What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4860818 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both

How much money was awarded in case 4860818?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $175.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $453.53 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,766.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4860818?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4860818?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10678834-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4860818 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both

How much money was awarded in case 4860818?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $175.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $453.53 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,766.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4860818?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4860818?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10678834-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4860818 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4860818 — net $3,414.97 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$175.00	Lock/key replacement
Electrical repairs	$453.53	Electrical repairs
Repairs, cleaning, rubbish removal (reduced	$2,766.00	Repairs, cleaning, rubbish removal (reduced
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,414.97
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,414.97

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $3,414.97 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The tenant’s application for compensation and exemplary damages is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The Tribunal previously directed that the hearing be held in private.
The tenant has applied for compensation and exemplary damages for harassment arising from testing (after she took possession) that showed the premises were contaminated with methamphetamine.
The landlord has applied for costs following the end of the tenancy – lock replacement, electrical repairs, other repairs, cleaning, and rubbish removal.
Both parties provided documentary evidence. As well, the tenant provided video evidence, mostly of discussions between her and the property manager as agent for the owner. I have considered all the evidence even if I do not refer to it specifically.
The landlord withdrew a claim for rent arrears as it has now received the bond which was applied to rent. The tenant’s application Compensation
The tenant seeks a full refund of rent and reimbursement of the cost of a methamphetamine test report she commissioned.
The context for the tenant’s application is this. After she took possession, the landlord decided to have the premises tested for methamphetamine. Because there had been no pre-tenancy check, the landlord made it clear to the tenant that no accusation was made against her. The owner simply wanted to ascertain the status of the premises and take any remedial action.
The first test was a composite test that showed probable low-level contamination.
The second test took individual samples which were laboratory tested. The results ranged between 0.20μg/100cm² and 7.0 μg/100cm². Of the 9 samples, 8 were below 2.4μg/100cm².
The tenant had the premises tested as well. The test report produced by the company she engaged reported 5 samples all below 1.5μg/100cm², the highest being 0.12μg/100cm².
Reassured that the premises were not contaminated and therefore not a threat to her or her child’s health, the tenant nevertheless decided to end the tenancy because she felt harassed by the owner’s insistence that the premises be cleaned (a requirement of the owner’s insurer following lodgement of an insurance claim).
The landlord agreed that the tenant could vacate without penalty; she had been a previous tenant of the landlord and was highly regarded.
The tenant’s application for a full refund of rent cannot succeed. She continued to live in the premises. The premises were not contaminated to a level that was injurious to health (the level for harmful contamination from the use of methamphetamine the Tribunal works to is 15μg/100cm²). The premises were not destroyed, or so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable, that would justify an abatement of rent. This claim is dismissed.
I also dismiss the tenant’s application for a refund of the methamphetamine test report she commissioned. Each party bears the cost of producing evidence they present to the Tribunal. And the report has added little. The premises were not contaminated in a manner that was a safety risk. The tenant’s report just contained lower levels than the landlord’s reports, probably because the tenant had undertaken some cleaning by the time her testing was done (although the levels could also have been lower just because of the areas the samples were taken from). Exemplary damages
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Those factors are: •The intention of the person; •The effect of the unlawful act; •The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and •The public interest.
The evidence does not establish that the tenant was harassed by the landlord. The owner of the premises wanted to have them cleaned for insurance purposes. The landlord was prepared to pay for motel accommodation while that process was carried out, but the tenant decided to move instead. The cleaning did not take place while she was in possession.
While there were meetings between the tenant and the landlord to discuss the cleaning of the premises, the tenant (for good reason which I need not detail here) was, to use her word, paranoid. In other words, she was on edge and sensitive to people coming to the premises.
But that does not constitute harassment, not even a breach of quiet enjoyment. The landlord was entitled to have the premises cleaned to comply with the insurer’s demand after accepting a claim for contamination. As I have noted, the cleaning did not proceed as the tenant decided to move.
The tenant has not proved that the landlord committed any defined unlawful act in this case. I dismiss the claim for exemplary damages. The landlord’s application

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) RTA.
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 tenant accepted that she did not return all the keys. I find the landlord’s claim for lock and key replacement proved.
The landlord’s photos show that some cleaning, separate from the cleaning for methamphetamine contamination (which the landlord said amounted to thousands of dollars) was required at the end of the tenancy. I find the amount claimed for cleaning proved.
The tenant accepted that she had changed some light switches. She denied the removal of smoke alarms. I find the landlord’s claim for electrical repairs proved. I find it likely that the smoke alarms were present at the start of the tenancy but missing at the end.
The tenant accepted that she caused a hole in the garage wall. There were holes in the walls in the living room, hallway, and bedrooms as well. Attempted repairs were not sufficient.
Although the tenant queried the cost of the repairs to the walls, I find the costs proved.
I have made a deduction from the invoice for repairs to remove the project management fee and some rubbish removal costs.
The tenant (with the landlord’s consent) built a fence at the property. She said she paid $4,000.00 for that. Some of the rubbish removal was for left over materials from when the fence was built. Given the benefit to the landlord, a small part of the cost of rubbish removal should be borne by the landlord.
The amounts ordered are proved by invoices and photos and by the evidence the landlord’s representative gave at the hearing.
As the landlord’s application is successful, the tenant must pay the landlord’s filing fee. Result
The tenant’s application is dismissed.
The tenant will pay the landlord $3,414.97. Name suppression
I have suppressed the names and identifying details of both parties given the Tribunal’s earlier order that the proceedings be conducted in private. I also suppress the reasons for that direction.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4860818 — net $3,414.97 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$175.00	Lock/key replacement
Electrical repairs	$453.53	Electrical repairs
Repairs, cleaning, rubbish removal (reduced	$2,766.00	Repairs, cleaning, rubbish removal (reduced
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,414.97
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,414.97

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $3,414.97 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The tenant’s application for compensation and exemplary damages is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The Tribunal previously directed that the hearing be held in private.
The tenant has applied for compensation and exemplary damages for harassment arising from testing (after she took possession) that showed the premises were contaminated with methamphetamine.
The landlord has applied for costs following the end of the tenancy – lock replacement, electrical repairs, other repairs, cleaning, and rubbish removal.
Both parties provided documentary evidence. As well, the tenant provided video evidence, mostly of discussions between her and the property manager as agent for the owner. I have considered all the evidence even if I do not refer to it specifically.
The landlord withdrew a claim for rent arrears as it has now received the bond which was applied to rent. The tenant’s application Compensation
The tenant seeks a full refund of rent and reimbursement of the cost of a methamphetamine test report she commissioned.
The context for the tenant’s application is this. After she took possession, the landlord decided to have the premises tested for methamphetamine. Because there had been no pre-tenancy check, the landlord made it clear to the tenant that no accusation was made against her. The owner simply wanted to ascertain the status of the premises and take any remedial action.
The first test was a composite test that showed probable low-level contamination.
The second test took individual samples which were laboratory tested. The results ranged between 0.20μg/100cm² and 7.0 μg/100cm². Of the 9 samples, 8 were below 2.4μg/100cm².
The tenant had the premises tested as well. The test report produced by the company she engaged reported 5 samples all below 1.5μg/100cm², the highest being 0.12μg/100cm².
Reassured that the premises were not contaminated and therefore not a threat to her or her child’s health, the tenant nevertheless decided to end the tenancy because she felt harassed by the owner’s insistence that the premises be cleaned (a requirement of the owner’s insurer following lodgement of an insurance claim).
The landlord agreed that the tenant could vacate without penalty; she had been a previous tenant of the landlord and was highly regarded.
The tenant’s application for a full refund of rent cannot succeed. She continued to live in the premises. The premises were not contaminated to a level that was injurious to health (the level for harmful contamination from the use of methamphetamine the Tribunal works to is 15μg/100cm²). The premises were not destroyed, or so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable, that would justify an abatement of rent. This claim is dismissed.
I also dismiss the tenant’s application for a refund of the methamphetamine test report she commissioned. Each party bears the cost of producing evidence they present to the Tribunal. And the report has added little. The premises were not contaminated in a manner that was a safety risk. The tenant’s report just contained lower levels than the landlord’s reports, probably because the tenant had undertaken some cleaning by the time her testing was done (although the levels could also have been lower just because of the areas the samples were taken from). Exemplary damages
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Those factors are: •The intention of the person; •The effect of the unlawful act; •The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and •The public interest.
The evidence does not establish that the tenant was harassed by the landlord. The owner of the premises wanted to have them cleaned for insurance purposes. The landlord was prepared to pay for motel accommodation while that process was carried out, but the tenant decided to move instead. The cleaning did not take place while she was in possession.
While there were meetings between the tenant and the landlord to discuss the cleaning of the premises, the tenant (for good reason which I need not detail here) was, to use her word, paranoid. In other words, she was on edge and sensitive to people coming to the premises.
But that does not constitute harassment, not even a breach of quiet enjoyment. The landlord was entitled to have the premises cleaned to comply with the insurer’s demand after accepting a claim for contamination. As I have noted, the cleaning did not proceed as the tenant decided to move.
The tenant has not proved that the landlord committed any defined unlawful act in this case. I dismiss the claim for exemplary damages. The landlord’s application

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) RTA.
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 tenant accepted that she did not return all the keys. I find the landlord’s claim for lock and key replacement proved.
The landlord’s photos show that some cleaning, separate from the cleaning for methamphetamine contamination (which the landlord said amounted to thousands of dollars) was required at the end of the tenancy. I find the amount claimed for cleaning proved.
The tenant accepted that she had changed some light switches. She denied the removal of smoke alarms. I find the landlord’s claim for electrical repairs proved. I find it likely that the smoke alarms were present at the start of the tenancy but missing at the end.
The tenant accepted that she caused a hole in the garage wall. There were holes in the walls in the living room, hallway, and bedrooms as well. Attempted repairs were not sufficient.
Although the tenant queried the cost of the repairs to the walls, I find the costs proved.
I have made a deduction from the invoice for repairs to remove the project management fee and some rubbish removal costs.
The tenant (with the landlord’s consent) built a fence at the property. She said she paid $4,000.00 for that. Some of the rubbish removal was for left over materials from when the fence was built. Given the benefit to the landlord, a small part of the cost of rubbish removal should be borne by the landlord.
The amounts ordered are proved by invoices and photos and by the evidence the landlord’s representative gave at the hearing.
As the landlord’s application is successful, the tenant must pay the landlord’s filing fee. Result
The tenant’s application is dismissed.
The tenant will pay the landlord $3,414.97. Name suppression
I have suppressed the names and identifying details of both parties given the Tribunal’s earlier order that the proceedings be conducted in private. I also suppress the reasons for that direction.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4860818 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4860818 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions