What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4991968?

The tribunal order states: Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited must pay Shelter Realty Limited $6,018.01 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4991968?

Cleaning: $2,179.25 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,622.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Mailboxes And Keys For Units…: $615.26 awarded to landlord; Replace Rangehood And Vent Pipe: $799.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4991968?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4991968?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11412445-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4991968?

The tribunal order states: Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited must pay Shelter Realty Limited $6,018.01 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4991968?

Cleaning: $2,179.25 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,622.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Mailboxes And Keys For Units…: $615.26 awarded to landlord; Replace Rangehood And Vent Pipe: $799.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4991968?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4991968?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11412445-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 312, 15 Union Street, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4991968 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4991968 — net $6,018.01 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace rangehood and vent pipe	$799.00	Replace rangehood and vent pipe
Replace mailboxes and keys for units 417, 209, 313	$615.26	Replace mailboxes and keys for units 417, 209, 313
Damage to laminate flooring	$3,622.50	Damage to laminate flooring
Repair holes in the walls	$575.00	Repair holes in the walls
Meth testing/Cleaning	$2,179.25	Meth testing/Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,018.01
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,018.01

Order

Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited must pay Shelter Realty Limited $6,018.01 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
At the previous hearing, on 25 November 2024, the landlord established five claims and failed to establish one claim. It also withdrew three claims.
Today’s hearing was for me to confirm with the landlord if any of its claims could be covered by its insurance policy.
The 25 November 2024 Order recorded the findings of the Tribunal and today’s Order confirms the amounts awarded now the insurance information has been provided and considered. Landlord Insurance
The tenant enquired into whether the landlord had insurance for any of the five claims the landlord established. The landlord stated the tenancy was covered by the Body Corporate Insurance and the landlord did not have a copy of the policy to hand, nor did it know whether the landlord had made any insurance claims for the damage the landlord proved on balance that the tenant caused during the tenancy. I have adjourned the hearing until the landlord produces a copy of the insurance policy to the Tribunal and the other party and produces evidence as to if any claims have been made, and if not why. If claims have been made, the landlord must produce evidence of the status of any such claims.
I note that it is a general principle that insurance payments do not reduce liability for damages (Anderson v James (1908) 28 NZLR 34). The law of subrogation may require the landlord to account for any recovery to insurers, but the insurance payment does not reduce the tenant’s liability.
The issue of insurance is critical to my ability to determine the costs the tenant is liable for because: a. Where damage is caused carelessly by the tenant, 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. b. 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.
The landlord has provided a copy of the relevant insurance policies and excess for the category of claims it has made. This information shows that the insurance excess for the floor and wall claims are $5,000.00 per claim, making it not economically viable for an insurance claim to be made. It also shows that the insurance excess for methamphetamine decontamination and remediation is $15,000.00. Again, making it not economically viable for an insurance claim to be made to cover any of the methamphetamine related costs incurred by the landlord. Methamphetamine contamination
To make a successful claim for methamphetamine testing and/or remediation costs, the landlord must prove that the tenant caused or permitted the contamination, or that it was caused by someone at the premises with the tenant’s consent. The landlord must also prove that, because of the contamination, the premises have been damaged or are not reasonably clean.
Section 138C Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides for regulations to be made prescribing the maximum acceptable level for contaminants, but as yet no regulations have been made in relation to methamphetamine.
There are currently two sources of guidance on the issue of a safe level of methamphetamine contamination in residential premises. In June 2017 Standards New Zealand published NZS 8510:2017. The standard recommended a maximum contamination level of 1.5μg/100cm2 for high use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture. It recommended a higher level of 3.8μg/100cm2 for limited use areas.
In May 2018 Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the then Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor, released a report "Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards”. The report noted that there is a lack of scientific evidence to prove that low-level third-hand methamphetamine exposure poses a health risk to humans. It stated that guidelines should be proportionate to risk and that exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect. It recommended retaining the level of 1.5μg/100cm2 where contamination resulted from manufacture, due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the process.
The District Court has held that remediation should be carried out in accordance with the prevailing guidelines at the time (Diamond Real Estate Limited v Allan [2017] NZDC 833, Judge Kellar).
The Tribunal has generally applied the Gluckman recommendation. This approach was approved by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947, where the Court stated (at para [36]): “The Tenancy Tribunal was in a difficult position. The best state of knowledge of risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination available to the adjudicator was the Gluckman Report. It would have been bold for the adjudicator to have ignored that 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.”
The District Court took a similar approach in Acme Realty Limited v Hogg and others [2021] NZDC 3231, where the Court referred to the Full Circle case and held that, because NZS 8510:2017 has not been adopted into law, the Tribunal was not bound to apply the 1.5μg standard.
More recently, in Barfoot and Thompson Limited v Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited [2021] NZTT Auckland 4276319, both parties presented scientific evidence at a hearing before the Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that there was no new scientific research to change the conclusions reached in the Gluckman Report.
The landlord’s evidence disclosed that the Body Corporate had undertaken two baseline tests of unit 312. The first test was undertaken on 17 December 2020. This test showed a composite methamphetamine level of 1.31 μg (micrograms) of methamphetamine with a potential maximum of 6.5 μg. The second test was undertaken on 17 August 2023. This test showed a composite methamphetamine level of 5.5μg of methamphetamine with a potential maximum of 28μg. These two baseline tests show that there had been an increase in the test results from this unit during the tenancy, but the results were not at a level that required decontamination.
The landlord provided a detailed testing report dated 6 March 2024 that disclosed methamphetamine contamination at the following levels: a. Kitchen: 25μg/100cm2; b. Lounge: 0.45μg/100cm2; c. Bathroom: 0.28μg/100cm2; d. Laundry: 0.27μg/100cm2; and e. Bedroom: 0.20μg/100cm2.
The landlord’s evidence proved contamination in the premises were at a level greater than the 15μg/100cm2 level in the Gluckman report and well above the NZS 8510:2017 standard recommended maximum contamination levels of
5μg/100cm2 for high use areas (where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture) and 3.8μg/100cm2 for limited use areas.
It follows that the landlord’s claim for $2,179.25 for the costs of the testing, decontamination cleaning and retesting post decontamination cleaning must be granted as this is intentional damage that has been proven to have occurred during the tenancy by the tenant’s sub-tenant or a person that was in the unit with the tenant’s sub-tenant’s consent.
The landlord has insurance that covers methamphetamine related damage, but the insurance excess is $15,000.00 per claim. This is far more than the compensation being sought by the landlord.
The landlord is awarded $2,179.25 for the costs of the testing, decontamination cleaning and retesting post decontamination cleaning.

Is the tenant responsible for the damages to the premise?

The landlord sought reimbursement for the following damage it has proven occurred during the tenancy because of the tenant’s sub-tenant’s careless acts or omissions: a. $799.00 to replace the rangehood that the discrete sampling of on 6 March 2024 showed it was methamphetamine contaminated and that “the rangehood and vent pipe needs to be replaced to prevent repeated contamination because the tenant’s sub-tenant smoked or allowed someone else in the unit with her permission to smoke methamphetamine in the unit during her tenancy. This is intentional damage as the tenant’s sub-tenant smoked illicit drugs into the rangehood knowing it would cause significant damage to the rangehood and vent and potentially the wider kitchen area of the unit; b. $615.25 for the replacement of the mailboxes and keys for units 417, 209 and 313 that were damaged when the tenant’s sub-tenant tried to break into these mailboxes to steal the contents. This is intentional damage as the tenant’s sub-tenant was caught on CCTV intentionally doing this damage; c. $4,025.00 for the replacement of the 5-year-old wooden laminate flooring in the lounge and kitchen that was unable to be repaired and had to be replaced because of the careless damage caused to it by the tenant’s sub- tenant. I am satisfied that given the age and condition the flooring at the start of the tenancy, there needs to be some small depreciation of the cost of replacing the 5-year-old flooring. I find it would be fair to depreciate this cost by 10%, being $402.50 as the flooring was brand new when the tenancy started. This makes the total award for the flooring to be $3,622.50; and d. $575.00 for the patching of holes in the walls, sanding and repainting of the walls where the tenant’s sub-tenant had made extensive small holes in the walls throughout the unit. This is intentional damage as the tenant’s sub- tenant made these holes in the walls deliberately without consent knowing the damage would need to be remedied when the tenancy needed.
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.
After considering all the information provided by the parties, I find that the damages set out in paragraphs [20] (a) to (d) were either as the result of the tenant’s sub-tenant’s deliberate or careless acts or omissions and not an accident. Therefore, I find the tenant is liable for the costs of this damage.
None of the costs of this damage is recoverable by the landlord’s insurance.
The amounts set out in paragraph [20] (a) to (d) have been proven by invoices for payments already made by the landlord.
The landlord withdrew its claims for $314.64 for the main door lock to be changed, $63.25 for a new swipe card and $350.75 for repairs to the intercom system as the tenant has already reimbursed it for these costs incurred. Should the tenant be held liable for the costs of the Body Corporate seeking legal advice in relation to the issues it was having with the tenancy?
The landlord has been charged $2,443.36 for legal costs incurred by the Body Corporate when it sought legal advice about ending the tenancy because of the ongoing issues with the tenant’s sub-tenant which were continual breaches of the Body Corporate’s rules.
I do not find that the tenants should be liable for Body Corporate’s legal costs for advice it chose to seek in relation to this tenancy. As such I dismiss the landlord’s claims for $2,443.36. There is no ability in the RTA for a landlord to charge a tenant with the cost of the legal fees incurred by a Body Corporate or the costs passed on to the landlord that rents out the premises (refer to section 11(1) of the RTA). These are a cost of doing business that landlord cannot pass on to the tenant. The claim is dismissed. Reimbursement of the filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA states “if an applicant has been partly successful in his or her claim, the Tribunal may order that the respondent pay the applicant the filing fee paid for the application”.
Because the landlord has been substantially successful in its claims, I reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4991968 — net $6,018.01 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace rangehood and vent pipe	$799.00	Replace rangehood and vent pipe
Replace mailboxes and keys for units 417, 209, 313	$615.26	Replace mailboxes and keys for units 417, 209, 313
Damage to laminate flooring	$3,622.50	Damage to laminate flooring
Repair holes in the walls	$575.00	Repair holes in the walls
Meth testing/Cleaning	$2,179.25	Meth testing/Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,018.01
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,018.01

Order

Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited must pay Shelter Realty Limited $6,018.01 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
At the previous hearing, on 25 November 2024, the landlord established five claims and failed to establish one claim. It also withdrew three claims.
Today’s hearing was for me to confirm with the landlord if any of its claims could be covered by its insurance policy.
The 25 November 2024 Order recorded the findings of the Tribunal and today’s Order confirms the amounts awarded now the insurance information has been provided and considered. Landlord Insurance
The tenant enquired into whether the landlord had insurance for any of the five claims the landlord established. The landlord stated the tenancy was covered by the Body Corporate Insurance and the landlord did not have a copy of the policy to hand, nor did it know whether the landlord had made any insurance claims for the damage the landlord proved on balance that the tenant caused during the tenancy. I have adjourned the hearing until the landlord produces a copy of the insurance policy to the Tribunal and the other party and produces evidence as to if any claims have been made, and if not why. If claims have been made, the landlord must produce evidence of the status of any such claims.
I note that it is a general principle that insurance payments do not reduce liability for damages (Anderson v James (1908) 28 NZLR 34). The law of subrogation may require the landlord to account for any recovery to insurers, but the insurance payment does not reduce the tenant’s liability.
The issue of insurance is critical to my ability to determine the costs the tenant is liable for because: a. Where damage is caused carelessly by the tenant, 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. b. 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.
The landlord has provided a copy of the relevant insurance policies and excess for the category of claims it has made. This information shows that the insurance excess for the floor and wall claims are $5,000.00 per claim, making it not economically viable for an insurance claim to be made. It also shows that the insurance excess for methamphetamine decontamination and remediation is $15,000.00. Again, making it not economically viable for an insurance claim to be made to cover any of the methamphetamine related costs incurred by the landlord. Methamphetamine contamination
To make a successful claim for methamphetamine testing and/or remediation costs, the landlord must prove that the tenant caused or permitted the contamination, or that it was caused by someone at the premises with the tenant’s consent. The landlord must also prove that, because of the contamination, the premises have been damaged or are not reasonably clean.
Section 138C Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides for regulations to be made prescribing the maximum acceptable level for contaminants, but as yet no regulations have been made in relation to methamphetamine.
There are currently two sources of guidance on the issue of a safe level of methamphetamine contamination in residential premises. In June 2017 Standards New Zealand published NZS 8510:2017. The standard recommended a maximum contamination level of 1.5μg/100cm2 for high use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture. It recommended a higher level of 3.8μg/100cm2 for limited use areas.
In May 2018 Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the then Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor, released a report "Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards”. The report noted that there is a lack of scientific evidence to prove that low-level third-hand methamphetamine exposure poses a health risk to humans. It stated that guidelines should be proportionate to risk and that exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect. It recommended retaining the level of 1.5μg/100cm2 where contamination resulted from manufacture, due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the process.
The District Court has held that remediation should be carried out in accordance with the prevailing guidelines at the time (Diamond Real Estate Limited v Allan [2017] NZDC 833, Judge Kellar).
The Tribunal has generally applied the Gluckman recommendation. This approach was approved by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947, where the Court stated (at para [36]): “The Tenancy Tribunal was in a difficult position. The best state of knowledge of risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination available to the adjudicator was the Gluckman Report. It would have been bold for the adjudicator to have ignored that 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.”
The District Court took a similar approach in Acme Realty Limited v Hogg and others [2021] NZDC 3231, where the Court referred to the Full Circle case and held that, because NZS 8510:2017 has not been adopted into law, the Tribunal was not bound to apply the 1.5μg standard.
More recently, in Barfoot and Thompson Limited v Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited [2021] NZTT Auckland 4276319, both parties presented scientific evidence at a hearing before the Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that there was no new scientific research to change the conclusions reached in the Gluckman Report.
The landlord’s evidence disclosed that the Body Corporate had undertaken two baseline tests of unit 312. The first test was undertaken on 17 December 2020. This test showed a composite methamphetamine level of 1.31 μg (micrograms) of methamphetamine with a potential maximum of 6.5 μg. The second test was undertaken on 17 August 2023. This test showed a composite methamphetamine level of 5.5μg of methamphetamine with a potential maximum of 28μg. These two baseline tests show that there had been an increase in the test results from this unit during the tenancy, but the results were not at a level that required decontamination.
The landlord provided a detailed testing report dated 6 March 2024 that disclosed methamphetamine contamination at the following levels: a. Kitchen: 25μg/100cm2; b. Lounge: 0.45μg/100cm2; c. Bathroom: 0.28μg/100cm2; d. Laundry: 0.27μg/100cm2; and e. Bedroom: 0.20μg/100cm2.
The landlord’s evidence proved contamination in the premises were at a level greater than the 15μg/100cm2 level in the Gluckman report and well above the NZS 8510:2017 standard recommended maximum contamination levels of
5μg/100cm2 for high use areas (where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture) and 3.8μg/100cm2 for limited use areas.
It follows that the landlord’s claim for $2,179.25 for the costs of the testing, decontamination cleaning and retesting post decontamination cleaning must be granted as this is intentional damage that has been proven to have occurred during the tenancy by the tenant’s sub-tenant or a person that was in the unit with the tenant’s sub-tenant’s consent.
The landlord has insurance that covers methamphetamine related damage, but the insurance excess is $15,000.00 per claim. This is far more than the compensation being sought by the landlord.
The landlord is awarded $2,179.25 for the costs of the testing, decontamination cleaning and retesting post decontamination cleaning.

Is the tenant responsible for the damages to the premise?

The landlord sought reimbursement for the following damage it has proven occurred during the tenancy because of the tenant’s sub-tenant’s careless acts or omissions: a. $799.00 to replace the rangehood that the discrete sampling of on 6 March 2024 showed it was methamphetamine contaminated and that “the rangehood and vent pipe needs to be replaced to prevent repeated contamination because the tenant’s sub-tenant smoked or allowed someone else in the unit with her permission to smoke methamphetamine in the unit during her tenancy. This is intentional damage as the tenant’s sub-tenant smoked illicit drugs into the rangehood knowing it would cause significant damage to the rangehood and vent and potentially the wider kitchen area of the unit; b. $615.25 for the replacement of the mailboxes and keys for units 417, 209 and 313 that were damaged when the tenant’s sub-tenant tried to break into these mailboxes to steal the contents. This is intentional damage as the tenant’s sub-tenant was caught on CCTV intentionally doing this damage; c. $4,025.00 for the replacement of the 5-year-old wooden laminate flooring in the lounge and kitchen that was unable to be repaired and had to be replaced because of the careless damage caused to it by the tenant’s sub- tenant. I am satisfied that given the age and condition the flooring at the start of the tenancy, there needs to be some small depreciation of the cost of replacing the 5-year-old flooring. I find it would be fair to depreciate this cost by 10%, being $402.50 as the flooring was brand new when the tenancy started. This makes the total award for the flooring to be $3,622.50; and d. $575.00 for the patching of holes in the walls, sanding and repainting of the walls where the tenant’s sub-tenant had made extensive small holes in the walls throughout the unit. This is intentional damage as the tenant’s sub- tenant made these holes in the walls deliberately without consent knowing the damage would need to be remedied when the tenancy needed.
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.
After considering all the information provided by the parties, I find that the damages set out in paragraphs [20] (a) to (d) were either as the result of the tenant’s sub-tenant’s deliberate or careless acts or omissions and not an accident. Therefore, I find the tenant is liable for the costs of this damage.
None of the costs of this damage is recoverable by the landlord’s insurance.
The amounts set out in paragraph [20] (a) to (d) have been proven by invoices for payments already made by the landlord.
The landlord withdrew its claims for $314.64 for the main door lock to be changed, $63.25 for a new swipe card and $350.75 for repairs to the intercom system as the tenant has already reimbursed it for these costs incurred. Should the tenant be held liable for the costs of the Body Corporate seeking legal advice in relation to the issues it was having with the tenancy?
The landlord has been charged $2,443.36 for legal costs incurred by the Body Corporate when it sought legal advice about ending the tenancy because of the ongoing issues with the tenant’s sub-tenant which were continual breaches of the Body Corporate’s rules.
I do not find that the tenants should be liable for Body Corporate’s legal costs for advice it chose to seek in relation to this tenancy. As such I dismiss the landlord’s claims for $2,443.36. There is no ability in the RTA for a landlord to charge a tenant with the cost of the legal fees incurred by a Body Corporate or the costs passed on to the landlord that rents out the premises (refer to section 11(1) of the RTA). These are a cost of doing business that landlord cannot pass on to the tenant. The claim is dismissed. Reimbursement of the filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA states “if an applicant has been partly successful in his or her claim, the Tribunal may order that the respondent pay the applicant the filing fee paid for the application”.
Because the landlord has been substantially successful in its claims, I reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4991968 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Unit 312, 15 Union Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4991968 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Unit 312, 15 Union Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damages to the premise?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damages to the premise?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions