What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4675549?

The tribunal order states: Shontell Latoya Ngahuinga King must pay Home Let Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 4675549?

Cleaning: $76.25 awarded to landlord; Eviction Warrant Fee: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $140.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $212.61 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,175.84 awarded to landlord; Walls and Doors: $828.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Curtains In Bedrooms: $365.63 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $582.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4675549?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4675549?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9602069-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4675549?

The tribunal order states: Shontell Latoya Ngahuinga King must pay Home Let Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 4675549?

Cleaning: $76.25 awarded to landlord; Eviction Warrant Fee: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $140.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $212.61 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,175.84 awarded to landlord; Walls and Doors: $828.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Curtains In Bedrooms: $365.63 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $582.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4675549?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4675549?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9602069-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

22A Bader Street, Bader, Hamilton 3206 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4675549 — Property damage

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4675549 — net $6,380.77 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Eviction warrant fee	$200.00	Eviction warrant fee
Lock/key replacement	$140.00	Lock/key replacement
Meth testing/Cleaning: insurance excess	$2,500.00	Meth testing/Cleaning: insurance excess
Cleaning	$76.25	Cleaning
Rubbish removal and replacement of venetian blind	$582.00	Rubbish removal and replacement of venetian blind
Electrical fittings replacement/repair	$212.61	Electrical fittings replacement/repair
Carpet replacement	$2,175.84	Carpet replacement
Repairs: walls and doors repair and painting	$828.00	Repairs: walls and doors repair and painting
Replace curtains in bedrooms	$365.63	Replace curtains in bedrooms
Exemplary damages	$1,200.00	Exemplary damages
Net award	$6,380.77
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,380.77

Shontell Latoya Ngahuinga King must pay Home Let Property Management Limited As Agent For Masterson Home Improvements Limited $6,380.77 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,920.00 (5528945-012) to Home Let Property Management Limited As Agent For Masterson Home Improvements Limited immediately.

Reasons

Only the applicant landlord attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation, exemplary damages, 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 landlord has provided confirmation that the premises were contaminated with methamphetamine during the tenancy. Pre tenancy testing showed no methamphetamine present on any surfaces and end of tenancy testing showed levels of 15.7ug in the kitchen. A number of District Court decisions have confirmed that methamphetamine levels above 15μg are injurious to health and the affected surfaces/rooms require extensive cleaning and decontamination to restore the premises to a safe habitable state.

Decontamination is not required for low level methamphetamine levels below the 15μg level which applied in the rest of the house.

The decontamination of the kitchen cost $2,980. The insurance excess the landlord paid was $2,500 and is therefore awarded as the “out of pocket” cost to address the contamination.

The tenant did not return the keys.

The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: a venetian blind, the remote for the heat pump and heat lamps from the bathroom

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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: the carpets in all three bedrooms were extensively stained and damaged beyond repair, several walls and doors were also damaged, and the curtains stained and damaged. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The damaged carpet and curtains in the lounge/kitchen area have been covered by the landlord’s insurance excess, so no separate order is made. That is in many respects a windfall for the tenant as the damage to the carpets and curtains in the bedrooms was also extensive.

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, for the replacement carpet, curtains and the painting of the walls, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Exemplary damages

I have also awarded $1,200 exemplary damages for the unlawful drug use at the premises. I am satisfied the tenants actions, either in using or permitting the unlawful drug use were intentional and that the consequences for the landlord have been extensive.

The public interest requires a strong message be sent to tenants that they not engage in unlawful activity at rental homes, this message must be even stronger when the unlawful activity has caused extensive damage and distress to the property owner.

Because Home Let Property Management Limited As Agent For Masterson Home Improvements Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

The order including the tenants name is to be published.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4675549 — net $6,380.77 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Eviction warrant fee	$200.00	Eviction warrant fee
Lock/key replacement	$140.00	Lock/key replacement
Meth testing/Cleaning: insurance excess	$2,500.00	Meth testing/Cleaning: insurance excess
Cleaning	$76.25	Cleaning
Rubbish removal and replacement of venetian blind	$582.00	Rubbish removal and replacement of venetian blind
Electrical fittings replacement/repair	$212.61	Electrical fittings replacement/repair
Carpet replacement	$2,175.84	Carpet replacement
Repairs: walls and doors repair and painting	$828.00	Repairs: walls and doors repair and painting
Replace curtains in bedrooms	$365.63	Replace curtains in bedrooms
Exemplary damages	$1,200.00	Exemplary damages
Net award	$6,380.77
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,380.77

Order

Shontell Latoya Ngahuinga King must pay Home Let Property Management Limited As Agent For Masterson Home Improvements Limited $6,380.77 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,920.00 (5528945-012) to Home Let Property Management Limited As Agent For Masterson Home Improvements Limited immediately.

Reasons

Only the applicant landlord attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, exemplary damages, 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 landlord has provided confirmation that the premises were contaminated with methamphetamine during the tenancy. Pre tenancy testing showed no methamphetamine present on any surfaces and end of tenancy testing showed levels of 15.7ug in the kitchen. A number of District Court decisions have confirmed that methamphetamine levels above 15μg are injurious to health and the affected surfaces/rooms require extensive cleaning and decontamination to restore the premises to a safe habitable state.
Decontamination is not required for low level methamphetamine levels below the 15μg level which applied in the rest of the house.
The decontamination of the kitchen cost $2,980. The insurance excess the landlord paid was $2,500 and is therefore awarded as the “out of pocket” cost to address the contamination.
The tenant did not return the keys.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: a venetian blind, the remote for the heat pump and heat lamps from the bathroom
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: the carpets in all three bedrooms were extensively stained and damaged beyond repair, several walls and doors were also damaged, and the curtains stained and damaged. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The damaged carpet and curtains in the lounge/kitchen area have been covered by the landlord’s insurance excess, so no separate order is made. That is in many respects a windfall for the tenant as the damage to the carpets and curtains in the bedrooms was also extensive.
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, for the replacement carpet, curtains and the painting of the walls, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Exemplary damages
I have also awarded $1,200 exemplary damages for the unlawful drug use at the premises. I am satisfied the tenants actions, either in using or permitting the unlawful drug use were intentional and that the consequences for the landlord have been extensive.
The public interest requires a strong message be sent to tenants that they not engage in unlawful activity at rental homes, this message must be even stronger when the unlawful activity has caused extensive damage and distress to the property owner.
Because Home Let Property Management Limited As Agent For Masterson Home Improvements Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The order including the tenants name is to be published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4675549 — Property damage at 22A Bader Street, Bader, Hamilton 3206

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4675549 — Property damage at 22A Bader Street, Bader, Hamilton 3206

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