What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4991688 about?

The tribunal order states: [ tenant] to pay Property Brokers Limited as Agent for Jenna Knight $466.92 from

How much money was awarded in case 4991688?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $439.92 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4991688?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4991688?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11143629-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4991688 about?

The tribunal order states: [ tenant] to pay Property Brokers Limited as Agent for Jenna Knight $466.92 from

How much money was awarded in case 4991688?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $439.92 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4991688?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4991688?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11143629-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4991688 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4991688 — net $466.92 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$439.92	Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$466.92
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$466.92

Order

[ tenant] to pay Property Brokers Limited as Agent for Jenna Knight $466.92 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $466.92 (bond number suppressed) to Property Brokers Limited as Agent for Jenna Knight immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,253.08 (bond number suppressed) to [ tenant] immediately.

Reasons

The property manager Ms Elliott appeared for the landlord. The tenant appeared.
The tenancy commenced on 05 June 2021 and ended on 04 June 2024.
The landlord claims: i. That the tenancy was responsible for methamphetamine contamination causing damage, ii. That the tenant has either used or allowed the property to be used for an unlawful purpose, iii. That the tenant owes outstanding water rates, iv. That the tenant has failed to leave the grounds in a reasonable condition. Water rates
The water rates claimed are not disputed and are awarded in full. Methamphetamine contamination and unlawful use
Pre tenancy methamphetamine testing of the property was completed on 31 March 2021. The sites sampled were combined, and a composite result was obtained, which did not detect the presence of methamphetamine (composite reading less than 0.02 μg/100cm² (“ug”)). End of tenancy testing of twenty individual sites throughout the property returned readings ranging from 47.1 ug in the lounge and 42.8 ug in the kitchen, to 0.88 ug in the shower. Of the twenty samples, ten were above 15ug, a threshold set by the Tribunal and confirmed by the Court when determining damage by contamination (See Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Allan [ 2017] NZDC 833).
The landlord made a claim against their insurance, which was accepted. The landlord claims the tenant is responsible for the contamination, and seeks the insurance excess of $2,500.00, and an award of exemplary damages against the tenant for using or allowing the property to be used for an unlawful purpose. Law
The onus is on the landlord to prove these claims. The standard of proof in civil claims is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish that it is more probable than not the tenant has breached the terms of the tenancy agreement or the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”).
In T v M [1984] 2 NZFLR, the Court of Appeal confirmed that, while ‘balance of probabilities’ is a constant standard: It is the principle of good common sense that the more serious the issue the greater should be the care used in assessing it”.
This approach was confirmed by the majority of the Supreme Court in Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, where the Court stated: [102] ... In New Zealand it has been emphasised that no intermediate standard of proof exists, between the criminal and civil standards, for application in certain types of civil case. Balance of probabilities still simply means more probable than not. Allowing the civil standard to be applied flexibly has not meant that the degree of probability required to meet this standard changes in serious cases. Rather, the civil standard is flexibly applied because it accommodates serious allegations through the natural tendency to require stronger evidence before being satisfied to the balance of probabilities standard.
Section 97(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that: “... the Tribunal may call for and receive as evidence any statement, document, information, matter, or thing that in its opinion may assist it to deal effectually with the matters before it, whether or not the same would be admissible in a court of law.”
It follows that, although the Tribunal is not bound by the usual rules of evidence when admitting evidence, where the allegation is serious, it is likely to require stronger evidence before finding the claim proved on the balance of probabilities.
In this case the landlord must prove that damage by contamination occurred during the tenancy. 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 of the Act.
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) 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. See 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. See 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.
Under section 40(2)(b) of the Act , a tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A of the Act. Analysis
To establish that contamination occurred during the tenancy, the Tribunal must be able to make an accurate pre and end of tenancy comparison. While the pre and end of tenancy testing sites do not necessarily have to be in exactly the same position, they should at least be in close proximity. In this case, different companies conducted the pre and end of tenancy testing. Despite the landlord providing the end of tenancy tester with the pre tenancy report, which detailed locations of the sampled sites, those sites were not re - tested. The landlord is uncertain why this occurred. A careful analysis of the reports shows that none of the sites tested end of tenancy are the same or in close proximity to those tested at the commencement.
There is no other evidence, such as the presence of drugs or paraphernalia at the property.
The tenant denies any involvement with methamphetamine or allowing the property to be used for an unlawful purpose. They state that while away from the property for a week in March / April 2024, they were burgled, and the property ransacked. The tenant believes the offenders may have spent a couple of days in the property, but it is unclear what they did while inside. The burglary was reported to police and acknowledged by the landlord. Decision
I am not satisfied to the required standard that the tenant is responsible for the contamination. An accurate pre / end of tenancy comparison cannot be made in this case. Additionally, it cannot be ruled out that those who unlawfully entered the property caused the contamination. The claims that the tenant has caused the contamination and used or allowed the property to be used for an unlawful purpose are dismissed. Grounds
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. This includes the gardens and lawns. See section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Act.
The Act does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, and not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy. Determining whether the tenant has failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy will involve an objective assessment. The Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The landlord has produced an end of tenancy inspection report, including photographs of the grounds. It is the Tribunal’s objective assessment that the grounds have in fact been left in a reasonable condition. The claim for ground maintenance is dismissed. Costs
The landlord has been partly successful, and I order reimbursement of the filing fee. Name suppression.
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant has been substantially successful in these proceedings and is granted name suppression. There are no grounds to supress the name of the landlord.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4991688 — net $466.92 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$439.92	Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$466.92
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$466.92

Order

[ tenant] to pay Property Brokers Limited as Agent for Jenna Knight $466.92 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $466.92 (bond number suppressed) to Property Brokers Limited as Agent for Jenna Knight immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,253.08 (bond number suppressed) to [ tenant] immediately.

Reasons

The property manager Ms Elliott appeared for the landlord. The tenant appeared.
The tenancy commenced on 05 June 2021 and ended on 04 June 2024.
The landlord claims: i. That the tenancy was responsible for methamphetamine contamination causing damage, ii. That the tenant has either used or allowed the property to be used for an unlawful purpose, iii. That the tenant owes outstanding water rates, iv. That the tenant has failed to leave the grounds in a reasonable condition. Water rates
The water rates claimed are not disputed and are awarded in full. Methamphetamine contamination and unlawful use
Pre tenancy methamphetamine testing of the property was completed on 31 March 2021. The sites sampled were combined, and a composite result was obtained, which did not detect the presence of methamphetamine (composite reading less than 0.02 μg/100cm² (“ug”)). End of tenancy testing of twenty individual sites throughout the property returned readings ranging from 47.1 ug in the lounge and 42.8 ug in the kitchen, to 0.88 ug in the shower. Of the twenty samples, ten were above 15ug, a threshold set by the Tribunal and confirmed by the Court when determining damage by contamination (See Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Allan [ 2017] NZDC 833).
The landlord made a claim against their insurance, which was accepted. The landlord claims the tenant is responsible for the contamination, and seeks the insurance excess of $2,500.00, and an award of exemplary damages against the tenant for using or allowing the property to be used for an unlawful purpose. Law
The onus is on the landlord to prove these claims. The standard of proof in civil claims is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish that it is more probable than not the tenant has breached the terms of the tenancy agreement or the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”).
In T v M [1984] 2 NZFLR, the Court of Appeal confirmed that, while ‘balance of probabilities’ is a constant standard: It is the principle of good common sense that the more serious the issue the greater should be the care used in assessing it”.
This approach was confirmed by the majority of the Supreme Court in Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, where the Court stated: [102] ... In New Zealand it has been emphasised that no intermediate standard of proof exists, between the criminal and civil standards, for application in certain types of civil case. Balance of probabilities still simply means more probable than not. Allowing the civil standard to be applied flexibly has not meant that the degree of probability required to meet this standard changes in serious cases. Rather, the civil standard is flexibly applied because it accommodates serious allegations through the natural tendency to require stronger evidence before being satisfied to the balance of probabilities standard.
Section 97(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that: “... the Tribunal may call for and receive as evidence any statement, document, information, matter, or thing that in its opinion may assist it to deal effectually with the matters before it, whether or not the same would be admissible in a court of law.”
It follows that, although the Tribunal is not bound by the usual rules of evidence when admitting evidence, where the allegation is serious, it is likely to require stronger evidence before finding the claim proved on the balance of probabilities.
In this case the landlord must prove that damage by contamination occurred during the tenancy. 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 of the Act.
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) 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. See 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. See 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.
Under section 40(2)(b) of the Act , a tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A of the Act. Analysis
To establish that contamination occurred during the tenancy, the Tribunal must be able to make an accurate pre and end of tenancy comparison. While the pre and end of tenancy testing sites do not necessarily have to be in exactly the same position, they should at least be in close proximity. In this case, different companies conducted the pre and end of tenancy testing. Despite the landlord providing the end of tenancy tester with the pre tenancy report, which detailed locations of the sampled sites, those sites were not re - tested. The landlord is uncertain why this occurred. A careful analysis of the reports shows that none of the sites tested end of tenancy are the same or in close proximity to those tested at the commencement.
There is no other evidence, such as the presence of drugs or paraphernalia at the property.
The tenant denies any involvement with methamphetamine or allowing the property to be used for an unlawful purpose. They state that while away from the property for a week in March / April 2024, they were burgled, and the property ransacked. The tenant believes the offenders may have spent a couple of days in the property, but it is unclear what they did while inside. The burglary was reported to police and acknowledged by the landlord. Decision
I am not satisfied to the required standard that the tenant is responsible for the contamination. An accurate pre / end of tenancy comparison cannot be made in this case. Additionally, it cannot be ruled out that those who unlawfully entered the property caused the contamination. The claims that the tenant has caused the contamination and used or allowed the property to be used for an unlawful purpose are dismissed. Grounds
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. This includes the gardens and lawns. See section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Act.
The Act does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, and not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy. Determining whether the tenant has failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy will involve an objective assessment. The Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The landlord has produced an end of tenancy inspection report, including photographs of the grounds. It is the Tribunal’s objective assessment that the grounds have in fact been left in a reasonable condition. The claim for ground maintenance is dismissed. Costs
The landlord has been partly successful, and I order reimbursement of the filing fee. Name suppression.
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant has been substantially successful in these proceedings and is granted name suppression. There are no grounds to supress the name of the landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4991688 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4991688 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions