What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4776197?

The tribunal order states: Melissa Davies and Hayden Webster must pay Maria Rebecca Willison and Jon

How much money was awarded in case 4776197?

Cleaning: $593.20 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $2,893.03 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit: $72.85 awarded to tenant; Rental For 4 Weeks: $960.00 awarded to landlord; Master Bedroom Wall: $250.00 awarded to landlord; To Floor: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Dishwasher Rollers: $42.93 awarded to landlord; Replace Oven Door: $247.95 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $210.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $64.12 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4776197?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4776197?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10670299-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4776197?

The tribunal order states: Melissa Davies and Hayden Webster must pay Maria Rebecca Willison and Jon

How much money was awarded in case 4776197?

Cleaning: $593.20 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $2,893.03 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit: $72.85 awarded to tenant; Rental For 4 Weeks: $960.00 awarded to landlord; Master Bedroom Wall: $250.00 awarded to landlord; To Floor: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Dishwasher Rollers: $42.93 awarded to landlord; Replace Oven Door: $247.95 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $210.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $64.12 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4776197?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4776197?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10670299-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

14 Dearle Street, Paeroa, Paeroa 3600 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4776197 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4776197 — net $7,008.82 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates	$64.12		Water rates
Meth testing/Cleaning	$2,893.03		Meth testing/Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$593.20		Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: to floor	$250.00		Repairs: to floor
Repairs: master bedroom wall	$250.00		Repairs: master bedroom wall
Lock/key replacement: labour to replace ranchslider lock	$50.00		Lock/key replacement: labour to replace ranchslider lock
Replace oven door	$247.95		Replace oven door
Replace dishwasher rollers	$42.93		Replace dishwasher rollers
Rubbish removal: including soil	$210.00		Rubbish removal: including soil
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Cleaning: deep cleaning	$1,500.00		Cleaning: deep cleaning
rental for 4 weeks	$960.00		rental for 4 weeks
Rent credit		$72.85	Rent credit
Total award	$7,081.67	$72.85
Net award	$7,008.82
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,008.82

Order

Melissa Davies and Hayden Webster must pay Maria Rebecca Willison and Jon Patrick Ardon Te Whau $7,008.82 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenants were represented by a family member authorised to act on their behalf.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 11 July 2023. The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The rent was paid until 12 July so one days rent is refunded to the tenants.
No bond was paid.

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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The rubbish removal cost awarded includes the dumping of contaminated soil from the vege gardens.
The tenant did not return the ranch slider key.
The oven door and dishwasher were damaged during the tenancy and the amounts ordered are proven as the actual repair cost. I am not satisfied the damage to either appliance was fair wear and tear. The dishwasher was brand new so it is likely that the rollers broke because of force and the oven door was damaged while it was being cleaned.
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.

Methamphetamine contamination?

The house was contaminated by methamphetamine.
While no pre tenancy testing was conducted the landlords installed a brand new bathroom fan at the beginning of the tenancy which testing confirmed was contaminated at the end of the tenancy. This could not have happened unless it was contaminated during the tenancy.
In addition, the tenants have confirmed that a family member (who is now receiving addiction treatment) that stayed there while they were away is the person likely to have caused the contamination. The representative for the tenants confirmed this is the person likely to have used the methamphetamine. The fact the highest levels of methamphetamine were in the second bedroom is also consistent with a guest causing the contamination. Tenants are responsible for the actions of their guests.
The tenants are responsible for the cost of both the composite and individual room testing and the testing that occurred once the property was cleaned.
The composite test showed levels of 22.2 ug/100cm. This meant detailed testing was required and the highest individual sample was 13.1ug/100cm.
I am not however satisfied that the tenants are responsible for the extensive decontamination costs that occurred. In my view their liability is limited to the deep clean with sugar soap of all surfaces that occurred and for which invoices have been provided.
A number of District Court decisions have confirmed that methamphetamine levels below 15μg are not injurious to health and therefore the extensive cleaning and replacement of chatters was not required to restore the premises to a safe habitable state as recommended by the company that carried out the cleaning.
I am however quite prepared to find that to restore the premises to a level where they could be safely inhabited again extensive sugar soap scrubbing of surfaces was reasonable and a cost that should be awarded.
The landlord is in a difficult position. On the one hand they have a report stating that the premises should not be occupied until the levels are below 1.5μg (the level set out in the NZ Standard) and on the other hand this Tribunal and District Court has consistently confirmed that it is only if the levels exceed the 15μg set out in the Gluckman report that the property is potentially injurious to health and extensive decontamination is required.
I must however apply the reasoning of the District Court.
In two recent decisions the District Court has confirmed the Tribunal’s approach in adopting the Gluckman recommendations as correct and observed that the NZ standards do not have the force of law.
These findings were made in the face of significant opposition from the landlords appealing the Tribunal’s decisions on the grounds that the NZ standards were referred to on the Tenancy Services website and that companies involved in decontaminating premises were recommending the lower level in the NZ Standards be adopted.
In Acme Realty Ltd v Alexander James Hogg, Tuitui Grace Polotu, Leigh Sharyn Coughlin [2021] NZDC 3231 Judge Harrison confirmed Judge de Ridder’s approach in the earlier decision of Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947. Both decisions held that the Tribunal was correct to adopt and apply the levels set out in the Gluckman report, with the result that only if levels are above 15μg is decontamination required to ensure the premises are safe and not injurious to the health of future occupants.
Extensive decontamination is not required for low level methamphetamine levels below the 15μg.
It follows that save for the sugar soap clean (also required in this case because of pet urine on multiple surfaces) I dismiss the additional claims for extensive decontamination and replacement of curtains.

Replacement of carpet?

The landlord claimed for replacement of carpet due to pet urine stains and odour. The tenants had cats that caused a significant urine contamination.
The odour in the carpets could not be removed by cleaning and the dampness was so significant it destroyed the underlay and damaged an area of the floor that needed to be replaced. While the tenants were permitted to have cats, that does not absolve them of responsibility for damage they cause.
In making the award I have considered depreciation as the carpets were 10 years old. The award is therefore for the removal of the carpet, replacement of the underlay and repairs to the floorboards. In making those awards I accept that the carpets were in good condition, despite their age, and that the landlord who wanted to move back into the house would not have replaced them except for the significant damage. Bedroom wall damage
There was a hole in the bedroom wall caused by a surfboard falling. The tenants are liable for the repair cost which is established by the invoice provided. While the tenants submitted that the cost was high and they were not provided an opportunity to repair the hole themselves, they did not provide any evidence to support these points. The fundamental requirement is that a tenant repair damage they cause by the end of the tenancy. If they do not the landlord is responsible for reasonable repair costs which in this case are proven. Loss of rent for repair period
The landlord claimed 8 weeks rent as rental income lost during the repair period. When questioned the landlord explained that when they could not move back into the property they had to rent elsewhere. They paid $240 per week a cost that would not have been incurred except for the methamphetamine contamination. I have limited that loss of rent to 4 weeks as reasonable.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation when assessing the replacement of carpet claim. 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.

Filing fee?

The tenants are to pay the filing fee as the application is successful.

Suppression?

No suppression orders were requested. The public interest requires that the order is published without supression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4776197 — net $7,008.82 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates	$64.12		Water rates
Meth testing/Cleaning	$2,893.03		Meth testing/Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$593.20		Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: to floor	$250.00		Repairs: to floor
Repairs: master bedroom wall	$250.00		Repairs: master bedroom wall
Lock/key replacement: labour to replace ranchslider lock	$50.00		Lock/key replacement: labour to replace ranchslider lock
Replace oven door	$247.95		Replace oven door
Replace dishwasher rollers	$42.93		Replace dishwasher rollers
Rubbish removal: including soil	$210.00		Rubbish removal: including soil
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Cleaning: deep cleaning	$1,500.00		Cleaning: deep cleaning
rental for 4 weeks	$960.00		rental for 4 weeks
Rent credit		$72.85	Rent credit
Total award	$7,081.67	$72.85
Net award	$7,008.82
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,008.82

Order

Melissa Davies and Hayden Webster must pay Maria Rebecca Willison and Jon Patrick Ardon Te Whau $7,008.82 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenants were represented by a family member authorised to act on their behalf.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 11 July 2023. The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The rent was paid until 12 July so one days rent is refunded to the tenants.
No bond was paid.

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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The rubbish removal cost awarded includes the dumping of contaminated soil from the vege gardens.
The tenant did not return the ranch slider key.
The oven door and dishwasher were damaged during the tenancy and the amounts ordered are proven as the actual repair cost. I am not satisfied the damage to either appliance was fair wear and tear. The dishwasher was brand new so it is likely that the rollers broke because of force and the oven door was damaged while it was being cleaned.
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.

Methamphetamine contamination?

The house was contaminated by methamphetamine.
While no pre tenancy testing was conducted the landlords installed a brand new bathroom fan at the beginning of the tenancy which testing confirmed was contaminated at the end of the tenancy. This could not have happened unless it was contaminated during the tenancy.
In addition, the tenants have confirmed that a family member (who is now receiving addiction treatment) that stayed there while they were away is the person likely to have caused the contamination. The representative for the tenants confirmed this is the person likely to have used the methamphetamine. The fact the highest levels of methamphetamine were in the second bedroom is also consistent with a guest causing the contamination. Tenants are responsible for the actions of their guests.
The tenants are responsible for the cost of both the composite and individual room testing and the testing that occurred once the property was cleaned.
The composite test showed levels of 22.2 ug/100cm. This meant detailed testing was required and the highest individual sample was 13.1ug/100cm.
I am not however satisfied that the tenants are responsible for the extensive decontamination costs that occurred. In my view their liability is limited to the deep clean with sugar soap of all surfaces that occurred and for which invoices have been provided.
A number of District Court decisions have confirmed that methamphetamine levels below 15μg are not injurious to health and therefore the extensive cleaning and replacement of chatters was not required to restore the premises to a safe habitable state as recommended by the company that carried out the cleaning.
I am however quite prepared to find that to restore the premises to a level where they could be safely inhabited again extensive sugar soap scrubbing of surfaces was reasonable and a cost that should be awarded.
The landlord is in a difficult position. On the one hand they have a report stating that the premises should not be occupied until the levels are below 1.5μg (the level set out in the NZ Standard) and on the other hand this Tribunal and District Court has consistently confirmed that it is only if the levels exceed the 15μg set out in the Gluckman report that the property is potentially injurious to health and extensive decontamination is required.
I must however apply the reasoning of the District Court.
In two recent decisions the District Court has confirmed the Tribunal’s approach in adopting the Gluckman recommendations as correct and observed that the NZ standards do not have the force of law.
These findings were made in the face of significant opposition from the landlords appealing the Tribunal’s decisions on the grounds that the NZ standards were referred to on the Tenancy Services website and that companies involved in decontaminating premises were recommending the lower level in the NZ Standards be adopted.
In Acme Realty Ltd v Alexander James Hogg, Tuitui Grace Polotu, Leigh Sharyn Coughlin [2021] NZDC 3231 Judge Harrison confirmed Judge de Ridder’s approach in the earlier decision of Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947. Both decisions held that the Tribunal was correct to adopt and apply the levels set out in the Gluckman report, with the result that only if levels are above 15μg is decontamination required to ensure the premises are safe and not injurious to the health of future occupants.
Extensive decontamination is not required for low level methamphetamine levels below the 15μg.
It follows that save for the sugar soap clean (also required in this case because of pet urine on multiple surfaces) I dismiss the additional claims for extensive decontamination and replacement of curtains.

Replacement of carpet?

The landlord claimed for replacement of carpet due to pet urine stains and odour. The tenants had cats that caused a significant urine contamination.
The odour in the carpets could not be removed by cleaning and the dampness was so significant it destroyed the underlay and damaged an area of the floor that needed to be replaced. While the tenants were permitted to have cats, that does not absolve them of responsibility for damage they cause.
In making the award I have considered depreciation as the carpets were 10 years old. The award is therefore for the removal of the carpet, replacement of the underlay and repairs to the floorboards. In making those awards I accept that the carpets were in good condition, despite their age, and that the landlord who wanted to move back into the house would not have replaced them except for the significant damage. Bedroom wall damage
There was a hole in the bedroom wall caused by a surfboard falling. The tenants are liable for the repair cost which is established by the invoice provided. While the tenants submitted that the cost was high and they were not provided an opportunity to repair the hole themselves, they did not provide any evidence to support these points. The fundamental requirement is that a tenant repair damage they cause by the end of the tenancy. If they do not the landlord is responsible for reasonable repair costs which in this case are proven. Loss of rent for repair period
The landlord claimed 8 weeks rent as rental income lost during the repair period. When questioned the landlord explained that when they could not move back into the property they had to rent elsewhere. They paid $240 per week a cost that would not have been incurred except for the methamphetamine contamination. I have limited that loss of rent to 4 weeks as reasonable.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation when assessing the replacement of carpet claim. 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.

Filing fee?

The tenants are to pay the filing fee as the application is successful.

Suppression?

No suppression orders were requested. The public interest requires that the order is published without supression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4776197 — Cleanliness at 14 Dearle Street, Paeroa, Paeroa 3600

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4776197 — Cleanliness at 14 Dearle Street, Paeroa, Paeroa 3600

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Methamphetamine contamination?

Replacement of carpet?

Filing fee?

Suppression?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Methamphetamine contamination?

Replacement of carpet?

Filing fee?

Suppression?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions