What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4782100 about?

The tribunal order states: Because of the potential prejudice from publication and the nature of the

How much money was awarded in case 4782100?

Dump Fees: $178.56 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Remove Garden Shed: $322.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Trailer Hire: $60.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4782100?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4782100?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10513724-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4782100 about?

The tribunal order states: Because of the potential prejudice from publication and the nature of the

How much money was awarded in case 4782100?

Dump Fees: $178.56 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Remove Garden Shed: $322.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Trailer Hire: $60.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4782100?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4782100?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10513724-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4782100 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4782100 — net $461.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Remove garden shed	$322.00	Remove garden shed
Rubbish removal	$500.00	Rubbish removal
Trailer hire	$60.00	Trailer hire
Dump fees	$178.56	Dump fees
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$461.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$461.00

Order

Because of the potential prejudice from publication and the nature of the allegations addressed in this Order, the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details, along with those of [The landlord’s sister]
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $461.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $620.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
The landlord and [The landlord's sister] inherited this and another property from their mother.
[The landlord's sister] occupied these premises and then arranged for the tenant to take up a tenancy.
A tenancy agreement was signed on 18 October 2022 between [The landlord/s] and [The landlord's sister] as landlords, and the tenant. It created a periodic tenancy at an initial rent of $450.00 per week with the bond of $2,250.00 to be paid – although both parties thought that payment was $1,800.00 for bond and $450.00 for a week’s rent in advance.
The property then changed ownership so that [The landlord/s] is now the sole owner and landlord.
The tenancy ended when the property manager on the landlord’s behalf, gave the tenant 90 days’ notice of termination under section 51(2)(f) RTA on the basis that the landlord wanted to undertake an extensive refurbishment and it would not be a practical for the tenant to remain in occupation.
Methamphetamine testing was undertaken after the tenancy ended which showed that there were methamphetamine residues in the premises.
The detailed testing results provided by [drug testing company] show contamination levels in the 20 sites tested ranging from 0.68μg per 100 cm 2 to 32 μg per 100 cm 2 on the door in the lounge/ dining area. Residues of 18.9μg per 100 cm 2 were found in the front of the heat pump and 12.9μg per 100 cm 2 micrograms on the side of a kitchen cabinet.
The landlord made an insurance claim which was accepted, and significant decontamination work was carried out by [cleaning company]. The payment advice from the insurer shows that the total testing and decontamination costs were $12,075.00 The insurer paid the landlord $9,575.00, being that cost less the claim excess of $2500.00.
The parties had understood that a bond of $1,800.00 was held at the Bond Centre. That amount was paid to the landlord, however a further $620.00 remains at the Bond Centre unclaimed. The Claims
The landlord claims: • $2,500.00 - being the excess cost on the insurance claim for methamphetamine contamination • $322.00 – paid to [cleaning company] for removal of a garden shed • $500.00 - paid to [cleaning company] for rubbish removal • $225.00 - for lock replacement • $60.00 - for a trailer hire • $178.56 - for dump fees next number • $3,600.00 for loss of rents.

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

At the end of a 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
Photographs provided by the landlord show a large quantity of rubbish and goods at the premises when the tenancy ended.
That material included a garden shed which the photographs show does not appear to have been adequately secured and had blown against the house.
Those photographs also show the trailer hired by the landlord to remove that material. Invoices have been provided for the payments to [cleaning company], for trailer hire and for dump fees.
The tenant says that when [The landlord's sister] vacated the premises before the tenant moved in she did not remove all of her possessions and rubbish. An unsigned statement from an acquaintance is provided in support, saying that the premises were in awful condition when the tenant moved in, unclean and with clothes and furniture everywhere. The tenant says that as a result, a lot of what the landlord took away at the end of the tenancy in fact was left by his sister.
The landlord acknowledges that some belongings were left by [The landlord's sister] when she moved out but that during the tenancy he made a skip bin available to the tenant so those things could be easily disposed of by her.
There are no entry inspection photographs and no record in the agreement of any issues about rubbish that needed to be disposed of.
It is the tenant’s responsibility to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and free of rubbish. The landlord’s evidence proves that was not the state of the premises when the tenancy ended.
It therefore falls to the tenant to provide evidence proving that the rubbish left at the premises at the end of the tenancy, which the landlord had to remove at his cost, was not her responsibility. The tenant has raised some legitimate questions about whether the premises were provided to her in the state they should have been. It does not prove on balance however that the rubbish the landlord took away was not hers.
I find it proved on balance the tenant breached her obligation to remove all rubbish from the premises at the premises at the end of the tenancy and that their landlord should be compensated for the cost of removing it.
The costs claimed, which include the payment made to [cleaning company] for removal of the garden shed, the payment made to [cleaning company] for removing furniture and rubbish, the cost of trailer hire, and the dump fees are proved by the invoices provided.
The landlord provided evidence of an additional $500.00 payment made to [cleaning company] for clearing lawn and garden waste but that it was covered by the payment made to him from the bond. Keys
The landlord says that no keys were returned and claims $225.00 for the cost of replacement keys and locks.
The tenant says that no keys were provided to her at the start of the tenancy.
While that does seem unlikely, it is for the landlord to prove that keys were provided at the start of the tenancy but were not returned. The agreement has no record of any keys having been provided. I therefore cannot find that claim 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.
The testing report from [drug testing company] shows that at the end of the tenancy methamphetamine residues were detected.
The landlord must prove: First, that the contamination occurred during the tenancy; and Second, that the that the compensation claimed was necessary to remediate the risk caused by that contamination.
As to the first of those issues, no methamphetamine tests were carried out at the start of the tenancy. The tenant has given direct evidence, under promise, that she did not use or bring methamphetamine into the premises during the tenancy and that she is not aware of anybody else having done so. That does not of course exclude the possibility that methamphetamine may have been used in the premises during the tenancy without her knowledge.
The tenant says that [The landlord's sister] used methamphetamine in the premises while she was the tenant. A signed corroborating statement has been provided, which says that, “I know the previous tenant of [the premises] [The landlord's sister] as I used to be a tenant of hers, I've witnessed multiple occasions [The landlord's sister] smoking methamphetamine in the [premises].” That witness was not called to speak to that statement and its weight is accordingly limited.
The tenant’s evidence and supporting statement does however raise the possibility of the premises having been contaminated before this tendency began.
Neither party chose to call or require [The landlord's sister] to give evidence.
The landlord says that the contamination must have occurred during the tenancy because methamphetamine residues were found on an extractor fan in the kitchen that was installed in early 2021, as proved by the electrician’s invoice provided.
I heard evidence by phone from [the witness] at [cleaning company], who undertook the decontamination work at the premises. He expressed a view that the extent of the contamination found and particularly the high levels of contamination found on hard surfaces such as a door and heat pump cover, suggested recent use, because long term contamination was more likely on absorbent surfaces. He confirmed however that he could not be certain about when the contamination found in the premises occurred.
[The witness] also confirmed that samples were taken for the initial testing and the post decontamination testing, either side of and close to the kitchen extractor that had been installed during the tenancy, but no samples were taken and tested from the extractor unit itself.
On balance, while there is some evidence suggesting recent contamination, I do not find it proved more likely than not that the methamphetamine contamination found in the premises occurred during this tenancy. The landlord’s claim is therefore declined.
I also note that the costs were incurred assuming a need to remediate any contamination found above the NZS 8510:2017 recommendation of 1.5μg per 100 cm 2 . For reasons traversed at length during the hearing, the Tribunal is required to apply what is known as the “Gluckman standard” which suggests a need to address contamination above 15μg per 100 cm 2 . . Two hard surface areas were shown to have contamination above that level. Had I found that the contamination was proved to have occurred during the tenancy, there would still have been a significant question as to whether the remediation for which compensation is claimed was required to adequately address the resulting health risk. Loss of rents
The premises were unable to be rented for quite some time after the tenancy ended. As a result, the landlord incurred a loss for which compensation is sought.
The landlord’s claim against the tenant for compensation of that loss is declined for two reasons: First, it seems likely that the majority of the delay in the premises being able to be rented again, was from the methamphetamine remediation work and I have not found it proved that the tenant was responsible; Second, the insurance policy schedule provided by the landlord includes, as one of the optional covers selected, “loss rent cover for one unit”
That raises the possibility, which the landlord has not explored, that the loss claimed is one which he is able to claim against his insurance, in which case the tenant’s liability would be limited to the excess on such a claim. The evidence does not show whether a further excess would be required or whether the loss of rents could be covered under the claim for which the excess has already been paid. In either case, the landlord has not proved the loss claimed.
Because [The landlord/s] has had claims upheld claim I reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4782100 — net $461.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Remove garden shed	$322.00	Remove garden shed
Rubbish removal	$500.00	Rubbish removal
Trailer hire	$60.00	Trailer hire
Dump fees	$178.56	Dump fees
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$461.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$461.00

