What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4792997 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited Acting Agent For Neville

How much money was awarded in case 4792997?

Cleaning: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4792997?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4792997?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10167895-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4792997 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited Acting Agent For Neville

How much money was awarded in case 4792997?

Cleaning: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4792997?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4792997?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10167895-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4792997 — Cleanliness

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4792997. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Meth testing/Cleaning	$2,500.00		Meth testing/Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee.

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.

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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Methamphetamine contamination of a bedroom.

During of the tenancy, methamphetamine testing was done by [testing company].

The results showed bedroom 4 had a methamphetamine reading of 44.9μg per 100cm3.

This would indicate that significant methamphetamine contamination did occur.

For the landlord to recover the costs of methamphetamine decontamination it must reach the legal level for “damage” which is generally considered contamination a 15 μg per 100cm3 or higher as set out in the “Gluckman Report” and adopted by the Court in the case of Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper 2019 NZDC 4947 CIV-2018-0092490 where it said that the “Gluckman report represents the current scientific knowledge to the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination in dwellings”.

This test result is well above the “Gluckman Report” level of contamination.

The tenant’s son has accepted that the contamination was caused by him. Because the tenant accepts her son was residing at the address with her consent, she accepts liability for the damage, although it is likely her son will reimburse her for these costs.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Because Barfoot & Thompson Limited Acting Agent For Neville Cooper Trust has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Under Section 95A(1) RTA suppression order must be granted if on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings.

In the present case, the tenant was not wholly or substantially successful.

I have considered if I should grant a name suppression order for the tenant having regard to the interests of the parties and public interest under Section 95A(4) RTA.

I am mindful that open justice is a fundamental principle in our legal system. The issue here I need to consider is whether suppressing the tenant’s name and identifying details outweigh the interest of the open justice reporting principle.

Because the tenant is not responsible, personally, for the methamphetamine contamination, and is named as respondent purely on the basis that this is her tenancy, I am satisfied that her interests outweigh the public interest in publication of her name. on that basis, I order suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4792997. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Meth testing/Cleaning	$2,500.00		Meth testing/Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited Acting Agent For Neville Cooper Trust $2,520.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Meth testing/Cleaning$2,500.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$2,520.44

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee.

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.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Methamphetamine contamination of a bedroom.
During of the tenancy, methamphetamine testing was done by [testing company].
The results showed bedroom 4 had a methamphetamine reading of 44.9μg per 100cm3.
This would indicate that significant methamphetamine contamination did occur.
For the landlord to recover the costs of methamphetamine decontamination it must reach the legal level for “damage” which is generally considered contamination a 15 μg per 100cm3 or higher as set out in the “Gluckman Report” and adopted by the Court in the case of Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper 2019 NZDC 4947 CIV-2018-0092490 where it said that the “Gluckman report represents the current scientific knowledge to the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination in dwellings”.
This test result is well above the “Gluckman Report” level of contamination.
The tenant’s son has accepted that the contamination was caused by him. Because the tenant accepts her son was residing at the address with her consent, she accepts liability for the damage, although it is likely her son will reimburse her for these costs.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Because Barfoot & Thompson Limited Acting Agent For Neville Cooper Trust has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
Under Section 95A(1) RTA suppression order must be granted if on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings.
In the present case, the tenant was not wholly or substantially successful.
I have considered if I should grant a name suppression order for the tenant having regard to the interests of the parties and public interest under Section 95A(4) RTA.
I am mindful that open justice is a fundamental principle in our legal system. The issue here I need to consider is whether suppressing the tenant’s name and identifying details outweigh the interest of the open justice reporting principle.
Because the tenant is not responsible, personally, for the methamphetamine contamination, and is named as respondent purely on the basis that this is her tenancy, I am satisfied that her interests outweigh the public interest in publication of her name. on that basis, I order suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4792997 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4792997 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions