What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4862003?

The tribunal order states: Peiyi Wu must pay Auckland City-Living Management Limited as Agent for Jing

How much money was awarded in case 4862003?

Cleaning: $332.35 awarded to landlord; Decontamination Costs: $4,121.89 awarded to landlord; Post Decontamination Testing: $1,242.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,523.75 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $985.71 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: bed mattress so…: $1,258.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4862003?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4862003?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10897088-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4862003?

The tribunal order states: Peiyi Wu must pay Auckland City-Living Management Limited as Agent for Jing

How much money was awarded in case 4862003?

Cleaning: $332.35 awarded to landlord; Decontamination Costs: $4,121.89 awarded to landlord; Post Decontamination Testing: $1,242.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,523.75 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $985.71 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: bed mattress so…: $1,258.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4862003?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4862003?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10897088-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 706, 70 Anzac Avenue, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4862003 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4862003 — net $8,770.49 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$985.71	Rent arrears
Carpet replacement minus 50	$1,523.75	Carpet replacement minus 50
Replace furnishings: bed mattress sofa dining set minus 50	$1,258.50	Replace furnishings: bed mattress sofa dining set minus 50
Post decontamination clean	$332.35	Post decontamination clean
Decontamination costs	$4,121.89	Decontamination costs
Post decontamination testing	$1,242.00	Post decontamination testing
Net award	$8,770.49
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,770.49

Order

Peiyi Wu must pay Auckland City-Living Management Limited as Agent for Jing Lu $8,770.49 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$985.71 Carpet replacement minus 50%$1,523.75 Replace furnishings: bed mattress sofa dining set minus 50% $1,258.50 Post decontamination clean$332.35 Decontamination costs$4,121.89 Post decontamination testing$1,242.00 Total award$9,464.20 Minus Bond-$693.71 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$8,770.49
The Bond Centre is to pay $693.71 from the bond of $$693.71 (6251068-007) to Auckland City-Living Management Limited as Agent for Jing Lu immediately.
I dismiss the claim for the bailiff fee, the cost of the replacement microwave and rubbish bin.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, the tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for vacated costs, rent arrears and methamphetamine (meth) decontamination of the premises following the termination of the tenancy.
This is the third hearing of this matter. Background:
The tenancy commenced on 6 September 2023.
In March 2024, the landlord became aware of potential meth use in the property. As a result, testing was carried out and returned very high levels of contamination. The property had to be decontaminated.
On 16 April 2024, the tenant gave the landlord 28 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy. The tenancy was due to end on 14 May 2024, but the tenant remained in possession after that date.
The landlord applied to the Tribunal for possession of the property following termination of the tenancy.
On 15 May 2024, the Tribunal granted possession of the property back to the landlord and ordered the filing fee and the initial meth testing costs.
The hearing was adjourned part heard to allow the landlord to carry out the decontamination and provide the costs of the work.
The bond centre was ordered to refund part of the bond to the landlord and retain the remaining $693.71 in the bond centre until the conclusion of this hearing.
The tenant was evicted from the property by the Bailiff on 29 May 2024. The landlord seeks the cost of the bailiff fees.
The Tribunal cannot refund the cost of enforcement to the landlord and so I must dismiss the claim for $200.00 for the bailiff fees.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 14 May 2024, but the tenant stayed in possession of the property until 29 May 2024 when she was evicted. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount of $985.71 owing at the end of the tenancy.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for the rent arrears.

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.
The tenant has used meth in the property during the tenancy. The property required a full decontamination. The landlord has provided detailed meth reports and invoices for the cost of the decontamination.
The landlord is claiming the following: -Decontamination carried out by White and Boughton which covered the safety gear, consumables, waste disposal, detergent chemicals, decontamination chemicals, parking and labour costs. The invoice for the work was $4121.89. -Post decontamination report carried out by Contaminated Property Investigations NZ Ltd dated 20 June 2024 for $1242.00. -Second post contamination report dated 9 July 2024 for $332.35. -Replacement of the carpet and underlay throughout the property, which was $3047.50 before depreciation was taken into account. -Replacement of the bed, mattress, sofa, and dining suite post decontamination which was $2517.00 before depreciation was taken into account. -The landlord sought the cost of the replacement of the rubbish bin and microwave which was $118.00. As neither needed to be replaced as part of the decontamination process, I am not awarding these costs. I have not been provided with any evidence of damage to these items other than the meth contamination.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. The tenant should be held responsible for the cost of the tests and decontamination. However, given the age of some of the furniture and the furnishing I must consider depreciation.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. 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 items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. I am reducing the amounts proven by 50% to allow for the depreciation of these items.
The Bond centre is to refund the remainder of the bond ($693.71), to the landlord to offset the debt owed by the tenant to the landlord.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4862003 — net $8,770.49 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$985.71	Rent arrears
Carpet replacement minus 50	$1,523.75	Carpet replacement minus 50
Replace furnishings: bed mattress sofa dining set minus 50	$1,258.50	Replace furnishings: bed mattress sofa dining set minus 50
Post decontamination clean	$332.35	Post decontamination clean
Decontamination costs	$4,121.89	Decontamination costs
Post decontamination testing	$1,242.00	Post decontamination testing
Net award	$8,770.49
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,770.49

Order

Peiyi Wu must pay Auckland City-Living Management Limited as Agent for Jing Lu $8,770.49 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$985.71 Carpet replacement minus 50%$1,523.75 Replace furnishings: bed mattress sofa dining set minus 50% $1,258.50 Post decontamination clean$332.35 Decontamination costs$4,121.89 Post decontamination testing$1,242.00 Total award$9,464.20 Minus Bond-$693.71 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$8,770.49
The Bond Centre is to pay $693.71 from the bond of $$693.71 (6251068-007) to Auckland City-Living Management Limited as Agent for Jing Lu immediately.
I dismiss the claim for the bailiff fee, the cost of the replacement microwave and rubbish bin.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, the tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for vacated costs, rent arrears and methamphetamine (meth) decontamination of the premises following the termination of the tenancy.
This is the third hearing of this matter. Background:
The tenancy commenced on 6 September 2023.
In March 2024, the landlord became aware of potential meth use in the property. As a result, testing was carried out and returned very high levels of contamination. The property had to be decontaminated.
On 16 April 2024, the tenant gave the landlord 28 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy. The tenancy was due to end on 14 May 2024, but the tenant remained in possession after that date.
The landlord applied to the Tribunal for possession of the property following termination of the tenancy.
On 15 May 2024, the Tribunal granted possession of the property back to the landlord and ordered the filing fee and the initial meth testing costs.
The hearing was adjourned part heard to allow the landlord to carry out the decontamination and provide the costs of the work.
The bond centre was ordered to refund part of the bond to the landlord and retain the remaining $693.71 in the bond centre until the conclusion of this hearing.
The tenant was evicted from the property by the Bailiff on 29 May 2024. The landlord seeks the cost of the bailiff fees.
The Tribunal cannot refund the cost of enforcement to the landlord and so I must dismiss the claim for $200.00 for the bailiff fees.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 14 May 2024, but the tenant stayed in possession of the property until 29 May 2024 when she was evicted. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount of $985.71 owing at the end of the tenancy.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for the rent arrears.

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.
The tenant has used meth in the property during the tenancy. The property required a full decontamination. The landlord has provided detailed meth reports and invoices for the cost of the decontamination.
The landlord is claiming the following: -Decontamination carried out by White and Boughton which covered the safety gear, consumables, waste disposal, detergent chemicals, decontamination chemicals, parking and labour costs. The invoice for the work was $4121.89. -Post decontamination report carried out by Contaminated Property Investigations NZ Ltd dated 20 June 2024 for $1242.00. -Second post contamination report dated 9 July 2024 for $332.35. -Replacement of the carpet and underlay throughout the property, which was $3047.50 before depreciation was taken into account. -Replacement of the bed, mattress, sofa, and dining suite post decontamination which was $2517.00 before depreciation was taken into account. -The landlord sought the cost of the replacement of the rubbish bin and microwave which was $118.00. As neither needed to be replaced as part of the decontamination process, I am not awarding these costs. I have not been provided with any evidence of damage to these items other than the meth contamination.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. The tenant should be held responsible for the cost of the tests and decontamination. However, given the age of some of the furniture and the furnishing I must consider depreciation.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. 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 items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. I am reducing the amounts proven by 50% to allow for the depreciation of these items.
The Bond centre is to refund the remainder of the bond ($693.71), to the landlord to offset the debt owed by the tenant to the landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4862003 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 706, 70 Anzac Avenue, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4862003 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 706, 70 Anzac Avenue, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions