How much money was awarded in case 4613613?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $324.28 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $13,685.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $5,000.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $3,910.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $594.97 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $129.31 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4613613?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4613613?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9378025-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4613613?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $324.28 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $13,685.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $5,000.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $3,910.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $594.97 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $129.31 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4613613?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4613613?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9378025-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4613613 — Cleanliness

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4613613 about?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4613613 — net $27,964.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$300.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$324.28	Lawns and Garden work
Rubbish removal	$129.31	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$594.97	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: Wall damage	$1,500.00	Repairs: Wall damage
Meth testing/Cleaning: Testing	$3,910.00	Meth testing/Cleaning: Testing
Meth testing/Cleaning: Decontamination	$13,685.00	Meth testing/Cleaning: Decontamination
Meth testing/Cleaning: Replacement Blinds	$2,500.00	Meth testing/Cleaning: Replacement Blinds
Meth testing/Cleaning: Replacement Carpet	$5,000.00	Meth testing/Cleaning: Replacement Carpet
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$27,964.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$27,964.00

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.

Lisa Dianne Hunter must pay [The landlord/s] $27,964.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Cleaning$300.00 Lawns and Garden work$324.28 Rubbish removal$129.31 Lock/key replacement$594.97 Repairs: Wall damage$1,500.00 Meth testing/Cleaning: Testing$3,910.00 Meth testing/Cleaning: Decontamination$13,685.00 Meth testing/Cleaning: Replacement Blinds$2,500.00 Meth testing/Cleaning: Replacement Carpet$5,000.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$27,964.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$27,964.00

The landlord’s claims for exemplary damages are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Hunter attended by telephone.

The landlord has applied for compensation, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The hearing was adjourned to allow the landlord to provide further evidence or submissions in relation to the loss claimed by 5pm on 31 August 2023. The landlord did not do so, and I now issue the Tribunal’s final Order.

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 tenant did not return the keys.

The landlord provided photographs and invoices for cleaning, garden work, rubbish removal and key and garage door remote replacement and re-keying. 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 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.

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 claimed that wall damage (holes) and methamphetamine contamination occurred during the tenancy. The landlord has claimed the full cost of remediation. The landlord said that it is entitled to do so because the damage was intentional, but also noted that an insurance claim has been made and paid.

I have considered whether there is some limitation on the amount that could be ordered for intentional damage or damage resulting from an activity that is an imprisonable offence, if part of the cost has been covered already by an insurance payment. I conclude that the answer is no; the Tribunal can order the full remediation cost to be paid to the landlord even if on the face of it the landlord is receiving a double payment for part of the costs.

The general principle is that insurance payments do not reduce a person’s liability for damage (Anderson v James (1908) 28 NZLR 34). While the law of subrogation may require the landlord to return a part of the amount received to their insurer, that is a matter between the landlord and insurer, not a consideration for this Tribunal. Wall Damage

The landlord claimed $3,950 for wall damage and a hole in a door. The evidence establishes that there was some wall and door damage during the tenancy which was more than fair wear and tear and appears to be intentional. However, the photographs and description of the damage do not support a claim for $3,950. I award $1,500 for wall damage. Methamphetamine Testing & Decontamination

The landlord has applied for compensation for the cost methamphetamine testing and remediation.

The landlord must prove that the tenant caused or permitted the contamination, or that it was caused by someone at the premises with the tenant’s consent. The landlord must also prove that, as a result of the contamination, the premises have been damaged or are not reasonably clean.

Section 138C Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides for regulations to be made prescribing the maximum acceptable level for contaminants, but as yet no regulations have been made in relation to methamphetamine.

There are currently two sources of guidance on the issue of a safe level of methamphetamine contamination in residential premises. In June 2017 Standards New Zealand published NZS 8510:2017. The standard recommended a maximum contamination level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 for high use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture. It recommended a higher level of 3.8μg/100cm 2 for limited use areas.

In May 2018 Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the then Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor, released a report "Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards”. The report noted that there is a lack of scientific evidence to prove that low-level third-hand methamphetamine exposure poses a health risk to humans. It stated that guidelines should be proportionate to risk and that exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm 2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect. It recommended retaining the level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 where contamination resulted from manufacture, due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the process.

The Tribunal has generally applied the Gluckman recommendation. This approach was approved by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947.

More recently, in Barfoot and Thompson Limited v Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited [2021] NZTT Auckland 4276319, both parties presented scientific evidence at a hearing before the Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that there was no new scientific research to change the conclusions reached in the Gluckman Report.

In this case post tenancy testing established levels above 15μg/100cm 2 as follows: a. Dining/ Lounge – two samples 17.8 μg/100cm 2 and 21.5 μg/100cm 2 ; b. Stairs and hallway – 22.6 μg/100cm 2 ; c. Toilet – 20.3 μg/100cm 2 ; and d. Garage – 29.3 μg/100cm 2 and 26.9 μg/100cm 2 .

There were 11 other samples of less than 15 μg/100cm 2 including all three bedrooms, kitchen and the bathroom.

There were no pre-tenancy methamphetamine test results. The District Court has concluded that the lack of pre-let testing meant the landlord did not prove contamination occurred during ‘that’ tenancy. See Eren Limited v Martin and Kukuruzsnayak [2021] NZDC 15210; Brooking and Hodges v Imrie [2021] NZDC 16976

This property was new at the start of the tenancy. That fact, on its own, would not allow me to conclude that the contamination occurred during this tenancy. However, the tenant acknowledged that she was aware of methamphetamine use by some associates at the premises. Photographs and the methamphetamine testing reports also point to methamphetamine use during the tenancy. A report from Independent Drug Screening following testing on 3 May 2023 records: “There was no sign of any burn pits, chemical containers or other drug making equipment but there were drug utensils inside such as point bags, drug pipes etc.”

The landlord also referred to an “email of concern” regarding drug use at the property. The sender of the email is not identified and did not attend to give evidence. I place no weight on it.

On balance, and largely because of the tenant’s acknowledgement that she was aware of what was happening at the property, I conclude that the Methamphetamine contamination occurred during this tenancy. I also find that the damage was caused by someone at the premises with Ms Hunter’s consent.

The contaminated areas were the dining/lounge rooms, stairs and hallway, toilet and garage. However, it was recommended that the entire house should be cleaned. I accept that was a reasonable response to the levels of contamination and the excessive amount of contaminated debris throughout the property. I award the full amount claimed for decontamination and removal of contaminated items; $13,685. I also award testing costs of $3,910.

However, the landlord did not prove that all carpets and blinds needed to be replaced throughout the property. Carpet and blinds were replaced in all areas including those with test results below 15μg/100cm 2 such as all bedrooms. I also note that the test results for bedroom 3 were less than 1.5μg/100cm 2 . The evidence did not establish that it was more likely than not that full replacement (rather than cleaning) was required. The invoices provided did not include a breakdown by area. I award $2,500 for replacement blinds and $5,000 for replacement carpet. Exemplary Damages Claims

[The landlord/s] claims the tenant has sublet or parted with possession of the premises without their prior written consent and has used the premises unlawfully.

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.

In the absence of a specific provision in the tenancy agreement prohibiting subletting or parting of possession of the tenancy, a tenant may do so but only with the prior written consent of the landlord. The landlord may not withhold consent unreasonably. See section 44(2) and (3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 44(2A)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

There were no issues between the start of the tenancy in September 2022 and April 2023. An inspection on 6 March 2023 showed that the property was clean and tidy with no issues.

At the hearing Ms Hunter advised that she had been “doing well” but got into a bad situation. She asked one person to look after the property while she was away but that other associates moved in and she lost control.

For the purposes of awarding compensation for decontamination and testing, I concluded that the damage was caused by persons at the premises with Ms Hunter’s consent. However, I do not find that she intentionally parted with possession of the property or that she intentionally permitted the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. The landlord did not establish its claims for exemplary damages. Those claims are dismissed.

As the landlord was the successful party, I awarded reimbursement of the filing fee and granted the landlord’s request for suppression of its details.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4613613 — net $27,964.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$300.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$324.28	Lawns and Garden work
Rubbish removal	$129.31	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$594.97	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: Wall damage	$1,500.00	Repairs: Wall damage
Meth testing/Cleaning: Testing	$3,910.00	Meth testing/Cleaning: Testing
Meth testing/Cleaning: Decontamination	$13,685.00	Meth testing/Cleaning: Decontamination
Meth testing/Cleaning: Replacement Blinds	$2,500.00	Meth testing/Cleaning: Replacement Blinds
Meth testing/Cleaning: Replacement Carpet	$5,000.00	Meth testing/Cleaning: Replacement Carpet
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$27,964.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$27,964.00