What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4765337 about?

The tribunal order states: Paniora Peepi Gerrard must pay [The landlord/s] $22,770.44 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4765337?

Cleaning: $1,750.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4748672 D…: $14,963.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $793.50 awarded to landlord; Builder/ replace doors. fixtures, pa…: $3,052.24 awarded to landlord; Tiled Area: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $890.82 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4765337?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4765337?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10264193-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4765337 about?

The tribunal order states: Paniora Peepi Gerrard must pay [The landlord/s] $22,770.44 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4765337?

Cleaning: $1,750.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4748672 D…: $14,963.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $793.50 awarded to landlord; Builder/ replace doors. fixtures, pa…: $3,052.24 awarded to landlord; Tiled Area: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $890.82 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4765337?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4765337?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10264193-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

100A Budge Street, Riversdale, Blenheim 7201 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4765337 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4765337 — net $22,770.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4748672 dated 12/01/2024	$14,963.44	Previous order application 4748672 dated 12/01/2024
Cleaning: and carpet cleaning	$1,750.00	Cleaning: and carpet cleaning
Rubbish removal	$890.82	Rubbish removal
Meth testing/Cleaning: Insurance excess	$650.00	Meth testing/Cleaning: Insurance excess
Repairs: Tiled area	$650.00	Repairs: Tiled area
Repairs: Builder/ replace doors. fixtures, painting	$3,052.24	Repairs: Builder/ replace doors. fixtures, painting
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Window repairs	$793.50	Window repairs
Net award	$22,770.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$22,770.44

The landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenant.

The landlord has 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?

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, and did not remove all rubbish.

The landlord provided invoices and photos of the condition, inside and out, in support of both claims. These invoices have been reviewed and they are accepted in fill.

The tenant did not return the keys. These were replaced by the builder and invoiced as part of the building work.

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.

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Two doors – broken or removed. b. Door fixtures were missing or broken. c. A hole in the wall was made. d. Three windows were broken or damaged. e. Multiple damage to the tiles in the kitchen/dining tiled area. f. Methamphetamine contamination was found in the kitchen area. Building damage

One door was missing, another was badly broken. Both were replaced. A number of other door fixtures were missing or broken. A hole in the wall needed repairing. These tasks were completed by one builder. His invoice accounts for the tasks as well as the replacing of locks, either missing or where no keys were returned. Windows

The landlord had three windows replaced due to damage. An invoice for $793.00 was produced in evidence, as were some photos. Tiles

There was extensive cracking of tiles. The ingoing condition of the tiles was not evidenced. It was uncertain of the cause for all damaged tiles. Some had cracked while others showed impact damage. I raised possible from subfloor movement or tile stress but regardless, a fair amount appear to have been due to careless or intentional actions of the tenant or others in the house. The hearing was adjourned open to allow the landlord to revisit his insurance cover and to advise the Tribunal of that. The timetabling for that has now lapsed.

I have made an order of $650.00 towards the replacement of the tiles. This will not cover the cost incurred but balances some query regarding the entry condition of the tiles as well as betterment in the new flooring style installed. Methamphetamine

The New Zealand Standard 8510:2017 Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine-contaminated properties (“NZS8510:2017”) provides industry guidance on good practice methods in the testing and clean-up of methamphetamine contamination in houses. NZS8510:2017 was released on 29 June 2017. The standard adopts a single level of 1.5μg/100cm² (1.5 micrograms of methamphetamine per 100 square centimetres of surface sampled) that ‘high use areas’ of affected properties should be decontaminated to, regardless of whether the properties were involved in the production or use of methamphetamine. Consider high use areas as those areas that can be easily accessed by the occupants.

On 29 May 2018, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman (the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor at that time) determined that there was little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption (See ‘Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards’, 29 May 2018.

His report concluded that in the absence of other evidence of manufacture, any levels below 15μg/100cm² are highly unlikely to present adverse effects therefore there should be no need for remediation. Where there is evidence of manufacture the NZS8510:2017 standard is appropriate (noting there is no suggestion of manufacturing during this tenancy).

In 2019 there was a judgement in the District Court which dismissed an appeal after the Tribunal adopted the Gluckman Report to determine whether the tenant had caused damage to the premises or permitted any other person to do so (Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947).

Finally, I consider further validating are the 2019 comments of the Court of Appeal in Smith v Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited [2019] NZCA 38 where, in paragraph [16], with reference to the Gluckman Report, the decision stated: “We acknowledge that the testing in this case yielded results now considered not to raise any health and safety concerns.”

Was there a need to decontaminate/clean?

The premises was tested for methamphetamine three days before the tenancy commenced. No methamphetamine was detected at that time and the tenant signed the confirmation report acknowledging this.

A composite test was conducted on after the tenancy ended. No subsequent comprehensive testing was carried out. The composite identified a theoretical maximum contamination of 22μg/100cm² based on the samples taken. the landlord conducted a follow up comprehensive test. This found contamination of concern in the kitchen samples, being 17.7μg. The cost of the $650.00 insurance excess was sought via a compensation order.

Section 40(1)(e) (iii) of the RTA requires the tenant to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. Section 41 assigns the tenant the responsibility for the actions of others.

Given the proven level of methamphetamine residue confirmed in the kitchen is greater than the 15μg level generally considered safe by this Tribunal, where it is a result of use rather than manufacturing, I award the insurance excess cost of $650.00.

The damages above is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered are proved.

The landlord withdrew the repair claims (plastering and painting) for the damage to the kitchen walls. Extensive holes from a dartboard and the possible use of a BB gun were evidence but these were remedied under the methamphetamine elated repairs.

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 calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

On 12 January 2024 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears and return of the bond. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes. Application filing fee

Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression

Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that 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.

Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to 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.

The landlord requested suppression in its application. As it has been wholly successful, suppression is ordered. No suppression was sought nor provided for in any prior order.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4765337 — net $22,770.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4748672 dated 12/01/2024	$14,963.44	Previous order application 4748672 dated 12/01/2024
Cleaning: and carpet cleaning	$1,750.00	Cleaning: and carpet cleaning
Rubbish removal	$890.82	Rubbish removal
Meth testing/Cleaning: Insurance excess	$650.00	Meth testing/Cleaning: Insurance excess
Repairs: Tiled area	$650.00	Repairs: Tiled area
Repairs: Builder/ replace doors. fixtures, painting	$3,052.24	Repairs: Builder/ replace doors. fixtures, painting
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Window repairs	$793.50	Window repairs
Net award	$22,770.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$22,770.44

The landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenant.

The landlord has 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?

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.

The landlord provided invoices and photos of the condition, inside and out, in support of both claims. These invoices have been reviewed and they are accepted in fill.

The tenant did not return the keys. These were replaced by the builder and invoiced as part of the building work.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord had three windows replaced due to damage. An invoice for $793.00 was produced in evidence, as were some photos. Tiles

Was there a need to decontaminate/clean?

The premises was tested for methamphetamine three days before the tenancy commenced. No methamphetamine was detected at that time and the tenant signed the confirmation report acknowledging this.

The damages above is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression

The landlord requested suppression in its application. As it has been wholly successful, suppression is ordered. No suppression was sought nor provided for in any prior order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4765337 — Property damage at 100A Budge Street, Riversdale, Blenheim 7201

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4765337 — Property damage at 100A Budge Street, Riversdale, Blenheim 7201

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?

Was there a need to decontaminate/clean?

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?

Was there a need to decontaminate/clean?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions