What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4832540 about?

The tribunal order states: Cassandra Boyer must pay [The landlord/s] $4,812.05 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4832540?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4832540?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4832540?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11010399-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4832540 about?

The tribunal order states: Cassandra Boyer must pay [The landlord/s] $4,812.05 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4832540?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4832540?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4832540?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11010399-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4832540 — Property damage

Order

Cassandra Boyer must pay [The landlord/s] $4,812.05 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. There have been two adjournments since the first hearing when both parties appeared. They were for the benefit of the tenant so it was disappointing she did not appear now. She has had ample opportunity to provide any further defence and her early submissions have been considered in this determination.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy started 20 August 2019 and ended on 21 February 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy are as ordered.

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 tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided photos and invoices in support of the claims. I have awarded $350.00 for internal cleaning and $903.04 for rubbish removal.
I dismiss the claim for green waste disposal due to a lack of evidence to establish any tenant liability.
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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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.
There was extensive damage throughout the premises. The landlord made a number of insurance claims with an excess of $550.00 incurred for each. Extensive photographic evidence and reports were provided.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Kitchen. There was damage to an internal door and cupboard doors. The cost was greater than the excess of $550.00 and the lower amount is awarded. b. Laundry - remove vinyl wrap/repaint. Vinyl wrap had been stuck on the windows and required removal. Some graffiti on a shelf required removal and repainting. The depreciated cost of the repainting and labour in removal is compensated by an award of $250.00. c. BR1 - holes/repainting of the walls was required. The excess of $550.00 is lesser than the repair cost and is awarded. d. BR2 - replace door (hole). The excess of $550.00 is lesser than the replacement cost and is awarded. e. BR3 - replace door (hole). The excess of $550.00 is lesser than the replacement cost and is awarded. f. Lounge - replace door/repair walls/repainting. The excess of $550.00 is lesser than the replacement and repair costs and is awarded. g. Repair soffit. A hole in the soffit required it be replaced and repainted. The excess of $550.00 is lesser than the replacement and repair cost and is awarded. I am satisfied this damage occurred during the tenancy. h. Replace curtains. A large number of curtains were damaged beyond cleaning/recovery. The insurer settled this claim and the excess of $550.00 awarded is approximately 20% of the replacement cost. i. Replace shed. A standalone shed was removed on or around the final day of the tenancy. I have considered both parties submissions and consider it more likely than not it was removed by persons associated with the tenant. Based on the photos provided, I consider the landlord has enjoyed betterment from the settlement amount. I have awarded $250.00 towards the excess cost.
The damage above is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Photos support the claims.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation where appropriate. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the relevant items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Dismissed damage claims
The landlord must prove that damage is beyond fair wear and tear for compensation. “Fair wear” is deterioration caused by the reasonable use of the premises. “Fair tear” is deterioration caused by the ordinary operation of the forces of nature. Importantly, intentional or careless damage are not fair wear and tear.
The following claims are dismissed. j. Sliding door repair. This cost is considered wear and tear. k. Roller door. The damage and subsequent cost is not established as more than wear and tear. l. Methamphetamine (see below)
The landlord has applied for compensation for the cost of methamphetamine testing.
The landlord must prove that the tenant caused or permitted the contamination, or that it was caused by someone at the premises with the tenant’s consent. The landlord must also prove that, as a result of the contamination, the premises have been damaged or are not reasonably clean.
Section 138C Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides for regulations to be made prescribing the maximum acceptable level for contaminants, but as yet no regulations have been made in relation to methamphetamine.
There are currently two sources of guidance on the issue of a safe level of methamphetamine contamination in residential premises. In June 2017 Standards New Zealand published NZS 8510:2017. The standard recommended a maximum contamination level of 1.5μg/100cm2 for high use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture. It recommended a higher level of 3.8μg/100cm2 for limited use areas.
In May 2018 Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the then Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor, released a report "Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards”. The report noted that there is a lack of scientific evidence to prove that low-level third-hand methamphetamine exposure poses a health risk to humans. It stated that guidelines should be proportionate to risk and that exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect. It recommended retaining the level of 1.5μg/100cm2 where contamination resulted from manufacture, due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the process.
The Tribunal has generally applied the Gluckman recommendation. This approach was approved by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947, where the Court stated (at para [36]): The Tenancy Tribunal was in a difficult position. The best state of knowledge of risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination available to the adjudicator was the Gluckman Report. It would have been bold for the adjudicator to have ignored that report in favour of the New Zealand Standard given that the Gluckman report represents the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination in dwellings.
The District Court took a similar approach in Acme Realty Limited v Hogg and others [2021] NZDC 3231, where the Court referred to the Full Circle case and held that, because NZS 8510:2017 has not been adopted into law, the Tribunal was not bound to apply the 1.5μg standard.
The landlord faced two challenges with the claim for methamphetamine related costs. This tenancy commenced without any baseline testing to establish the premises was not contaminated at that time. The second is the test results have only three areas with contamination over the lower NZS 1.5μg standard. The highest result was 2.38 μg, well below the 15μg level to consider the premises unclear such that remediation is required.
Therefore, the claims for methamphetamine costs are dismissed. Filing fee
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord requested suppression in its application. As it has been substantially successful, suppression is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4832540 — Property damage

Tenancy Tribunal case 4832540 — Property damage

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?

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?