What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4774380 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to

How much money was awarded in case 4774380?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Wall In Small Bedroom: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,940.92 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4774380?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4774380?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10118512-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4774380 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to

How much money was awarded in case 4774380?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Wall In Small Bedroom: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,940.92 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4774380?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4774380?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10118512-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4774380 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4774380 — net $261.36 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$1,940.92	Rubbish removal
Cleaning: kitchen	$150.00	Cleaning: kitchen
Repairs: wall in small bedroom	$350.00	Repairs: wall in small bedroom
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$261.36
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$261.36

[The landlord’s representative] appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant.

The tenancy commenced on 16 November 2022 and ended on 16 November 2023. On 27 December 2023, the landlord claims that the tenant: (i)Failed to remove all rubbish, (ii)Failed to leave the property reasonably clean, (iii)Failed to leave the carpet reasonably clean, (iv)Is responsible for methamphetamine contamination and costs associated with testing and cleaning, (v)Has used the property for an unlawful purpose, (vi)Is responsible for a hole in a bedroom wall.

The landlord is claiming $1,940.92 for rubbish removal, $805.00 for general cleaning, $287.50 to clean the carpet, $274.85 for methamphetamine testing, $370.88 for methamphetamine cleaning, and $975.25 to repair the damage. The landlord seeks an award of exemplary damages for unlawful use.

The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”). General cleaning, carpet cleaning, and rubbish removal

The landlord has produced a pre and end of tenancy inspection report, both of which contain photographs. The photographs in the pre tenancy inspection report dated 16 November 2022 are not of decent quality. The end of tenancy inspection was completed on 28 November 2023. [The landlord’s representative] was not the property manager at the material time, has no direct knowledge of this tenancy, having only just received the file for this hearing.

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Act. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. In determining what is reasonably clean and tidy the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence produced.

Concerning the claim for rubbish removal. The photographs supporting this claim appear to have been taken on 17 November 2023. It is clear that the tenant has failed to remove all rubbish from the outside of the property, including a garage. There is a significant amount of rubbish including old furniture, mattress, sofa and sofa chair, children’s toys, tyres, household appliances, and other items. The amount claimed is reasonable in the circumstances and awarded in full.

The landlord engaged cleaners who conducted cleaning on 27 November 2023. The property manager has, on 28 November 2023, then conducted an inspection and taken photographs of the inside of the property which have been produced to support the claim. Having been taken after cleaning the photographs are of little, if any, evidential value. While the photographs show some soiling to areas of carpet, as stated, the pre tenancy inspection report photographs are not of decent quality, and it is not possible to make a proper before and after comparison.

The only evidence that does support the claim for general cleaning is a single photograph of the kitchen taken on 17 November 2023. While it is insufficient to be satisfied that it is indicative of the rest of the property at the time, it is sufficient to prove that the kitchen was not left in a reasonably clean condition. On that basis, I award $150.00 to clean the kitchen. I decline to award compensation for carpet cleaning. Methamphetamine contamination, testing, and cleaning

A test for methamphetamine was conducted on 28 September 2022. The 10 samples taken produced a composite reading of 0.72 μg/100cm² (micrograms of methamphetamine per one hundred square centimetres of surface area sampled, “ug”). [The landlord’s representative] states to the best of her knowledge the property then remained vacant until the start of this tenancy on 16 November 2022. On 29 November 2023, end of tenancy testing was completed. The 10 sites sampled produced a composite reading of 2.98 ug.

The level is below that deemed to constitute damage or harm. The recommendation was that the landlord undertake further testing. On 19 December 2023, there was a wipe down of the internal surfaces. Both testing reports have been produced. The technician conducting the post tenancy testing has recorded that no previous testing had been undertaken. This appears to be incorrect.

In order to determine that a tenant is liable, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the contamination occurred during the tenancy. Similar to claims for damage this will involve making a before and after comparison. In this case it is not possible to make a proper comparison. The sites sampled pre and post are not the same, nor are they in close proximity. Had the technician conducting the end of tenancy testing been aware of and provided the pre inspection report with details of the sites sampled, the result may have been different.

Based on the evidence, I am not satisfied that the tenant is liable for contamination, and the claim for testing and cleaning is dismissed.

Section 40(2)(b) of the Act states that the tenant must not use or allow the property to be used for an unlawful purpose. A breach of this provision is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded. Under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 possessing methamphetamine is an offence. Having not been satisfied that the tenant is responsible for contamination, I cannot be satisfied that they have used or allowed the property to be used for an unlawful act, and that claim is also dismissed. Damage

To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage 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 of the Act.

In awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must also consider 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, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items concerned at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

The landlord has produced a photograph showing a hole in the wall in what appears to the smallest of the three bedrooms. The hole is located near the floor. Although the pre tenancy photographs are not clear, the inspection report is accompanied by a checklist which, apart for some wear and tear to wallpaper, does not record any other pre-existing damage.

Based on the evidence I am satisfied that the damage has occurred during the tenancy and that it is more than fair wear and tear. The invoice has two parts: $390.34 plus GST to repair the hole, and $457.70 plus GST to then paint the wall.

[The landlord’s representative] is unable to confirm the age of the property. The photographs suggest that the property was constructed in the 1970’s. There is no evidence of significant refurbishment of the room concerned. The checklist indicates the presence of wear and tear. Any compensation must be reasonable, commensurate with the damage, and take into account betterment. In my opinion $390.34 to plaster patch and sand the hole, and then $457.70 to paint the wall is not reasonable. In my opinion, based on the evidence, reasonable compensation, also taking into account betterment gained from painting the entire wall, is $350.00. Costs

As the landlord has been substantially successful, I order reimbursement of the filing fee. Name suppression

The landlord seeks name suppression.

Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.

The landlord has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4774380 — net $261.36 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$1,940.92	Rubbish removal
Cleaning: kitchen	$150.00	Cleaning: kitchen
Repairs: wall in small bedroom	$350.00	Repairs: wall in small bedroom
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$261.36
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$261.36

[The landlord’s representative] appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant.

Based on the evidence, I am not satisfied that the tenant is liable for contamination, and the claim for testing and cleaning is dismissed.

As the landlord has been substantially successful, I order reimbursement of the filing fee. Name suppression

The landlord seeks name suppression.

The landlord has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4774380 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4774380 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions