336754?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4336754 — net $3,172.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lawns and Garden work	$100.00	Lawns and Garden work
Meth testing/Cleaning	$1,080.00	Meth testing/Cleaning
Electrical fittings replacement/repair: Plus, lights/ panel heater	$224.00	Electrical fittings replacement/repair: Plus, lights/ panel heater
Lock/key replacement	$240.00	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: carpet	$250.00	Repairs: carpet
Exemplary damages	$600.00	Exemplary damages
__________________________________________________________________________________ 43367542 Rubbish removal	$678.50	__________________________________________________________________________________ 43367542 Rubbish removal
Net award	$3,172.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,172.50

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

Anna Gwyneth Wood to pay Auckland Property Management Solutions Limited Acting Agent for Clement Sylvester Sequeira & Gretel Maria Sequeira $3172.50 as calculated and shown in table below.

The order dated 24 February 2023 awarded $808.25 of the bond money to be refunded to the landlord for rent arrears, filing fee and water bills. If this was paid out as expected, then $1831.75 should remain at the bond centre. If the partial bond has not been paid to the landlord, then all the bond must be refunded to the landlord.

After the refund of the full bond the tenant still owes the landlord $1340.75 which is due immediately. DescriptionLandlord Lawns and Garden work$100.00 Meth testing/Cleaning$1,080.00 Electrical fittings replacement/repair: Plus, lights/ panel heater $224.00 Lock/key replacement$240.00 Repairs: carpet$250.00 Exemplary damages$600.00 Rubbish removal$678.50 Total award$3172.50 Minus remaining Bond Total owing to landlord $1831.75 $1340.75

I am dismissing the landlords claim for drycleaning the thermal drapes. The invoice for the drycleaning is dated 16 May 2022, which is three months after the tenants left the property and one month after the new tenant took over the tenancy. The landlord has not proven that the mould on the curtain occurred during the tenant’s tenancy.

I am dismissing the landlords claim for $747.50 in cleaning costs. The reason for it is set out below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord in person and the tenant on the phone. On the morning of the hearing the tenant sought a teleconference, claiming to be unwell and unable to appear in person. As there had already been a number of adjournments it was appropriate to deal with the hearing with the tenant on the phone to finally resolve the claims.

There has been a long history of adjournments, on 16 August 2022 Adjudicator Yi adjourned the hearing as the tenant claimed to be unwell. On 28 September 2022 Adjudicator Kee adjourned the hearing as the tenant claimed to be unwell. On 7 December 2022 Adjudicator Smith adjourned the hearing as the tenant claimed to have tested positive for COVID-19.

On 24 February 2023, the claims were before me. The landlord appeared on the phone and the tenant did not appear at all. I dealt with the rent arrears, water rates and filing fee and ordered that the tenant pay these debts from the bond. I asked that the remaining bond of $1831.75 remain at the bond centre until the completion of these claims. I directed that the remaining claims be set down for hearing before me. Today I am dealing with the landlords remaining claims.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii) -(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1) (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. Cleaning

The landlord provided photos and an invoice for the cleaning claim. The cleaning was done on 15 March 2022 well over one month after the tenancy had terminated. The photos show dust and spiders and spider webs all over the house. While I accept that there are other photos that show a property that is not reasonably clean in some areas, I cannot separate out what is as a result of being left for over a month and what was present at the end of the tenancy.

I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for the cleaning costs., Keys

The tenant did not return all the keys. The landlord claimed that there were 4 working keys given to the tenant but only two were returned. The landlord provided a photograph of 4 keys given to the tenant at the start of the tenancy and an invoice from Lockman Ltd dated 25 February 2022 for $360.00.

The tenant says that one of the keys did not work on any door in the house. I note that the photograph of the keys has a question mark over one of the keys. This would tend to persuade me that the tenant may have been correct about one key that did not work on this house. I have reduced the amount claimed to $240 as the tenant did provide half of the keys back.

I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for key and lock replacement. Rubbish

The tenant did not remove the rubbish from the property at the end of the tenancy. The landlord has provided the Tribunal with photos of the rubbish left in the rubbish bins, and outside the house. The landlord has also provided an invoice from Junk to Go dated 7 March 2022.

I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for rubbish removal. Lawn mowing

The landlord has provided photos of the overgrown lawns and weeds and an invoice from Carl Thacker dated 22 February 2022 for $200.00. This was only one week after the end of the tenancy and clearly show that the lawns and gardens had not been maintained.

The tenant said that she never touched the vegetable garden as it was overgrown when she took possession of the property, and it had rubbish through it.

Regardless the lawns were long and the weeding throughout the property was scruffy. The tenancy agreement states that the tenant is to keep the lawns and gardens in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.

I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for the lawn and gardener maintenance. Carpet patch

The landlord provided an invoice from Onehunga Carpets and Rugs dated 15 March 2022 for $250.00 for a carpet repair. There was also a photo of carpet with a stain on it. The tenant is not disputing that the stain is pet urine.

The landlord had a patch of the stained carpet removed after cleaning failed to remedy the smell.

I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for the carpet repair. Missing chattels

The electric panel heater was missing at the end of the tenancy.

The landlord had to replace light bulbs at the end of the tenancy.

The landlord provided the Tribunal with an invoice from Rainbow Electrical Ltd dated 9 March 2022 for $745.20. This invoice was for picking up a new panel heater from Botany and installing it. The heater was hard wired, and a new double power point put in. The invoice was also for “special” halogen light bulbs, installing them throughout the house and replacing LED lights.

The panel heater that was originally in the property was about 3-4 years old according to the landlord. The tenant disputes this and says the panel heater was old and making noises. She was concerned that it was dangerous, so she removed it from the wall and throw it out.

The original panel heater was not hard wired but was a plug-in type. The electrician that replaced the original heater claimed that a hard-wired heater must be installed. When questioned about why the tenant should be responsible for the cost of electrical work to hard wired a new heater, the landlord stated that had the tenant not removed the old heater this work would not be required.

I am not satisfied that the tenant should be responsible for the full cost of this invoice. The tenancy agreement states that a tenant is responsible for the replacement of the bulbs. I find the tenant should pay $40.00 for the two heat lamps, and $24.00 which is 8 halogen bulbs @$3 each.

When asked about the cost of a panel heater the landlord stated that the one that was previously there was approximately $200.00. As the heater was 3-4 years old, I am taking 40% depreciation off the cost and awarding the landlord $160.00 for the heater. The total refund for the heater and light bulbs is $224.00. I order the tenant to pay the landlord $224.00 for these claims. Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises caused by methamphetamine contamination?

The landlord seeks compensation for methamphetamine (meth) contamination and the cost of testing. The landlord has provided an invoice for $1080.00 from Buyers Choice Home Inspection dated 10 March 2022 and a detailed meth testing report.

Prior to the start of the tenancy the landlord had conducted a methamphetamine (meth) Test on the property. The report dated 24 April 2019 was provided to the Tribunal. The summary of the laboratory results states that there was no meth or precursors were detected in the property.

The landlord engaged Buyers Choice Home Inspections to conduct a meth screening test during this tenancy. The field composite test was carried out on 15 February 2022. Two field composite samples were collected and sent to Hill Laboratories to complete a laboratory composite screening test for meth and its precursors. This report detected meth within the property.

As a result of the screening test results the landlord carried out a secondary and more detailed test. The results from the second testing showed that meth was present within the premises, but the results are below the recommended guidelines meaning that no further testing or decontamination was required.

A landlord wanting to recover damages from a tenant for damage must prove that the alleged damage 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.

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.

I find that the evidence establishes there was at least some methamphetamine consumption during the tenancy and at the premises, most likely either by the tenants or someone else they permitted to be on the property.

Therefore, the tenant is liable for the cost of the meth testing. I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for the meth testing.

Were the Premises used for an unlawful purpose?

The landlord claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by consuming methamphetamine at the property. I have already found that it is more likely than not that methamphetamine consumption took place during the tenancy at the premises.

A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A) (c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

It is an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 for any person to have in their possession or consume any controlled drug and to allow any premises to be used for the commission of an offence under that Act and (ss 7 and 12). “Methamphetamine” is included as a controlled drug under Schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Act.

The Tenancy Tribunal has previously found, and I agree, that the consumption of methamphetamine on premises amounts to the use of those premises for an unlawful purpose, in breach of section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 1

In view of my finding that methamphetamine was more likely than not consumed at the premises, I find that the premises were used or permitted to be used for an unlawful purpose by the tenants.

I therefore find the tenants have committed an unlawful act. 1 See, for eg, Methven v Adams [2019] NZTT North Shore 4165361

The Residential Tenancies Act has recently been amended so that the upper limit of any award for exemplary damages under this head is now $1800.

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

I find that an award of $600 is appropriate to reflect the public interest in stamping out methamphetamine consumption, the fact that consumption is a deliberate act and the stress and frustration it would have undoubtedly caused the elderly owner.

I also award the cost of the individual testing that was undertaken by Buyers Choice Home Inspections. The landlord incurred this cost as a direct result of the tenant’s breach of s 40(2)(b). Had the outgoing report not concluded there was evidence of consumption then the landlord would not have had to undertaking the further testing.

The bond to be refunded to the landlord to offset the debt owed by the tenant to the landlord.

The filing fee was reimbursed in the 24 February 2023 order.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4336754 — net $3,172.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lawns and Garden work	$100.00	Lawns and Garden work
Meth testing/Cleaning	$1,080.00	Meth testing/Cleaning
Electrical fittings replacement/repair: Plus, lights/ panel heater	$224.00	Electrical fittings replacement/repair: Plus, lights/ panel heater
Lock/key replacement	$240.00	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: carpet	$250.00	Repairs: carpet
Exemplary damages	$600.00	Exemplary damages
__________________________________________________________________________________ 43367542 Rubbish removal	$678.50	__________________________________________________________________________________ 43367542 Rubbish removal
Net award	$3,172.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,172.50