What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4615210?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4615210?

Cleaning: $195.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $420.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $259.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $609.40 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $223.54 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,547.14 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $415.00 awarded to landlord; Skip Hire: $299.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4615210?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4615210?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9328293-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4615210?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4615210?

Cleaning: $195.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $420.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $259.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $609.40 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $223.54 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,547.14 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $415.00 awarded to landlord; Skip Hire: $299.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4615210?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4615210?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9328293-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

36 Carlyle Road, Mosgiel, Mosgiel 9024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4615210 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

36 Carlyle Road, Mosgiel, Mosgiel 9024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4615210 — Rent arrears | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4615210 — net $4,609.45 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 22/12/2022	$1,547.14	Rent arrears to 22/12/2022
Carpet Cleaning	$195.50	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$600.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$420.00	Lawns and Garden work
Lock/key replacement	$259.00	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal	$415.00	Rubbish removal
Skip hire	$299.00	Skip hire
Repairs to garage light & shower	$609.40	Repairs to garage light & shower
Glass door repairs	$223.54	Glass door repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Filing fee reimbursement application 4451880	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,609.45
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,609.45

Claims and awards for application 4615210 — net $4,609.45 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 22/12/2022

Amount: $1,547.14
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 22/12/2022

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $195.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Cleaning

Amount: $600.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Lawns and Garden work

Amount: $420.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns and Garden work

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $259.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Filing Fee Lawns And Garden Work Property damage Rent arrears Rubbish Removal

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Alisha Francis Hayes must pay Property Brokers South Limited $4,609.45 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 21 December 2022 under application 4451880.
The application for further compensation of $4,104.35 is dismissed

Reasons

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

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 22/12/2022.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing.
On 21/12/2022 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears to 20/12/2022, termination and refund of the bond. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes

Did the tenant comply with her 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 landlord claimed compensation as follows: a. $600.00 for cleaning b. $195.50 for carpet cleaning c. $299.00 for skip hire d. $415.00 for rubbish removal and disposal of goods e. $420.00 for lawn and garden work f. $259.00 for replacement locks
In support of the claim the landlord provided an entry condition report dated 20/2/2022, exit photographs taken in January 2023 and invoices.
I am persuaded by the evidence that 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 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.
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 claimed compensation for damage as follows: a. $225.40 replacement of garage light and cable b. $384.00 repair of shower head c. $286.35 for methamphetamine testing d. $3,818.00 for methamphetamine decontamination.
I am satisfied from the evidence that there was damage to the shower and garage light caused during the tenancy.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
However, I am not persuaded that the evidence establishes there was damage due to methamphetamine contamination caused to the premises during the tenancy.
In support of the claim for testing and cleaning costs the landlord provided the exit methamphetamine testing report of 6 April 2023 from Betta NZ Limited.
Four locations were tested on 3 April 2023, the kitchen, dining room, hall and bathroom. The highest reading was from the kitchen, with a detected level of
47ug/100cm2.
As these results were below the 1.5ug/100cm2 safe limit prescribed by NZS8510 the report suggested no further action was required.
However, the landlord undertook extensive cleaning and seeks to recover the costs from the tenant.
The New Zealand Standard 8510:2017 Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine-contained properties (“NZS8510”) recommended an acceptable level of methamphetamine contamination in an affected property of
5ug/100cm2 for high use areas. Beyond that level a property was regarded as needing decontamination. If a property needed decontamination, then for the purposes of the Residential Tenancies Act the property is damaged.
On 29 May 2018 the Prime Minister’s then Chief Science Advisor Professor Sir Peter Gluckman released a report “Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposure, risk levels and interpretation of standards” (“the Gluckman Report”). This concluded that, in the case of third hand contact, exposure to methamphetamine levels below 15ug/100cm2 is unlikely to have an adverse effect.
Further the report noted that levels of 30ug/100cm2 signified it was likely that manufacturing had taken place.
Since the Gluckman Report many decisions by the Tribunal have found that applicants were unable to prove that methamphetamine contamination below 15ug/100cm2 posed a health risk and amounted to damage.
This position is consistent with the comments of the Court of Appeal in Smith v Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited [2019] NZCA 38. At paragraph [16] in reference to the Gluckman Report the Court stated, “We acknowledge that the testing in this case yielded results now considered not to raise any health issues and safety concerns.”
Moreover, the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947, when considering an appeal of the Tribunal which adopted the Gluckman Report stated at paragraph [36] “the best state of knowledge of risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination available to the adjudicator was the Gluckman report. It would have been bold for the adjudicator to have ignored that 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”.
The District Court in Acme Realty Ltd v Alexander James Hogg, Tuitui Grace Polotu, Leigh Sharyn Coughlin [2021] NZDC 3231 considered the specific question of whether the New Zealand Standard NZS8510 had any force of law given it was the current New Zealand Standard around methamphetamine levels in residential dwellings. His Honour Judge Harrison confirmed there was no force of law with the New Zealand Standard.
The Gluckman Report and several District Court decisions have confirmed that methamphetamine levels below 15ug are not injurious to health and therefore I consider the extensive cleaning undertaken was not required to restore the premises to a safe habitable state.
I appreciate this puts the landlord in a difficult position because of the provisions of section 45(1AA)&(1AAB) which provide that where premises have been tested and found to be contaminated with methamphetamine, or any other prescribed contaminant, the landlord cannot provide the premises to a tenant until they have been decontaminated.
However, I must apply the reasoning of the District Court.
The contamination levels detected in the samples taken on 3 April 2023 were significantly below those considered by the Gluckman report as likely to have any adverse effect.
Decontamination is not required for low level methamphetamine levels below 15ug/100cm2.
The claim for testing and cleaning costs fails.
As Property Brokers South Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have awarded the filing fee.
The filing fee for application 4451880 is also included in the amount awarded.
Although initially seeking suppression the landlord changed their mind at the hearing.
Suppression is not available to the tenant.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4615210 — net $4,609.45 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 22/12/2022	$1,547.14	Rent arrears to 22/12/2022
Carpet Cleaning	$195.50	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$600.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$420.00	Lawns and Garden work
Lock/key replacement	$259.00	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal	$415.00	Rubbish removal
Skip hire	$299.00	Skip hire
Repairs to garage light & shower	$609.40	Repairs to garage light & shower
Glass door repairs	$223.54	Glass door repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Filing fee reimbursement application 4451880	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,609.45
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,609.45

Claims and awards for application 4615210 — net $4,609.45 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 22/12/2022

Amount: $1,547.14
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 22/12/2022

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $195.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Cleaning

Amount: $600.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Lawns and Garden work

Amount: $420.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns and Garden work

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $259.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Filing Fee Lawns And Garden Work Property damage Rent arrears Rubbish Removal

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Alisha Francis Hayes must pay Property Brokers South Limited $4,609.45 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 21 December 2022 under application 4451880.
The application for further compensation of $4,104.35 is dismissed

Reasons

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

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 22/12/2022.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing.
On 21/12/2022 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears to 20/12/2022, termination and refund of the bond. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes

Did the tenant comply with her 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 landlord claimed compensation as follows: a. $600.00 for cleaning b. $195.50 for carpet cleaning c. $299.00 for skip hire d. $415.00 for rubbish removal and disposal of goods e. $420.00 for lawn and garden work f. $259.00 for replacement locks
In support of the claim the landlord provided an entry condition report dated 20/2/2022, exit photographs taken in January 2023 and invoices.
I am persuaded by the evidence that 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 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.
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 claimed compensation for damage as follows: a. $225.40 replacement of garage light and cable b. $384.00 repair of shower head c. $286.35 for methamphetamine testing d. $3,818.00 for methamphetamine decontamination.
I am satisfied from the evidence that there was damage to the shower and garage light caused during the tenancy.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
However, I am not persuaded that the evidence establishes there was damage due to methamphetamine contamination caused to the premises during the tenancy.
In support of the claim for testing and cleaning costs the landlord provided the exit methamphetamine testing report of 6 April 2023 from Betta NZ Limited.
Four locations were tested on 3 April 2023, the kitchen, dining room, hall and bathroom. The highest reading was from the kitchen, with a detected level of
47ug/100cm2.
As these results were below the 1.5ug/100cm2 safe limit prescribed by NZS8510 the report suggested no further action was required.
However, the landlord undertook extensive cleaning and seeks to recover the costs from the tenant.
The New Zealand Standard 8510:2017 Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine-contained properties (“NZS8510”) recommended an acceptable level of methamphetamine contamination in an affected property of
5ug/100cm2 for high use areas. Beyond that level a property was regarded as needing decontamination. If a property needed decontamination, then for the purposes of the Residential Tenancies Act the property is damaged.
On 29 May 2018 the Prime Minister’s then Chief Science Advisor Professor Sir Peter Gluckman released a report “Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposure, risk levels and interpretation of standards” (“the Gluckman Report”). This concluded that, in the case of third hand contact, exposure to methamphetamine levels below 15ug/100cm2 is unlikely to have an adverse effect.
Further the report noted that levels of 30ug/100cm2 signified it was likely that manufacturing had taken place.
Since the Gluckman Report many decisions by the Tribunal have found that applicants were unable to prove that methamphetamine contamination below 15ug/100cm2 posed a health risk and amounted to damage.
This position is consistent with the comments of the Court of Appeal in Smith v Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited [2019] NZCA 38. At paragraph [16] in reference to the Gluckman Report the Court stated, “We acknowledge that the testing in this case yielded results now considered not to raise any health issues and safety concerns.”
Moreover, the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947, when considering an appeal of the Tribunal which adopted the Gluckman Report stated at paragraph [36] “the best state of knowledge of risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination available to the adjudicator was the Gluckman report. It would have been bold for the adjudicator to have ignored that 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”.
The District Court in Acme Realty Ltd v Alexander James Hogg, Tuitui Grace Polotu, Leigh Sharyn Coughlin [2021] NZDC 3231 considered the specific question of whether the New Zealand Standard NZS8510 had any force of law given it was the current New Zealand Standard around methamphetamine levels in residential dwellings. His Honour Judge Harrison confirmed there was no force of law with the New Zealand Standard.
The Gluckman Report and several District Court decisions have confirmed that methamphetamine levels below 15ug are not injurious to health and therefore I consider the extensive cleaning undertaken was not required to restore the premises to a safe habitable state.
I appreciate this puts the landlord in a difficult position because of the provisions of section 45(1AA)&(1AAB) which provide that where premises have been tested and found to be contaminated with methamphetamine, or any other prescribed contaminant, the landlord cannot provide the premises to a tenant until they have been decontaminated.
However, I must apply the reasoning of the District Court.
The contamination levels detected in the samples taken on 3 April 2023 were significantly below those considered by the Gluckman report as likely to have any adverse effect.
Decontamination is not required for low level methamphetamine levels below 15ug/100cm2.
The claim for testing and cleaning costs fails.
As Property Brokers South Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have awarded the filing fee.
The filing fee for application 4451880 is also included in the amount awarded.
Although initially seeking suppression the landlord changed their mind at the hearing.
Suppression is not available to the tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4615210 — Rent arrears at 36 Carlyle Road, Mosgiel, Mosgiel 9024

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4615210 — Rent arrears at 36 Carlyle Road, Mosgiel, Mosgiel 9024

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with her 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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with her 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

Property management

Frequently asked questions