What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4601190 about?

The tribunal order states: Rabin Te Atawhairangi Ripeka Ngamiri Kiore must pay [The landlord/s] $69.60

How much money was awarded in case 4601190?

Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing: $624.00 awarded to landlord; Walls And Repaint: $1,800.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $125.16 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4601190?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4601190?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10026263-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4601190 about?

The tribunal order states: Rabin Te Atawhairangi Ripeka Ngamiri Kiore must pay [The landlord/s] $69.60

How much money was awarded in case 4601190?

Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing: $624.00 awarded to landlord; Walls And Repaint: $1,800.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $125.16 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4601190?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4601190?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10026263-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

226A Henderson Valley Road, Henderson, Auckland 0612 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4601190 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4601190 — net $69.60 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$500.00	Cleaning
Repairs: Walls and repaint	$1,800.00	Repairs: Walls and repaint
Water rates	$125.16	Water rates
Meth testing	$624.00	Meth testing
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$69.60
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$69.60

The landlord attended the hearing, the respondent did not.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed water rates?

The tenancy ended on 17 May 2023. The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $125.16.

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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord claims the tenant did not return the keys.

The landlord has established that the tenant used methamphetamine at the property and further testing was required to establish whether or not the premises required decontamination. The levels established that decontamination was not required.

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.

The landlord produced photographs that show a recently renovated property at the start of the tenancy in January 2021, and the same property in May 2023 at the end of the tenancy. At the end of the tenancy there is much rubbish in and around the property and damage to the interior walls including many pen marks through out the property. The carpet has marks on it, although the photographs apparently don’t show the extent of the marking. The house is also dirty throughout which is particularly noticeable in the bathroom and kitchen area, both of which are small.

It is for the applicant, in this case the landlord, to prove their case on the balance of probabilities, which is the civil standard. This means I do not have to be completely certain, but I must be satisfied that what is alleged is “more probable than not”.

In support of claims for cleaning, rubbish removal, curtain replacement, damage to the walls, lock replacement, skip bin hire and methamphetamine (“meth”) decontamination the landlord produced an Invoice for $27,209.00 from [renovation company] dated 17/05/2023, and also an invoice for $27,924.00 from [The landlord/s] dated 20 May 2023. These amounts include $10,000.00 for meth decontamination.

The landlord explained that the [renovation company] invoice is the invoice charged to their company and the [renovation company] invoice is charged to the tenant. The two invoices are for the same work, and the discrepancies are due to the meth test amounts not being included on the [renovation company] invoice. The landlord confirmed both invoices were for work that had been completed before the invoice was issued and were not quotes. Both invoices consist of a list of discreet amounts.

The landlord explained that all the work for cleaning and repairing the property, including painting, replacing carpet, doing the meth testing, and cleaning was completed by 17 May 2023, (which was also the end date for the tenancy) because the tenant had moved out of the premises by 11 May 2023 and the landlord was able to make an immediate start on the works from that date.

The landlord produced four primary pieces of information regarding the meth testing and meth levels at the property: a. A certificate dated 17 January 2022 (prior to the tenancy) that states the property has been screened for methamphetamine and is within Ministry of Health guidelines. b. [Meth testing company 1’s] Certificate of Analysis stating the Date Received as 18/05/2023 and the Date Completed as 19/05/2023. c. [Meth testing company 2’s] invoice for 1 x Laboratory Composite Test Analysis for $220.00, dated 31/05/2023. d. [Meth testing company 2’s] invoice for 8 x Laboratory Composite to Discrete Individual Test for $624.00 dated 15/06/2023.

These invoice amounts correspond to the two invoice amounts being claimed on the landlord’s amalgamated invoice. However the dates of the two [Meth testing company 2] invoices are fourteen days and twenty-nine days respectively, after the date of the landlord’s amalgamated invoice.

[Meth testing company 1’s] Certificate of Analysis also states that the date of receipt for analysis was after the date of the landlord’s invoice.

The dates of the invoices and analysis are inconsistent with the landlords oral evidence that all the work was completed before 17 May 2023. It is therefore unavoidable for me to conclude that the landlord’s invoice is unreliable, and is not actually an invoice but something more akin to a schedule of costs.

No other primary invoices have been provided to establish the cost of “clean- up”.

From this schedule of costs I am prepared to accept certain information that is more likely than not to be accurate. That is, I am prepared to accept the house cleaning and gardening costs and that this work was undertaken, and the repair and repaint of the walls was similarly undertaken, without further information being provided. This work is undertaken on a routine basis between tenancies. I accept that this work may have been undertaken by people who work directly for the landlord and so no discreet invoice was produced.

The skip bins, the locks, the meth decontamination, the carpet and the curtains are claims that I believe would have involved other companies who would have produced invoices for their services. These primary invoices have not been provided and I find the claims not proved, and dismiss them accordingly.

Further to the landlord’s claim for meth decontamination: The landlord stated that the 8 composite samples average of 11.6μg was significantly higher than the “government level” of 1.5μg.

In New Zealand in recent years the generally accepted level of meth residues below which no damage is deemed to have occurred, is 15μg. This is the level that the Gluckman report recommended for situations that do not include the manufacture of meth.

There is no allegation of meth manufacture in this case.

The 1.5μg level that the landlord refers to as the “government level” may be a reference to the New Zealand Standards Committee maximum acceptable level which is that amount. However as already mentioned, and for more than one reason, the Gluckman level of 15μg is an accepted level below which damage is not deemed to have occurred.

For this reason, even if invoices had been produced proving decontamination services had been provided at the property, this would not have been enough on its own to result in an award for damages.

The first meth test undertaken showed meth present at an undetermined level and required the property to be tested further. This first test is a test that all rental properties should be subjected to between tenancies, and I do not make an award of compensation for it.

The second meth test was required because the first meth test showed meth was present and the level needed to be determined. This was the 8 x Composite test invoice for $624.00 which presumably relates to the 8 Sample Composite Certificate of Analysis which shows the property to be within safe limits. However, because this test was required due to the tenant’s conduct, I do make an award for the amount of this invoice.

Because the landlord has been substantially successful with their claim, I make an order reimbursing the filing fee.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4601190 — net $69.60 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$500.00	Cleaning
Repairs: Walls and repaint	$1,800.00	Repairs: Walls and repaint
Water rates	$125.16	Water rates
Meth testing	$624.00	Meth testing
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$69.60
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$69.60

The landlord attended the hearing, the respondent did not.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed water rates?

The tenancy ended on 17 May 2023. The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $125.16.

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

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord claims the tenant did not return the keys.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

[Meth testing company 1’s] Certificate of Analysis also states that the date of receipt for analysis was after the date of the landlord’s invoice.

No other primary invoices have been provided to establish the cost of “clean- up”.

Further to the landlord’s claim for meth decontamination: The landlord stated that the 8 composite samples average of 11.6μg was significantly higher than the “government level” of 1.5μg.

There is no allegation of meth manufacture in this case.

For this reason, even if invoices had been produced proving decontamination services had been provided at the property, this would not have been enough on its own to result in an award for damages.

Because the landlord has been substantially successful with their claim, I make an order reimbursing the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4601190 — Property damage at 226A Henderson Valley Road, Henderson, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4601190 — Property damage at 226A Henderson Valley Road, Henderson, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed 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 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