How much money was awarded in case 4795822?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Loss Of Rent: $4,400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $4,000.00 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing Costs: $5,212.95 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $315.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,011.71 awarded to landlord; Remediation Curtain Rails: $172.17 awarded to landlord; Rent: Arrears & In Lieu Of Notice: $3,300.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $118.50 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $29.40 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $236.03 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4795822?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4795822?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11325410-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4795822?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Loss Of Rent: $4,400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $4,000.00 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing Costs: $5,212.95 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $315.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,011.71 awarded to landlord; Remediation Curtain Rails: $172.17 awarded to landlord; Rent: Arrears & In Lieu Of Notice: $3,300.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $118.50 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $29.40 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $236.03 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4795822?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4795822?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11325410-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4795822 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4795822 about?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4795822 — net $16,616.20 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent: arrears & in lieu of notice	$3,300.00	Rent: arrears & in lieu of notice
Water rates	$236.03	Water rates
Lock/key replacement	$315.00	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal	$118.50	Rubbish removal
Meth testing costs	$5,212.95	Meth testing costs
Meth decontamination: insurance excess	$4,000.00	Meth decontamination: insurance excess
Loss of rent	$4,400.00	Loss of rent
Repairs	$1,011.71	Repairs
Remediation curtain rails	$172.17	Remediation curtain rails
Smoke alarm replacements	$29.40	Smoke alarm replacements
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$16,616.20
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$16,616.20

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the [Landlord] name and identifying details.

The Tribunal orders the suppression of [Tenant 1]’s name and identifying details.

The other tenant, Mr McCarthy, is not granted name suppression.

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $16,616.20 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

All other claims are dismissed. DescriptionLandlord Rent: arrears & in lieu of notice$3,300.00 Water rates$236.03 Lock/key replacement$315.00 Rubbish removal$118.50 Meth testing costs$5,212.95 Meth decontamination: insurance excess$4,000.00 Loss of rent$4,400.00 Repairs$1,011.71 Remediation curtain rails$172.17 Smoke alarm replacements$29.40 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$18,816.20 Bond$2,200.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$16,616.20

Reasons

The landlord, [The landlord/s], attended the hearing in person.

One of the tenants, [Tenant 1], attended the hearing via teleconference. I granted [Tenant 1]’s application to attend the hearing via teleconference under section 96(3AA) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA” or “the Act”).

The other tenant, Mr. McCarthy, did not attend the hearing. To my knowledge, Mr. McCarthy has not been present at any hearings. Introduction

This matter is before me as a rehearing of a dispute between the landlord, [The landlord/s], and the tenants, [Tenant 1] and Mr. McCarthy. The dispute stems from a tenancy agreement dated 7 December 2019 (which has been renewed twice since the beginning of the tenancy), in which [Tenant 1] and Mr. McCarthy were jointly named tenants. The key issue in this rehearing is whether [Tenant 1] is liable for the costs awarded to [The landlord/s] as one of the named tenants in the tenancy agreement following her departure from the premises on 2 January 2022.

[Tenant 1] submits that she should not be held liable for any costs (excluding bond and damage to the curtains, which she agrees she is responsible for) incurred after her departure, as she vacated the premises due to family violence and ceased occupying the property. Conversely, [The landlord/s] contends that [Tenant 1] remained a tenant and failed to provide notice of her withdrawal from the tenancy, as required under s56B of the Act. [The landlord/s] further argues that the joint and several liability principle applies to [Tenant 1], regardless of where she resides. In essence, her location of residence is irrelevant because the tenancy at the relevant time was in her name alongside Mr. McCarthy.

Mr. McCarthy is a party to the tenancy agreement but has not participated in these proceedings. [Tenant 1] has raised concerns about being unfairly burdened with joint liability, particularly given her circumstances when she decided to depart from the address.

I will address the key issues in dispute, including whether [Tenant 1] complied with the statutory requirements for withdrawing from the tenancy under Section 56B of the Act, whether she remained a tenant under the tenancy agreement after her departure, and whether she should be held jointly and severally liable for the costs awarded to [The landlord/s]. I will also consider the merits and justice of the case under Section 85 of the Act and whether I can depart from the general legal principles concerning [Tenant 1] and Mr. McCarthy, who are jointly and severally liable for the amount awarded to [The landlord/s]. If [Tenant 1] is successful, [The landlord/s] can no longer exercise his strict legal rights to take further legal action against [Tenant 1] for the awarded costs. My approach to resolving the dispute

During the hearing, I indicated that my approach to resolving this dispute would focus on the core issue of whether [Tenant 1] should be held jointly liable for the costs awarded to [The landlord/s]. Specifically, I would assess whether [Tenant 1] complied with the requirements of Section 56B of the Act, which allows tenant(s) to withdraw from a tenancy with at least two days' notice if they are experiencing family violence. If I found that she failed to comply with this requirement, I would then consider whether she should be excused from liability based on the circumstances of her experiencing family violence.

I also told [Tenant 1] and [The landlord/s] I read the decision of the previous adjudicator, Ms Pasupati, and reviewed the evidence submitted by both parties. I reached the same conclusion as she did, which was that the amount ordered was appropriate. Neither [Tenant 1] nor [The landlord/s] took issues with Ms Pasupati’s decision or the amount of money awarded. Instead, the issue is whether [Tenant 1] should be liable for Mr McCarthy’s actions. [Tenant 1] said: "When you say liable for the costs, is it so obviously the lump sum that is being made obviously because it is me and Mr. McCarthy, is it, is that amount, like are we liable for half each of that amount? Or does it just mean that like it all just comes on to me because I’m the only one cooperating in this situation? Like I’m liable for the full amount and Mr. McCarthy just gets to walk away scot-free."

[Tenant 1] then further clarified her position as to why she should not be held liable for the amount awarded to [The landlord/s] by saying: “Yes, yeah, yeah, yeah. That, that is exactly my issue. I, I don’t disagree with the amount that he [The landlord/s] should be compensated. Like I, I understand his side of the whole thing, yet the issues definitely are just that I’m not liable and I don’t feel like I should be made liable for Mr. McCarthy’s actions."

Finally, I indicated that I would consider whether section 85(2) of the Act allows me to hold [Tenant 1] NOT liable for the costs, given her circumstances, against [The landlord/s] legal rights as a landlord. I emphasised that my decision would aim to balance these competing interests in a manner consistent with the principles of fairness and justice under the Act. Did [Tenant 1] comply with section 56B of the Act?

This section requires a tenant who is withdrawing from a tenancy due to family violence to give the landlord at least two days' notice of their intention to withdraw. [Tenant 1] acknowledged during the hearing that she did not provide any notice to [The landlord/s] when she vacated the premises on 2 January 2022. She explained that her priority at the time was ensuring the safety of herself and her children, and she did not turn her mind to notifying [The landlord/s] of her withdrawal from the tenancy.

In her own words, [Tenant 1] stated: "Sorry, the circumstances of us leaving, I guess all I can say I’m going to go into it because it’s like triggering, but it’s very I was just mentally and emotionally. It was just obviously like a big event. We, I just had to pack me and my kids up and get to [location] for our protection. I, the last thing obviously on my mind is to contact [The landlord/s] and go, hey, this has just happened. Like we’re no longer there."

While her reasons for not providing notice are understandable given the circumstances, she did not comply with the statutory requirement under section 56B of the Act to give at least two days' notice to withdraw from the tenancy. This non-compliance is crucial in determining whether her tenancy will continue until [The landlord/s] receives notice.

In this regard, [The landlord/s] emphasised that he was unaware of her reasons for leaving and that she had ample opportunity to notify him of her withdrawal from the tenancy, even after the fact.

[The landlord/s] put his case eloquently. [The landlord/s] stated: "I’ve never commented on [Tenant 1]’s reasons for not giving me a notice of withdrawal]. The reasons for people moving out if they don’t give me notice, I’m unaware of. And I was unaware of it until it was brought up in the Tribunal."

He further argued that [Tenant 1] had over two years to notify him of her withdrawal but failed to do so. He pointed to email correspondence from June 2023, where [Tenant 1] inquired about the tenancy agreement, as evidence that she was still acting as a tenant and had not formally withdrawn from the tenancy. He stated: "[Tenant 1] had over 2 years to notify me of her moving out, but she failed to do so."

In summary, [The landlord/s] could not comment on [Tenant 1]'s reasons for not giving notice to him but instead focused on her failure to comply with the statutory requirement and her continued involvement in the tenancy after her alleged departure. He argued that her failure to notify him of her withdrawal meant her tenancy under the agreement was continuing.

What [Tenant 1] did after her departure on 2 January 2022 is a fact that I would consider when deciding whether to exclude her from her joint liability under the tenancy agreement she signed with Mr McCarthy.

In relation to section 56B of the Act, [Tenant 1]’s own admission clearly shows that she did not provide [The landlord/s] with at least 2 days’ notice to withdraw from the tenancy.

Accordingly, the tenancy continued until [The landlord/s] notified [Tenant 1] and Mr McCarthy about the methamphetamine testing and suspected that the premises had been abandoned on 9 October 2023. Should [Tenant 1] be excused from liability under section 85(2) of the Act? [Tenant 1]’s submissions/evidence

[Tenant 1] argued that she left the tenancy on 2 January 2022 due to family violence and that her priority at the time was ensuring the safety of herself and her children. She stated that she was in no mental or emotional state to notify [The landlord/s] of her withdrawal, as her focus was on relocating to [location] for protection. She also claimed that after her departure, she believed Mr. McCarthy had taken over responsibility for the tenancy, and she was no longer involved. [Tenant 1] further explained that her failure to claim the bond or formally notify [The landlord/s] was due to the traumatic circumstances of her departure.

In [Tenant 1]’s words: a. "I was just mentally and emotionally. It was just obviously like a big event. We, I just had to pack me and my kids up and get to [location] for our protection. I, the last thing obviously on my mind is to contact [The landlord/s] and go, hey, this has just happened. Like we’re no longer there." b. "Again, the situation of why I left, my mental state, everything like that, that’s obviously the last thing on my mind. I’m thinking I’m just in that time. I’m just thinking about safety."

In relation to the emails of 25 September 2023 and 9 October 2023 allegedly sent by [Tenant 1]. [Tenant 1] stated: a. "No, I didn’t send that email and I because I don’t even know how I would have even seen the email for the request of the inspection because [The landlord/s] only emailed Talon. I wasn’t even CC’d in that email but the reply has come from my email. So how do I reply to an email that I didn’t receive it?" [The landlord/s] submissions/evidence

[The landlord/s] did not dispute [Tenant 1]'s claim of family violence but argued that she failed to comply with the legal requirement to provide notice under Section 56B of the Act. He also presented evidence suggesting that [Tenant 1] continued to act as a tenant after her alleged departure on 2 January 2022. This included: a. Email Correspondence: On 5 June 2023, [Tenant 1] emailed [The landlord/s] asking for a copy of the current tenancy agreement and to confirm whether she was still listed as a tenant. On 7 June 2023, [The landlord/s] sent the agreement as requested to [Tenant 1]. [The landlord/s] interpreted this as evidence that she was still acting as a tenant and had not formally withdrawn from the tenancy. b. Email Correspondence ([Tenant 1] did not accept that she sent the email here): On 25 September 2023 at 10.45 am, [The landlord/s] emailed [Tenant 1] and Mr McCarthy a notice of a methamphetamine test scheduled to occur at the property. On the same day, at 3.19 pm, an email was allegedly sent by Mr McCarthy using [Tenant 1]’s email account, requesting to reschedule the test due to Mr McCarthy's illness. It seemed the test was rescheduled. Then, on 9 October 2023 at 4.29 pm, [The landlord/s] emailed [Tenant 1] and Mr McCarthy, notifying them that he had entered the premises to conduct a methamphetamine test and noted that they might have vacated on 8 October 2023, according to the neighbour. c. IIIion tenant search: [The landlord/s] conducted a credit check via Illion Credit Check and discovered that [Tenant 1] was applying for other tenancies in [City] in May and June 2023. d. Inspection Reports: [The landlord/s] referred to inspection photos from 17 June 2023 showing children's belongings on the property, including bicycles, a baby pram, and children's bunk beds. He also noted that during the inspection on 17 June 2023, [Tenant 1] was present and introduced him to her new baby. In contrast, the inspection on 9 September 2023 showed that most of the children's belongings had been removed, suggesting that the property was being vacated. e. Bond: [The landlord/s] pointed out that [Tenant 1] had not claimed the bond, which he argued was inconsistent with her claim that she had withdrawn from the tenancy in January 2022 because a reasonable tenant would want her bond back if she no longer wanted to have any interest in the tenancy.

In [The landlord/s]’s words: a. "[Tenant 1] had over 2 years to notify me of her moving out, but she failed to do so." b. "I was unaware of [her reasons for leaving] until it was brought up in the Tribunal." c. "In June 2023, [Tenant 1] was physically present at the property during an inspection and introduced me to her new baby. This suggests she was still residing at the property or at least actively involved in the tenancy." The Law

Section 85 of the Act states the manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised. a. Section 85(1): Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. b. Section 85(a): The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.

There are no cases similar to the present case. However, Ziki Investments (Properties) Ltd v McDonald [2008] 3 NZLR 431 may assist in how section 85(2) of the Act should be interpreted and applied in the present case because Ziki is a tenancy dispute in which the appellant, Mr McDonald argued the respondent, Ziki Investments (Properties) Ltd, could not evict him or increase the rent to market rates.

In 2005, Mr McDonald and his wife sold their property with an agreement allowing them to remain as tenants at a low rent until both passed away. The purchaser, Mr. Narayan, on-sold the property to Ziki Investments before settling with the McDonalds. Ziki Investments (Properties) Ltd purchased the property with the understanding that the tenancy would end upon the death of either Mr. or Mrs. McDonald. After Mrs. McDonald’s death, Ziki attempted to increase the rent and eventually sought to evict Mr. McDonald.

The Tenancy Tribunal held in favour of Mr McDonald, granting him the right to remain in the property for the rest of his life without any increase in the rent to market rates. Ziki Investments (Properties) Ltd appealed the Tenancy Tribunal’s decision to the District Court. While the District Court did not rule against Mr McDonald, he cross-appealed the District Court’s decision for different reasons, which is not relevant in the present case.

In considering s85(2) of the Act, Justice Asher held Ziki could not be decided solely on perceptions of merits and justice; the applicable legal principles had to be applied.

Paragraphs [69] to [71] of Ziki states: [69] Section 85(2) states specifically that each dispute shall be determined “according to the general principles of law relating to the matter”. Significantly, the reference to determining in accordance with the substantial merits and justice comes after the reference to determining the dispute according to the general principles of law. The overarching application of those general principles is not undermined by the provision that the Tribunal is not bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. This simply means that technical requirements, such as matters of form or time, may not be strictly applied. In this the subsection indicates that general principles of law should be interpreted or applied consistently with the merits and justice of the case where possible. [70] Section 85(2) must also be read with s 85(1), which provides that the Tribunal should exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes. Section 85(2) does not therefore give the Tribunal a carte blanche to decide the case on its perception of merits and justice. However, it can be an aid to interpretation. To an extent, s 85(2) has been of assistance in assessing in this appeal how s 58 should be interpreted. [71] The ambit of s 85(2) was considered in Welsh v Housing New Zealand Ltd (High Court, Wellington, AP 35/2000, 9 March 2001, Doogue and Goddard JJ), in which it was held that s 85 does not create a licence for the Tribunal to impose its views on the merits and justice of the case unless its determination is based on general principles of law (at para [29]). It was stated: “[30] If a remedy is justified by the principles of law applicable to the matter, the Tenancy Tribunal will have to consider the merits and justice of the case and whether the strict application of the law gives rise to a fair result, but, if there is no remedy provided for by the law, it is not open to the Tenancy Tribunal to invent one.” The Court distinguished between the provision in s 18(6) of the Disputes Tribunals Act 1988 available to the Disputes Tribunal and that available to the Tenancy Tribunal. Unlike the Tenancy Tribunal, the Disputes Tribunal was not required to determine the dispute according to the general principles of law at all. In contrast, in the Tenancy Tribunal the general principles of law must be applied. This case does not appear to have been referred to the District Court.

Accordingly, section 85(2) requires disputes to be determined according to the general principles of law, with the merits and justice of the case considered subsequently, allowing flexibility in applying technical legal requirements without overriding legal principles. This provision, read alongside Section 85(1), ensures the Tribunal resolves disputes fairly and expeditiously but does not grant it unrestricted discretion to decide cases based solely on perceived merits and justice. In Welsh v Housing New Zealand Ltd, it was clarified that the Tribunal cannot impose its views on the merits and justice of a case unless grounded in general legal principles, nor can it invent remedies not provided by law. Application of s85(2) of the Act and Analysis

While [Tenant 1]'s failure to comply with Section 56B of the Act is clear, her circumstances warrant careful consideration under Section 85(2). The evidence shows that [Tenant 1] left the tenancy on 2 January 2022 due to family violence, and her failure to provide notice was a result of the traumatic and urgent nature of her departure. Her focus on ensuring the safety of herself and her children is understandable, and her mental state at the time likely prevented her from fulfilling the statutory requirement.

However, [The landlord/s] evidence raises questions about whether [Tenant 1] continued to act as a tenant after her departure on 2 January 2022, particularly through her email correspondence in June 2023 and the inspection reports showing her presence at the property. While [Tenant 1] disputes some of this evidence, claiming that Mr. McCarthy may have accessed her email account or that she was in [City] for a family court matter, the evidence before me points to the fact that [Tenant 1] was aware of the contents of the email in June and September 2023.

That said, even if I put aside the disputed email correspondence evidence (see paragraph 25(b) above), [Tenant 1] still faces difficulty in persuading me to depart from the general legal principle that she is jointly and severally liable for the costs because: a. She is a named tenant under the tenancy agreement; b. She left the premises on 2 January 2022. About 1 year and 5 months later, on 5 June 2023, she emailed [The landlord/s] asking for a copy of the current tenancy agreement and to confirm whether she was still listed as a tenant. This email message is telling because it demonstrates that [Tenant 1] was aware she was still a tenant or at least had concerns that she remained a tenant. Yet, she did not give [The landlord/s] notice of withdrawal from the tenancy; c. Another important piece of evidence [The landlord/s] submitted is that [Tenant 1] was applying for other tenancies in [City] in May and June 2023. [Tenant 1]’s inquiry for other tenancies in [City] coincides with her contacting [The landlord/s] on 5 June 2023 to see if she remained a tenant under the tenancy agreement she signed with Mr. McCarthy. An inference can be drawn from this fact that [Tenant 1] wanted to make sure if she remained a tenant under the tenancy agreement she signed with Mr. McCarthy before entering into another. If [Tenant 1] had turned her mind to whether her tenancy with [The landlord/s] was a live one, there was no reason she could not inform [The landlord/s] that she had withdrawn from the tenancy; d. [The landlord/s] referred to inspection photos from 17 June 2023 showing children's belongings on the property, including bicycles, a baby pram, and children's bunk beds. He also noted that during the inspection on 17 June 2023, [Tenant 1] was present and introduced him to her new baby. I give [Tenant 1] the benefit of the doubt that she was in [City] for family court business. But the fact that she was in [City] and was seeking new tenancies means there was no reason not to inform [The landlord/s] that she had withdrawn from the tenancy.

In relation to the bond that [Tenant 1] did not claim, [The landlord/s] submitted that a reasonable tenant would want the bond back if she no longer wished to be a tenant. My view is that [Tenant 1]’s choice not to claim her bond might be for other reasons. It was her business if she wanted her share of the bond back or to leave the entire bond to Mr. McCarthy to dispose of. Therefore, this fact is neutral. Conclusion

I acknowledge the reasons [Tenant 1] provided for not considering the tenancy when she moved out on 2 January 2022 and therefore did not inform [The landlord/s] that she had withdrawn from it.

However, there is no plausible explanation for why [Tenant 1] failed to inform [The landlord/s] that she had withdrawn from the tenancy between 2 January 2022 (the date she vacated the premises) and 5 June 2023 (the date she contacted [The landlord/s] for a copy of the tenancy agreement). Section 56B(1) of the Act only requires [Tenant 1] to give [The landlord/s] a minimum of two days’ notice to withdraw from the tenancy.

Furthermore, [Tenant 1] appeared to be looking for a new tenancy in [City] in June 2023, knowing that her tenancy with Mr McCarthy might still be active.

Accordingly, this is not a case where [Tenant 1] failed to inform [The landlord/s] within a reasonable time after settling in her new home in [location]—i.e., a month or two after she vacated the premises in [City]—where [Tenant 1]’s liability under the tenancy might be lesser than Mr. McCarthy’s, taking into account the merits and justice of the case.

In any event, there is no jurisdiction to depart from the legal principle that a party to a contract is jointly and severally liable for the damage caused due to a breach of the contract.

In the present case, [The landlord/s] is entitled to rely on the general principle that [Tenant 1] is jointly and severally liable for the costs decided by Adjudicator Pasupati on 16 June 2024.

[Tenant 1]’s application to be excluded from liability for the amount ordered in favour of [The landlord/s] is dismissed. The amount awarded

As [The landlord/s] and [Tenant 1] agreed with the reasoning of Adjudicator Pasupati’s decision dated 16 June 2024, I attach my colleague Adjudicator Pasupati’s order to this decision.

For completeness and to avoid doubt, I have reviewed the evidence, and I would have reached the same conclusion as Adjudicator Pasupati did.

The amount awarded to [The landlord/s] is $16,616.20. Filing fee

Because [The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression

Because [The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded in proceedings I grant his name suppression application.

[Tenant 1] has not succeeded in her application to exclude herself from liability under the tenancy agreement. I have considered the circumstances surrounding her departure from the address and the public interest. I have concluded that it is appropriate to order the suppression of [Tenant 1] and her identifying details.

The other tenant, Mr McCarthy, is not granted name suppression.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4795822 — net $16,616.20 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent: arrears & in lieu of notice	$3,300.00	Rent: arrears & in lieu of notice
Water rates	$236.03	Water rates
Lock/key replacement	$315.00	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal	$118.50	Rubbish removal
Meth testing costs	$5,212.95	Meth testing costs
Meth decontamination: insurance excess	$4,000.00	Meth decontamination: insurance excess
Loss of rent	$4,400.00	Loss of rent
Repairs	$1,011.71	Repairs
Remediation curtain rails	$172.17	Remediation curtain rails
Smoke alarm replacements	$29.40	Smoke alarm replacements
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$16,616.20
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$16,616.20