What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4776454?

The tribunal order states: Moana Vanesa Kauri, Ned Benny Nahona, Braiden Dean Allen Nahona and

How much money was awarded in case 4776454?

Cleaning: $69.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $315.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; P Testing: $3,550.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $458.49 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $170.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpet Excess: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $327.24 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4776454?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4776454?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10055128-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4776454?

The tribunal order states: Moana Vanesa Kauri, Ned Benny Nahona, Braiden Dean Allen Nahona and

How much money was awarded in case 4776454?

Cleaning: $69.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $315.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; P Testing: $3,550.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $458.49 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $170.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpet Excess: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $327.24 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4776454?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4776454?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10055128-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

12 Maire Street, Levin, Levin 5510 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4776454 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

12 Maire Street, Levin, Levin 5510 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4776454 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4776454 — net $5,310.17 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$170.00	Rent arrears
Carpet Cleaning	$69.00	Carpet Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$458.49	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal	$327.24	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$315.00	Cleaning
P testing	$3,550.00	P testing
Replace furnishings: carpet excess	$400.00	Replace furnishings: carpet excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,310.17
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,310.17

Claims and awards for application 4776454 — net $5,310.17 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $170.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $69.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $458.49
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Rubbish removal

Amount: $327.24
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Cleaning

Amount: $315.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

P testing

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears Rubbish Removal

Order

Moana Vanesa Kauri, Ned Benny Nahona, Braiden Dean Allen Nahona and Tony Shae Benny Nahona must pay Seddon Street Property Management Limited As Agent For New Horizons (2007) Ltd $5,310.17 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$170.00 Carpet Cleaning$69.00 Lock/key replacement$458.49 Rubbish removal$327.24 Cleaning$315.00 P testing$3,550.00 Replace furnishings: carpet excess$400.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$5,310.17 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$5,310.17

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
The tenant did not attend the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Service
The landlord made application to the Tribunal on 5 January 2024 which was more than two months after the end of the tenancy. This means that the application and other documents required to be served on the tenant must be posted to an address that the tenant has given to the landlord in writing within the last two months, or served in person on the tenant, or delivered to the tenant's place of residence, or given to an authorised agent of the tenant. See section 91A(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
This application was emailed to the tenant at the email address included as an address for service in the tenancy agreement. Notifications were also texted to the tenant. No emails have been returned because the email address is inactive.
I am satisfied that in these circumstances reasonable efforts have been made to serve the application and corresponding documentation on the tenant. I am satisfied that emailing and texting to a longstanding email address and phone number are steps that have brought, or are likely to have brought, notice of the application to the tenant’s attention.
In accordance with section 91B(2) RTA, I direct that the requirement for service is dispensed with and that the landlord’s application is to proceed as if it had been served on the tenant.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy was terminated by the Tribunal on 10 October 2023. The landlord obtained vacant possession on 12 October 2023. The landlord is entitled to a further two days’ rent.

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 landlord provided photographic evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided evidence that the property was free of methamphetamine contamination at the start of the tenancy. It undertook testing at the end of the tenancy that showed that there was methamphetamine contamination at the end of the tenancy.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven that the methamphetamine contamination occurred during the tenancy.
However, the recorded levels are below 15 μg/100 cm2. This is the level the Gluckman Report concluded are highly unlikely to cause adverse health effects. This is the level that the District Court and the Tribunal have accepted needs to be exceeded before it is necessary for the landlord to decontaminate the property and so for a tenant to be liable for those costs.
It is an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 for any person to have in their possession or consume any controlled drug and to allow any premises to be used for the commission of an offence under that Act and (sections 7 and 12).
“Methamphetamine” is included as a controlled drug under Schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
It follows that the consumption of methamphetamine on premises amounts to the use of those premises for an unlawful purpose, in breach of section 40(2)(b) RTA.
It is appropriate in these circumstances to award the landlord the costs incurred in having the property tested for contamination at the end of the tenancy as it was prudent for the landlord to do so, given the positive proof from the first test that methamphetamine was consumed in the property.
The landlord provided invoices totalling $3,550.00 for an initial report and then substantive reports. The landlord is entitled to be compensated for these reports. I have not awarded a sum for the final report which showed that the property was free of contamination as this is an expense that the landlord would have incurred in the ordinary course of its business, prior to the re-letting of the property.
The tenant did not return the keys.
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 landlord provided photographic evidence of stains to the carpet in the second bedroom, together with an invoice from a carpet cleaner that stated that attempts to remove the stains were unsuccessful. The landlord’s claim for replacement of this carpet under its insurance policy were successful.
This damage was careless and so the tenant’s liability is limited to the landlord’s insurance excess. This amount is to be paid by the tenant to the landlord.
Because Seddon Street Property Management Limited As Agent For New Horizons (2007) Ltd has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4776454 — net $5,310.17 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$170.00	Rent arrears
Carpet Cleaning	$69.00	Carpet Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$458.49	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal	$327.24	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$315.00	Cleaning
P testing	$3,550.00	P testing
Replace furnishings: carpet excess	$400.00	Replace furnishings: carpet excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,310.17
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,310.17

Claims and awards for application 4776454 — net $5,310.17 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $170.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $69.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $458.49
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Rubbish removal

Amount: $327.24
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Cleaning

Amount: $315.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

P testing

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears Rubbish Removal

Order

Moana Vanesa Kauri, Ned Benny Nahona, Braiden Dean Allen Nahona and Tony Shae Benny Nahona must pay Seddon Street Property Management Limited As Agent For New Horizons (2007) Ltd $5,310.17 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$170.00 Carpet Cleaning$69.00 Lock/key replacement$458.49 Rubbish removal$327.24 Cleaning$315.00 P testing$3,550.00 Replace furnishings: carpet excess$400.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$5,310.17 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$5,310.17

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
The tenant did not attend the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Service
The landlord made application to the Tribunal on 5 January 2024 which was more than two months after the end of the tenancy. This means that the application and other documents required to be served on the tenant must be posted to an address that the tenant has given to the landlord in writing within the last two months, or served in person on the tenant, or delivered to the tenant's place of residence, or given to an authorised agent of the tenant. See section 91A(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
This application was emailed to the tenant at the email address included as an address for service in the tenancy agreement. Notifications were also texted to the tenant. No emails have been returned because the email address is inactive.
I am satisfied that in these circumstances reasonable efforts have been made to serve the application and corresponding documentation on the tenant. I am satisfied that emailing and texting to a longstanding email address and phone number are steps that have brought, or are likely to have brought, notice of the application to the tenant’s attention.
In accordance with section 91B(2) RTA, I direct that the requirement for service is dispensed with and that the landlord’s application is to proceed as if it had been served on the tenant.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy was terminated by the Tribunal on 10 October 2023. The landlord obtained vacant possession on 12 October 2023. The landlord is entitled to a further two days’ rent.

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 landlord provided photographic evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided evidence that the property was free of methamphetamine contamination at the start of the tenancy. It undertook testing at the end of the tenancy that showed that there was methamphetamine contamination at the end of the tenancy.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven that the methamphetamine contamination occurred during the tenancy.
However, the recorded levels are below 15 μg/100 cm2. This is the level the Gluckman Report concluded are highly unlikely to cause adverse health effects. This is the level that the District Court and the Tribunal have accepted needs to be exceeded before it is necessary for the landlord to decontaminate the property and so for a tenant to be liable for those costs.
It is an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 for any person to have in their possession or consume any controlled drug and to allow any premises to be used for the commission of an offence under that Act and (sections 7 and 12).
“Methamphetamine” is included as a controlled drug under Schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
It follows that the consumption of methamphetamine on premises amounts to the use of those premises for an unlawful purpose, in breach of section 40(2)(b) RTA.
It is appropriate in these circumstances to award the landlord the costs incurred in having the property tested for contamination at the end of the tenancy as it was prudent for the landlord to do so, given the positive proof from the first test that methamphetamine was consumed in the property.
The landlord provided invoices totalling $3,550.00 for an initial report and then substantive reports. The landlord is entitled to be compensated for these reports. I have not awarded a sum for the final report which showed that the property was free of contamination as this is an expense that the landlord would have incurred in the ordinary course of its business, prior to the re-letting of the property.
The tenant did not return the keys.
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 landlord provided photographic evidence of stains to the carpet in the second bedroom, together with an invoice from a carpet cleaner that stated that attempts to remove the stains were unsuccessful. The landlord’s claim for replacement of this carpet under its insurance policy were successful.
This damage was careless and so the tenant’s liability is limited to the landlord’s insurance excess. This amount is to be paid by the tenant to the landlord.
Because Seddon Street Property Management Limited As Agent For New Horizons (2007) Ltd has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4776454 — Property damage at 12 Maire Street, Levin, Levin 5510

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4776454 — Property damage at 12 Maire Street, Levin, Levin 5510

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions