What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4715729?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 (5253596-008) to Arrow

How much money was awarded in case 4715729?

Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Original Composite Methamphetamine T…: $298.99 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $516.35 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,337.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $89.83 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4715729?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4715729?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10111844-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4715729?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 (5253596-008) to Arrow

How much money was awarded in case 4715729?

Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Original Composite Methamphetamine T…: $298.99 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $516.35 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,337.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $89.83 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4715729?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4715729?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10111844-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

10 Ali Place, Ranui, Auckland 0612 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4715729 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

10 Ali Place, Ranui, Auckland 0612 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4715729 — Rent arrears | 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 4715729 — net $1,757.61 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 22/11/23	$1,337.00	Rent arrears (to 22/11/23
Repairs: (Insurance excess for testing and repairs	$750.00	Repairs: (Insurance excess for testing and repairs
Original composite methamphetamine test	$298.99	Original composite methamphetamine test
Water rates: (Invoices 8/11/23 and 6/12/2023	$89.83	Water rates: (Invoices 8/11/23 and 6/12/2023
Lock/key replacement	$516.35	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal	$345.00	Rubbish removal
Exemplary damages: unlawful use of the premises	$1,000.00	unlawful use of the premises
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,757.61
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,757.61

Claims and awards for application 4715729 — net $1,757.61 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears (to 22/11/23

Amount: $1,337.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears (to 22/11/23

Repairs: (Insurance excess for testing and repairs

Amount: $750.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: (Insurance excess for testing and repairs

Original composite methamphetamine test

Amount: $298.99
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Original composite methamphetamine test

Water rates: (Invoices 8/11/23 and 6/12/2023

Amount: $89.83
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates: (Invoices 8/11/23 and 6/12/2023

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $516.35
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Exemplary damages Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears Rubbish Removal Water Rates

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 (5253596-008) to Arrow Property Management Limited Acting Agent For Alden Xu & Janice Chen immediately.
Ineka Karina Pawa-Grace must pay Arrow Property Management Limited Acting Agent For Alden Xu & Janice Chen $1,757.61 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
I am satisfied that the tenant had received proper notice of the hearing time, date and place and chose not to attend.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, exemplary damages for the tenant’s unlawful use of the property, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 22 November 2023. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at 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 tenant was evicted on 22 November 2023 and did not return the keys.
The amounts ordered are proved. Methamphetamine contamination
To make a successful claim for methamphetamine testing and/or remediation costs, the landlord must prove that the tenant caused or permitted the contamination, or that it was caused by someone at the premises with the tenant’s consent. The landlord must also prove that, because of the contamination, the premises have been damaged or are not reasonably clean.
Section 138C Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides for regulations to be made prescribing the maximum acceptable level for contaminants, but as yet no regulations have been made in relation to methamphetamine.
There are currently two sources of guidance on the issue of a safe level of methamphetamine contamination in residential premises. In June 2017 Standards New Zealand published NZS 8510:2017. The standard recommended a maximum contamination level of 1.5μg/100cm2 for high use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture. It recommended a higher level of 3.8μg/100cm2 for limited use areas.
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/100cm2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect. It recommended retaining the level of 1.5μg/100cm2 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 (Diamond Real Estate Limited v Allan [2017] NZDC 833, Judge Kellar).
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.
More recently, 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.
The landlord’s evidence disclosed that the property manager witnessed, during a property inspection, the tenant’s mother exhibiting behaviours that suggested she may be under the influence of an illicit drug such as methamphetamine.
The landlord had undertaken a composite methamphetamine test of the premises, on 1 April 2021, just prior to the tenancy commencing. The test result came back at 0.08 μg (micrograms). The composite test it carried out on 10 October 2023 yielded a result of 56 μg. The comparison of these two tests confirmed to the landlord that methamphetamine had been smoked in or produced in the premises during the tenant’s tenancy either by the tenant or someone at the premises with the tenant’s consent.
The landlord provided a detailed testing report that disclosed methamphetamine contamination at the following levels: a. Kitchen: 10.20μg/100cm2; b. Lounge: 0.66-10.40μg/100cm2 c. Garage: 0.78-6.50μg/100cm2 d. Bathroom: 5.9μg/100cm2 e. Bedroom 1: 9.20μg/100cm2 f. Bedroom 2: 0.95-18.90μg/100cm2; g. Ensuite:5.50μg/100cm2; h. Bedroom 3: 4.70-7.70μg/100cm2; i. Bedroom 4: 1.48-7.60μg/100cm2; j. Hallway: 14.20μg/100cm2; and k. Entire Dwelling: 0.66-18.90μg/100cm2.
The landlord’s evidence proved contamination in the premises were at a level greater than the 15μg/100cm2 level in the Gluckman report and well above the NZS 8510:2017 standard recommended maximum contamination levels of
5μg/100cm2 for high use areas (where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture) and 3.8μg/100cm2 for limited use areas.
It follows that the landlord’s claim for the costs of decontamination cleaning must be granted. Methamphetamine testing costs
The landlord has applied for compensation for the cost of the initial methamphetamine composite testing and the insurance excess that relates to the individual room tests, the remediation of the contaminated premises, and the post remediation testing.
It is an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 for any person to have in their possession or consume any controlled drug and to allow any premises to be used for the commission of an offence under that Act and (sections 7 and 12). “Methamphetamine” is included as a controlled drug under Schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
It follows that the manufacture and consumption of methamphetamine on premises amounts to the use of those premises for an unlawful purpose, in breach of section 40(2)(b) RTA. The tenant was therefore in breach of his obligations under the RTA. a. EnviroCheck Forensics Ltd have issued reports to the landlord on 10 October 2023 and 18 November 2023 that confirm the landlord’s property is contaminated with methamphetamine; b. The contamination may be at a level that presents a danger to the health and wellbeing of any occupants and represents a potential health risk; c. These risks need to be eliminated; and d. No one is permitted to reside in the premises until it had been decontaminated properly by an approved remediation company.
It is appropriate in these circumstances to award the landlord the costs incurred in having the property tested for contamination on 10 October 2023 and 18 November 2023, as it was prudent for the landlord to have the tests done, given the positive proof that methamphetamine was manufactured or consumed in the property in breach of the tenant’s obligations.
It is also appropriate to award to landlord the costs of re-testing after the premises had been decontaminated to prove to the Council that the premises were fit for purpose again and no longer represented a health risk to any occupier.
As the landlord’s insurance covered all but the costs of the initial composite test on 6 October 2023 and the insurance excess of $750.00, the other methamphetamine related costs incurred by the insurer cannot be awarded as compensation to the landlord. The insurer may decide to pursue the tenant for these costs in a separate claim.

Is the tenant liable for exemplary damages?

Arrow Property Management Limited Acting Agent For Alden Xu & Janice Chen claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by manufacturing or consuming methamphetamine in 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 premises, or allow them to be used, for the purpose of consuming controlled drugs (ss7 and 12 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975). The landlord has established in evidence that methamphetamine has been used in the premises during the tenancy. This is because a pre-tenancy methamphetamine composite test was carried out by the landlord just prior to the tenant’s tenancy commencing. Another composite test was carried out during the tenant’s tenancy, after the property manager observed the tenant’s mother appearing to be under the influence of methamphetamine during a routine property inspection. A more detailed methamphetamine test was conducted at the end of the tenancy which established the presence of methamphetamine in the home.
I find the tenant has committed an unlawful act by consuming and/or allowing others to consume methamphetamine in the premises. I am satisfied that this was an intentionally unlawful act because it is common knowledge that the use of methamphetamine is illegal.
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 consider an award of $1,000 exemplary damages justified in these circumstances. I make this finding on the following grounds: a. Methamphetamine was found throughout the house. The levels ranged from 0.66μg /100cm2 to 18.90μg /100cm2. The latter level is relatively high. b. The impact on the landlord cannot be understated. They have suffered extreme costs (in excess of $40,000) to remediate their property. The stress of such remediation has been lengthy and considerable. c. Further, it is clearly in the public interests to discourage the use of methamphetamine in rental properties. Reimbursement of filing fee
Because Arrow Property Management Limited Acting Agent For Alden Xu & Janice Chen has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse 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 4715729 — net $1,757.61 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 22/11/23	$1,337.00	Rent arrears (to 22/11/23
Repairs: (Insurance excess for testing and repairs	$750.00	Repairs: (Insurance excess for testing and repairs
Original composite methamphetamine test	$298.99	Original composite methamphetamine test
Water rates: (Invoices 8/11/23 and 6/12/2023	$89.83	Water rates: (Invoices 8/11/23 and 6/12/2023
Lock/key replacement	$516.35	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal	$345.00	Rubbish removal
Exemplary damages: unlawful use of the premises	$1,000.00	unlawful use of the premises
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,757.61
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,757.61

Claims and awards for application 4715729 — net $1,757.61 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears (to 22/11/23

Amount: $1,337.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears (to 22/11/23

Repairs: (Insurance excess for testing and repairs

Amount: $750.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: (Insurance excess for testing and repairs

Original composite methamphetamine test

Amount: $298.99
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Original composite methamphetamine test

Water rates: (Invoices 8/11/23 and 6/12/2023

Amount: $89.83
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates: (Invoices 8/11/23 and 6/12/2023

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $516.35
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Exemplary damages Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears Rubbish Removal Water Rates

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 (5253596-008) to Arrow Property Management Limited Acting Agent For Alden Xu & Janice Chen immediately.
Ineka Karina Pawa-Grace must pay Arrow Property Management Limited Acting Agent For Alden Xu & Janice Chen $1,757.61 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
I am satisfied that the tenant had received proper notice of the hearing time, date and place and chose not to attend.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, exemplary damages for the tenant’s unlawful use of the property, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 22 November 2023. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at 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 tenant was evicted on 22 November 2023 and did not return the keys.
The amounts ordered are proved. Methamphetamine contamination
To make a successful claim for methamphetamine testing and/or remediation costs, the landlord must prove that the tenant caused or permitted the contamination, or that it was caused by someone at the premises with the tenant’s consent. The landlord must also prove that, because of the contamination, the premises have been damaged or are not reasonably clean.
Section 138C Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides for regulations to be made prescribing the maximum acceptable level for contaminants, but as yet no regulations have been made in relation to methamphetamine.
There are currently two sources of guidance on the issue of a safe level of methamphetamine contamination in residential premises. In June 2017 Standards New Zealand published NZS 8510:2017. The standard recommended a maximum contamination level of 1.5μg/100cm2 for high use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture. It recommended a higher level of 3.8μg/100cm2 for limited use areas.
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/100cm2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect. It recommended retaining the level of 1.5μg/100cm2 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 (Diamond Real Estate Limited v Allan [2017] NZDC 833, Judge Kellar).
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.
More recently, 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.
The landlord’s evidence disclosed that the property manager witnessed, during a property inspection, the tenant’s mother exhibiting behaviours that suggested she may be under the influence of an illicit drug such as methamphetamine.
The landlord had undertaken a composite methamphetamine test of the premises, on 1 April 2021, just prior to the tenancy commencing. The test result came back at 0.08 μg (micrograms). The composite test it carried out on 10 October 2023 yielded a result of 56 μg. The comparison of these two tests confirmed to the landlord that methamphetamine had been smoked in or produced in the premises during the tenant’s tenancy either by the tenant or someone at the premises with the tenant’s consent.
The landlord provided a detailed testing report that disclosed methamphetamine contamination at the following levels: a. Kitchen: 10.20μg/100cm2; b. Lounge: 0.66-10.40μg/100cm2 c. Garage: 0.78-6.50μg/100cm2 d. Bathroom: 5.9μg/100cm2 e. Bedroom 1: 9.20μg/100cm2 f. Bedroom 2: 0.95-18.90μg/100cm2; g. Ensuite:5.50μg/100cm2; h. Bedroom 3: 4.70-7.70μg/100cm2; i. Bedroom 4: 1.48-7.60μg/100cm2; j. Hallway: 14.20μg/100cm2; and k. Entire Dwelling: 0.66-18.90μg/100cm2.
The landlord’s evidence proved contamination in the premises were at a level greater than the 15μg/100cm2 level in the Gluckman report and well above the NZS 8510:2017 standard recommended maximum contamination levels of
5μg/100cm2 for high use areas (where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture) and 3.8μg/100cm2 for limited use areas.
It follows that the landlord’s claim for the costs of decontamination cleaning must be granted. Methamphetamine testing costs
The landlord has applied for compensation for the cost of the initial methamphetamine composite testing and the insurance excess that relates to the individual room tests, the remediation of the contaminated premises, and the post remediation testing.
It is an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 for any person to have in their possession or consume any controlled drug and to allow any premises to be used for the commission of an offence under that Act and (sections 7 and 12). “Methamphetamine” is included as a controlled drug under Schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
It follows that the manufacture and consumption of methamphetamine on premises amounts to the use of those premises for an unlawful purpose, in breach of section 40(2)(b) RTA. The tenant was therefore in breach of his obligations under the RTA. a. EnviroCheck Forensics Ltd have issued reports to the landlord on 10 October 2023 and 18 November 2023 that confirm the landlord’s property is contaminated with methamphetamine; b. The contamination may be at a level that presents a danger to the health and wellbeing of any occupants and represents a potential health risk; c. These risks need to be eliminated; and d. No one is permitted to reside in the premises until it had been decontaminated properly by an approved remediation company.
It is appropriate in these circumstances to award the landlord the costs incurred in having the property tested for contamination on 10 October 2023 and 18 November 2023, as it was prudent for the landlord to have the tests done, given the positive proof that methamphetamine was manufactured or consumed in the property in breach of the tenant’s obligations.
It is also appropriate to award to landlord the costs of re-testing after the premises had been decontaminated to prove to the Council that the premises were fit for purpose again and no longer represented a health risk to any occupier.
As the landlord’s insurance covered all but the costs of the initial composite test on 6 October 2023 and the insurance excess of $750.00, the other methamphetamine related costs incurred by the insurer cannot be awarded as compensation to the landlord. The insurer may decide to pursue the tenant for these costs in a separate claim.

Is the tenant liable for exemplary damages?

Arrow Property Management Limited Acting Agent For Alden Xu & Janice Chen claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by manufacturing or consuming methamphetamine in 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 premises, or allow them to be used, for the purpose of consuming controlled drugs (ss7 and 12 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975). The landlord has established in evidence that methamphetamine has been used in the premises during the tenancy. This is because a pre-tenancy methamphetamine composite test was carried out by the landlord just prior to the tenant’s tenancy commencing. Another composite test was carried out during the tenant’s tenancy, after the property manager observed the tenant’s mother appearing to be under the influence of methamphetamine during a routine property inspection. A more detailed methamphetamine test was conducted at the end of the tenancy which established the presence of methamphetamine in the home.
I find the tenant has committed an unlawful act by consuming and/or allowing others to consume methamphetamine in the premises. I am satisfied that this was an intentionally unlawful act because it is common knowledge that the use of methamphetamine is illegal.
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 consider an award of $1,000 exemplary damages justified in these circumstances. I make this finding on the following grounds: a. Methamphetamine was found throughout the house. The levels ranged from 0.66μg /100cm2 to 18.90μg /100cm2. The latter level is relatively high. b. The impact on the landlord cannot be understated. They have suffered extreme costs (in excess of $40,000) to remediate their property. The stress of such remediation has been lengthy and considerable. c. Further, it is clearly in the public interests to discourage the use of methamphetamine in rental properties. Reimbursement of filing fee
Because Arrow Property Management Limited Acting Agent For Alden Xu & Janice Chen has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4715729 — Rent arrears at 10 Ali Place, Ranui, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4715729 — Rent arrears at 10 Ali Place, Ranui, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Is the tenant liable for exemplary damages?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Is the tenant liable for exemplary damages?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions