What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4753665 about?

The tribunal order states: Corey Morgan Fox must pay [The landlord/s] $10,489.38 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4753665?

Cleaning: $690.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Loss Of Rents: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4651489 D…: $5,020.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,635.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $213.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $910.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4753665?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4753665?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10301259-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4753665 about?

The tribunal order states: Corey Morgan Fox must pay [The landlord/s] $10,489.38 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4753665?

Cleaning: $690.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Loss Of Rents: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4651489 D…: $5,020.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,635.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $213.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $910.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4753665?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4753665?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10301259-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

502 B Kaipara Flats Road, Warkworth, RD1, Auckland 0981 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4753665 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4753665 — net $10,489.38 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4651489 dated 05/10/2023	$5,020.44	Previous order application 4651489 dated 05/10/2023
Cleaning	$690.00	Cleaning
Repairs	$2,635.00	Repairs
Window repairs	$213.50	Window repairs
Cooktop replacement	$910.00	Cooktop replacement
Loss of rents	$1,000.00	Loss of rents
Filing fee reimbursement: loss of rents	$20.44	loss of rents
Net award	$10,489.38
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$10,489.38

The landlords attended the hearing, represented by [one of the landlords].

The landlords have applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

An order was made in respect of this tenancy on 5 October 2023 in application 4651489. That Order terminated the tenancy, paid the bond to the landlords and quantified the arrears owed to the end of the tenancy. The amount owing is included in this Order.

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.

Photographic evidence provided by the landlord proves that The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.

The amounts ordered as compensation for cleaning costs 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.

Photographs taken when the tenancy ended prove that damage was done to the premises. There were holes in walls that needed to be plastered and painted. A lounge window was broken, and a cooktop was smashed.

I find it proved that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not provided evidence to show that it was not intentionally or carelessly caused by him. The amounts ordered are proved by the landlord.

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 his obligations. Accordingly, the amount awarded to replacement of the cooktop takes into account that the existing cooktop was around 3 years old when replaced.

Is the tenant responsible for methamphetamine contamination of the premises?

From having seen pipes at the premises, the landlords became concerned that the tenant was smoking methamphetamine there. Composite tests were undertaken showing methamphetamine levels of 1.99μg per 100cm 2 across the 5 sites sampled, with a theoretical maximum concentration of 9.97μg per 100cm 2.

Remediation was recommended.

The landlords made an insurance claim which was accepted. The landlords have proved having paid a total excess of $3,000.00 for the claim, for which they seek compensation.

The remediation work took a long time during which the premises could not be occupied. This tenancy ended on 6 October 2023. A new tenancy began on 6 February 2024.

The landlords seek compensation for loss of rents.

In considering what level of methamphetamine contamination should be considered damage requiring remediation, many decisions of the Tribunal have outlined the basis for adopting the standard in the “Gluckman report” 1 which advises that in premises which have not been used for manufacture of methamphetamine, “methamphetamine levels that exceed the NZS8510:2017 clean up standard of 1.5 15μg per 100 cm2 should not be regarded as signalling a health risk. The exposure to methamphetamine levels below 15μg per 100 cm2 would be highly unlikely to give rise to any adverse effects.”

The report provided to the landlords by [Drug testing company], references the recommendations of the Gluckman report.

I need not traverse the decisions giving reasons for the Tribunal’s general application of the Gluckman standard, but I do note the decision of the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947, where the Court upheld the Tribunal’s use of the Gluckman standard as representing the best state of knowledge of risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination available.

More recently, in Acme Realty Ltd & ors v Hogg & ors [2021] NZDC 3231, the District Court citied the Full Circle Real Estate decision with approval noting also that, “The crucial decision for the determination of this appeal is whether or not NZS8510:2017 has been adopted into law, and it clear that it has not been. That means that the Tenancy Adjudicator was not bound to find that any decontamination above 1.5 micrograms was injurious to health”.

There is no evidence suggesting manufacture of methamphetamine on the premises.

For those reasons I do not find it proved that the premises were contaminated by methamphetamine to a degree that required remediation. That part of the landlords’ claim must therefore be dismissed.

Loss of rents while the premises were being repaired is a direct and foreseeable consequence of the tenant’s breach of his obligations. As I have found that the 1 Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor Sir Peter Gluckman, “Methamphetamine Contamination in Residential properties: Exposures, Risk Levels, and Interpretation of Standards” dated 29 May 2018 tenant is not liable for the consequences of methamphetamine contaminations, that cannot extend to the period the premises could not be occupied while the methamphetamine decontamination was being carried out.

I assess 2 weeks rent as fair compensation for the period the premises could not be rented, due to the tenant’s breaches, while the other cleaning and repair work was carried out.

As the landlord has succeeded with claims, I reimburse the filing fee.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4753665 — net $10,489.38 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4651489 dated 05/10/2023	$5,020.44	Previous order application 4651489 dated 05/10/2023
Cleaning	$690.00	Cleaning
Repairs	$2,635.00	Repairs
Window repairs	$213.50	Window repairs
Cooktop replacement	$910.00	Cooktop replacement
Loss of rents	$1,000.00	Loss of rents
Filing fee reimbursement: loss of rents	$20.44	loss of rents
Net award	$10,489.38
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$10,489.38

The landlords attended the hearing, represented by [one of the landlords].

The landlords have applied for compensation 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?

Photographic evidence provided by the landlord proves that The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.

The amounts ordered as compensation for cleaning costs are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Is the tenant responsible for methamphetamine contamination of the premises?

Remediation was recommended.

The landlords made an insurance claim which was accepted. The landlords have proved having paid a total excess of $3,000.00 for the claim, for which they seek compensation.

The remediation work took a long time during which the premises could not be occupied. This tenancy ended on 6 October 2023. A new tenancy began on 6 February 2024.

The landlords seek compensation for loss of rents.

The report provided to the landlords by [Drug testing company], references the recommendations of the Gluckman report.

There is no evidence suggesting manufacture of methamphetamine on the premises.

I assess 2 weeks rent as fair compensation for the period the premises could not be rented, due to the tenant’s breaches, while the other cleaning and repair work was carried out.

As the landlord has succeeded with claims, I reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4753665 — Property damage at 502 B Kaipara Flats Road, Warkworth, RD1, Auckland 0981

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4753665 — Property damage at 502 B Kaipara Flats Road, Warkworth, RD1, Auckland 0981

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?

Is the tenant responsible for methamphetamine contamination of 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?

Is the tenant responsible for methamphetamine contamination of the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions