What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5013188 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s claim for compensation is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5013188?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5013188?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5013188?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11893939-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5013188 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s claim for compensation is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5013188?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5013188?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5013188?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11893939-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 15, 67 Sarsfield Street, Herne Bay, Auckland 1011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5013188 — Cleanliness

Order

The landlord’s claim for compensation is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Savard represented himself as the tenant, and Mr Burke represented the landlord.
This claim was first raised under application number 4897760 which was heard on 23 August 2024. That claim resulted in awards to the landlord to cover insurance excesses. Claims that went beyond the scope of the insurance policies were adjourned to another date.
The landlord then filed a different application for the unheard claims. Adjudicator Allen conducted a case conference and issued directions on 28 January 2025.
Both claims originate from methamphetamine contamination. Mr Darcy accepted responsibility for that contamination at the earlier hearing.
The tenancy began on 4 April 2021 and ended on 29 July 2023.
Today, Mr Burke set out that insurance policies covered the claim up to a maximum of $15,000.00 which fell far below the actual cost of replacing the large amount of items that have had to be replaced as a result of the contamination. Mr Burke stated that the replacement value of all the items lost due to contamination amounted to an extra $18.000.00 over and above that covered by insurance.
Mr Burke produced invoices for the items being claimed. Some items were challenged by Mr Savard, and it became clear that the Chattels List dated 1 August 2021 was the most reliable information regarding what was included with the tenancy at the outset. Mr Burke did not seek compensation for many of the items on the Chattels list.
When calculating the loss to a landlord caused by a tenant, the Tribunal must take into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. I have referred to the Inland Revenue Department’s IR265 Depreciation Guide in calculating the residual value of the items claimed for.
In that document, linen, bedding, crockery and cutlery, as well as many other items are depreciated over a period of three years. This means that at the end of three years, these items have no residual value for tax purposes, and a landlord would be a recipient of betterment, if the Tribunal was to compensate them for those losses. Other items are depreciated over periods ranging from 3 years to 15.5 years.
The tenancy lasted 2 years 3 months. Mr Burke gave the purchase date of many items as end of 2019 or the beginning of 2020, or mid 2020. This means that by the end of the tenancy, virtually all of the “fully-furnished” items exceeded 3 years old.
Mr Savard questioned whether some of the items actually needed replacing due to methamphetamine contamination. For instance, a knife wood-block he said, had been kept in a cupboard.
I note that Extreme Cleaning Solutions conducted an assessment of the contamination prior to undertaking decontamination work in 2023. The table below was included in their assessment. The readings show a very high level of contamination. I do not consider it would have been reasonable for the landlord to test every item left in the tenancy before disposing of it, and then attempt to seek reimbursement of these costs from Mr Savard. Because of this, I do not consider it unreasonable in the circumstances of the very high readings, for the landlord to dispose of all of the furnishings and to start afresh. I believe that this will ultimately have kept the claim against Mr Savard lower than if each item had been tested individually.
When I remove the items that by the end of Mr Savard’s tenancy had no residual value, (cutlery, crockery, bedroom linen, kitchen and bathroom linen), and calculate the residual value of the remaining items that are being claimed, (an ironing board, a dish rack a knife block, a couch, 2 (of 3) armchairs, 3 lamps, the rangehood, the curtains, a mattress, and the internal shutters), I arrive at a sum of $10,836.68. This is below the amount that the landlord’s insurance has agreed to pay out.
I am therefore not persuaded that I should order Mr Savard to make any further payment to the landlord.
Mr Burke also stated that following the end of the tenancy he had agreed to the bond being released to the tenant before the end of tenancy inspections had been finalised. When he contacted Tenancy Services the next day to say the bond was actually in dispute, he was advised that Tenancy Services had already released the bond to the tenant.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Savard represented himself as the tenant, and Mr Burke represented the landlord.

This claim was first raised under application number 4897760 which was heard on 23 August 2024. That claim resulted in awards to the landlord to cover insurance excesses. Claims that went beyond the scope of the insurance policies were adjourned to another date.

The landlord then filed a different application for the unheard claims. Adjudicator Allen conducted a case conference and issued directions on 28 January 2025.

Both claims originate from methamphetamine contamination. Mr Darcy accepted responsibility for that contamination at the earlier hearing.

The tenancy began on 4 April 2021 and ended on 29 July 2023.

Today, Mr Burke set out that insurance policies covered the claim up to a maximum of $15,000.00 which fell far below the actual cost of replacing the large amount of items that have had to be replaced as a result of the contamination. Mr Burke stated that the replacement value of all the items lost due to contamination amounted to an extra $18.000.00 over and above that covered by insurance.

Mr Burke produced invoices for the items being claimed. Some items were challenged by Mr Savard, and it became clear that the Chattels List dated 1 August 2021 was the most reliable information regarding what was included with the tenancy at the outset. Mr Burke did not seek compensation for many of the items on the Chattels list.

When calculating the loss to a landlord caused by a tenant, the Tribunal must take into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. I have referred to the Inland Revenue Department’s IR265 Depreciation Guide in calculating the residual value of the items claimed for.

In that document, linen, bedding, crockery and cutlery, as well as many other items are depreciated over a period of three years. This means that at the end of three years, these items have no residual value for tax purposes, and a landlord would be a recipient of betterment, if the Tribunal was to compensate them for those losses. Other items are depreciated over periods ranging from 3 years to 15.5 years.

The tenancy lasted 2 years 3 months. Mr Burke gave the purchase date of many items as end of 2019 or the beginning of 2020, or mid 2020. This means that by the end of the tenancy, virtually all of the “fully-furnished” items exceeded 3 years old.

Mr Savard questioned whether some of the items actually needed replacing due to methamphetamine contamination. For instance, a knife wood-block he said, had been kept in a cupboard.

I note that Extreme Cleaning Solutions conducted an assessment of the contamination prior to undertaking decontamination work in 2023. The table below was included in their assessment. The readings show a very high level of contamination. I do not consider it would have been reasonable for the landlord to test every item left in the tenancy before disposing of it, and then attempt to seek reimbursement of these costs from Mr Savard. Because of this, I do not consider it unreasonable in the circumstances of the very high readings, for the landlord to dispose of all of the furnishings and to start afresh. I believe that this will ultimately have kept the claim against Mr Savard lower than if each item had been tested individually.

When I remove the items that by the end of Mr Savard’s tenancy had no residual value, (cutlery, crockery, bedroom linen, kitchen and bathroom linen), and calculate the residual value of the remaining items that are being claimed, (an ironing board, a dish rack a knife block, a couch, 2 (of 3) armchairs, 3 lamps, the rangehood, the curtains, a mattress, and the internal shutters), I arrive at a sum of $10,836.68. This is below the amount that the landlord’s insurance has agreed to pay out.

I am therefore not persuaded that I should order Mr Savard to make any further payment to the landlord.

Mr Burke also stated that following the end of the tenancy he had agreed to the bond being released to the tenant before the end of tenancy inspections had been finalised. When he contacted Tenancy Services the next day to say the bond was actually in dispute, he was advised that Tenancy Services had already released the bond to the tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5013188 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 15, 67 Sarsfield Street, Herne Bay, Auckland 1011

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5013188 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 15, 67 Sarsfield Street, Herne Bay, Auckland 1011

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions