What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4908495 about?

The tribunal order states: Raniera O'Carroll must pay [The landlord/s] $13,846.63 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4908495?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $2,243.88 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $304.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $8,009.75 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $445.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,927.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4908495?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4908495?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10762549-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4908495 about?

The tribunal order states: Raniera O'Carroll must pay [The landlord/s] $13,846.63 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4908495?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $2,243.88 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $304.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $8,009.75 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $445.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,927.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4908495?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4908495?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10762549-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4908495 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4908495 — net $13,846.63 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$445.00	Rent arrears
Cleaning	$150.00	Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$304.00	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal: and repairs	$2,927.00	Rubbish removal: and repairs
Repairs	$8,009.75	Repairs
Meth testing/Cleaning: report	$2,243.88	Meth testing/Cleaning: report
Meth testing/Cleaning: insurance excess	$1,500.00	Meth testing/Cleaning: insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$13,846.63
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$13,846.63

Order

Raniera O'Carroll must pay [The landlord/s] $13,846.63 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,760.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Overview
The tenancy commenced on 20 July 2021.
The landlord provided a screening assessment report dated 10 May 2021 from Meth Solutions showing a composite reading of 0.95mcg/100cm 2 of meth residue from 5 wipes for one sample and 0.10mcg/100cm 2 meth residue from 2 wipes for a second sample.
The landlord then undertook some renovations including repainting and recarpeting, installing a new bathroom, heatpump and new curtains. She undertook no further testing.
Under NZS 8510:2017, 1 a “maximum acceptable level” of methamphetamine was deemed to be 1.5mcg/100cm 2 for ‘high use areas’.
The May 2021 readings were well below that 2017 standard but in any event, in the last few years, the Tribunal has most often applied the recommendations of the 2018 Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, then Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, who released a report in May 2018 “Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards.”
The Gluckman report concludes that, where there is no evidence of the manufacture of methamphetamine, exposure to residue levels on household surfaces of below 15mcg/100cm 2 “would be highly unlikely to give rise to any adverse effects” and that this level still incorporates a 30-fold safety buffer on a conservative estimate of risk.
The District Court has consistently confirmed that it is open to the Tribunal to follow the recommendations of the Gluckman report when deciding whether premises are contaminated and therefore require remediation. See Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 and Acme Realty Ltd v Alexander James Hogg, Tuitui Grace Polotu, Leigh Sharyn Coughlin [2021] NZDC 3231.
Therefore, before these premises were painted, the levels of meth residue were well below any level that might give rise to any further adverse effects.
The current tenancy then began in July 2021. During routine inspections, the landlord noticed some small areas of damage in the property, but the tenant had some plausible reasons or excuses and the landlord was not perturbed.
The landlord gave the tenant 90 days’ notice to move out because she was intending to sell the property. The last day was supposed to be 13 May 2024, but the landlord agreed that the tenant could stay until 20 May 2024. 1 Under the Standards and Accreditation Act 2015
In the meantime, the landlord asked a builder to appraise the property for the purpose of sale. A considerable amount of further damage was discovered. It had been concealed behind pictures and furniture.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant did not leave the keys. He left a shed full of abandoned items and rubbish, which the landlord said was full of mice. Other items were left. The lawns were very overgrown. Multiple windows were broken. There were multiple holes in walls and doors. The bathroom door was completely smashed.
The landlord organised a meth screening test because that is her usual practice at the end of tenancies. In the meantime, she started cleaning the property.
The landlord then received the results of the meth screening test dated 23 May 2024 which returned composite results of 85.9mcg/100cm 2 and
2mcg/100cm 2 . She stopped cleaning and organised a detailed assessment report. That report dated 31 May 2024 showed readings for 16 samples. There were 3 readings over 40mcg, 2 over 25mcg and one of 15.4mcg. Meth was present in samples from every room except for the garage.
The landlord has made an insurance claim for decontamination and seeks the excess of $1500. She hopes she can now place the house on the market as planned.
Based on the two screening tests and the final detailed assessment report, I am satisfied that at the start of the tenancy there was no evidence of harmful levels of methamphetamine residue in the premises but that at the end of the tenancy the residue levels exceeded 15mcg/100cm, 2 and that is a level at which remediation was required.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 20 May 2024. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $445.

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 and return all keys and security devices.
The landlord provided photographs showing that tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The extent of the rubbish left behind was considerable and the grounds were overgrown.
The tenant did not return the keys and so the locks required replacing.
The landlord started cleaning the property but when the results of a methamphetamine report were received, she stopped because the property required decontamination.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $150 for cleaning the shower and oven and submitted an invoice for $304 for lock replacement.
An invoice for $2,927 included rubbish removal, tip fees, as well as some of the repairs listed below.

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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Holes in walls of bedroom, laundry, hallway, kitchen, Damage to kitchen cupboard door, hotwater cupboard door, Broken windows in bedroom, laundry, kitchen Damage to front door and frame
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The extent of the damage is more than careless. 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.
I find the damage was intentional.
The landlord did not seek reimbursement for the screening report, but did claim for the detailed assessment report and provided an invoice for $2,243.88.
As well as the invoice for $2,927.62 referred to above, the landlord submitted and invoice for $8,009.75 for repairs.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4908495 — net $13,846.63 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$445.00	Rent arrears
Cleaning	$150.00	Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$304.00	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal: and repairs	$2,927.00	Rubbish removal: and repairs
Repairs	$8,009.75	Repairs
Meth testing/Cleaning: report	$2,243.88	Meth testing/Cleaning: report
Meth testing/Cleaning: insurance excess	$1,500.00	Meth testing/Cleaning: insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$13,846.63
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$13,846.63

Order

Raniera O'Carroll must pay [The landlord/s] $13,846.63 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,760.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Overview
The tenancy commenced on 20 July 2021.
The landlord provided a screening assessment report dated 10 May 2021 from Meth Solutions showing a composite reading of 0.95mcg/100cm 2 of meth residue from 5 wipes for one sample and 0.10mcg/100cm 2 meth residue from 2 wipes for a second sample.
The landlord then undertook some renovations including repainting and recarpeting, installing a new bathroom, heatpump and new curtains. She undertook no further testing.
Under NZS 8510:2017, 1 a “maximum acceptable level” of methamphetamine was deemed to be 1.5mcg/100cm 2 for ‘high use areas’.
The May 2021 readings were well below that 2017 standard but in any event, in the last few years, the Tribunal has most often applied the recommendations of the 2018 Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, then Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, who released a report in May 2018 “Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards.”
The Gluckman report concludes that, where there is no evidence of the manufacture of methamphetamine, exposure to residue levels on household surfaces of below 15mcg/100cm 2 “would be highly unlikely to give rise to any adverse effects” and that this level still incorporates a 30-fold safety buffer on a conservative estimate of risk.
The District Court has consistently confirmed that it is open to the Tribunal to follow the recommendations of the Gluckman report when deciding whether premises are contaminated and therefore require remediation. See Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 and Acme Realty Ltd v Alexander James Hogg, Tuitui Grace Polotu, Leigh Sharyn Coughlin [2021] NZDC 3231.
Therefore, before these premises were painted, the levels of meth residue were well below any level that might give rise to any further adverse effects.
The current tenancy then began in July 2021. During routine inspections, the landlord noticed some small areas of damage in the property, but the tenant had some plausible reasons or excuses and the landlord was not perturbed.
The landlord gave the tenant 90 days’ notice to move out because she was intending to sell the property. The last day was supposed to be 13 May 2024, but the landlord agreed that the tenant could stay until 20 May 2024. 1 Under the Standards and Accreditation Act 2015
In the meantime, the landlord asked a builder to appraise the property for the purpose of sale. A considerable amount of further damage was discovered. It had been concealed behind pictures and furniture.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant did not leave the keys. He left a shed full of abandoned items and rubbish, which the landlord said was full of mice. Other items were left. The lawns were very overgrown. Multiple windows were broken. There were multiple holes in walls and doors. The bathroom door was completely smashed.
The landlord organised a meth screening test because that is her usual practice at the end of tenancies. In the meantime, she started cleaning the property.
The landlord then received the results of the meth screening test dated 23 May 2024 which returned composite results of 85.9mcg/100cm 2 and
2mcg/100cm 2 . She stopped cleaning and organised a detailed assessment report. That report dated 31 May 2024 showed readings for 16 samples. There were 3 readings over 40mcg, 2 over 25mcg and one of 15.4mcg. Meth was present in samples from every room except for the garage.
The landlord has made an insurance claim for decontamination and seeks the excess of $1500. She hopes she can now place the house on the market as planned.
Based on the two screening tests and the final detailed assessment report, I am satisfied that at the start of the tenancy there was no evidence of harmful levels of methamphetamine residue in the premises but that at the end of the tenancy the residue levels exceeded 15mcg/100cm, 2 and that is a level at which remediation was required.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 20 May 2024. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $445.

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 and return all keys and security devices.
The landlord provided photographs showing that tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The extent of the rubbish left behind was considerable and the grounds were overgrown.
The tenant did not return the keys and so the locks required replacing.
The landlord started cleaning the property but when the results of a methamphetamine report were received, she stopped because the property required decontamination.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $150 for cleaning the shower and oven and submitted an invoice for $304 for lock replacement.
An invoice for $2,927 included rubbish removal, tip fees, as well as some of the repairs listed below.

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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Holes in walls of bedroom, laundry, hallway, kitchen, Damage to kitchen cupboard door, hotwater cupboard door, Broken windows in bedroom, laundry, kitchen Damage to front door and frame
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The extent of the damage is more than careless. 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.
I find the damage was intentional.
The landlord did not seek reimbursement for the screening report, but did claim for the detailed assessment report and provided an invoice for $2,243.88.
As well as the invoice for $2,927.62 referred to above, the landlord submitted and invoice for $8,009.75 for repairs.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4908495 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4908495 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions