What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4631050?

The tribunal order states: Nathan Graham Old must pay Property Rentals Wanganui Limited $8,272.26

How much money was awarded in case 4631050?

Cleaning: $241.50 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $184.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4631050 D…: $2,754.02 awarded to landlord; Bathroom Vanity: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Holes In Walls And Repainting: $4,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $492.74 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4631050?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4631050?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10087919-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4631050?

The tribunal order states: Nathan Graham Old must pay Property Rentals Wanganui Limited $8,272.26

How much money was awarded in case 4631050?

Cleaning: $241.50 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $184.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4631050 D…: $2,754.02 awarded to landlord; Bathroom Vanity: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Holes In Walls And Repainting: $4,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $492.74 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4631050?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4631050?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10087919-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

30 Polson Street, Castlecliff, Whanganui 4501 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4631050 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4631050 — net $8,272.26 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4631050 dated 21/08/2023	$2,754.02	Previous order application 4631050 dated 21/08/2023
Repairs: bathroom vanity	$600.00	Repairs: bathroom vanity
Cleaning	$241.50	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$492.74	Rubbish removal
Light bulbs/batteries: smoke alarms	$184.00	Light bulbs/batteries: smoke alarms
Repairs: holes in walls and repainting	$4,000.00	Repairs: holes in walls and repainting
Net award	$8,272.26
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,272.26

Order

Nathan Graham Old must pay Property Rentals Wanganui Limited $8,272.26 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below. DescriptionLandlord Previous order application 4631050 dated 21/08/2023 $2,754.02 Repairs: bathroom vanity$600.00 Cleaning$241.50 Rubbish removal$492.74 Light bulbs/batteries: smoke alarms$184.00 Repairs: holes in walls and repainting$4,000.00 Total award$8,272.26 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$8,272.26

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
The tenant did not attend the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy.

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 and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord provided photographic evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
Smoke alarms and lightbulbs were missing at the end of the tenancy. 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.
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 provided photographic evidence that there were numerous holes in the walls of every room and gave evidence that the bathroom vanity was broken beyond repair. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The damage was intentional.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. Methamphetamine contamination
For a landlord to succeed in a claim for costs for methamphetamine testing and decontamination there are two main aspects that must be proven. First, that the contamination was caused during the tenancy. Secondly, that the level of methamphetamine detected is likely to constitute a health hazard and therefore would entitle the landlord to claim the cost of decontaminating the premises.
The landlord’s application included claims for methamphetamine testing and decontamination. The test results showed contamination at significantly higher levels higher than 15μg/100cm². The Tribunal and the District Court have determined that if a property is contaminated above that threshold, then the property has been damaged and requires remediation. The landlord has proven this element of its claim.
The issue is that the landlord must prove that the contamination occurred during the tenancy. In any claim for damage to the property, a landlord needs to provide evidence that the damage was not present at the start of the tenancy. The landlord therefore needs to provide evidence that the property was free from contamination at the start of the tenancy by providing a methamphetamine test at the start of the tenancy that shows that there was no contamination.
There have been two District Court decisions finding that in the absence of pre- tenancy methamphetamine testing, it is difficult for a landlord to prove the tenant contaminated the premises.
In Brooking v Imrie [2021] NZDC 16976, Judge Cameron considered a case where the Tenancy Tribunal accepted that contamination was caused by the tenants in circumstances where there was no pre-tenancy testing performed. The Tribunal had accepted evidence from a witness who worked in a childcare centre across the road from the Tenancy who described the windows covered with a film, security cameras having been installed, and strong chemical smells arising from the premises. The witness also described gang members and other “undesirable” people attending the premises regularly, with cars regularly driving in an out of the premises often, as well as regular visits from the police. On appeal the District Court did not accept that the evidence of this witness (which was in conflict with another witness’ evidence) established that it was more likely than not that the tenant was responsible for the contamination.
The Court concluded that the difficulty with the landlord’s claim was that there was no methamphetamine test conducted at the beginning of the tenancy and no actual proof of what occurred during the tenancy. The District Court allowed the appeal, overturning the Tribunal’s decision.
In the earlier case of Eren Limited v Martin [2021] NZDC 15210, Judge de Ridder also considered a dispute over who caused the contamination. In that case, the Tribunal had declined the claim for the contamination remediation costs on various grounds, including that the landlord had not established that the tenant contaminated the premises in the first instance.
The appeal to the District Court was by the landlord. The landlord reported finding evidence of drug use in rubbish left by the tenants and also claimed that the neighbours had reported the tenants using drugs at the premises. The District Court confirmed that this was circumstantial evidence that could be considered by the Tribunal. However, the Court found that the circumstantial evidence was not sufficient to get over the absence of a pre-tenancy methamphetamine testing: “However, the significant problem for this claim is that there is no evidence of any methamphetamine testing carried out at the start of this tenancy. If there had been such testing and it revealed no methamphetamine then clearly the methamphetamine residue that was found at the end of this tenancy could only have occurred during the tenancy and could only have occurred by either the tenants using methamphetamine or permitting others to use methamphetamine inside the house. The lack of methamphetamine testing at the start of the tenancy significantly weakens the circumstantial case against the tenants to the point where it is not possible to conclude on the balance of probabilities that it was the tenants who were responsible for the methamphetamine residue located at the premises at the end of their tenancy.”
In the present case, the landlord could not provide a pre-tenancy methamphetamine test which proved that the property was not contaminated at the start of the tenancy. Nor did the landlord provide any other evidence which would support a finding that the tenant was responsible for the contamination.
This means that it is not possible to conclude on the balance of probabilities that it was the tenants who were responsible for the methamphetamine residue located at the premises at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord’s claims for compensation in relation to the methamphetamine contamination must be dismissed.
The landlord was reimbursed for the filing fee in the earlier Order of the Tribunal dated 21 August 2023.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4631050 — net $8,272.26 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4631050 dated 21/08/2023	$2,754.02	Previous order application 4631050 dated 21/08/2023
Repairs: bathroom vanity	$600.00	Repairs: bathroom vanity
Cleaning	$241.50	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$492.74	Rubbish removal
Light bulbs/batteries: smoke alarms	$184.00	Light bulbs/batteries: smoke alarms
Repairs: holes in walls and repainting	$4,000.00	Repairs: holes in walls and repainting
Net award	$8,272.26
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,272.26

Order

Nathan Graham Old must pay Property Rentals Wanganui Limited $8,272.26 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below. DescriptionLandlord Previous order application 4631050 dated 21/08/2023 $2,754.02 Repairs: bathroom vanity$600.00 Cleaning$241.50 Rubbish removal$492.74 Light bulbs/batteries: smoke alarms$184.00 Repairs: holes in walls and repainting$4,000.00 Total award$8,272.26 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$8,272.26

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
The tenant did not attend the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy.

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 and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord provided photographic evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
Smoke alarms and lightbulbs were missing at the end of the tenancy. 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.
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 provided photographic evidence that there were numerous holes in the walls of every room and gave evidence that the bathroom vanity was broken beyond repair. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The damage was intentional.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. Methamphetamine contamination
For a landlord to succeed in a claim for costs for methamphetamine testing and decontamination there are two main aspects that must be proven. First, that the contamination was caused during the tenancy. Secondly, that the level of methamphetamine detected is likely to constitute a health hazard and therefore would entitle the landlord to claim the cost of decontaminating the premises.
The landlord’s application included claims for methamphetamine testing and decontamination. The test results showed contamination at significantly higher levels higher than 15μg/100cm². The Tribunal and the District Court have determined that if a property is contaminated above that threshold, then the property has been damaged and requires remediation. The landlord has proven this element of its claim.
The issue is that the landlord must prove that the contamination occurred during the tenancy. In any claim for damage to the property, a landlord needs to provide evidence that the damage was not present at the start of the tenancy. The landlord therefore needs to provide evidence that the property was free from contamination at the start of the tenancy by providing a methamphetamine test at the start of the tenancy that shows that there was no contamination.
There have been two District Court decisions finding that in the absence of pre- tenancy methamphetamine testing, it is difficult for a landlord to prove the tenant contaminated the premises.
In Brooking v Imrie [2021] NZDC 16976, Judge Cameron considered a case where the Tenancy Tribunal accepted that contamination was caused by the tenants in circumstances where there was no pre-tenancy testing performed. The Tribunal had accepted evidence from a witness who worked in a childcare centre across the road from the Tenancy who described the windows covered with a film, security cameras having been installed, and strong chemical smells arising from the premises. The witness also described gang members and other “undesirable” people attending the premises regularly, with cars regularly driving in an out of the premises often, as well as regular visits from the police. On appeal the District Court did not accept that the evidence of this witness (which was in conflict with another witness’ evidence) established that it was more likely than not that the tenant was responsible for the contamination.
The Court concluded that the difficulty with the landlord’s claim was that there was no methamphetamine test conducted at the beginning of the tenancy and no actual proof of what occurred during the tenancy. The District Court allowed the appeal, overturning the Tribunal’s decision.
In the earlier case of Eren Limited v Martin [2021] NZDC 15210, Judge de Ridder also considered a dispute over who caused the contamination. In that case, the Tribunal had declined the claim for the contamination remediation costs on various grounds, including that the landlord had not established that the tenant contaminated the premises in the first instance.
The appeal to the District Court was by the landlord. The landlord reported finding evidence of drug use in rubbish left by the tenants and also claimed that the neighbours had reported the tenants using drugs at the premises. The District Court confirmed that this was circumstantial evidence that could be considered by the Tribunal. However, the Court found that the circumstantial evidence was not sufficient to get over the absence of a pre-tenancy methamphetamine testing: “However, the significant problem for this claim is that there is no evidence of any methamphetamine testing carried out at the start of this tenancy. If there had been such testing and it revealed no methamphetamine then clearly the methamphetamine residue that was found at the end of this tenancy could only have occurred during the tenancy and could only have occurred by either the tenants using methamphetamine or permitting others to use methamphetamine inside the house. The lack of methamphetamine testing at the start of the tenancy significantly weakens the circumstantial case against the tenants to the point where it is not possible to conclude on the balance of probabilities that it was the tenants who were responsible for the methamphetamine residue located at the premises at the end of their tenancy.”
In the present case, the landlord could not provide a pre-tenancy methamphetamine test which proved that the property was not contaminated at the start of the tenancy. Nor did the landlord provide any other evidence which would support a finding that the tenant was responsible for the contamination.
This means that it is not possible to conclude on the balance of probabilities that it was the tenants who were responsible for the methamphetamine residue located at the premises at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord’s claims for compensation in relation to the methamphetamine contamination must be dismissed.
The landlord was reimbursed for the filing fee in the earlier Order of the Tribunal dated 21 August 2023.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4631050 — Property damage at 30 Polson Street, Castlecliff, Whanganui 4501

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4631050 — Property damage at 30 Polson Street, Castlecliff, Whanganui 4501

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions