What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4407020 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4407020?

Clothesline And Install: $307.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $140.71 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $137.23 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Remote For Air Conditioning: $89.08 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,950.00 awarded to landlord; 3x Doors (During Tenancy: $655.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Fan And Install: $454.41 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,173.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $420.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $32.08 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $370.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4407020?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4407020?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/8658591-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4407020 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4407020?

Clothesline And Install: $307.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $140.71 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $137.23 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Remote For Air Conditioning: $89.08 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,950.00 awarded to landlord; 3x Doors (During Tenancy: $655.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Fan And Install: $454.41 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,173.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $420.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $32.08 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $370.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4407020?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4407020?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/8658591-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 115 Panama Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4407020 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4407020 — net $6,994.95 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,950.00	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Meth testing/Cleaning: Insurance excess	$2,500.00	Meth testing/Cleaning: Insurance excess
Replace furnishings: Fan and Install	$454.41	Replace furnishings: Fan and Install
Rubbish removal: and cleaning interior	$2,173.50	Rubbish removal: and cleaning interior
Rubbish removal: Exterior bin hire	$420.00	Rubbish removal: Exterior bin hire
Rubbish removal: Cleaning Exterior	$345.00	Rubbish removal: Cleaning Exterior
Remote for air conditioning	$89.08	Remote for air conditioning
Clothesline and install	$307.00	Clothesline and install
Lock/key replacement: During tenancy	$140.71	Lock/key replacement: During tenancy
Lock/key replacement: End of tenancy	$137.23	Lock/key replacement: End of tenancy
Water rates: up to August	$370.50	Water rates: up to August
Repairs: 3x doors (during tenancy	$655.00	Repairs: 3x doors (during tenancy
Replace smoke alarms	$32.08	Replace smoke alarms
Net award	$6,994.95
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,994.95

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Queenlizz Anderson must pay [The landlord/s] $6,994.95 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing the tenant did not.
On the 6 October 2022 the Tribunal ordered termination of the tenancy for abandonment and gave the landlord immediate possession of the premises.
The Tribunal in its order also gave leave for the landlord to file for a continuation of the claim to allow the landlord to file claims relating to end of the tenancy. The landlord filed further claims and a continuation on the 6 December 2022.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears to 29 September 2022, water arrears compensation for cleaning, rubbish removal, decontamination due to methamphetamine being used at the premises, replacement furnishings and smoke alarms and damage to the property refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The has only sought rent until the 29 September 2022 as after that date he was insured for rent arrears and has been paid out for rent lost by his insurer.
The landlord provided water invoices and the correspondence to the tenant showing the amount owed by the tenant at the end of August 2022.

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.
The tenant did not return the keys.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: remote for air- conditioning unit, ceiling fan remote (causing a replacement of the ceiling fan). The landlord had to replace light bulbs and smoke alarm batteries.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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.
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. Methamphetamine contamination
The Tribunal has previously found that damage occurs, and decontamination is necessary when levels of methamphetamine contamination are above 15μg/100cm 2 . Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4797. 1 This is the level adopted by the authors of what is colloquially known as the Gluckman report dated 29 May 2018 (“the Gluckman Report”). 2 The Gluckman Report concludes that there is no evidence of risk of harm from second or third hand 1 Full Circle Real Estate v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947- CIV2018-009-2490 2 Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposure, risk levels and interpretation of standards.” 29 May 2018 - Professor Gluckman – Prime Minister’s chief science advisor; (The Gluckman Report). exposure to methamphetamine residue measured at or less than 15μg/100cm 2 unless there is evidence to suggest that the premises have been used for manufacture.
Neither the Gluckman Report nor the previously used New Zealand Standard NZS 8510:2017 3 (NZS) which recommended a level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 are embedded into law, they both represent guidelines and are not regulatory.
In the aforementioned Full Circle Real Estate v Piper his Honour Judge Kellar gave consideration as to whether the Tribunal erred in applying the Gluckman level of 15μg/100cm 2 over the NZS of 1.5μg/100cm 2 and found that; “it would have been bold for the adjudicator to have ignored that report (the Gluckman Report) in favour of the New Zealand Standard given that the Gluckman report represents the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination in dwellings.” 4 Therefore, the Tribunal continues to adopt a level of 15μg/100cm 2 as a level that requires remediation for contamination.
At the end of the tenancy the landlord had the property tested for methamphetamine. The landlord provided the test results for the methamphetamine testing which showed a level of 16ug/ 100cm2 in one result from a Bedroom. I am satisfied that the levels in the bedroom were above the level of 15ug/100cm3 and therefore decontamination was required.
I am satisfied that it is likely the tenants or her invitees contaminated the premises because: a) Whilst the landlord did not have pre tenancy testing done, the landlord and his partner had lived at the premises and had not used methamphetamine. The landlord had one set of tenants before this tenant and the landlord told me that they were a church going family and he had never seen any behaviour by that family which would cause him to suspect methamphetamine use. b) The neighbours had reported to the landlord that they suspected drugs being use at the property, they reported a number of people coming and going from the property. There were numerous Police calls to the property. c) On one occasion when the landlord had been at the property for an inspection, the landlord had observed the tenant being very emotional. The tenant’s boyfriend who was present had said to the tenant in front of the landlord “you need to get off the drugs, you are just coming down.” d) Three doors had been installed at the property in late August 2022, shortly before the tenancy ended. The doors were new, and the landlord submitted 3 NZS 8510:2017 New Zealand Standard – testing and decontamination of methamphetamine - contaminated properties. 4 Full Circle Real Estate v Piper at [36] that they should have had no evidence of methamphetamine. All doors showed a presence of methamphetamine but in very low levels. e) The highest concentration of methamphetamine was in a room only used by adults for sleeping. f) Two smoke alarms had been removed.
The landlord is insured for methamphetamine contamination. He seeks the excess of $2500.00. I am satisfied that this is a reasonable amount that the tenant should pay. Whilst the only reading above 15ug was in one bedroom, I am satisfied that the tenant should be liable for the insurance excess for the decontamination of the whole house because the condition of the carpet etc of the house would have required compensation even if it had not been contaminated. In other words, it is likely that the tenant would have had to pay for replacement furnishings due to damage, even if they had not been contaminated. Other damage
The tenant also damaged the clothesline. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
During the tenancy the tenant accepted that they had damaged three doors, the landlord provided me with evidence that the tenants had taken responsibility for the damage, but had not made payment for the three doors that had been replaced.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have 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. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Name suppression and filing fee
Because [The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee and I grant name suppression which was requested at the hearing.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4407020 — net $6,994.95 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,950.00	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Meth testing/Cleaning: Insurance excess	$2,500.00	Meth testing/Cleaning: Insurance excess
Replace furnishings: Fan and Install	$454.41	Replace furnishings: Fan and Install
Rubbish removal: and cleaning interior	$2,173.50	Rubbish removal: and cleaning interior
Rubbish removal: Exterior bin hire	$420.00	Rubbish removal: Exterior bin hire
Rubbish removal: Cleaning Exterior	$345.00	Rubbish removal: Cleaning Exterior
Remote for air conditioning	$89.08	Remote for air conditioning
Clothesline and install	$307.00	Clothesline and install
Lock/key replacement: During tenancy	$140.71	Lock/key replacement: During tenancy
Lock/key replacement: End of tenancy	$137.23	Lock/key replacement: End of tenancy
Water rates: up to August	$370.50	Water rates: up to August
Repairs: 3x doors (during tenancy	$655.00	Repairs: 3x doors (during tenancy
Replace smoke alarms	$32.08	Replace smoke alarms
Net award	$6,994.95
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,994.95

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Queenlizz Anderson must pay [The landlord/s] $6,994.95 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing the tenant did not.
On the 6 October 2022 the Tribunal ordered termination of the tenancy for abandonment and gave the landlord immediate possession of the premises.
The Tribunal in its order also gave leave for the landlord to file for a continuation of the claim to allow the landlord to file claims relating to end of the tenancy. The landlord filed further claims and a continuation on the 6 December 2022.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears to 29 September 2022, water arrears compensation for cleaning, rubbish removal, decontamination due to methamphetamine being used at the premises, replacement furnishings and smoke alarms and damage to the property refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The has only sought rent until the 29 September 2022 as after that date he was insured for rent arrears and has been paid out for rent lost by his insurer.
The landlord provided water invoices and the correspondence to the tenant showing the amount owed by the tenant at the end of August 2022.

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.
The tenant did not return the keys.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: remote for air- conditioning unit, ceiling fan remote (causing a replacement of the ceiling fan). The landlord had to replace light bulbs and smoke alarm batteries.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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.
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. Methamphetamine contamination
The Tribunal has previously found that damage occurs, and decontamination is necessary when levels of methamphetamine contamination are above 15μg/100cm 2 . Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4797. 1 This is the level adopted by the authors of what is colloquially known as the Gluckman report dated 29 May 2018 (“the Gluckman Report”). 2 The Gluckman Report concludes that there is no evidence of risk of harm from second or third hand 1 Full Circle Real Estate v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947- CIV2018-009-2490 2 Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposure, risk levels and interpretation of standards.” 29 May 2018 - Professor Gluckman – Prime Minister’s chief science advisor; (The Gluckman Report). exposure to methamphetamine residue measured at or less than 15μg/100cm 2 unless there is evidence to suggest that the premises have been used for manufacture.
Neither the Gluckman Report nor the previously used New Zealand Standard NZS 8510:2017 3 (NZS) which recommended a level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 are embedded into law, they both represent guidelines and are not regulatory.
In the aforementioned Full Circle Real Estate v Piper his Honour Judge Kellar gave consideration as to whether the Tribunal erred in applying the Gluckman level of 15μg/100cm 2 over the NZS of 1.5μg/100cm 2 and found that; “it would have been bold for the adjudicator to have ignored that report (the Gluckman Report) in favour of the New Zealand Standard given that the Gluckman report represents the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination in dwellings.” 4 Therefore, the Tribunal continues to adopt a level of 15μg/100cm 2 as a level that requires remediation for contamination.
At the end of the tenancy the landlord had the property tested for methamphetamine. The landlord provided the test results for the methamphetamine testing which showed a level of 16ug/ 100cm2 in one result from a Bedroom. I am satisfied that the levels in the bedroom were above the level of 15ug/100cm3 and therefore decontamination was required.
I am satisfied that it is likely the tenants or her invitees contaminated the premises because: a) Whilst the landlord did not have pre tenancy testing done, the landlord and his partner had lived at the premises and had not used methamphetamine. The landlord had one set of tenants before this tenant and the landlord told me that they were a church going family and he had never seen any behaviour by that family which would cause him to suspect methamphetamine use. b) The neighbours had reported to the landlord that they suspected drugs being use at the property, they reported a number of people coming and going from the property. There were numerous Police calls to the property. c) On one occasion when the landlord had been at the property for an inspection, the landlord had observed the tenant being very emotional. The tenant’s boyfriend who was present had said to the tenant in front of the landlord “you need to get off the drugs, you are just coming down.” d) Three doors had been installed at the property in late August 2022, shortly before the tenancy ended. The doors were new, and the landlord submitted 3 NZS 8510:2017 New Zealand Standard – testing and decontamination of methamphetamine - contaminated properties. 4 Full Circle Real Estate v Piper at [36] that they should have had no evidence of methamphetamine. All doors showed a presence of methamphetamine but in very low levels. e) The highest concentration of methamphetamine was in a room only used by adults for sleeping. f) Two smoke alarms had been removed.
The landlord is insured for methamphetamine contamination. He seeks the excess of $2500.00. I am satisfied that this is a reasonable amount that the tenant should pay. Whilst the only reading above 15ug was in one bedroom, I am satisfied that the tenant should be liable for the insurance excess for the decontamination of the whole house because the condition of the carpet etc of the house would have required compensation even if it had not been contaminated. In other words, it is likely that the tenant would have had to pay for replacement furnishings due to damage, even if they had not been contaminated. Other damage
The tenant also damaged the clothesline. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
During the tenancy the tenant accepted that they had damaged three doors, the landlord provided me with evidence that the tenants had taken responsibility for the damage, but had not made payment for the three doors that had been replaced.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have 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. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Name suppression and filing fee
Because [The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee and I grant name suppression which was requested at the hearing.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4407020 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1, 115 Panama Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4407020 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1, 115 Panama Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions