What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4689453 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s name and identifying details including the tenancy address must

How much money was awarded in case 4689453?

Cleaning: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $529.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $419.80 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $805.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,967.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,151.11 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $920.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $39.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4689453?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4689453?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10169074-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4689453 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s name and identifying details including the tenancy address must

How much money was awarded in case 4689453?

Cleaning: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $529.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $419.80 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $805.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,967.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,151.11 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $920.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $39.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4689453?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4689453?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10169074-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4689453 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4689453 — net $6,831.99 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to the end of 29/07/2023	$1,151.11	Rent arrears to the end of 29/07/2023
Water rates	$39.14	Water rates
Meth testing/cleaning – insurance excess	$2,500.00	Meth testing/cleaning – insurance excess
Cleaning	$529.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$920.00	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$419.80	Lock/key replacement
Window repairs	$805.00	Window repairs
Repair and repaint walls	$3,967.50	Repair and repaint walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,831.99
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,831.99

Order

The landlord’s name and identifying details including the tenancy address must not be published.
Amy Jack, Shadina Edwards, Aherata Edwards must pay [the landlord] $6,831.99 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,520.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [the landlord] immediately. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears to the end of 29/07/2023$1,151.11 Water rates$39.14 Meth testing/cleaning – insurance excess$2,500.00 Cleaning$529.00 Rubbish removal$920.00 Lock/key replacement$419.80 Window repairs$805.00 Repair and repaint walls$3,967.50 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$10,351.99 Bond$3,520.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$6,831.99

Reasons

The landlord’s authorised person attended the hearing for the landlord.
None of the tenants attended. The Tribunal’s electronic file indicates they were given notice of the hearing and several reminders. The hearing proceeded in their absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent water rates?

The tenancy ended on 29 July 2023. The landlord provided rent and water records which prove the amounts owing for rent and water at the end of the tenancy.
The amounts set out in the table above are proven.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenants were required to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. 1
The tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord paid $1,058.00 for general cleaning. Having reviewed the entry and exit photographs, I consider the tenants should only be required to pay 50 percent of the cost of cleaning because no more than that would be justified to return the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
The $920.00 invoice that was paid for rubbish removal was justified.
The tenant did not return the keys or the garage remotes. They had to be replaced at a cost of $419.80.
The amounts ordered are proved. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), s 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v). Methamphetamine testing – insurance excess
Methamphetamine testing of the house after the tenancy ended showed the presence of methamphetamine contamination.
In May 2018 Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the then Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor, released a report, Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards. The report noted that there is a lack of scientific evidence to prove that low-level third-hand methamphetamine exposure poses a health risk to humans. It stated that guidelines should be proportionate to risk and that exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm 2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect. It recommended retaining the level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 where contamination resulted from manufacture due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the process.
The District Court has held that remediation should be carried out in accordance with the prevailing guidelines at the time. 2
The Tribunal has generally applied the Gluckman recommendation. This approach was approved by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947, where the Court stated (at para [36]): The Tenancy Tribunal was in a difficult position. 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 took a similar approach in Acme Realty Limited v Hogg and others [2021] NZDC 3231, where the Court referred to the Full Circle case and held that, because NZS 8510:2017 has not been adopted into law, the Tribunal was not bound to apply the 1.5μg standard.
In Barfoot and Thompson Limited v Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited [2021] NZTT Auckland 4276319, both parties presented scientific evidence at a hearing before the Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that there was no new scientific research to change the conclusions reached in the Gluckman Report.
In this case the landlord obtained a composite test for more than 10 rooms which was analysed as containing 111μg/100cm 2 . That was only a composite test. Individualised testing of samples would be required to prove liability for 2 Diamond Real Estate Limited v Allan [2017] NZDC 833. cleaning. However, in this case the cost of testing was $6,653.30. I consider the tenants are liable for the cost of testing.
The owner’s insurance company covered the cost of testing and decontamination, but the owner had to pay a $2,500.00 excess, so incurred a related loss in that amount.
The Tribunal orders the tenants to pay the excess.

Are the tenants 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. 3
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. 4
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. 5
During the tenancy, the house’s walls were damaged by holes and dents in many places. The damage was probably intentionally caused. The walls had been patched and painted, but the workmanship was substandard. As a result, the landlord had to pay professional contractors to repair the damage and repaint the walls.
The owner paid the painting contractor $7,935.00. However, that figure included repainting the entire interior of the house including the ceilings which were not damaged. Moreover, the paintwork was more than two years old by the end of the tenancy and so depreciation by way of ordinary wear and tear must be factored in.
I consider the tenants are liable for 50 percent of the cost of the invoice.
The Tribunal orders accordingly. 3 RTA, ss 40(2)(a), 41, and 49B. 4 RTA, s 49B(1). 5 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. Filing fee
The tenants must reimburse the landlord for the filing fee because the landlord has wholly succeeded in its claim. Bond
The bond is to be paid out to the landlord in part payment of the judgment debt. Non-publication order
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 6
The landlord applies for non-publication. It has wholly succeeded with the claim. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or justified by the landlord’s conduct or any other circumstances.
Non-publication is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4689453 — net $6,831.99 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to the end of 29/07/2023	$1,151.11	Rent arrears to the end of 29/07/2023
Water rates	$39.14	Water rates
Meth testing/cleaning – insurance excess	$2,500.00	Meth testing/cleaning – insurance excess
Cleaning	$529.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$920.00	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$419.80	Lock/key replacement
Window repairs	$805.00	Window repairs
Repair and repaint walls	$3,967.50	Repair and repaint walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,831.99
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,831.99

Order

The landlord’s name and identifying details including the tenancy address must not be published.
Amy Jack, Shadina Edwards, Aherata Edwards must pay [the landlord] $6,831.99 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,520.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [the landlord] immediately. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears to the end of 29/07/2023$1,151.11 Water rates$39.14 Meth testing/cleaning – insurance excess$2,500.00 Cleaning$529.00 Rubbish removal$920.00 Lock/key replacement$419.80 Window repairs$805.00 Repair and repaint walls$3,967.50 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$10,351.99 Bond$3,520.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$6,831.99

Reasons

The landlord’s authorised person attended the hearing for the landlord.
None of the tenants attended. The Tribunal’s electronic file indicates they were given notice of the hearing and several reminders. The hearing proceeded in their absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent water rates?

The tenancy ended on 29 July 2023. The landlord provided rent and water records which prove the amounts owing for rent and water at the end of the tenancy.
The amounts set out in the table above are proven.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenants were required to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. 1
The tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord paid $1,058.00 for general cleaning. Having reviewed the entry and exit photographs, I consider the tenants should only be required to pay 50 percent of the cost of cleaning because no more than that would be justified to return the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
The $920.00 invoice that was paid for rubbish removal was justified.
The tenant did not return the keys or the garage remotes. They had to be replaced at a cost of $419.80.
The amounts ordered are proved. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), s 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v). Methamphetamine testing – insurance excess
Methamphetamine testing of the house after the tenancy ended showed the presence of methamphetamine contamination.
In May 2018 Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the then Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor, released a report, Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards. The report noted that there is a lack of scientific evidence to prove that low-level third-hand methamphetamine exposure poses a health risk to humans. It stated that guidelines should be proportionate to risk and that exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm 2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect. It recommended retaining the level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 where contamination resulted from manufacture due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the process.
The District Court has held that remediation should be carried out in accordance with the prevailing guidelines at the time. 2
The Tribunal has generally applied the Gluckman recommendation. This approach was approved by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947, where the Court stated (at para [36]): The Tenancy Tribunal was in a difficult position. 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 took a similar approach in Acme Realty Limited v Hogg and others [2021] NZDC 3231, where the Court referred to the Full Circle case and held that, because NZS 8510:2017 has not been adopted into law, the Tribunal was not bound to apply the 1.5μg standard.
In Barfoot and Thompson Limited v Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited [2021] NZTT Auckland 4276319, both parties presented scientific evidence at a hearing before the Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that there was no new scientific research to change the conclusions reached in the Gluckman Report.
In this case the landlord obtained a composite test for more than 10 rooms which was analysed as containing 111μg/100cm 2 . That was only a composite test. Individualised testing of samples would be required to prove liability for 2 Diamond Real Estate Limited v Allan [2017] NZDC 833. cleaning. However, in this case the cost of testing was $6,653.30. I consider the tenants are liable for the cost of testing.
The owner’s insurance company covered the cost of testing and decontamination, but the owner had to pay a $2,500.00 excess, so incurred a related loss in that amount.
The Tribunal orders the tenants to pay the excess.

Are the tenants 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. 3
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. 4
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. 5
During the tenancy, the house’s walls were damaged by holes and dents in many places. The damage was probably intentionally caused. The walls had been patched and painted, but the workmanship was substandard. As a result, the landlord had to pay professional contractors to repair the damage and repaint the walls.
The owner paid the painting contractor $7,935.00. However, that figure included repainting the entire interior of the house including the ceilings which were not damaged. Moreover, the paintwork was more than two years old by the end of the tenancy and so depreciation by way of ordinary wear and tear must be factored in.
I consider the tenants are liable for 50 percent of the cost of the invoice.
The Tribunal orders accordingly. 3 RTA, ss 40(2)(a), 41, and 49B. 4 RTA, s 49B(1). 5 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. Filing fee
The tenants must reimburse the landlord for the filing fee because the landlord has wholly succeeded in its claim. Bond
The bond is to be paid out to the landlord in part payment of the judgment debt. Non-publication order
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 6
The landlord applies for non-publication. It has wholly succeeded with the claim. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or justified by the landlord’s conduct or any other circumstances.
Non-publication is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4689453 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4689453 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions