What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4929802 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $9,568.74 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4929802?

____________________________________…: $1,631.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $310.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $15.74 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $214.90 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $136.39 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $321.43 awarded to landlord; Gates (Estimate: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; kitchen splash back, cupboard and be…: $663.71 awarded to landlord; Plastering and painting estimate (pa…: $3,800.00 awarded to landlord; replace internal doors x2 Materials…: $123.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $214.40 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $188.11 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Dishwasher: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $962.56 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4929802?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4929802?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10811269-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4929802 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $9,568.74 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4929802?

____________________________________…: $1,631.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $310.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $15.74 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $214.90 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $136.39 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $321.43 awarded to landlord; Gates (Estimate: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; kitchen splash back, cupboard and be…: $663.71 awarded to landlord; Plastering and painting estimate (pa…: $3,800.00 awarded to landlord; replace internal doors x2 Materials…: $123.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $214.40 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $188.11 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Dishwasher: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $962.56 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4929802?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4929802?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10811269-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4929802 — Property damage

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $9,568.74 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,540.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The landlord’s claim for methamphetamine testing and decontamination is dismissed.
[The landlord/s] must take any of the tenant’s personal documents that have been left at the premises to the nearest Police station and obtain a receipt for them.
The landlord may dispose of the other goods left at the premises by the tenant as the landlord sees fit.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 25 June 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy being $321.43.
The tenancy ended pursuant to section 56B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The landlord claims that the tenant has misused this section and should rightly pay rent for a 28-day notice period as usually required.
The tenant gave appropriate notice under the section and provided the required evidence to support that notice.
The Tribunal is unable to look behind that process and the notice under s56B is valid.

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 under section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Act.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy in all respects.
The premises required additional cleaning to bring them up to the required clean and tidy state.
The landlord completed this work himself and the amount of $400.00 has been estimated to cover labour and materials based on the evidence provided (quotations for professional cleaning, photographs and the landlord’s estimate of the time spent on the property in total).
The carpets were cleaned at a cost of $310.50.
The gardens required additional work which the landlord completed himself. Quotations for professional gardening, photographs of the gardens at the end of the tenancy and the landlord’s estimate of the total time spent on the property were provided to support this claim and the amount of $300.00 is estimated to cover labour.
The landlord also provided evidence that a number of plants had been removed during the tenancy and replaced with rocks. The cost of replacement plants was estimated at $214.90 (on sale at Bunnings). Pre and post tenancy photographs were provided to support the claim.
The curtains throughout the house were damaged by the tenant. The kitchen curtains were able to be cleaned and rehung at a cost of $15.74.
Other curtains had been washed and stored incorrectly by the tenant making them unable to be rehung. Photographs were provided to support the claim. The replacement curtains were obtained on sale at a cost of $214.40.
The tenant left items at the property and did not return to collect them. The landlord has applied for a disposal order and provided an estimate for disposal of the goods being $200.00.
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 under sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
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 under section 49B(3A)(a) of the Act.
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 under section 49B(1) of the Act.
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: a. Damage to two exterior doors caused by the tenant’s dog. The landlord provided a quotation for this repair ($962.56) and had already had one door repaired at a greater cost than that quoted. b. The landlord provided evidence that the vinyl flooring at the property had been damaged beyond repair. A quotation was provided which gave a replacement cost at $1,631.00. The repairs have not been completed as the landlord is not in a financial position to do so. c. Two internal doors were damaged and had to be replaced at a cost of $123.00 (materials only). No labour has been claimed for this repair. d. Extensive damage was done to walls throughout the property. The walls had to be repaired and repainted. The landlord did this work himself with the help of a friend. Having seen photographs and an estimate of time spent as well as invoices provided for the paint, I estimate appropriate compensation for this work at $3,800.00 (including over $1,000.00 for paint and other materials). e. Excessive heat on the kitchen bench caused damage to the benchtop, splashback and a cupboard panel. The landlord has not completed the work yet as he is unable to finance the repairs. He is not claiming for the labour involved in the repair. He provided photographs of the damage and quotations for the parts required (from Bunnings) totalling $663.71. f. The dishwasher was severely dented in the front panel and the interior was missing parts and was also damaged. The cost of repair of the front panel was estimated at $517.50. No quotation was provided for the missing and damaged internal parts, but a new equivalent dishwasher starts at around $600.00 so this amount has been ordered as fair compensation for the total damage. g. A full height set of vehicle gates had each paling cut off at the bottom for some unknown reason. Equivalent sets of gates cost many thousands to have made but the landlord has claimed $1,000.00 in compensation for the damage. h. The cooktop was damaged beyond repair and has been replaced at a cost of $188.11. i. A door lock was broken and was replaced at a cost of $136.39.
Photographs, quotations, invoices and estimates of the landlord’s time spent on repairs have been provided to the Tribunal to support these claims.
The landlord acknowledges that he has not yet completed all of the work required as he is not currently in a financial position to do so.
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 landlord gave evidence that the house had been extensively renovated (at a cost of over $100,000.00) one year prior to the tenancy commencing and was in very good condition. The ingoing photographs support this claim. Additionally, the landlord is completing much of the work himself as he can afford to do so and has not claimed for labour for a number of as yet uncompleted works. As a consequence, I have not ordered depreciation on these claims. Methamphetamine decontamination
The landlord has claimed compensation for the costs of methamphetamine testing and decontamination. A successful insurance claim has covered some of the costs associated with this, but the landlord is claiming the insurance excess ($2,500.00).
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The landlord provided no pre-tenancy methamphetamine report.
In 2010, the New Zealand Ministry of Health produced guidelines for the remediation of methamphetamine laboratories which determined that remediation was required if the environmental level of methamphetamine was over 0.5μg/100cm². This became the level at which premises were deemed to require decontamination.
In 2017 the level was increased when Standards New Zealand released Standard NZS 8510:2017 “Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine- contaminated properties”. This Standard confirmed that the level at which habitation of residential premises was considered safe was 1.5μg/100cm². At that time, this Standard set the definitive levels at which properties required decontamination.
In 2018, the then Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, reported that there was little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption (Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards, 29 May 2018). This report concluded that any levels below 15μg/100cm² were unlikely to present adverse effects.
Taken together these factors indicate that methamphetamine levels that exceed the NZS 8510:2017 clean-up standard of 1.5μg/100cm² should not be regarded as signalling a health risk. Indeed, exposure to methamphetamine levels below 15μg/100cm² would be unlikely to give rise to any adverse effects. This level still incorporates a 30-fold safety buffer on a conservative estimate of risk.
The matter was considered by the District Court, in relation to a Tenancy Tribunal order, in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 where Judge Keller stated that; “the Gluckman Report represents the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination in dwellings.”
This decision of the District Court has confirmed that the level to be applied by this Tribunal is that expressed by Professor Gluckman which is that there is no risk when levels of contamination are below 15μg/100cm².
In the present case, the highest level recorded was 7.5μg/100cm². This is above the threshold set by current New Zealand Standards but below the risk level in the Gluckman Report. Objectively, the property did not require decontamination.
Therefore, the landlord’s claim for compensation for the insurance excess for methamphetamine decontamination must fail. Disposal of tenant’s abandoned goods
The landlord has applied for the disposal of goods the tenant left at the premises at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord gave the tenant opportunity to collect the goods and some items were taken but the remaining items have been left at the property.
It is not practicable for the landlord to the return the goods to the tenant. The value of the goods is below the cost of storing, transporting and selling them. Therefore the landlord may dispose of the goods under sections 62(3)(b), 62B(2) and (3) of the Act. Name suppression and filing fee
Given the circumstances of the end of this tenancy, name suppression must be ordered.
As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I reimburse the filing fee.

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $9,568.74 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,540.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The landlord’s claim for methamphetamine testing and decontamination is dismissed.
[The landlord/s] must take any of the tenant’s personal documents that have been left at the premises to the nearest Police station and obtain a receipt for them.
The landlord may dispose of the other goods left at the premises by the tenant as the landlord sees fit.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 25 June 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy being $321.43.
The tenancy ended pursuant to section 56B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The landlord claims that the tenant has misused this section and should rightly pay rent for a 28-day notice period as usually required.
The tenant gave appropriate notice under the section and provided the required evidence to support that notice.
The Tribunal is unable to look behind that process and the notice under s56B is valid.

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 under section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Act.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy in all respects.
The premises required additional cleaning to bring them up to the required clean and tidy state.
The landlord completed this work himself and the amount of $400.00 has been estimated to cover labour and materials based on the evidence provided (quotations for professional cleaning, photographs and the landlord’s estimate of the time spent on the property in total).
The carpets were cleaned at a cost of $310.50.
The gardens required additional work which the landlord completed himself. Quotations for professional gardening, photographs of the gardens at the end of the tenancy and the landlord’s estimate of the total time spent on the property were provided to support this claim and the amount of $300.00 is estimated to cover labour.
The landlord also provided evidence that a number of plants had been removed during the tenancy and replaced with rocks. The cost of replacement plants was estimated at $214.90 (on sale at Bunnings). Pre and post tenancy photographs were provided to support the claim.
The curtains throughout the house were damaged by the tenant. The kitchen curtains were able to be cleaned and rehung at a cost of $15.74.
Other curtains had been washed and stored incorrectly by the tenant making them unable to be rehung. Photographs were provided to support the claim. The replacement curtains were obtained on sale at a cost of $214.40.
The tenant left items at the property and did not return to collect them. The landlord has applied for a disposal order and provided an estimate for disposal of the goods being $200.00.
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 under sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
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 under section 49B(3A)(a) of the Act.
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 under section 49B(1) of the Act.
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: a. Damage to two exterior doors caused by the tenant’s dog. The landlord provided a quotation for this repair ($962.56) and had already had one door repaired at a greater cost than that quoted. b. The landlord provided evidence that the vinyl flooring at the property had been damaged beyond repair. A quotation was provided which gave a replacement cost at $1,631.00. The repairs have not been completed as the landlord is not in a financial position to do so. c. Two internal doors were damaged and had to be replaced at a cost of $123.00 (materials only). No labour has been claimed for this repair. d. Extensive damage was done to walls throughout the property. The walls had to be repaired and repainted. The landlord did this work himself with the help of a friend. Having seen photographs and an estimate of time spent as well as invoices provided for the paint, I estimate appropriate compensation for this work at $3,800.00 (including over $1,000.00 for paint and other materials). e. Excessive heat on the kitchen bench caused damage to the benchtop, splashback and a cupboard panel. The landlord has not completed the work yet as he is unable to finance the repairs. He is not claiming for the labour involved in the repair. He provided photographs of the damage and quotations for the parts required (from Bunnings) totalling $663.71. f. The dishwasher was severely dented in the front panel and the interior was missing parts and was also damaged. The cost of repair of the front panel was estimated at $517.50. No quotation was provided for the missing and damaged internal parts, but a new equivalent dishwasher starts at around $600.00 so this amount has been ordered as fair compensation for the total damage. g. A full height set of vehicle gates had each paling cut off at the bottom for some unknown reason. Equivalent sets of gates cost many thousands to have made but the landlord has claimed $1,000.00 in compensation for the damage. h. The cooktop was damaged beyond repair and has been replaced at a cost of $188.11. i. A door lock was broken and was replaced at a cost of $136.39.
Photographs, quotations, invoices and estimates of the landlord’s time spent on repairs have been provided to the Tribunal to support these claims.
The landlord acknowledges that he has not yet completed all of the work required as he is not currently in a financial position to do so.
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 landlord gave evidence that the house had been extensively renovated (at a cost of over $100,000.00) one year prior to the tenancy commencing and was in very good condition. The ingoing photographs support this claim. Additionally, the landlord is completing much of the work himself as he can afford to do so and has not claimed for labour for a number of as yet uncompleted works. As a consequence, I have not ordered depreciation on these claims. Methamphetamine decontamination
The landlord has claimed compensation for the costs of methamphetamine testing and decontamination. A successful insurance claim has covered some of the costs associated with this, but the landlord is claiming the insurance excess ($2,500.00).
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The landlord provided no pre-tenancy methamphetamine report.
In 2010, the New Zealand Ministry of Health produced guidelines for the remediation of methamphetamine laboratories which determined that remediation was required if the environmental level of methamphetamine was over 0.5μg/100cm². This became the level at which premises were deemed to require decontamination.
In 2017 the level was increased when Standards New Zealand released Standard NZS 8510:2017 “Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine- contaminated properties”. This Standard confirmed that the level at which habitation of residential premises was considered safe was 1.5μg/100cm². At that time, this Standard set the definitive levels at which properties required decontamination.
In 2018, the then Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, reported that there was little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption (Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards, 29 May 2018). This report concluded that any levels below 15μg/100cm² were unlikely to present adverse effects.
Taken together these factors indicate that methamphetamine levels that exceed the NZS 8510:2017 clean-up standard of 1.5μg/100cm² should not be regarded as signalling a health risk. Indeed, exposure to methamphetamine levels below 15μg/100cm² would be unlikely to give rise to any adverse effects. This level still incorporates a 30-fold safety buffer on a conservative estimate of risk.
The matter was considered by the District Court, in relation to a Tenancy Tribunal order, in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 where Judge Keller stated that; “the Gluckman Report represents the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination in dwellings.”
This decision of the District Court has confirmed that the level to be applied by this Tribunal is that expressed by Professor Gluckman which is that there is no risk when levels of contamination are below 15μg/100cm².
In the present case, the highest level recorded was 7.5μg/100cm². This is above the threshold set by current New Zealand Standards but below the risk level in the Gluckman Report. Objectively, the property did not require decontamination.
Therefore, the landlord’s claim for compensation for the insurance excess for methamphetamine decontamination must fail. Disposal of tenant’s abandoned goods
The landlord has applied for the disposal of goods the tenant left at the premises at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord gave the tenant opportunity to collect the goods and some items were taken but the remaining items have been left at the property.
It is not practicable for the landlord to the return the goods to the tenant. The value of the goods is below the cost of storing, transporting and selling them. Therefore the landlord may dispose of the goods under sections 62(3)(b), 62B(2) and (3) of the Act. Name suppression and filing fee
Given the circumstances of the end of this tenancy, name suppression must be ordered.
As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4929802 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4929802 — 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

Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$321.43	Rent arrears
Cleaning: estimate for landlord's hours and materials	$400.00	Cleaning: estimate for landlord's hours and materials
Carpet Cleaning: completed	$310.50	Carpet Cleaning: completed
Lawns and Garden work: replacement plants (cost	$214.90	Lawns and Garden work: replacement plants (cost
Lawns and Garden work: estimate for landlord's time	$300.00	Lawns and Garden work: estimate for landlord's time
Cleaning: Actual cost for kitchen curtain drycleaning	$15.74	Cleaning: Actual cost for kitchen curtain drycleaning
Replace furnishings: Curtains damaged beyond repair	$214.40	Replace furnishings: Curtains damaged beyond repair
Rubbish removal: estimate	$200.00	Rubbish removal: estimate
Window repairs: replace windows damaged by dog	$962.56	Window repairs: replace windows damaged by dog
_______________________________________________________________________ 49298022 (estimate) Replace furnishings: floor d	$1,631.00	_______________________________________________________________________ 49298022 (estimate) Replace furnishings: floor d
Repairs: replace internal doors x2 Materials only	$123.00	Repairs: replace internal doors x2 Materials only
Repairs: Plastering and painting estimate (paint and labour) for landlord's hours	$3,800.00	Repairs: Plastering and painting estimate (paint and labour) for landlord's hours
Repairs: kitchen splash back, cupboard and bench materials only	$663.71	Repairs: kitchen splash back, cupboard and bench materials only
Replace furnishings: Dishwasher	$600.00	Replace furnishings: Dishwasher
Repairs: Gates (estimate	$1,000.00	Repairs: Gates (estimate
Replace furnishings: Damaged cooktop	$188.11	Replace furnishings: Damaged cooktop
Lock/key replacement: Replace damaged lock	$136.39	Lock/key replacement: Replace damaged lock
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$9,568.74
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$9,568.74