Order

Because of the potential prejudice from publication and the nature of the allegations addressed in this Order, the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details, along with those of [The landlord’s sister]
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $461.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $620.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
The landlord and [The landlord's sister] inherited this and another property from their mother.
[The landlord's sister] occupied these premises and then arranged for the tenant to take up a tenancy.
A tenancy agreement was signed on 18 October 2022 between [The landlord/s] and [The landlord's sister] as landlords, and the tenant. It created a periodic tenancy at an initial rent of $450.00 per week with the bond of $2,250.00 to be paid – although both parties thought that payment was $1,800.00 for bond and $450.00 for a week’s rent in advance.
The property then changed ownership so that [The landlord/s] is now the sole owner and landlord.
The tenancy ended when the property manager on the landlord’s behalf, gave the tenant 90 days’ notice of termination under section 51(2)(f) RTA on the basis that the landlord wanted to undertake an extensive refurbishment and it would not be a practical for the tenant to remain in occupation.
Methamphetamine testing was undertaken after the tenancy ended which showed that there were methamphetamine residues in the premises.
The detailed testing results provided by [drug testing company] show contamination levels in the 20 sites tested ranging from 0.68μg per 100 cm 2 to 32 μg per 100 cm 2 on the door in the lounge/ dining area. Residues of 18.9μg per 100 cm 2 were found in the front of the heat pump and 12.9μg per 100 cm 2 micrograms on the side of a kitchen cabinet.
The landlord made an insurance claim which was accepted, and significant decontamination work was carried out by [cleaning company]. The payment advice from the insurer shows that the total testing and decontamination costs were $12,075.00 The insurer paid the landlord $9,575.00, being that cost less the claim excess of $2500.00.
The parties had understood that a bond of $1,800.00 was held at the Bond Centre. That amount was paid to the landlord, however a further $620.00 remains at the Bond Centre unclaimed. The Claims
The landlord claims: • $2,500.00 - being the excess cost on the insurance claim for methamphetamine contamination • $322.00 – paid to [cleaning company] for removal of a garden shed • $500.00 - paid to [cleaning company] for rubbish removal • $225.00 - for lock replacement • $60.00 - for a trailer hire • $178.56 - for dump fees next number • $3,600.00 for loss of rents.

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

At the end of a 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
Photographs provided by the landlord show a large quantity of rubbish and goods at the premises when the tenancy ended.
That material included a garden shed which the photographs show does not appear to have been adequately secured and had blown against the house.
Those photographs also show the trailer hired by the landlord to remove that material. Invoices have been provided for the payments to [cleaning company], for trailer hire and for dump fees.
The tenant says that when [The landlord's sister] vacated the premises before the tenant moved in she did not remove all of her possessions and rubbish. An unsigned statement from an acquaintance is provided in support, saying that the premises were in awful condition when the tenant moved in, unclean and with clothes and furniture everywhere. The tenant says that as a result, a lot of what the landlord took away at the end of the tenancy in fact was left by his sister.
The landlord acknowledges that some belongings were left by [The landlord's sister] when she moved out but that during the tenancy he made a skip bin available to the tenant so those things could be easily disposed of by her.
There are no entry inspection photographs and no record in the agreement of any issues about rubbish that needed to be disposed of.
It is the tenant’s responsibility to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and free of rubbish. The landlord’s evidence proves that was not the state of the premises when the tenancy ended.
It therefore falls to the tenant to provide evidence proving that the rubbish left at the premises at the end of the tenancy, which the landlord had to remove at his cost, was not her responsibility. The tenant has raised some legitimate questions about whether the premises were provided to her in the state they should have been. It does not prove on balance however that the rubbish the landlord took away was not hers.
I find it proved on balance the tenant breached her obligation to remove all rubbish from the premises at the premises at the end of the tenancy and that their landlord should be compensated for the cost of removing it.
The costs claimed, which include the payment made to [cleaning company] for removal of the garden shed, the payment made to [cleaning company] for removing furniture and rubbish, the cost of trailer hire, and the dump fees are proved by the invoices provided.
The landlord provided evidence of an additional $500.00 payment made to [cleaning company] for clearing lawn and garden waste but that it was covered by the payment made to him from the bond. Keys
The landlord says that no keys were returned and claims $225.00 for the cost of replacement keys and locks.
The tenant says that no keys were provided to her at the start of the tenancy.
While that does seem unlikely, it is for the landlord to prove that keys were provided at the start of the tenancy but were not returned. The agreement has no record of any keys having been provided. I therefore cannot find that claim 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.
The testing report from [drug testing company] shows that at the end of the tenancy methamphetamine residues were detected.
The landlord must prove: First, that the contamination occurred during the tenancy; and Second, that the that the compensation claimed was necessary to remediate the risk caused by that contamination.
As to the first of those issues, no methamphetamine tests were carried out at the start of the tenancy. The tenant has given direct evidence, under promise, that she did not use or bring methamphetamine into the premises during the tenancy and that she is not aware of anybody else having done so. That does not of course exclude the possibility that methamphetamine may have been used in the premises during the tenancy without her knowledge.
The tenant says that [The landlord's sister] used methamphetamine in the premises while she was the tenant. A signed corroborating statement has been provided, which says that, “I know the previous tenant of [the premises] [The landlord's sister] as I used to be a tenant of hers, I've witnessed multiple occasions [The landlord's sister] smoking methamphetamine in the [premises].” That witness was not called to speak to that statement and its weight is accordingly limited.
The tenant’s evidence and supporting statement does however raise the possibility of the premises having been contaminated before this tendency began.
Neither party chose to call or require [The landlord's sister] to give evidence.
The landlord says that the contamination must have occurred during the tenancy because methamphetamine residues were found on an extractor fan in the kitchen that was installed in early 2021, as proved by the electrician’s invoice provided.
I heard evidence by phone from [the witness] at [cleaning company], who undertook the decontamination work at the premises. He expressed a view that the extent of the contamination found and particularly the high levels of contamination found on hard surfaces such as a door and heat pump cover, suggested recent use, because long term contamination was more likely on absorbent surfaces. He confirmed however that he could not be certain about when the contamination found in the premises occurred.
[The witness] also confirmed that samples were taken for the initial testing and the post decontamination testing, either side of and close to the kitchen extractor that had been installed during the tenancy, but no samples were taken and tested from the extractor unit itself.
On balance, while there is some evidence suggesting recent contamination, I do not find it proved more likely than not that the methamphetamine contamination found in the premises occurred during this tenancy. The landlord’s claim is therefore declined.
I also note that the costs were incurred assuming a need to remediate any contamination found above the NZS 8510:2017 recommendation of 1.5μg per 100 cm 2 . For reasons traversed at length during the hearing, the Tribunal is required to apply what is known as the “Gluckman standard” which suggests a need to address contamination above 15μg per 100 cm 2 . . Two hard surface areas were shown to have contamination above that level. Had I found that the contamination was proved to have occurred during the tenancy, there would still have been a significant question as to whether the remediation for which compensation is claimed was required to adequately address the resulting health risk. Loss of rents
The premises were unable to be rented for quite some time after the tenancy ended. As a result, the landlord incurred a loss for which compensation is sought.
The landlord’s claim against the tenant for compensation of that loss is declined for two reasons: First, it seems likely that the majority of the delay in the premises being able to be rented again, was from the methamphetamine remediation work and I have not found it proved that the tenant was responsible; Second, the insurance policy schedule provided by the landlord includes, as one of the optional covers selected, “loss rent cover for one unit”
That raises the possibility, which the landlord has not explored, that the loss claimed is one which he is able to claim against his insurance, in which case the tenant’s liability would be limited to the excess on such a claim. The evidence does not show whether a further excess would be required or whether the loss of rents could be covered under the claim for which the excess has already been paid. In either case, the landlord has not proved the loss claimed.
Because [The landlord/s] has had claims upheld claim I reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4782100 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4782100 — Tenancy dispute

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions