Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 4630274 — Rent arrears
Decided 8 Feb 2024 · Published 8 Feb 2024 · Application 4630274
- Rent arrears
- Property damage
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $874.01 [Bond number suppressed] to [The landlord/s] immediately, as per the table below. The Bond Centre is to pay the balance of the bond of $325.99 [Bond number suppressed] to Francis Gray immediately.
Reasons
- Only the landlord attended the hearing.
- The landlord is claiming unpaid rent and damages following the end of the tenancy on 11 June 2023.
- The landlord has incurred methamphetamine cleaning costs, lock and repair costs, pest control and rubbish removal costs, as well as unpaid rent.
- The landlord has also applied for return of the bond and the filing fee.
- This matter was adjourned for the landlord to submit a base line and exit methamphetamine test result and any other relevant documents to the Tribunal in support of the claim for damages.
How much is owed for rent?
- The tenancy ended on 11 June 2023. The landlord has provided records which prove the amount of rent owing to the end of the tenancy, as ordered above.
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 goods and rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 66M(b) to (e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- The tenant did not remove all goods and rubbish. The tenant did not return the keys. Pest control was required to eliminate the cockroaches. The amounts ordered above are the reasonable costs of remedying those failures.
- The landlord also claims $325 for methamphetamine cleaning.
- Photos were produced showing two holes in the walls, allegedly caused by the tenant. When conducting repairs, the landlord discovered drug paraphernalia hidden inside the wall by the tenant. This led the landlord to undertake testing and incur a cleaning fee.
- The landlord’s preferred method of testing was using a methamphetamine testing kit obtained [online]. The process involves wiping a cotton bud over selected areas and then putting the bud in a vial containing a solution. Droplets of the solution are then put onto a cassette, and the cassette is then viewed for a reaction. Two lines indicate a negative result for methamphetamine and one line indicated a positive result.
- The landlord produced photographs of testing results at the end of the tenancy that showed one line present. A baseline test using this testing method showing no methamphetamine present at the outset of the tenancy was produced.
- This testing did not, however, provide any measurement as to the level of μg/100 cm2 present.
- It is unclear whether the baseline test was taken from exactly the same location as the exit testing. That is irrelevant however, in this case, because I am simply not satisfied that it has been proven that the level of methamphetamine present on the premises was at a level where it would justify cleaning.
- That level, if it could be established, is above 15 μg/100 cm2. That was the recommendation by the then Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman. He determined in his report dated 29 May 2018 that this was the level below which there was unlikely to be any risk to human health and therefore there was no need for any decontamination of premises.
- The claim for is methamphetamine related cleaning costs is therefore dismissed.
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 49B, 66K(2)(a), and 66L 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.
- 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.
- As noted above, photos were produced showing two holes. One was to a door and the other was the hole in the wall where the drug paraphernalia was stored.
- I am satisfied and accept the landlord’s evidence that those holes were not there at the outset of the tenancy and that the cost incurred to repair them were reasonable in the circumstances of this case.
- The amount ordered is proved.
- Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.