What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4941393?

The tribunal order states: Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited Waimaria Bidois must pay Oaks Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 4941393?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,056.85 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $5,475.03 awarded to landlord; Property Breaches: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $719.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: $800.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4941393?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4941393?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10936204-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4941393?

The tribunal order states: Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited Waimaria Bidois must pay Oaks Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 4941393?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,056.85 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $5,475.03 awarded to landlord; Property Breaches: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $719.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: $800.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4941393?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4941393?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10936204-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1320, 72 Nelson Street, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4941393 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4941393 — net $7,027.88 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Meth testing/Cleaning: Composite	$1,056.85	Meth testing/Cleaning: Composite
Meth testing/Cleaning: Decontamination CPINZ Decontamination report	$5,475.03	Meth testing/Cleaning: Decontamination CPINZ Decontamination report
Carpet and blinds replacement	$719.00	Carpet and blinds replacement
Property breaches	$750.00	Property breaches
Replace furnishings	$800.00	Replace furnishings
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,027.88
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,027.88

Order

Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited Waimaria Bidois must pay Oaks Property Management Limited Acting Agent For Siddiqui, Ashish & Yashika $7,027.88 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 (5368850-012) to Oaks Property Management Limited Acting Agent For Siddiqui, Ashish & Yashika immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord applied for compensation for: a. methamphetamine testing and decontamination, b. replacing carpets and blinds due to methamphetamine contamination, c. replacement of chattels (two double beds, one couch, two desks and cutlery), d. penalties incurred against the occupant for breaches of the body corporate rules, and e. damage caused by a water leak,
The landlord also applied for refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy ended on 5 August 2024. No claim has been brought regarding the notice ending the termination.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant disposed of two double beds, one couch, two desks and some cutlery that he stated were damaged due to a flood in the apartment. These items were the property of the landlord and the landlord seeks $2,150.00 total compensation for all the items. The quantum sought is based on an estimate the landlord established from searching second hand items of a similar kind on an internet based platform. The information was provided orally from the landlord; no photographs or written quotes have been provided.
The tenant accepted that some compensation for these items was appropriate.
The landlord has incurred a loss and a reasonable level of compensation is appropriate. Because the items were second hand and well used, I have attributed a nominal amount in compensation of $150.00 for each of the furniture items, and $50.00 for the cutlery, totalling $800.00.
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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The landlord claims $6,016.80 for damage that was caused by a water leak. The leak was detected when water was discovered dripping from the ceiling of the apartment immediately below the tenant’s apartment. There is a suggestion that the leak came from a tap in the tenant’s apartment, but the tenant’s representative today stated that there was insufficient information today to prove that. The landlord conceded this point. As such I can not make a finding of causation for the leak, and as such discussion on whether the leak was in turn caused by the tenant’s actions is redundant.
This claim is not proved.
Related to the leak is the fact that when on 13 April 2024 the landlord’s contractors attended the apartment to address the leak, they were denied entry on two occasions by a person other than the tenant who was at the apartment with the tenant’s consent.
The landlord indicated that damage caused by the leak may have been more severe because of delays to enter the property caused by the tenant’s visitor. However, not enough information has been provided to prove this claim, and no quantum has been sought. This claim is dismissed. Methamphetamine contamination
The landlord provided information that a baseline methamphetamine test was conducted during the tenancy on 9 September 2020 that showed there was no methamphetamine contamination in the premises. The tenant accepted this submission.
In mid-2024 a property manager conducting a routine property inspection at the premises detected an unusual odour in the premises and on that basis, organised a composite methamphetamine test to be undertaken. This test gave a positive result. Because of that, a detailed test and report were ordered. The detailed test showed that methamphetamine levels in four of the six rooms tested exceeded the 15μg/100cm2 maximum limit as recommended in Professor Sir Peter Gluckman’s, report of May 2018, Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels and interpretation of standards.
Following the findings of the detailed test, the tenant ended the tenancy and the landlord began steps to decontaminate the premises.
The landlord is claiming $1,056.85 for the composite test, and $6,985.10 undertaken by Anthony White for the decontamination of the property. An invoice for the first amount was provided by the landlord prior to the hearing and two invoices each for $3,492.55 for decontamination were provided by the landlord during the hearing, only one of which has been paid as of the date of today’s hearing.
A post decontamination detailed report was ordered from Contamination Property Investigation New Zealand (“CPINZ”) at a cost of $1,510.07. This claim and cost are not disputed by the tenant. The report showed the premises were still contaminated to an unacceptably high level, and further decontamination work was undertaken.
A second CPINZ report was then ordered and undertaken. The landlord is requesting Anthony White to deduct this amount from the second invoice which hasn’t yet been paid. I am therefore deducting the amount of $1,507.07 from the claim for $6,985.10. This leaves a total of $5,475.03.
The tenant did not dispute the claim for decontamination but did take issue with claim for the composite test saying this was a routine property maintenance test the cost of which should be borne by the landlord.
Had the test been undertaken at the end of the tenancy, I would accept the tenant’s submission on this point. However the test was taken during the tenancy as a result of the landlord detecting an odour that he considered suspicious. I am satisfied the property manager who organised the composite methamphetamine test to be undertaken had reasonable cause to suspect there was a problem which required a composite test. I find this claim proved.
The landlord claims $3,595.00 which was the cost for replacing the carpet and blinds due to damage from methamphetamine residue. The tenant accepted that the carpet and blinds needed to be replaced.
The landlord stated that they took over the property in 2020 and at that time the carpets were already worn. The IRD Depreciation Schedule lists carpets in a rental setting as having an eight-year life span. Although the carpets and blinds were already worn at the beginning of the tenancy and the tenancy lasted another four years, I am persuaded they would not have needed replacing at the end of this tenancy but for the methamphetamine contamination. I therefore award 20% percent of the claimed amount.
The amounts ordered are proved. Name suppression
The landlord seeks name suppression but has not advanced any reason why name suppression is appropriate in the circumstances of this case.
The relevant provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 (the “RTA”) to this application are: 95Proceedings usually to be in public (1)Except as provided in subsections (1A) and (2), the proceedings of the Tribunal shall be conducted in public. 95ASuppression orders (1)The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
There is a presumption under section 95 of the RTA that proceedings will be in public and that Tribunal Orders will be published including the parties’ identities. No sensitive issues have been raised in this application or by the applicant when seeking name suppression. Because it is in the public interest that parties’ can be identified, I decline to grant name suppression to the successful applicant.
The respondent also sought name suppression on the basis that Kahui Tu Kaha is a large organisation that employs many people in different roles who may be at risk if Kahui Tu Kaha’s name is published.
An unsuccessful respondent does not have a statutory right to name suppression and as with the landlord’s situation, I am not persuaded there is a sufficient nexus between the potential for risk to a Kahui Tu Kaha employees’ safety and the publication of their organisation’s name, to displace the presumption of openness in Tribunal hearings.
Because Oaks Property Management Limited Acting Agent For Siddiqui, Ashish & Yashika has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4941393 — net $7,027.88 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Meth testing/Cleaning: Composite	$1,056.85	Meth testing/Cleaning: Composite
Meth testing/Cleaning: Decontamination CPINZ Decontamination report	$5,475.03	Meth testing/Cleaning: Decontamination CPINZ Decontamination report
Carpet and blinds replacement	$719.00	Carpet and blinds replacement
Property breaches	$750.00	Property breaches
Replace furnishings	$800.00	Replace furnishings
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,027.88
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,027.88

Order

Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited Waimaria Bidois must pay Oaks Property Management Limited Acting Agent For Siddiqui, Ashish & Yashika $7,027.88 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 (5368850-012) to Oaks Property Management Limited Acting Agent For Siddiqui, Ashish & Yashika immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord applied for compensation for: a. methamphetamine testing and decontamination, b. replacing carpets and blinds due to methamphetamine contamination, c. replacement of chattels (two double beds, one couch, two desks and cutlery), d. penalties incurred against the occupant for breaches of the body corporate rules, and e. damage caused by a water leak,
The landlord also applied for refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy ended on 5 August 2024. No claim has been brought regarding the notice ending the termination.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant disposed of two double beds, one couch, two desks and some cutlery that he stated were damaged due to a flood in the apartment. These items were the property of the landlord and the landlord seeks $2,150.00 total compensation for all the items. The quantum sought is based on an estimate the landlord established from searching second hand items of a similar kind on an internet based platform. The information was provided orally from the landlord; no photographs or written quotes have been provided.
The tenant accepted that some compensation for these items was appropriate.
The landlord has incurred a loss and a reasonable level of compensation is appropriate. Because the items were second hand and well used, I have attributed a nominal amount in compensation of $150.00 for each of the furniture items, and $50.00 for the cutlery, totalling $800.00.
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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The landlord claims $6,016.80 for damage that was caused by a water leak. The leak was detected when water was discovered dripping from the ceiling of the apartment immediately below the tenant’s apartment. There is a suggestion that the leak came from a tap in the tenant’s apartment, but the tenant’s representative today stated that there was insufficient information today to prove that. The landlord conceded this point. As such I can not make a finding of causation for the leak, and as such discussion on whether the leak was in turn caused by the tenant’s actions is redundant.
This claim is not proved.
Related to the leak is the fact that when on 13 April 2024 the landlord’s contractors attended the apartment to address the leak, they were denied entry on two occasions by a person other than the tenant who was at the apartment with the tenant’s consent.
The landlord indicated that damage caused by the leak may have been more severe because of delays to enter the property caused by the tenant’s visitor. However, not enough information has been provided to prove this claim, and no quantum has been sought. This claim is dismissed. Methamphetamine contamination
The landlord provided information that a baseline methamphetamine test was conducted during the tenancy on 9 September 2020 that showed there was no methamphetamine contamination in the premises. The tenant accepted this submission.
In mid-2024 a property manager conducting a routine property inspection at the premises detected an unusual odour in the premises and on that basis, organised a composite methamphetamine test to be undertaken. This test gave a positive result. Because of that, a detailed test and report were ordered. The detailed test showed that methamphetamine levels in four of the six rooms tested exceeded the 15μg/100cm2 maximum limit as recommended in Professor Sir Peter Gluckman’s, report of May 2018, Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels and interpretation of standards.
Following the findings of the detailed test, the tenant ended the tenancy and the landlord began steps to decontaminate the premises.
The landlord is claiming $1,056.85 for the composite test, and $6,985.10 undertaken by Anthony White for the decontamination of the property. An invoice for the first amount was provided by the landlord prior to the hearing and two invoices each for $3,492.55 for decontamination were provided by the landlord during the hearing, only one of which has been paid as of the date of today’s hearing.
A post decontamination detailed report was ordered from Contamination Property Investigation New Zealand (“CPINZ”) at a cost of $1,510.07. This claim and cost are not disputed by the tenant. The report showed the premises were still contaminated to an unacceptably high level, and further decontamination work was undertaken.
A second CPINZ report was then ordered and undertaken. The landlord is requesting Anthony White to deduct this amount from the second invoice which hasn’t yet been paid. I am therefore deducting the amount of $1,507.07 from the claim for $6,985.10. This leaves a total of $5,475.03.
The tenant did not dispute the claim for decontamination but did take issue with claim for the composite test saying this was a routine property maintenance test the cost of which should be borne by the landlord.
Had the test been undertaken at the end of the tenancy, I would accept the tenant’s submission on this point. However the test was taken during the tenancy as a result of the landlord detecting an odour that he considered suspicious. I am satisfied the property manager who organised the composite methamphetamine test to be undertaken had reasonable cause to suspect there was a problem which required a composite test. I find this claim proved.
The landlord claims $3,595.00 which was the cost for replacing the carpet and blinds due to damage from methamphetamine residue. The tenant accepted that the carpet and blinds needed to be replaced.
The landlord stated that they took over the property in 2020 and at that time the carpets were already worn. The IRD Depreciation Schedule lists carpets in a rental setting as having an eight-year life span. Although the carpets and blinds were already worn at the beginning of the tenancy and the tenancy lasted another four years, I am persuaded they would not have needed replacing at the end of this tenancy but for the methamphetamine contamination. I therefore award 20% percent of the claimed amount.
The amounts ordered are proved. Name suppression
The landlord seeks name suppression but has not advanced any reason why name suppression is appropriate in the circumstances of this case.
The relevant provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 (the “RTA”) to this application are: 95Proceedings usually to be in public (1)Except as provided in subsections (1A) and (2), the proceedings of the Tribunal shall be conducted in public. 95ASuppression orders (1)The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
There is a presumption under section 95 of the RTA that proceedings will be in public and that Tribunal Orders will be published including the parties’ identities. No sensitive issues have been raised in this application or by the applicant when seeking name suppression. Because it is in the public interest that parties’ can be identified, I decline to grant name suppression to the successful applicant.
The respondent also sought name suppression on the basis that Kahui Tu Kaha is a large organisation that employs many people in different roles who may be at risk if Kahui Tu Kaha’s name is published.
An unsuccessful respondent does not have a statutory right to name suppression and as with the landlord’s situation, I am not persuaded there is a sufficient nexus between the potential for risk to a Kahui Tu Kaha employees’ safety and the publication of their organisation’s name, to displace the presumption of openness in Tribunal hearings.
Because Oaks Property Management Limited Acting Agent For Siddiqui, Ashish & Yashika has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4941393 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 1320, 72 Nelson Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4941393 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 1320, 72 Nelson Street, Auckland Central,

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

Property management

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions