What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4739270?

The tribunal order states: Natasha Mohr must pay Inspire Real Estate acting as agent for Ashmith Nand &

How much money was awarded in case 4739270?

Cleaning: $690.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Blinds: $707.25 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $395.48 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4739270?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4739270?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10039818-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4739270?

The tribunal order states: Natasha Mohr must pay Inspire Real Estate acting as agent for Ashmith Nand &

How much money was awarded in case 4739270?

Cleaning: $690.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Blinds: $707.25 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $395.48 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4739270?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4739270?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10039818-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

3B Nield Road, Manurewa, Auckland 2102 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4739270 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4739270 — net $3,833.17 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$395.48	Water rates
Repairs	$2,300.00	Repairs
Carpet Cleaning	$690.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$200.00	Cleaning
Replace blinds	$707.25	Replace blinds
Methamphetamine (initial and detailed testing) insurance excess	$2,500.00	Methamphetamine (initial and detailed testing) insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,833.17
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,833.17

Order

Natasha Mohr must pay Inspire Real Estate acting as agent for Ashmith Nand & Arishma Lal $3,833.17 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,980.00 (6480177-005) to Inspire Real Estate acting as agent for Ashmith Nand & Arishma Lal immediately.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing, represented by Ms Johnson and Ms Duckworth.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
This was a brand new property at the start of the tenancy. The tenancy began on 27 January 2023 but was terminated on 27 September 2023 (and possession was granted to the landlord on Tuesday 3 October 2023) on the basis that methamphetamine had been consumed on the property during the tenancy.
The landlord then filed this claim for compensation once the tenancy had ended.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 3 October 2023. The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove that $395.48 was owing for water to 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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord produced photos showing that there were various marks on the walls, the bathrooms had areas of grime and the kitchen cupboards and shelves had not been cleaned, and the carpet had various marks. Ms Johnson also explained that a dog had been kept on the property and that the carpet had a very strong odour.
In awarding compensation I must bear in mind that a tenant must only leave a property “reasonably clean and tidy”. They do not need to leave the property spotless and ready for a new tenant to move into. A landlord will usually have to do some additional cleaning. The landlord has produced an invoice for cleaning in the amount of $450.00. I have awarded $200.00 in compensation for general cleaning as I estimate this represents the portion of the cleaning required to get the property to the reasonably clean and tidy standard.
The landlord produced an invoice for carpet cleaning in the amount of $690.00 and I order the full amount on the basis that the carpet should have been left without smells or stains.
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. General repairs
The landlord produced photos showing various damage including damaged ceramic gas hobs, various small dings and holes in the walls, a missing window latch and a cracked tile in the area between the lounge and the kitchen.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord produced an invoice for the repairing all of the damage in the amount of $2,596.29. However the invoice also included the cost of repairing a sliding cavity door and replacing the lock, and that damage was not proven as there were no photographs of the damage. Ms Johnson estimated that the total cost of the cavity door repair to be approximately $300.00. On that basis I have deducted that amount (in round figures) and have ordered $2,300.00 in compensation for the damage.
The landlord also produced photos showing that three set of vertical blinds had been damaged, together with an invoice in the amount of $707.25 for repairs. I order compensation in that amount.
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 this case I have not deducted any amounts as the property was brand new at the start of the tenancy and the tenancy was for less than 10 months. Methamphetamine contamination
The landlord has applied for compensation for the cost methamphetamine testing and remediation. The total cost of decontamination was in fact $11,474.50. The decontamination and testing was covered by the landlord’s insurance excess of $2,500 and so they seek to recover that amount from the tenant.
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, as a result 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/100cm 2 for high use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture. It recommended a higher level of 3.8μg/100cm 2 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/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 (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.
In this case the landlord has already proven that methamphetamine was consumed on the property during the tenancy (although not necessarily by the tenant or with her knowledge).
However the landlord must also prove that the premises have been damaged or are not reasonably clean as result of the contaminaton.
The landlord produced a detailed assessment of methamphetamine testing undertaken on 4 October 2023 which showed traces of methamphetamine in all rooms except the garage. However in most cases these amounts were below the New Zealand standard of 1.5μg/100cm 2 and in all cases the amounts were below the Gluckman Standard of 15μg/100cm 2 . The highest levels found were
05μg/100cm 2 (found in the hallway).
To be consistent with the predominance of other Tribunal cases, and the decisions of the District Court, I accept that methamphetamine contamination at levels below 15μg/100cm 2 does not constitute damage to the premises.
Given my finding the tenant therefore cannot be liable for the cost of decontamination.
I appreciate that the landlord’s insurer may require a base line level of below
5μg/100cm 2 . However this requirement is a matter of contract between the landlord and their insurer and does not change the scope of the tenant’s liability.
I do however consider that the landlord should be compensated for the cost of the initial testing and detailed testing. The tenant (or someone at the premises with the tenant’s permission) used the premises for an unlawful purpose and it was prudent for the landlord to undertake both an initial test, and then a detailed test once contamination was found. The cost of the initial testing was $309.35 and the detailed testing was $2,954.35. Together the cost of both tests was above the landlord’s insurance excess. I therefore order compensation to the landlord of the insurance excess amount of $2,500. Exemplary damages
The landlord also claimed for exemplary damages on the basis of the tenant’s unlawful use of the property. On reviewing the Tribunal’s previous decision terminating the tenancy I note that the landlord’s claim for exemplary damages on this basis was dismissed. The landlord cannot bring the same claim in this application and so I dismiss the claim for exemplary damages. Filing fee and name suppression
Because Inspire Real Estate acting as agent for Ashmith Nand & Arishma Lal has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee of $20.44. N orders were sought for name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4739270 — net $3,833.17 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$395.48	Water rates
Repairs	$2,300.00	Repairs
Carpet Cleaning	$690.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$200.00	Cleaning
Replace blinds	$707.25	Replace blinds
Methamphetamine (initial and detailed testing) insurance excess	$2,500.00	Methamphetamine (initial and detailed testing) insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,833.17
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,833.17

Order

Natasha Mohr must pay Inspire Real Estate acting as agent for Ashmith Nand & Arishma Lal $3,833.17 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,980.00 (6480177-005) to Inspire Real Estate acting as agent for Ashmith Nand & Arishma Lal immediately.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing, represented by Ms Johnson and Ms Duckworth.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
This was a brand new property at the start of the tenancy. The tenancy began on 27 January 2023 but was terminated on 27 September 2023 (and possession was granted to the landlord on Tuesday 3 October 2023) on the basis that methamphetamine had been consumed on the property during the tenancy.
The landlord then filed this claim for compensation once the tenancy had ended.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 3 October 2023. The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove that $395.48 was owing for water to 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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord produced photos showing that there were various marks on the walls, the bathrooms had areas of grime and the kitchen cupboards and shelves had not been cleaned, and the carpet had various marks. Ms Johnson also explained that a dog had been kept on the property and that the carpet had a very strong odour.
In awarding compensation I must bear in mind that a tenant must only leave a property “reasonably clean and tidy”. They do not need to leave the property spotless and ready for a new tenant to move into. A landlord will usually have to do some additional cleaning. The landlord has produced an invoice for cleaning in the amount of $450.00. I have awarded $200.00 in compensation for general cleaning as I estimate this represents the portion of the cleaning required to get the property to the reasonably clean and tidy standard.
The landlord produced an invoice for carpet cleaning in the amount of $690.00 and I order the full amount on the basis that the carpet should have been left without smells or stains.
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. General repairs
The landlord produced photos showing various damage including damaged ceramic gas hobs, various small dings and holes in the walls, a missing window latch and a cracked tile in the area between the lounge and the kitchen.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord produced an invoice for the repairing all of the damage in the amount of $2,596.29. However the invoice also included the cost of repairing a sliding cavity door and replacing the lock, and that damage was not proven as there were no photographs of the damage. Ms Johnson estimated that the total cost of the cavity door repair to be approximately $300.00. On that basis I have deducted that amount (in round figures) and have ordered $2,300.00 in compensation for the damage.
The landlord also produced photos showing that three set of vertical blinds had been damaged, together with an invoice in the amount of $707.25 for repairs. I order compensation in that amount.
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 this case I have not deducted any amounts as the property was brand new at the start of the tenancy and the tenancy was for less than 10 months. Methamphetamine contamination
The landlord has applied for compensation for the cost methamphetamine testing and remediation. The total cost of decontamination was in fact $11,474.50. The decontamination and testing was covered by the landlord’s insurance excess of $2,500 and so they seek to recover that amount from the tenant.
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, as a result 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/100cm 2 for high use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture. It recommended a higher level of 3.8μg/100cm 2 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/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 (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.
In this case the landlord has already proven that methamphetamine was consumed on the property during the tenancy (although not necessarily by the tenant or with her knowledge).
However the landlord must also prove that the premises have been damaged or are not reasonably clean as result of the contaminaton.
The landlord produced a detailed assessment of methamphetamine testing undertaken on 4 October 2023 which showed traces of methamphetamine in all rooms except the garage. However in most cases these amounts were below the New Zealand standard of 1.5μg/100cm 2 and in all cases the amounts were below the Gluckman Standard of 15μg/100cm 2 . The highest levels found were
05μg/100cm 2 (found in the hallway).
To be consistent with the predominance of other Tribunal cases, and the decisions of the District Court, I accept that methamphetamine contamination at levels below 15μg/100cm 2 does not constitute damage to the premises.
Given my finding the tenant therefore cannot be liable for the cost of decontamination.
I appreciate that the landlord’s insurer may require a base line level of below
5μg/100cm 2 . However this requirement is a matter of contract between the landlord and their insurer and does not change the scope of the tenant’s liability.
I do however consider that the landlord should be compensated for the cost of the initial testing and detailed testing. The tenant (or someone at the premises with the tenant’s permission) used the premises for an unlawful purpose and it was prudent for the landlord to undertake both an initial test, and then a detailed test once contamination was found. The cost of the initial testing was $309.35 and the detailed testing was $2,954.35. Together the cost of both tests was above the landlord’s insurance excess. I therefore order compensation to the landlord of the insurance excess amount of $2,500. Exemplary damages
The landlord also claimed for exemplary damages on the basis of the tenant’s unlawful use of the property. On reviewing the Tribunal’s previous decision terminating the tenancy I note that the landlord’s claim for exemplary damages on this basis was dismissed. The landlord cannot bring the same claim in this application and so I dismiss the claim for exemplary damages. Filing fee and name suppression
Because Inspire Real Estate acting as agent for Ashmith Nand & Arishma Lal has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee of $20.44. N orders were sought for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4739270 — Property damage at 3B Nield Road, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4739270 — Property damage at 3B Nield Road, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

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

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

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

Frequently asked questions