What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4927854 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4927854?

Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $6,968.50 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $1,167.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $651.62 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $5,623.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,040.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,820.00 awarded to landlord; Reinstate Garage: $1,100.00 awarded to landlord; Replace 11 Internal Doors: $3,799.60 awarded to landlord; Replace Carpet: $5,642.50 awarded to landlord; Replace Curtains: $1,700.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Ranchslider: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $19,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,935.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $106.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4927854?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4927854?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11351485-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4927854 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4927854?

Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $6,968.50 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $1,167.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $651.62 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $5,623.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,040.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,820.00 awarded to landlord; Reinstate Garage: $1,100.00 awarded to landlord; Replace 11 Internal Doors: $3,799.60 awarded to landlord; Replace Carpet: $5,642.50 awarded to landlord; Replace Curtains: $1,700.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Ranchslider: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $19,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,935.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $106.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4927854?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4927854?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11351485-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

45B Pooles Road, Greerton, Tauranga 3112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4927854 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4927854 — net $53,803.72 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 20/7/2024	$1,820.00	Rent arrears to 20/7/2024
Lock/key replacement: and securing of doors	$651.62	Lock/key replacement: and securing of doors
Rubbish removal: 4 skip bins	$1,935.00	Rubbish removal: 4 skip bins
Lawns and Garden work: including removing rubbish	$1,167.50	Lawns and Garden work: including removing rubbish
Methamphetamine testing and cleaning: tenant contribution	$5,623.00	Methamphetamine testing and cleaning: tenant contribution
Repairs: Replace 11 internal doors	$3,799.60	Repairs: Replace 11 internal doors
Repairs: Replace carpet	$5,642.50	Repairs: Replace carpet
Repairs: Replace curtains	$1,700.00	Repairs: Replace curtains
Repairs: to walls in 3 bedrooms and kitchen repairs	$19,000.00	Repairs: to walls in 3 bedrooms and kitchen repairs
Repairs: replace ranchslider	$2,500.00	Repairs: replace ranchslider
Electrical fittings replacement: replace heat pump	$750.00	Electrical fittings replacement: replace heat pump
Electrical fittings replacement/repair: replace light fittings and damaged power points and wiring	$6,968.50	Electrical fittings replacement/repair: replace light fittings and damaged power points and wiring
Window repairs	$1,040.00	Window repairs
Repairs: reinstate garage	$1,100.00	Repairs: reinstate garage
Water rates	$106.00	Water rates
Net award	$53,803.72
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$53,803.72

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4927854 — net $53,803.72 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.

Claim

Landlord

Tenant

Reason

Rent arrears to 20/7/2024

$1,820.00

Rent arrears to 20/7/2024

Lock/key replacement: and securing of doors

$651.62

Lock/key replacement: and securing of doors

Rubbish removal: 4 skip bins

$1,935.00

Rubbish removal: 4 skip bins

Lawns and Garden work: including removing rubbish

$1,167.50

Lawns and Garden work: including removing rubbish

Methamphetamine testing and cleaning: tenant contribution

$5,623.00

Methamphetamine testing and cleaning: tenant contribution

Repairs: Replace 11 internal doors

$3,799.60

Repairs: Replace 11 internal doors

Repairs: Replace carpet

$5,642.50

Repairs: Replace carpet

Repairs: Replace curtains

$1,700.00

Repairs: Replace curtains

Repairs: to walls in 3 bedrooms and kitchen repairs

$19,000.00

Repairs: to walls in 3 bedrooms and kitchen repairs

Repairs: replace ranchslider

$2,500.00

Repairs: replace ranchslider

Electrical fittings replacement: replace heat pump

$750.00

Electrical fittings replacement: replace heat pump

Electrical fittings replacement/repair: replace light fittings and damaged power points and wiring

$6,968.50

Electrical fittings replacement/repair: replace light fittings and damaged power points and wiring

Window repairs

$1,040.00

Window repairs

Repairs: reinstate garage

$1,100.00

Repairs: reinstate garage

Water rates

$106.00

Water rates

Net award

$53,803.72

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

$53,803.72

Reasons

Only the applicant landlords attended the hearings. The tenant did not join the video link and could not be contacted by telephone (as was the case for the earlier hearing on 27/9/2024)

The landlord has applied for rent arrears and compensation. An interim order confirmed that the tenant was liable for rent until 20/7/2024, which was 28 days after she gave notice that she had left the premises.

The landlord has provided rent records and water invoices which prove the amount owing. The interim order issued on 27/9/2024 is therefore finalised and incorporated for enforcement purposes. The landlords confirmed the bond has subsequently been refunded to them.

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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove extensive rubbish. The lawns and gardens were littered with rubbish and damaged.

The tenant did not return the keys.

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 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. Methamphetamine contamination

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.

Prior to the tenancy commencing the landlord had methamphetamine (meth) testing done that confirmed there was no or negligible meth present on any surface.

At the end of the tenancy composite testing suggested that meth had been used at the property during the tenancy and the more detailed individual testing of each room confirmed levels of 19.1 ug and 20.4 ug in the lounge/dining area and bathroom respectively.

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/100cm 2 for high use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture. It recommended a higher level of 3.8μg/100cm 2 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/100cm 2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect. It recommended retaining the level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 where contamination resulted from manufacture, due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the process.

The District Court has held that remediation should be carried out in accordance with the prevailing guidelines at the time (Diamond Real Estate Limited v Allan [2017] NZDC 833, Judge Kellar).

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.

More recently, in Barfoot and Thompson Limited v Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited [2021] NZTT Auckland 4276319, both parties presented scientific evidence at a hearing before the Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that there was no new scientific research to change the conclusions reached in the Gluckman Report.

Extensive remediation was required to restore the property to a condition where it could be occupied again. The tenant is liable for the costs of this testing end remediation in the arears that required decontamination. She is fortunate that the landlord has insurance, which has covered $30,000 of the total cost. The amount awarded is the amount after deduction of the excess and takes account of the additional costs the landlord has incurred. Other damage

In addition to the meth contamination, almost every surface in the property, including all internal doors, most walls, several windows, the ranch slider, carpets and curtains were damaged. The heat pump needed to be replaced, wiring had been unlawfully altered and lightings removed. The garage required repainting and remedial work to the walls. In short, the property had been “trashed” from one end to other. It seems likely the damage occurred in the final weeks of the tenancy when the tenant left the property and allowed associates to move in. She is however responsible for the actions of those at the property with her permission.

The damage is categorically more than fair wear and tear, likely intentional and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered are proved.

I have taken into account betterment and depreciation when assessing fair compensation for the replacement of the carpets, curtains, heat pump and the paintwork required in the rooms other than the lounge dining area and the bathroom, which were covered by the meth compensation award. 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.

The application is successful so the landlords request for name suppression is approved.

The public interest requires the tenant’s name is published.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4927854 — net $53,803.72 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 20/7/2024	$1,820.00	Rent arrears to 20/7/2024
Lock/key replacement: and securing of doors	$651.62	Lock/key replacement: and securing of doors
Rubbish removal: 4 skip bins	$1,935.00	Rubbish removal: 4 skip bins
Lawns and Garden work: including removing rubbish	$1,167.50	Lawns and Garden work: including removing rubbish
Methamphetamine testing and cleaning: tenant contribution	$5,623.00	Methamphetamine testing and cleaning: tenant contribution
Repairs: Replace 11 internal doors	$3,799.60	Repairs: Replace 11 internal doors
Repairs: Replace carpet	$5,642.50	Repairs: Replace carpet
Repairs: Replace curtains	$1,700.00	Repairs: Replace curtains
Repairs: to walls in 3 bedrooms and kitchen repairs	$19,000.00	Repairs: to walls in 3 bedrooms and kitchen repairs
Repairs: replace ranchslider	$2,500.00	Repairs: replace ranchslider
Electrical fittings replacement: replace heat pump	$750.00	Electrical fittings replacement: replace heat pump
Electrical fittings replacement/repair: replace light fittings and damaged power points and wiring	$6,968.50	Electrical fittings replacement/repair: replace light fittings and damaged power points and wiring
Window repairs	$1,040.00	Window repairs
Repairs: reinstate garage	$1,100.00	Repairs: reinstate garage
Water rates	$106.00	Water rates
Net award	$53,803.72
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$53,803.72

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4927854 — net $53,803.72 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.

Claim

Landlord

Tenant

Reason

Rent arrears to 20/7/2024

$1,820.00

Rent arrears to 20/7/2024

Lock/key replacement: and securing of doors

$651.62

Lock/key replacement: and securing of doors

Rubbish removal: 4 skip bins

$1,935.00

Rubbish removal: 4 skip bins

Lawns and Garden work: including removing rubbish

$1,167.50

Lawns and Garden work: including removing rubbish

Methamphetamine testing and cleaning: tenant contribution

$5,623.00

Methamphetamine testing and cleaning: tenant contribution

Repairs: Replace 11 internal doors

$3,799.60

Repairs: Replace 11 internal doors

Repairs: Replace carpet

$5,642.50

Repairs: Replace carpet

Repairs: Replace curtains

$1,700.00

Repairs: Replace curtains

Repairs: to walls in 3 bedrooms and kitchen repairs

$19,000.00

Repairs: to walls in 3 bedrooms and kitchen repairs

Repairs: replace ranchslider

$2,500.00

Repairs: replace ranchslider

Electrical fittings replacement: replace heat pump

$750.00

Electrical fittings replacement: replace heat pump

Electrical fittings replacement/repair: replace light fittings and damaged power points and wiring

$6,968.50

Electrical fittings replacement/repair: replace light fittings and damaged power points and wiring

Window repairs

$1,040.00

Window repairs

Repairs: reinstate garage

$1,100.00

Repairs: reinstate garage

Water rates

$106.00

Water rates

Net award

$53,803.72

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

$53,803.72

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s names and identifying details.
Jane Paterson must pay [The landlord/s] $53,803.72 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Only the applicant landlords attended the hearings. The tenant did not join the video link and could not be contacted by telephone (as was the case for the earlier hearing on 27/9/2024)
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and compensation. An interim order confirmed that the tenant was liable for rent until 20/7/2024, which was 28 days after she gave notice that she had left the premises.
The landlord has provided rent records and water invoices which prove the amount owing. The interim order issued on 27/9/2024 is therefore finalised and incorporated for enforcement purposes. The landlords confirmed the bond has subsequently been refunded to them.

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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove extensive rubbish. The lawns and gardens were littered with rubbish and damaged.
The tenant did not return the keys.
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 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. Methamphetamine contamination
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.
Prior to the tenancy commencing the landlord had methamphetamine (meth) testing done that confirmed there was no or negligible meth present on any surface.
At the end of the tenancy composite testing suggested that meth had been used at the property during the tenancy and the more detailed individual testing of each room confirmed levels of 19.1 ug and 20.4 ug in the lounge/dining area and bathroom respectively.
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/100cm 2 for high use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture. It recommended a higher level of 3.8μg/100cm 2 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/100cm 2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect. It recommended retaining the level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 where contamination resulted from manufacture, due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the process.
The District Court has held that remediation should be carried out in accordance with the prevailing guidelines at the time (Diamond Real Estate Limited v Allan [2017] NZDC 833, Judge Kellar).
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.
More recently, in Barfoot and Thompson Limited v Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited [2021] NZTT Auckland 4276319, both parties presented scientific evidence at a hearing before the Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that there was no new scientific research to change the conclusions reached in the Gluckman Report.
Extensive remediation was required to restore the property to a condition where it could be occupied again. The tenant is liable for the costs of this testing end remediation in the arears that required decontamination. She is fortunate that the landlord has insurance, which has covered $30,000 of the total cost. The amount awarded is the amount after deduction of the excess and takes account of the additional costs the landlord has incurred. Other damage
In addition to the meth contamination, almost every surface in the property, including all internal doors, most walls, several windows, the ranch slider, carpets and curtains were damaged. The heat pump needed to be replaced, wiring had been unlawfully altered and lightings removed. The garage required repainting and remedial work to the walls. In short, the property had been “trashed” from one end to other. It seems likely the damage occurred in the final weeks of the tenancy when the tenant left the property and allowed associates to move in. She is however responsible for the actions of those at the property with her permission.
The damage is categorically more than fair wear and tear, likely intentional and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation when assessing fair compensation for the replacement of the carpets, curtains, heat pump and the paintwork required in the rooms other than the lounge dining area and the bathroom, which were covered by the meth compensation award. 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.
The application is successful so the landlords request for name suppression is approved.
The public interest requires the tenant’s name is published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4927854 — Property damage at 45B Pooles Road, Greerton, Tauranga 3112

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4927854 — Property damage at 45B Pooles Road, Greerton, Tauranga 3112

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

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