What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4928093?

The tribunal order states: Annabella Marie Lowen and Paul Lowen must pay Blackham & Co Real Estate

How much money was awarded in case 4928093?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Hire Cost Of 2 Rubbish Skips: $560.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4821778 D…: $90.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $380.10 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,680.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Window And Glass Pane: $344.77 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $349.22 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4928093?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4928093?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11355875-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4928093?

The tribunal order states: Annabella Marie Lowen and Paul Lowen must pay Blackham & Co Real Estate

How much money was awarded in case 4928093?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Hire Cost Of 2 Rubbish Skips: $560.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4821778 D…: $90.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $380.10 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,680.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Window And Glass Pane: $344.77 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $349.22 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4928093?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4928093?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11355875-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

33 Dacre Street, Oamaru North, Oamaru 9400 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4928093 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4928093 — net $3,431.09 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4821778 dated 13/05/2024 (balance owed	$90.00	Previous order application 4821778 dated 13/05/2024 (balance owed
Replace window and glass pane	$344.77	Replace window and glass pane
Hire cost of 2 rubbish skips	$560.00	Hire cost of 2 rubbish skips
Lock/key replacement	$380.10	Lock/key replacement
Labour charge for rubbish removal	$349.22	Labour charge for rubbish removal
Repair and replace damaged doors (limited to 4 weeks’ rent	$1,680.00	Repair and replace damaged doors (limited to 4 weeks’ rent
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,431.09
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,431.09

Both parties attended the hearing which I held by phone. Ms Macrae represented the landlord. The guarantor Mr Lowen was unable to attend due to ill health.

For the reasons noted by the Tribunal in its order dated 13 May 2024, Mr Lowen remains liable under the guarantee he provided to the landlord on 24 August 2023.

The landlord has applied for the balance rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenant accepted that there was an outstanding sum of $90.00 owing from the Tribunal’s previous order. I have incorporated that amount in this order by consent.

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 (RTA).

The tenant did not remove all rubbish when she vacated.

The landlord produced photographic evidence of the keys provided at the start of the tenancy. Not all were returned.

The tenant said she was denied access after the landlord allowed her only a short period of time to vacate the tenancy otherwise she could have removed all the rubbish.

When a tenancy ends, a landlord is not required to provide a tenant further access. The Tribunal granted the landlord possession on 15 May 2024. The tenant was responsible to ensure she complied with her statutory responsibilities by that date.

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.

The following damage was caused during the tenancy. Four internal doors were damaged and have to be repaired/replaced. A window, and a glass pane in the front door were broken and had to be repaired.

The owner’s insurer would have charged 4 separate excesses under the insurance policy to repair the doors. That amounts to $2,200.00. The quotation for the repairs is for $2,979.33. The Tribunal can only award the equivalent of 4 weeks’ rent.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. That the tenant considers she was not provided with adequate time to fix the damage does not void her liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered are proved by invoices, a quotation, photos, and a final property inspection report. The methamphetamine claim

The landlord seeks the cost of methamphetamine testing and the insurance excess for methamphetamine remediation.

The premises were not tested for methamphetamine contamination before the tenancy started. The landlord cannot prove that the contamination occurred during the tenancy.

The landlord found some drug paraphernalia at the premises. The tenant denied using drugs at the premises. She said it was possible her flatmate did, but she did not know for sure.

I cannot find on the balance of probabilities that the tenant is liable for the cost of the methamphetamine test when there was no pre-tenancy test to provide a baseline.

The test report is a composite report only. It refers to a potential composite reading of 19μg/100cm² from 10 samples.

The Tribunal requires test results from specific areas, not a composite result that shows a potential maximum. The Tribunal works to the level of 15μg/100cm² before it finds the premises contaminated, not the NZS8510 standard of 1.5μg/100cm². The Hill Labs report shows a reading of 6.3μg for methamphetamine.

Without a pre-tenancy methamphetamine test and in the absence of a report with specific test result that show actual contamination of at least 15μg/100cm² the Tribunal cannot award the landlord the insurance excess as the premises are not considered damaged.

That the owner’s insurer accepted the claim based on the lower standard does not establish the landlord’s claim in the Tribunal for the reasons given.

As the application is mostly successful, I award the landlord the filing fee. Name suppression

On my enquiry, neither party sought a name suppression order.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4928093 — net $3,431.09 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4821778 dated 13/05/2024 (balance owed	$90.00	Previous order application 4821778 dated 13/05/2024 (balance owed
Replace window and glass pane	$344.77	Replace window and glass pane
Hire cost of 2 rubbish skips	$560.00	Hire cost of 2 rubbish skips
Lock/key replacement	$380.10	Lock/key replacement
Labour charge for rubbish removal	$349.22	Labour charge for rubbish removal
Repair and replace damaged doors (limited to 4 weeks’ rent	$1,680.00	Repair and replace damaged doors (limited to 4 weeks’ rent
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,431.09
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,431.09

Order

Annabella Marie Lowen and Paul Lowen must pay Blackham & Co Real Estate Limited as agent for The CP Trust $3,431.09 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The application for the cost of methamphetamine testing and for the insurance excess for remediation work is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which I held by phone. Ms Macrae represented the landlord. The guarantor Mr Lowen was unable to attend due to ill health.
For the reasons noted by the Tribunal in its order dated 13 May 2024, Mr Lowen remains liable under the guarantee he provided to the landlord on 24 August 2023.
The landlord has applied for the balance rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenant accepted that there was an outstanding sum of $90.00 owing from the Tribunal’s previous order. I have incorporated that amount in this order by consent.

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 (RTA).
The tenant did not remove all rubbish when she vacated.
The landlord produced photographic evidence of the keys provided at the start of the tenancy. Not all were returned.
The tenant said she was denied access after the landlord allowed her only a short period of time to vacate the tenancy otherwise she could have removed all the rubbish.
When a tenancy ends, a landlord is not required to provide a tenant further access. The Tribunal granted the landlord possession on 15 May 2024. The tenant was responsible to ensure she complied with her statutory responsibilities by that date.

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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy. Four internal doors were damaged and have to be repaired/replaced. A window, and a glass pane in the front door were broken and had to be repaired.
The owner’s insurer would have charged 4 separate excesses under the insurance policy to repair the doors. That amounts to $2,200.00. The quotation for the repairs is for $2,979.33. The Tribunal can only award the equivalent of 4 weeks’ rent.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. That the tenant considers she was not provided with adequate time to fix the damage does not void her liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved by invoices, a quotation, photos, and a final property inspection report. The methamphetamine claim
The landlord seeks the cost of methamphetamine testing and the insurance excess for methamphetamine remediation.
The premises were not tested for methamphetamine contamination before the tenancy started. The landlord cannot prove that the contamination occurred during the tenancy.
The landlord found some drug paraphernalia at the premises. The tenant denied using drugs at the premises. She said it was possible her flatmate did, but she did not know for sure.
I cannot find on the balance of probabilities that the tenant is liable for the cost of the methamphetamine test when there was no pre-tenancy test to provide a baseline.
The test report is a composite report only. It refers to a potential composite reading of 19μg/100cm² from 10 samples.
The Tribunal requires test results from specific areas, not a composite result that shows a potential maximum. The Tribunal works to the level of 15μg/100cm² before it finds the premises contaminated, not the NZS8510 standard of 1.5μg/100cm². The Hill Labs report shows a reading of 6.3μg for methamphetamine.
Without a pre-tenancy methamphetamine test and in the absence of a report with specific test result that show actual contamination of at least 15μg/100cm² the Tribunal cannot award the landlord the insurance excess as the premises are not considered damaged.
That the owner’s insurer accepted the claim based on the lower standard does not establish the landlord’s claim in the Tribunal for the reasons given.
As the application is mostly successful, I award the landlord the filing fee. Name suppression
On my enquiry, neither party sought a name suppression order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4928093 — Property damage at 33 Dacre Street, Oamaru North, Oamaru 9400

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4928093 — Property damage at 33 Dacre Street, Oamaru North, Oamaru 9400

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

Property management

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions