How much money was awarded in case 4997688?

Cleaning: $6,819.50 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing: $321.94 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing: $320.85 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing: $716.45 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4997688 D…: $5,263.64 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,850.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $37.53 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $309.35 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4997688?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4997688?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11127729-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4997688?

Cleaning: $6,819.50 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing: $321.94 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing: $320.85 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing: $716.45 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4997688 D…: $5,263.64 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,850.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $37.53 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $309.35 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4997688?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4997688?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11127729-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4997688 — Cleanliness

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4997688 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4997688 — net $17,639.26 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4997688 dated 26/09/2024	$5,263.64	Previous order application 4997688 dated 26/09/2024
Rubbish removal	$309.35	Rubbish removal
Meth testing	$321.94	Meth testing
Meth testing	$320.85	Meth testing
Meth testing	$716.45	Meth testing
Meth Cleaning	$6,819.50	Meth Cleaning
Insurance excess on damage x 7	$3,850.00	Insurance excess on damage x 7
Window repairs	$37.53	Window repairs
Net award	$17,639.26
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$17,639.26

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.

Alecia Louise Smith and Chenée McCoy-Smeets must pay [The landlord/s] $17,639.26 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 26 September 2024 under application TT 4997688.

Reasons

The landlord attended this video hearing on 26 November 2024.

The tenants did not attend the hearing by Teams video link. Telephone calls were made to the tenants on the numbers provided at the allocated hearing time. The calls were not answered. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given. I am satisfied that notice was given.

This matter was part heard on 26 September 2024. Orders were made by the Tribunal on 26 September 2024, terminating the tenancy, allowing for disposal of tenant goods, monetary orders for rent arrears, water rates and the filing fee totalling $5,263.64. The matter was adjourned for the landlord to provide further evidence of claims for compensation.

The remaining applications by the landlord were for rubbish removal and compensation for damage.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant did not remove all rubbish. The landlord provided photos of the rubbish an invoice for removal of $309.35.

The amount ordered is proven.

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. The landlord is insured. The excess on the policy of insurance is $550.00 on each and every claim.

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: Methamphetamine

The landlord has applied for compensation for the cost methamphetamine testing and remediation.

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, as a result of the contamination, the premises have been damaged or are not reasonably clean.

Section 138C Residential Tenancies Act 1986 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/100cm 2 for high use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture. It recommended a higher level of 3.8μg/100cm 2 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/100cm 2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect. It recommended retaining the level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 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 arranged for testing to be carried out. Levels of contamination exceeding 15mg per 100cm2 were discovered in two areas in the premises.

Testing costs of $321.94, $320.85 and $716.45 were incurred. Invoices were provided in support. A quotation for decontamination of the premises was provided for $6,819.50. The damage is intentional and the tenant has not disproved liability.

The carpet was damaged with cigarette burns. • A security door had been bent so that could not be repaired. • Interior and exterior walls were damaged from what appeared to be kicks or punches. • The electrical system for the house had been damaged. The tenants had bypassed the meter so that electricity usage was not recorded on the meter. • An iron swimming pool style gate had been damaged. It appears that a car has driven into it. • Windows have been broken.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The damage resulted in the landlord being responsible for the excess on each claim of $550.00 totalling $3,850.00.

A broken window had to be boarded up at a cost of $37.53.

The amounts ordered are proved.

On 26 September 2024 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears to 26 September 2024, water rates and the filing fee totalling $5,263.64. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.

The application for compensation for tenant check costs is dismissed. This was a periodic tenancy which could have been ended by the tenant on 28 days’ notice at any time.

The landlord has applied for name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful and suppression of the landlord name and details is ordered.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4997688 — net $17,639.26 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4997688 dated 26/09/2024	$5,263.64	Previous order application 4997688 dated 26/09/2024
Rubbish removal	$309.35	Rubbish removal
Meth testing	$321.94	Meth testing
Meth testing	$320.85	Meth testing
Meth testing	$716.45	Meth testing
Meth Cleaning	$6,819.50	Meth Cleaning
Insurance excess on damage x 7	$3,850.00	Insurance excess on damage x 7
Window repairs	$37.53	Window repairs
Net award	$17,639.26
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$17,639.26

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.

Alecia Louise Smith and Chenée McCoy-Smeets must pay [The landlord/s] $17,639.26 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 26 September 2024 under application TT 4997688.

Reasons

The landlord attended this video hearing on 26 November 2024.

The remaining applications by the landlord were for rubbish removal and compensation for damage.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant did not remove all rubbish. The landlord provided photos of the rubbish an invoice for removal of $309.35.

The amount ordered is proven.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Methamphetamine

The landlord has applied for compensation for the cost methamphetamine testing and remediation.

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 landlord arranged for testing to be carried out. Levels of contamination exceeding 15mg per 100cm2 were discovered in two areas in the premises.

A broken window had to be boarded up at a cost of $37.53.

The amounts ordered are proved.

The application for compensation for tenant check costs is dismissed. This was a periodic tenancy which could have been ended by the tenant on 28 days’ notice at any time.

The landlord has applied for name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful and suppression of the landlord name and details is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4997688 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4997688 — Cleanliness

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

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

Frequently asked questions