What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4672270?

The tribunal order states: Mary Ann Mills must pay Eves Realty Limited As Agent For Madeleine Kear &

How much money was awarded in case 4672270?

Cleaning: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $920.00 awarded to landlord; Garage Roof: $451.10 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4672270?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4672270?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9553482-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4672270?

The tribunal order states: Mary Ann Mills must pay Eves Realty Limited As Agent For Madeleine Kear &

How much money was awarded in case 4672270?

Cleaning: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $920.00 awarded to landlord; Garage Roof: $451.10 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4672270?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4672270?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9553482-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

24 Paul Crescent, Fairfield, Hamilton 3214 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4672270 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

24 Paul Crescent, Fairfield, Hamilton 3214 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4672270 — Cleanliness | 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 4672270 — net $3,491.54 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: Methamphetamine decontamination	$2,500.00	Cleaning: Methamphetamine decontamination
Repairs: Garage roof	$451.10	Repairs: Garage roof
Lawns and Garden work, rubbish removal and graffiti removal	$920.00	Lawns and Garden work, rubbish removal and graffiti removal
Exemplary damages	$1,500.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,491.54
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,491.54

Claims and awards for application 4672270 — net $3,491.54 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Cleaning: Methamphetamine decontamination

Amount: $2,500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning: Methamphetamine decontamination

Repairs: Garage roof

Amount: $451.10
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Garage roof

Lawns and Garden work, rubbish removal and graffiti removal

Amount: $920.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns and Garden work, rubbish removal and graffiti removal

Exemplary damages

Amount: $1,500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Exemplary damages

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $20.44
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Exemplary damages Filing Fee Lawns And Garden Work Property damage

Order

Mary Ann Mills must pay Eves Realty Limited As Agent For Madeleine Kear & Nicholas King $3,491.54 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,900.00 (3309627-009) to Eves Realty Limited As Agent For Madeleine Kear & Nicholas King immediately.
Eves Realty Limited As Agent For Madeleine Kear & Nicholas King must pay Mary Ann Mills $0.00 immediately.

Reasons

Only the applicant landlord attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee 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, 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 tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The lawns required reseeding as the tenants had parked vehicles on the lawn killing the grass. There was rubbish drum that had been used to burn rubbish and needed to be removed and the lawn required in that area. The garage had graffiti on the walls which were also damaged.

Is the tenant responsible for the cost of cleaning/decontaminating the property?

The property was contaminated with methamphetamine during the tenancy. While no pre tenancy testing was done, the contamination was discovered when the property was placed on the market for sale earlier in the year. Composite testing was suggestive of an extensive contamination. Repeat testing showed higher levels so individual rooms were sampled.
This individual room testing on 28 June 2023 showed levels considerably higher than the 15ug level which is considered unsafe, in 4 rooms. The tenant was then given notice the tenancy was to end as the premises were unsafe. She vacated on 21 July 2023 and the property was re-tested. This testing showed higher levels again in the 4 rooms previously showing significant contamination and that decontamination was required in additional rooms as these levels were also higher.
I accept the landlord’s submission that the most likely explanation for the escalating methamphetamine levels detected from May to July in an increasing number of rooms was because methamphetamine was being used at the property. It is the most logical and therefore most likely explanation for the required decontamination which was needed to restore the property to a reasonably clean level where it could be safely inhabited.
The landlord claim for the insurance excess of $2,500 is granted and noted as considerably less than the actual cost of decontaminating the property which was $29,000.00.
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.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: the garage roof was damaged because the tenant installed a fireplace in the garage. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Exemplary damages are also awarded
Eves Realty Limited As Agent For Madeleine Kear & Nicholas King claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by using or permitting unlawful drugs to be used at the premises.
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.
It is unlawful to use methamphetamine.
The tenant has either used or permitted the premises to be used for unlawful drug activity. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I have awarded exemplary damages at the higher end of the scale. The effects on the property owners have been significant. The property would probably have sold, except for the contamination, which has been costly to rectify and caused considerable delays. It is accepted the stress has been significant for the owners.
The Tribunal must send a clear signal to tenants that they must not engage in unlawful activity at all and particularly activity which requires extensive remedial work to rectify.
The public interest requires that the tenants name is to be published and she is also to pay the filing fee.

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 4672270 — net $3,491.54 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: Methamphetamine decontamination	$2,500.00	Cleaning: Methamphetamine decontamination
Repairs: Garage roof	$451.10	Repairs: Garage roof
Lawns and Garden work, rubbish removal and graffiti removal	$920.00	Lawns and Garden work, rubbish removal and graffiti removal
Exemplary damages	$1,500.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,491.54
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,491.54

Claims and awards for application 4672270 — net $3,491.54 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Cleaning: Methamphetamine decontamination

Amount: $2,500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning: Methamphetamine decontamination

Repairs: Garage roof

Amount: $451.10
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Garage roof

Lawns and Garden work, rubbish removal and graffiti removal

Amount: $920.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns and Garden work, rubbish removal and graffiti removal

Exemplary damages

Amount: $1,500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Exemplary damages

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $20.44
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Exemplary damages Filing Fee Lawns And Garden Work Property damage

Order

Mary Ann Mills must pay Eves Realty Limited As Agent For Madeleine Kear & Nicholas King $3,491.54 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,900.00 (3309627-009) to Eves Realty Limited As Agent For Madeleine Kear & Nicholas King immediately.
Eves Realty Limited As Agent For Madeleine Kear & Nicholas King must pay Mary Ann Mills $0.00 immediately.

Reasons

Only the applicant landlord attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee 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, 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 tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The lawns required reseeding as the tenants had parked vehicles on the lawn killing the grass. There was rubbish drum that had been used to burn rubbish and needed to be removed and the lawn required in that area. The garage had graffiti on the walls which were also damaged.

Is the tenant responsible for the cost of cleaning/decontaminating the property?

The property was contaminated with methamphetamine during the tenancy. While no pre tenancy testing was done, the contamination was discovered when the property was placed on the market for sale earlier in the year. Composite testing was suggestive of an extensive contamination. Repeat testing showed higher levels so individual rooms were sampled.
This individual room testing on 28 June 2023 showed levels considerably higher than the 15ug level which is considered unsafe, in 4 rooms. The tenant was then given notice the tenancy was to end as the premises were unsafe. She vacated on 21 July 2023 and the property was re-tested. This testing showed higher levels again in the 4 rooms previously showing significant contamination and that decontamination was required in additional rooms as these levels were also higher.
I accept the landlord’s submission that the most likely explanation for the escalating methamphetamine levels detected from May to July in an increasing number of rooms was because methamphetamine was being used at the property. It is the most logical and therefore most likely explanation for the required decontamination which was needed to restore the property to a reasonably clean level where it could be safely inhabited.
The landlord claim for the insurance excess of $2,500 is granted and noted as considerably less than the actual cost of decontaminating the property which was $29,000.00.
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.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: the garage roof was damaged because the tenant installed a fireplace in the garage. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Exemplary damages are also awarded
Eves Realty Limited As Agent For Madeleine Kear & Nicholas King claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by using or permitting unlawful drugs to be used at the premises.
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.
It is unlawful to use methamphetamine.
The tenant has either used or permitted the premises to be used for unlawful drug activity. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I have awarded exemplary damages at the higher end of the scale. The effects on the property owners have been significant. The property would probably have sold, except for the contamination, which has been costly to rectify and caused considerable delays. It is accepted the stress has been significant for the owners.
The Tribunal must send a clear signal to tenants that they must not engage in unlawful activity at all and particularly activity which requires extensive remedial work to rectify.
The public interest requires that the tenants name is to be published and she is also to pay the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4672270 — Cleanliness at 24 Paul Crescent, Fairfield, Hamilton 3214

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4672270 — Cleanliness at 24 Paul Crescent, Fairfield, Hamilton 3214

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 cost of cleaning/decontaminating the property?

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 cost of cleaning/decontaminating the property?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions