What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4932534?

The tribunal order states: Danielle Monica Tewhata Low must pay Southern Suburbs Realty Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4932534?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $559.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $455.40 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $699.56 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,098.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4932534?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4932534?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10855329-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4932534?

The tribunal order states: Danielle Monica Tewhata Low must pay Southern Suburbs Realty Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4932534?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $559.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $455.40 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $699.56 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,098.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4932534?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4932534?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10855329-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

64 Friedlanders Road, Manurewa, Auckland 2102 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4932534 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4932534 — net $3,170.65 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 11 June 2024	$699.56	Rent arrears to 11 June 2024
Lock/key replacement	$559.50	Lock/key replacement
Window repairs	$455.40	Window repairs
Rubbish removal: repairs, curtains, light bulbs	$2,098.75	Rubbish removal: repairs, curtains, light bulbs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,170.65
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,170.65

Order

Danielle Monica Tewhata Low must pay Southern Suburbs Realty Limited $3,170.65 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $669.56 (5221934-015) to Southern Suburbs Realty Limited immediately.
All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend the hearing. Background
The tenancy began on 7 October 2021.
On 20 May 2024 the Tribunal made an order (4808777) terminating the tenancy at 11.59pm on that day. The order also provided for rent arrears to 20 May 2024. Part of the bond was released to cover the rent arrears ($1,710.00) and the application fee ($20.44).
The balance of the bond held by the Bond Centre is $669.56 which is released to reduce the costs awarded against the tenant. Landlord application
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 11 June 2024 as that was the date that the tenant left the premises. The Tribunal had terminated the tenancy earlier, but it took the tenant several weeks to move out.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The tenant did not return the keys.
The landlord had to replace light bulbs and smoke alarm batteries.
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 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.
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: wall holes, broken curtains. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Methamphetamine contamination
The landlord claims the cost of testing for methamphetamine after the tenancy ended, the cost of decontamination and the cost of testing following the decontamination.
The landlord produced a pre tenancy methamphetamine screening assessment report following testing carried out on 27 September 2021. This was approximately two weeks prior to commencement of the tenancy.
The composite result provided in the report was 3.28μg per 100cm². No individual reading was carried out before the tenancy began.
The landlord produced a post tenancy methamphetamine certificate of analysis dated 11 June 2024. That report provided a composite result of 1.64μg per 100cm². I note that that certificate gave a potential maximum single sample of
8μg per 100cm², but that was a potential figure, not an actual figure.
The certificate of analysis dated 13 June 2024 provides individual reading with results ranging from 0.08μg per 100cm² to 5.2μg per 100cm².
The issue is whether these methamphetamine readings amount to contamination which requires remediation.
The Tribunal has previously found that damage occurs, and decontamination is necessary when levels of methamphetamine contamination are above 15μg per 100cm². Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4797 1 . This is the level adopted by the authors of what is colloquially known as the Gluckman report dated 29 May 2018 (“the Gluckman Report”) 2 . The Gluckman Report concludes that there is no evidence of risk of harm from second or third hand exposure to methamphetamine residue measured at or less than 15μg per 100cm² unless there is evidence to suggest that the premises have been used for manufacture.
Neither the Gluckman Report nor the previously used New Zealand Standard NZS 8510:2017 3 (NZS) which recommended a level of 1.5μg per 100cm² are embedded into law, they both represent guidelines and are not regulatory.
In the aforementioned Full Circle Real Estate v Piper his Honour Judge Kellar gave consideration as to whether the Tribunal erred in applying the Gluckman level of 15μg per 100cm² over the NZS of 1.5μg per 100cm² and found that; “it would have been bold for the adjudicator to have ignored that report (the Gluckman 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.” Therefore, the Tribunal continues to adopt a level of 15μg per 100cm² as a level that requires remediation for contamination. 1 Full Circle Real Estate v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947- CIV2018-009-2490 2 Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposure, risk levels and interpretation of standards.” 29 May 2018 - Professor Gluckman – Prime Minister’s chief science advisor; (The Gluckman Report). 3 NZS 8510:2017 New Zealand Standard – testing and decontamination of methamphetamine - contaminated properties .
The landlord’s claim for the cost of methamphetamine testing and decontamination is dismissed because the level of methamphetamine is not so high as to require remediation.
The landlord also applied for exemplary damages on the basis that the tenant used the premises for an unlawful purpose, being the use of methamphetamine.
The use of methamphetamine at the premises is a criminal offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
When a landlord makes a claim that the tenant has used the property for an unlawful purpose then it must prove to the Tribunal on the balance of probabilities that it is more likely than not that the tenant used methamphetamine at the property.
Having considered the evidence I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven on the balance of probabilities that the tenant unlawfully used methamphetamine at the property; my reasons for deciding this include: a) There is evidence of methamphetamine contamination at the property before the tenancy began. b) The increase in methamphetamine levels is relatively small, c) There is no other evidence produced of drug use at the premises.
The landlord’s claim for exemplary damages is dismissed. Plumbing invoice
The landlord claimed the cost of a plumbing invoice dated 14 January 2024. The invoice states that the visit was to fix a blocked shower drain. The plumber removed hair and plastic from the waste line.
The landlord said that the tenant had agreed to pay this invoice, but she was not at the hearing to confirm her agreement and there was no other evidence to support this.
It is not clear that the is a cost that the tenant is responsible for. The shower may have blocked from normal use of the shower. Therefore, it would be a maintenance cost. While the landlord queried whether it was the tenant’s responsibility to clean the shower trap it is not clear from the invoice that this was all that the plumber needed to do. My reading of the invoice is that the waste line was blocked beyond the shower trap as the drain machine was required. This could not be the responsibility of the tenant.
The claim for the plumbing invoice is dismissed. Application fee
Because Southern Suburbs Realty Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4932534 — net $3,170.65 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 11 June 2024	$699.56	Rent arrears to 11 June 2024
Lock/key replacement	$559.50	Lock/key replacement
Window repairs	$455.40	Window repairs
Rubbish removal: repairs, curtains, light bulbs	$2,098.75	Rubbish removal: repairs, curtains, light bulbs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,170.65
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,170.65

Order

Danielle Monica Tewhata Low must pay Southern Suburbs Realty Limited $3,170.65 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $669.56 (5221934-015) to Southern Suburbs Realty Limited immediately.
All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend the hearing. Background
The tenancy began on 7 October 2021.
On 20 May 2024 the Tribunal made an order (4808777) terminating the tenancy at 11.59pm on that day. The order also provided for rent arrears to 20 May 2024. Part of the bond was released to cover the rent arrears ($1,710.00) and the application fee ($20.44).
The balance of the bond held by the Bond Centre is $669.56 which is released to reduce the costs awarded against the tenant. Landlord application
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 11 June 2024 as that was the date that the tenant left the premises. The Tribunal had terminated the tenancy earlier, but it took the tenant several weeks to move out.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The tenant did not return the keys.
The landlord had to replace light bulbs and smoke alarm batteries.
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 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.
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: wall holes, broken curtains. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Methamphetamine contamination
The landlord claims the cost of testing for methamphetamine after the tenancy ended, the cost of decontamination and the cost of testing following the decontamination.
The landlord produced a pre tenancy methamphetamine screening assessment report following testing carried out on 27 September 2021. This was approximately two weeks prior to commencement of the tenancy.
The composite result provided in the report was 3.28μg per 100cm². No individual reading was carried out before the tenancy began.
The landlord produced a post tenancy methamphetamine certificate of analysis dated 11 June 2024. That report provided a composite result of 1.64μg per 100cm². I note that that certificate gave a potential maximum single sample of
8μg per 100cm², but that was a potential figure, not an actual figure.
The certificate of analysis dated 13 June 2024 provides individual reading with results ranging from 0.08μg per 100cm² to 5.2μg per 100cm².
The issue is whether these methamphetamine readings amount to contamination which requires remediation.
The Tribunal has previously found that damage occurs, and decontamination is necessary when levels of methamphetamine contamination are above 15μg per 100cm². Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4797 1 . This is the level adopted by the authors of what is colloquially known as the Gluckman report dated 29 May 2018 (“the Gluckman Report”) 2 . The Gluckman Report concludes that there is no evidence of risk of harm from second or third hand exposure to methamphetamine residue measured at or less than 15μg per 100cm² unless there is evidence to suggest that the premises have been used for manufacture.
Neither the Gluckman Report nor the previously used New Zealand Standard NZS 8510:2017 3 (NZS) which recommended a level of 1.5μg per 100cm² are embedded into law, they both represent guidelines and are not regulatory.
In the aforementioned Full Circle Real Estate v Piper his Honour Judge Kellar gave consideration as to whether the Tribunal erred in applying the Gluckman level of 15μg per 100cm² over the NZS of 1.5μg per 100cm² and found that; “it would have been bold for the adjudicator to have ignored that report (the Gluckman 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.” Therefore, the Tribunal continues to adopt a level of 15μg per 100cm² as a level that requires remediation for contamination. 1 Full Circle Real Estate v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947- CIV2018-009-2490 2 Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposure, risk levels and interpretation of standards.” 29 May 2018 - Professor Gluckman – Prime Minister’s chief science advisor; (The Gluckman Report). 3 NZS 8510:2017 New Zealand Standard – testing and decontamination of methamphetamine - contaminated properties .
The landlord’s claim for the cost of methamphetamine testing and decontamination is dismissed because the level of methamphetamine is not so high as to require remediation.
The landlord also applied for exemplary damages on the basis that the tenant used the premises for an unlawful purpose, being the use of methamphetamine.
The use of methamphetamine at the premises is a criminal offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
When a landlord makes a claim that the tenant has used the property for an unlawful purpose then it must prove to the Tribunal on the balance of probabilities that it is more likely than not that the tenant used methamphetamine at the property.
Having considered the evidence I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven on the balance of probabilities that the tenant unlawfully used methamphetamine at the property; my reasons for deciding this include: a) There is evidence of methamphetamine contamination at the property before the tenancy began. b) The increase in methamphetamine levels is relatively small, c) There is no other evidence produced of drug use at the premises.
The landlord’s claim for exemplary damages is dismissed. Plumbing invoice
The landlord claimed the cost of a plumbing invoice dated 14 January 2024. The invoice states that the visit was to fix a blocked shower drain. The plumber removed hair and plastic from the waste line.
The landlord said that the tenant had agreed to pay this invoice, but she was not at the hearing to confirm her agreement and there was no other evidence to support this.
It is not clear that the is a cost that the tenant is responsible for. The shower may have blocked from normal use of the shower. Therefore, it would be a maintenance cost. While the landlord queried whether it was the tenant’s responsibility to clean the shower trap it is not clear from the invoice that this was all that the plumber needed to do. My reading of the invoice is that the waste line was blocked beyond the shower trap as the drain machine was required. This could not be the responsibility of the tenant.
The claim for the plumbing invoice is dismissed. Application fee
Because Southern Suburbs Realty Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4932534 — Property damage at 64 Friedlanders Road, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4932534 — Property damage at 64 Friedlanders Road, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Dismissed claims

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