What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4932453?

The tribunal order states: Larissa Siale and Corey Hebden must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4932453?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,081.42 awarded to landlord; Windowsill: $310.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4932453?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4932453?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10734147-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4932453?

The tribunal order states: Larissa Siale and Corey Hebden must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4932453?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,081.42 awarded to landlord; Windowsill: $310.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4932453?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4932453?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10734147-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

6 Adair Place, Weymouth, Auckland 2103 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4932453 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4932453 — net $2,418.42 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 7/05/2024	$2,081.42	Rent arrears to 7/05/2024
Repairs: Windowsill	$310.00	Repairs: Windowsill
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,418.42
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,418.42

Order

Larissa Siale and Corey Hebden must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited $2,418.42 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears to 7/05/2024$2,081.42 Repairs: Windowsill$310.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$2,418.42 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$2,418.42

Reasons

The applicant landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance for the tenants.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 7 May 2024. The landlord provided rent records which record the amount of rent owing at the end of the tenancy in the sum of $3300.
The bond has been refunded to the landlord prior to this hearing and applied partially towards repairs as discussed with the tenant and to reduce the rent arrears. The landlord provided a copy of an email to the tenant dated 26 June 2024 which stated that the balance of the rent arrears still owing was $2081.42.
The landlord provided an updated rent statement. I am satisfied that the rent outstanding is due.

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.
The landlord claimed that the tenant’s dog scratched a windowsill. The landlord stated that in the letter sent to the tenant on 26 June 2024 the amount of $310.00 was not included for repairs to damage to a windowsill by the tenant’s dog. The landlord seeks that this amount be included also.
The landlord provided photographs of the damage, a copy of an email to the tenants regarding the damage and an invoice for the repairs. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amount ordered is proved.
The landlord also claimed that the premises were methamphetamine damaged and sought compensation by way of reimbursement of the testing cost.
This damage claimed by the landlord is chemical damage. As this damage cannot be physically seen the Tribunal is informed by scientific evidence to establish whether there is damage, the extent of the damage, where it is located and what is required to remedy the damage.
The New Zealand Standards Committee, in July 2017, released “NZS8510:2017 - Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine-contaminated properties”. The standard adopts a single level of 1.5μg/100cm2 (1.5 micrograms of methamphetamine per 100 square centimetres of surface sampled) that ‘high use areas’ of affected properties should be decontaminated to, regardless of whether the properties were involved in the production or use of methamphetamine. There is no evidence or suggestion of methamphetamine manufacture in this case.
In May 2018, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, then chief Scientific Advisor to the Prime Minister released a report titled “Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties; Exposures, risk levels” (the Gluckman Report). The report concluded that third-hand exposure to methamphetamine at levels below 15 micrograms per 100cm2 was unlikely to have adverse effect.
The landlord arranged a methamphetamine pre-test and provided a copy of a Report from NZ Healthy Homes dated 15 January 2021 which stated that no methamphetamine was detected at the commencement of the tenancy.
The tenancy ended on 7 May 2024. The landlord arranged a routine methamphetamine test at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord produced a copy of a report from Clan Lab Testing entitled Initial Methamphetamine Assessment dated 27 May 2024. The report states that the property was sampled on 22 May 2024 which is two weeks after the tenancy ended. The report recorded a composite result and concluded that methamphetamine was detected. Individual sampling was recommended.
The landlord produced a further report dated 7 June 2024 which reported that individual samples had been tested and methamphetamine detected in 5 of 9 samples with the highest result in the garage of 0.43μg (micrograms). The report concluded, “Methamphetamine was detected in 5 of the 9 samples. All of the samples were below the minimum safe levels outlined in NZS8510. No further action required”.
Having considered the evidence presented I find that the applicant has not proved on the balance of probabilities that the tenant has caused damage to the premises as the level recorded is below the minimum safe levels as outlined by scientific evidence.
Therefore, the claim for compensation for methamphetamine damage is dismissed.
Because Barfoot & Thompson Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4932453 — net $2,418.42 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 7/05/2024	$2,081.42	Rent arrears to 7/05/2024
Repairs: Windowsill	$310.00	Repairs: Windowsill
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,418.42
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,418.42

Order

Larissa Siale and Corey Hebden must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited $2,418.42 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears to 7/05/2024$2,081.42 Repairs: Windowsill$310.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$2,418.42 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$2,418.42

Reasons

The applicant landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance for the tenants.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 7 May 2024. The landlord provided rent records which record the amount of rent owing at the end of the tenancy in the sum of $3300.
The bond has been refunded to the landlord prior to this hearing and applied partially towards repairs as discussed with the tenant and to reduce the rent arrears. The landlord provided a copy of an email to the tenant dated 26 June 2024 which stated that the balance of the rent arrears still owing was $2081.42.
The landlord provided an updated rent statement. I am satisfied that the rent outstanding is due.

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.
The landlord claimed that the tenant’s dog scratched a windowsill. The landlord stated that in the letter sent to the tenant on 26 June 2024 the amount of $310.00 was not included for repairs to damage to a windowsill by the tenant’s dog. The landlord seeks that this amount be included also.
The landlord provided photographs of the damage, a copy of an email to the tenants regarding the damage and an invoice for the repairs. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amount ordered is proved.
The landlord also claimed that the premises were methamphetamine damaged and sought compensation by way of reimbursement of the testing cost.
This damage claimed by the landlord is chemical damage. As this damage cannot be physically seen the Tribunal is informed by scientific evidence to establish whether there is damage, the extent of the damage, where it is located and what is required to remedy the damage.
The New Zealand Standards Committee, in July 2017, released “NZS8510:2017 - Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine-contaminated properties”. The standard adopts a single level of 1.5μg/100cm2 (1.5 micrograms of methamphetamine per 100 square centimetres of surface sampled) that ‘high use areas’ of affected properties should be decontaminated to, regardless of whether the properties were involved in the production or use of methamphetamine. There is no evidence or suggestion of methamphetamine manufacture in this case.
In May 2018, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, then chief Scientific Advisor to the Prime Minister released a report titled “Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties; Exposures, risk levels” (the Gluckman Report). The report concluded that third-hand exposure to methamphetamine at levels below 15 micrograms per 100cm2 was unlikely to have adverse effect.
The landlord arranged a methamphetamine pre-test and provided a copy of a Report from NZ Healthy Homes dated 15 January 2021 which stated that no methamphetamine was detected at the commencement of the tenancy.
The tenancy ended on 7 May 2024. The landlord arranged a routine methamphetamine test at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord produced a copy of a report from Clan Lab Testing entitled Initial Methamphetamine Assessment dated 27 May 2024. The report states that the property was sampled on 22 May 2024 which is two weeks after the tenancy ended. The report recorded a composite result and concluded that methamphetamine was detected. Individual sampling was recommended.
The landlord produced a further report dated 7 June 2024 which reported that individual samples had been tested and methamphetamine detected in 5 of 9 samples with the highest result in the garage of 0.43μg (micrograms). The report concluded, “Methamphetamine was detected in 5 of the 9 samples. All of the samples were below the minimum safe levels outlined in NZS8510. No further action required”.
Having considered the evidence presented I find that the applicant has not proved on the balance of probabilities that the tenant has caused damage to the premises as the level recorded is below the minimum safe levels as outlined by scientific evidence.
Therefore, the claim for compensation for methamphetamine damage is dismissed.
Because Barfoot & Thompson Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4932453 — Rent arrears at 6 Adair Place, Weymouth, Auckland 2103

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4932453 — Rent arrears at 6 Adair Place, Weymouth, Auckland 2103

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Dismissed claims

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