What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4782604 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4782604?

Cleaning: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $900.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawnmowing: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Methamphetamine De-Contamination: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $209.30 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,459.54 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,049.40 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $294.03 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4782604?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4782604?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10795333-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4782604 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4782604?

Cleaning: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $900.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawnmowing: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Methamphetamine De-Contamination: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $209.30 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,459.54 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,049.40 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $294.03 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4782604?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4782604?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10795333-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4782604 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4782604 — net $6,785.21 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 12 December 2023	$1,459.54	13. The landlord’s rent record establishes rent arrears of $1,459.54 to 12 December
Water rates	$294.03	The claim for water rates is proven. Cleaning, rubbish, lawns, locks
Lock/key replacement	$209.30	Lock/key replacement
Lawnmowing	$172.50	Lawnmowing
Rubbish removal	$1,049.40	The claim for the cost of rubbish removal and disposal is proven. 3 Section 40(1)(e)(iii) RTA _________________________________________________________________…
Cleaning	$180.00	20. The premises were not left in a reasonably clean condition.
Methamphetamine de-contamination	$2,500.00	Methamphetamine de-contamination
Exemplary damages - using the premises, or permitting them be used, for an unlawful purpose	$900.00	Exemplary damages - using the premises, or permitting them be used, for an unlawful purpose
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,785.21
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,785.21

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4782604 — net $6,785.21 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.

Claim

Landlord

Tenant

Reason

Rent arrears to 12 December 2023

$1,459.54

13. The landlord’s rent record establishes rent arrears of $1,459.54 to 12 December

Water rates

$294.03

The claim for water rates is proven. Cleaning, rubbish, lawns, locks

Lock/key replacement

$209.30

Lock/key replacement

Lawnmowing

$172.50

Lawnmowing

Rubbish removal

$1,049.40

The claim for the cost of rubbish removal and disposal is proven. 3 Section 40(1)(e)(iii) RTA _________________________________________________________________…

Cleaning

$180.00

20. The premises were not left in a reasonably clean condition.

Methamphetamine de-contamination

$2,500.00

Methamphetamine de-contamination

Exemplary damages - using the premises, or permitting them be used, for an unlawful purpose

$900.00

Exemplary damages - using the premises, or permitting them be used, for an unlawful purpose

Filing fee reimbursement

$20.44

Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

$6,785.21

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

$6,785.21

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 11 August 2022.

On 6 July 2023 the landlord gave the tenant 90-days’ notice to terminate the tenancy on the grounds that extensive repairs / refurbishment is to be carried out on the premises and it would not be practical for the tenant to remain while the work is done.

Ms Clement did not vacate the premises on 9 October 2023 per the terms of that notice.

Ms Clement stopped paying rent.

On 10 October 2023, the landlord filed an application with the Tenancy Tribunal seeking an order for possession of the premises on the grounds that the tenancy had ended pursuant to the notice.

On 16 November 2023, the landlord filed another application with the Tenancy Tribunal seeking termination and possession on the grounds that the tenant was in rent arrears.

The second application was heard first. The Tenancy Tribunal made an order terminating the tenancy at 6pm on Sunday 10 December 2023. 1 The bond was released to the landlord.

The landlord engaged a bailiff. Ms Clement was evicted on 12 December 2023.

This application seeks rent arrears, water rates, change of locks, cleaning, rubbish removal, lawn mowing, methamphetamine de-contamination, and exemplary damages.

The hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 30 August 2024. [The landlord’s representative/s] represented the landlord. Ms Clement attended the hearing by phone. Rent arrears and water rates

Ms Clement remained in possession until 12 December 2023 and is liable for rent to that date. 2

The bond was released to the landlord on 11 December and was applied to rent arrears.

The landlord’s rent record establishes rent arrears of $1,459.54 to 12 December 2023.

This order supersedes the previous order for rent arrears to 10 December 2023.

Water rates are owed for the period from 3 May 2023 to the end of the tenancy. 1 [Redacted]. It is noted that the tenant’s surname is mis-spelled in that order. 2 Section 60 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”)

Ms Clement was paying a weekly amount towards water and had built up a substantial credit, but this credit was applied to rent arrears in October 2023.

The claim for water rates is proven. Cleaning, rubbish, lawns, locks

Tenants must quit the premises, remove all rubbish, and leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. 3

[The landlord’s representative] provided photographs showing the condition of the premises at the final inspection on 13 December 2023.

The premises were not left in a reasonably clean condition. The amount claimed for cleaning is proven, and is fair and reasonable having regard to the landlord’s photographs.

Parts of the lawn were very overgrown.

Ms Clement disputed this part of the claim on the grounds that the lawns were long when her tenancy began. [The landlord’s representative] acknowledged that they were long, although she disagreed to some extent with Ms Clement’s recollection of how overgrown they were. [The landlord’s representative] said that the landlord paid for the first mow.

In any event, this does not remove the tenant’s obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy.

The cost of lawnmowing is proven.

[The landlord’s representative’s] photographs show various items of rubbish and household items.

Ms Clement acknowledged that she ran out of time to remove everything from the property. She disputed the landlord’s claim for rubbish removal costs on the grounds that not all of what was left behind was rubbish, and the landlord failed to store her belongings and give her a reasonable opportunity to retrieve them.

Most of what I can see in [The landlord’s representative’s] photographs would, on a reasonable assessment, be considered rubbish rather than personal property with any market value.

I note that the items were not disposed of until early February 2024 (the invoice from the contractor is dated 8 February 2024. I am satisfied that there was adequate opportunity for Ms Clement to remove what she wished to remove.

The claim for the cost of rubbish removal and disposal is proven. 3 Section 40(1)(e)(iii) RTA

The tenancy was ended by an order for termination and possession, enforced by a bailiff of the Court. In those circumstances it is standard practice for the landlord to change the locks once the tenant is removed. The tenant is liable for that cost. The cost if change of locks is proven. Methamphetamine

The landlord carried out a methamphetamine test at the beginning of the tenancy.

The test result was positive for methamphetamine at a very low level of 0.12 micrograms per 100cm2 on a 10-sample composite.

The landlord carried out a further test at the end of the tenancy. The result was positive at a level of 4.37 micrograms per 100cm2 on a 10-sample composite.

The detailed (room by room) results of the end of tenancy test showed contamination on all of the samples, at levels ranging from 0.17 micrograms (lounge window frame) to 23.2 micrograms (toilet door top edge).

The landlord holds insurance for methamphetamine contamination with an excess of $2,500.00.

[The landlord’s representative] said that de-contamination work has been carried out, including the disposal of soft furnishings such as carpet.

Methamphetamine contamination, at levels that require de-contamination, constitutes damage to the premises.

The report results show conclusively that methamphetamine contamination occurred at the premises during Ms Clement’s tenancy. Tenants are liable for damage to the premises that is caused by themselves or by anyone who is at the premises with their consent 4 .

There is currently no level specified in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 as the ‘trigger’ for de-contamination.

Since 2019 the Tenancy Tribunal has applied the recommendations of the Gluckman report 5 , which concluded that de-contamination is recommended if contamination is present at levels of 15 micrograms per 100cm2 or above 6 .

In this instance, one room is proven to have been contaminated at a level above 15 micrograms – the toilet. 4 Section 49B(2) RTA 5 Full Circle Real Estate Ltd v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 6 If the contamination is due to methamphetamine use. If there is evidence of methamphetamine manufacture, the Gluckman report recommends de-contamination if contamination is present at levels of 1,5 micgrograms per 100cm or

The landlord has insurance for methamphetamine de-contamination with an excess of $2,500.00. The trigger level for de-contamination in the insurance policy was 1.5 micrograms per 100cm2.

Therefore, although the total cost of the de-contamination was substantial: a. The only cost paid by the landlord was the excess of $2,500.00. b. That is the amount claimed against Ms Clement. c. There is no evidence about the cost of de-contaminating the toilet only.

I am satisfied that the cost of de-contaminating the toilet room would be not less than $2,500.00. It would be necessary to carry out testing before and after the de-contamination work. Those costs, plus the cost of the actual de- contamination, would comfortably exceed $2,500.00.

The claim is proven. Exemplary damages

The claim seeks exemplary damages for: a. Failing to quit the premises without reasonable excuse. b. Using the premises, or permitting them to be used, for an unlawful purpose. c. Failing to allow the landlord entry into the premises (in circumstances where the landlord had a legal right to enter). a. Failing to quit the premises

As noted above, the landlord issued a notice to terminate the tenancy on 9 October 2023. The grounds for termination was that extensive repairs, renovations (etc) were to take place, and it would not be practicable for the tenant to remain while the repair work was done.

Ms Clement did not leave the tenancy on 9 October.

It is an unlawful act if a tenant fails, without “reasonable excuse” to leave the premises at the end of the tenancy.

Ms Clement said that one of the reasons why she did not leave was that she had nowhere to go. I acknowledge the difficulties that Ms Clement was experiencing but, from a legal perspective, not having anywhere else to go does not amount to a “reasonable excuse” for failing to leave the premises at the end of a tenancy.

However, Ms Clement also questioned the grounds for the landlord’s termination notice. Ms Clement noted that her tenancy began less than a year before the notice was issued. Although there was some repair / maintenance that needed to be done on the property, it was not obvious that there was any large scale or extensive work was needed.

The only evidence provided about the extensive repairs is a brief email from the owner dated 24 October 2023, more than three months after the notice was issued. The email contains very little detail about the extensive repairs – it states “do all necessary repairs to the bathroom” and “do all necessary repairs to the kitchen”.

It is sufficiently clear that some repairs were necessary but it is not proven that the extent of work that the landlord wanted to do was such that the tenant could not remain in the premises while the work was carried out.

Therefore I find that the tenancy did not terminated pursuant to this notice. It terminated pursuant to the Tribunal order dated 10 December 2023. b. Using the premises for unlawful purposes

The Tribunal may award exemplary damages of up to $1,800.00 if the tenant “uses the premises, or permits them to be used, for any unlawful purpose”

Possession and consumption of methamphetamine is an illegal activity.

For the reasons given above, I am satisfied that it is proven that methamphetamine use occurred at the premises during the period of this tenancy.

There is no evidence to indicate that the contamination could have occurred in circumstances other than Ms Clement causing the contamination or knowing that it was occurring.

I will make an award of exemplary damages.

In considering an award of exemplary damages the Tribunal must have regard to: 7 a. The intention of the person who committed the unlawful act; and b. The effect of the unlawful act; and c. The interests of the person against whom the act was committed; and d. The public interest.

In this instance: a. I have no direct evidence about the circumstances in which the contamination occurred. 7 Section 109 RTA b. The unlawful act caused cost and inconvenience for the landlord. c. There is a strong and legitimate public interest in punishing and deterring unlawful activity in tenanted premises.

Having regard to those factors I will award exemplary damages of $900.00. c. Refusing to allow entry

[The landlord’s representative] gave non-specific oral evidence that Ms Clement denied access to multiple persons on multiple occasions during the tenancy.

Ms Clement recalled one occasion where she turned away a person who arrived to carry out a methamphetamine test. Ms Clement said that she had not received notice that the person was coming.

The landlord has the burden of proof. The landlord must prove that, on a specific occasion: a. They had a legal right to enter the premises. This means that they were present for a purpose specified in the Residential Tenancies Act, and that they had given the tenant legal notice of their intended entry; and b. The tenant refused them access.

[The landlord’s representative] did not provide information about specific incidents, with supporting evidence showing that notice was given and that access was denied.

This part of the landlord’s claim is not proven. Name suppression, filing fee

The landlord sought name suppression.

Name suppression is granted on the grounds that the landlord has substantially succeeded in the proceedings. 8

The landlord is also entitled to recover the filing fee for this application. 9 N Blake, 5 September 2024 8 Section 95A(1) RTA 9 Section 102(4)(a) RTA

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4782604 — net $6,785.21 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 12 December 2023	$1,459.54	13. The landlord’s rent record establishes rent arrears of $1,459.54 to 12 December
Water rates	$294.03	The claim for water rates is proven. Cleaning, rubbish, lawns, locks
Lock/key replacement	$209.30	Lock/key replacement
Lawnmowing	$172.50	Lawnmowing
Rubbish removal	$1,049.40	The claim for the cost of rubbish removal and disposal is proven. 3 Section 40(1)(e)(iii) RTA _________________________________________________________________…
Cleaning	$180.00	20. The premises were not left in a reasonably clean condition.
Methamphetamine de-contamination	$2,500.00	Methamphetamine de-contamination
Exemplary damages - using the premises, or permitting them be used, for an unlawful purpose	$900.00	Exemplary damages - using the premises, or permitting them be used, for an unlawful purpose
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,785.21
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,785.21