What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4751870 about?

The tribunal order states: Mereana Tukaki must pay [The landlord/s] $1,836.38 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4751870?

Cleaning: $608.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $517.50 awarded to landlord; Existing Credits: $1,209.51 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing: $201.20 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $304.75 awarded to landlord; Walls and Doors: $1,910.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4751870?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4751870?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9949525-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4751870 about?

The tribunal order states: Mereana Tukaki must pay [The landlord/s] $1,836.38 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4751870?

Cleaning: $608.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $517.50 awarded to landlord; Existing Credits: $1,209.51 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing: $201.20 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $304.75 awarded to landlord; Walls and Doors: $1,910.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4751870?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4751870?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9949525-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 17, 166 Waihi Road, Judea, Tauranga 3110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4751870 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4751870 — net $1,836.38 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Meth testing	$201.20		Meth testing
Meth Cleaning	$608.00		Meth Cleaning
Repairs to damaged walls and doors	$1,910.00		Repairs to damaged walls and doors
Cleaning	$517.50		Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$304.75		Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		t order that the other party reimburse them the cost of filing the application ($20.44).
Existing credits		$1,209.51	Existing credits
Total award	$3,561.89	$1,209.51
Net award	$1,836.38
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,836.38

Order

Mereana Tukaki must pay [The landlord/s] $1,836.38 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

This hearing was scheduled for today at the Tenancy Tribunal at Tauranga. Ms Tukaki did not attend today’s hearing and it went ahead in her absence.
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.
I accept the evidence showing that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and did not return the keys.
The amounts ordered to remedy these issues are proved by invoices.

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.
I accept the evidence showing that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: damage to walls and doors and methamphetamine contamination. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Damage to walls and doors
The pre-entry inspection report and outgoing report show that significant damage was done to the walls in these premises during the tenancy. The significance and force taken to cause this damage indicates that it meets the definition of intention and so the tenant is required to pay the invoiced cost of repairing this damage - $1910.00. Methamphetamine contamination
In dealing with applications such as these, the Tribunal has been guided by reports indicating what may be regarded as ‘unsafe’ levels of methamphetamine. In recent years the Tribunal has adopted the 2018 report by Professor Sir Peter Gluckman which advised that levels below 15mu/100cm 2 ought not to be regarded as unsafe and it is only when levels were above that level that the premises required remediation.
The adoption of the Gluckman level when deciding on who ought to pay the established cost of remediation has been endorsed by the District Court – see Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947.
A methamphetamine test done at the premises on 8 August 2023 indicated that that there was methamphetamine present at the premises. A subsequent more detailed tests done on 14 August 2023 indicted that methamphetamine was present in 5 rooms where samples were taken, but that none of the levels were over the Gluckman level of 15mu/100cm 2 .
However, a further methamphetamine test dated 26 October 2023 showed that of 20 samples taken throughout the premises, 6 indicated levels above the Gluckman level. Specifically, 17.2 from a sample taken on the kitchen door, 24 from a sample taken on the living room door frame, 19.9 from the living room ceiling, 15.9 from the living room door, 18.7 from the office door, and 17.7 from the bathroom window frame.
The cost of remediation of the premises was covered by the landlord’s insurer and the landlord claims the lesser of the excess payable ($2,500.00) and 4 weeks rent ($608.00), plus the cost of the initial test which showed methamphetamine contamination.
On this evidence I am ordering the tenant to pay the established cost of the test and 4 weeks’ rent. Filing fee reimbursement
Section 102(4) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that if an applicant is wholly successful in their claim in the Tribunal, then the Tribunal must order that the other party reimburse them the cost of filing the application ($20.44).
The landlord was wholly successful with this claim and so the tenant must reimburse them the filing fee. Credits
At today’s hearing the landlord showed that the tenant had 3 credits recorded on her account amounting to a total of $1209.51. I have taken this amount off the total amount owed by the tenant as established above. Suppression of landlord’s name
Section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that: (1) The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to the proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. (2) An order may be subject to any conditions that the Tribunal considers appropriate. (3) If a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings applies for an order that their name or identifying particulars not be published, the Tribunal must make the order 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.
Given that the landlord was wholly successful with their claim against the tenant and they have applied for suppression of their name, I am ordering suppression of the landlord’s name pursuant to s95A(3). C ter Haar 13 February 2024

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4751870 — net $1,836.38 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Meth testing	$201.20		Meth testing
Meth Cleaning	$608.00		Meth Cleaning
Repairs to damaged walls and doors	$1,910.00		Repairs to damaged walls and doors
Cleaning	$517.50		Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$304.75		Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		t order that the other party reimburse them the cost of filing the application ($20.44).
Existing credits		$1,209.51	Existing credits
Total award	$3,561.89	$1,209.51
Net award	$1,836.38
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,836.38

Order

Mereana Tukaki must pay [The landlord/s] $1,836.38 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

This hearing was scheduled for today at the Tenancy Tribunal at Tauranga. Ms Tukaki did not attend today’s hearing and it went ahead in her absence.
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.
I accept the evidence showing that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and did not return the keys.
The amounts ordered to remedy these issues are proved by invoices.

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.
I accept the evidence showing that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: damage to walls and doors and methamphetamine contamination. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Damage to walls and doors
The pre-entry inspection report and outgoing report show that significant damage was done to the walls in these premises during the tenancy. The significance and force taken to cause this damage indicates that it meets the definition of intention and so the tenant is required to pay the invoiced cost of repairing this damage - $1910.00. Methamphetamine contamination
In dealing with applications such as these, the Tribunal has been guided by reports indicating what may be regarded as ‘unsafe’ levels of methamphetamine. In recent years the Tribunal has adopted the 2018 report by Professor Sir Peter Gluckman which advised that levels below 15mu/100cm 2 ought not to be regarded as unsafe and it is only when levels were above that level that the premises required remediation.
The adoption of the Gluckman level when deciding on who ought to pay the established cost of remediation has been endorsed by the District Court – see Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947.
A methamphetamine test done at the premises on 8 August 2023 indicated that that there was methamphetamine present at the premises. A subsequent more detailed tests done on 14 August 2023 indicted that methamphetamine was present in 5 rooms where samples were taken, but that none of the levels were over the Gluckman level of 15mu/100cm 2 .
However, a further methamphetamine test dated 26 October 2023 showed that of 20 samples taken throughout the premises, 6 indicated levels above the Gluckman level. Specifically, 17.2 from a sample taken on the kitchen door, 24 from a sample taken on the living room door frame, 19.9 from the living room ceiling, 15.9 from the living room door, 18.7 from the office door, and 17.7 from the bathroom window frame.
The cost of remediation of the premises was covered by the landlord’s insurer and the landlord claims the lesser of the excess payable ($2,500.00) and 4 weeks rent ($608.00), plus the cost of the initial test which showed methamphetamine contamination.
On this evidence I am ordering the tenant to pay the established cost of the test and 4 weeks’ rent. Filing fee reimbursement
Section 102(4) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that if an applicant is wholly successful in their claim in the Tribunal, then the Tribunal must order that the other party reimburse them the cost of filing the application ($20.44).
The landlord was wholly successful with this claim and so the tenant must reimburse them the filing fee. Credits
At today’s hearing the landlord showed that the tenant had 3 credits recorded on her account amounting to a total of $1209.51. I have taken this amount off the total amount owed by the tenant as established above. Suppression of landlord’s name
Section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that: (1) The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to the proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. (2) An order may be subject to any conditions that the Tribunal considers appropriate. (3) If a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings applies for an order that their name or identifying particulars not be published, the Tribunal must make the order 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.
Given that the landlord was wholly successful with their claim against the tenant and they have applied for suppression of their name, I am ordering suppression of the landlord’s name pursuant to s95A(3). C ter Haar 13 February 2024

Tenancy Tribunal case 4751870 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 17, 166 Waihi Road, Judea, Tauranga 3110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4751870 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 17, 166 Waihi Road, Judea, Tauranga 3110

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

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

Frequently asked questions