What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5015370 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5015370?

Cleaning: $553.15 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Walls: $814.70 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Heat pump remot…: $39.99 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $39.96 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5015370?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5015370?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11524477-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5015370 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5015370?

Cleaning: $553.15 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Walls: $814.70 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Heat pump remot…: $39.99 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $39.96 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5015370?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5015370?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11524477-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

17 Tokai Place, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5015370 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5015370 — net $1,724.80 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$553.15	Cleaning
Repairs: Walls	$814.70	Repairs: Walls
Repairs: Carpet	$250.00	Repairs: Carpet
Replace furnishings: Heat pump remote	$39.99	Replace furnishings: Heat pump remote
Replace smoke alarms	$39.96	Replace smoke alarms
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,724.80
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,724.80

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Porsha Fiona Bridgeman Davis and Joshua Antony Gilfedder must pay [The landlord/s] $1,724.80 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Katipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ...[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit of not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. CLEANING & HEAT PUMP REMOTE
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) RTA. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonable clean and tidy, and did not return the heat pump remote at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord provided photographs of the property taken at the end of the tenancy. These photographs show that rubbish, food and miscellaneous household items were left at the property by the tenant. The inside of the property does not appear to have been cleaned. The outside is also messy and animal faeces are present.
The landlord gave evidence that the tenant did not return the heat pump remote at the end of the tenancy.
I find the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not return the heat pump remote.
The landlord submitted an invoice of $553.15 for general cleaning.
The landlord also submitted an invoice for $39.99 to replace the heat pump remote.
The landlord’s claims for compensation for cleaning and replacing the heat pump remote are granted in full for the above amounts, which are proved.

DAMAGE

The landlord claims the tenant damaged the walls, ceiling, carpet and smoke alarms during the tenancy. Compensation is sought as follows: a. Walls:$814.70 b. Ceilings: $1,035.00 c. Carpet:$1,989.52 d. Smoke alarms: $39.96
The landlord also claims the tenant used methamphetamine during the tenancy and the property needed to be decontaminated. The landlord seeks compensation as follows: a. Methamphetamine testing: $3,371.52 b. Decontamination:$6,877.00
I deal with the landlord’s claims for general damage first, before turning to consider the damage allegedly caused by the tenant’s use of methamphetamine. General damage
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.
When considering a claim for compensation for damage, the Tribunal has a discretion to award either the full cost of replacement or diminution in value. In determining what option to award, the overarching principle is one of reasonableness. 1
Relevant to an assessment of reasonableness, is the duty to mitigate one’s loss. This is contained in section 49 RTA, which states: Where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of this Act, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.
The landlord submitted photographs of the property taken at the beginning and end of the tenancy. Comparing these sets of photographs, I find the following damage occurred during the tenancy: a. Marks, scratches and removal of paint to the walls; b. Small green stain on the carpet at the top of the stairwell; and c. Removal of smoke alarms by the tenant.
The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy do not reveal and damage to the ceiling. I dismiss the landlord’s claim for compensation to repair the ceiling.
The landlord gave evidence that the carpet was also damaged by pets kept at the address without permission. The landlord claims the carpet smelt very bad.
The photographs taken outside the property show pet faeces. I consider it more likely than not that the tenant kept at least one pet at the property without permission.
I find that the carpet was damaged not only by the presence of a small green stain at the top of the stairs, but also smelt bad.
The damage to the walls, carpet and smoke alarms is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $814.70 to repair the walls. This claim for compensation is granted in full.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $39.96 to replace the smoke alarms. This claim for compensation is granted in full.
The landlord gave evidence that the carpet was replaced at a cost of $1,989.52. The landlord submitted a quote for this amount and a screenshot of a payment made to Selected Flooring Ltd. 1 Ruxley Electronics v Forsyth [1996] 1 AC 344.
I asked the landlord if the carpet was cleaned first and they advised it was not. The landlord was unable to confirm why cleaning the carpet was not attempted first.
A reasonable step the landlord could have taken to mitigate their loss would have been to have the carpet professionally cleaned. This might have removed or reduced the stain and smell.
I do not consider the size of the stain justified replacing the entire carpet throughout the property.
In this case, I find it is reasonable to award the landlord an amount equivalent to the diminution in value sustained to the carpet. I consider $250.00 to be reasonable.
The landlord’s claim for compensation to replace the carpet is granted for a total of $250.00. Methamphetamine damage
A tenant must not use, or permit the use of, the premises for any unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) RTA.
A landlord must prove that premises have been damaged during the tenancy and that the damage is the result of an 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(8)(a) RTA. The use or possession of methamphetamine is an imprisonable offence. See the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
If the landlord proves this, then a tenant is liable for the costs of “making good the damage” and other reasonably foreseeable losses related to the damage. See sections 49A and 49B(1)(b) RTA.
The landlord claims the tenant used methamphetamine during the tenancy and this caused damage to the property which needed to be decontaminated. In support of their claim, the landlord submitted the following evidence: a. A photograph taken at the end of the tenancy showing a metal pipe and small, empty plastic bag on the handrail at the top of the stairs; b. Two invoices from Contaminated Property Investigations NZ Limited (CPINZ) who completed testing at the property; and c. An invoice from Cleaning Pro who completed the decontamination.
The landlord did not have the property tested before this tenancy began.
The landlord did not submit a copy of the testing report showing the level of methamphetamine found at the property at the end of the tenancy.
The absence of a pre-tenancy methamphetamine test means that it is not known whether methamphetamine residue was present before this tenancy began.
The photograph of the pipe and small plastic bag raise a suspicion that the tenant was using or permitting someone at the property with their permission to use drugs during the tenancy, but the landlord has not proven that such drugs were methamphetamine. This is because the landlord did not provide the testing report taken at the end of the tenancy.
Failure to provide the testing report taken at the end of the tenancy means the landlord is unable to prove the presence and level of methamphetamine residue. This means the landlord cannot prove that decontamination was required.
The general approach of the Tribunal when determining claims for decontamination due to the presence of methamphetamine residue is as follows: a. Methamphetamine residue of below 15mcg/100cm² does not cause damage to residential tenancy premises unless there is evidence of manufacturing; b. In premises or parts of premises, where residue is higher than 15mcg/100cm², this is considered damage and decontamination of those areas is appropriate; and c. Residue levels of higher than 30mcg/100cm² indicate a high level of use and may be indicative of manufacturing. Decontamination of premises to the lower level of below 1.5mcg/100cm² is justified.
The landlord has not provided the testing report for the samples taken at the end of the tenancy. This means I am uncertain what the level of methamphetamine residue was and whether decontamination was required.
The landlord’s claim for compensation damage caused during the tenancy due to methamphetamine use is dismissed.

FILING FEE

Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5015370 — net $1,724.80 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$553.15	Cleaning
Repairs: Walls	$814.70	Repairs: Walls
Repairs: Carpet	$250.00	Repairs: Carpet
Replace furnishings: Heat pump remote	$39.99	Replace furnishings: Heat pump remote
Replace smoke alarms	$39.96	Replace smoke alarms
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,724.80
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,724.80

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Porsha Fiona Bridgeman Davis and Joshua Antony Gilfedder must pay [The landlord/s] $1,724.80 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Katipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ...[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit of not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. CLEANING & HEAT PUMP REMOTE
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) RTA. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonable clean and tidy, and did not return the heat pump remote at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord provided photographs of the property taken at the end of the tenancy. These photographs show that rubbish, food and miscellaneous household items were left at the property by the tenant. The inside of the property does not appear to have been cleaned. The outside is also messy and animal faeces are present.
The landlord gave evidence that the tenant did not return the heat pump remote at the end of the tenancy.
I find the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not return the heat pump remote.
The landlord submitted an invoice of $553.15 for general cleaning.
The landlord also submitted an invoice for $39.99 to replace the heat pump remote.
The landlord’s claims for compensation for cleaning and replacing the heat pump remote are granted in full for the above amounts, which are proved.

DAMAGE

The landlord claims the tenant damaged the walls, ceiling, carpet and smoke alarms during the tenancy. Compensation is sought as follows: a. Walls:$814.70 b. Ceilings: $1,035.00 c. Carpet:$1,989.52 d. Smoke alarms: $39.96
The landlord also claims the tenant used methamphetamine during the tenancy and the property needed to be decontaminated. The landlord seeks compensation as follows: a. Methamphetamine testing: $3,371.52 b. Decontamination:$6,877.00
I deal with the landlord’s claims for general damage first, before turning to consider the damage allegedly caused by the tenant’s use of methamphetamine. General damage
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.
When considering a claim for compensation for damage, the Tribunal has a discretion to award either the full cost of replacement or diminution in value. In determining what option to award, the overarching principle is one of reasonableness. 1
Relevant to an assessment of reasonableness, is the duty to mitigate one’s loss. This is contained in section 49 RTA, which states: Where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of this Act, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.
The landlord submitted photographs of the property taken at the beginning and end of the tenancy. Comparing these sets of photographs, I find the following damage occurred during the tenancy: a. Marks, scratches and removal of paint to the walls; b. Small green stain on the carpet at the top of the stairwell; and c. Removal of smoke alarms by the tenant.
The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy do not reveal and damage to the ceiling. I dismiss the landlord’s claim for compensation to repair the ceiling.
The landlord gave evidence that the carpet was also damaged by pets kept at the address without permission. The landlord claims the carpet smelt very bad.
The photographs taken outside the property show pet faeces. I consider it more likely than not that the tenant kept at least one pet at the property without permission.
I find that the carpet was damaged not only by the presence of a small green stain at the top of the stairs, but also smelt bad.
The damage to the walls, carpet and smoke alarms is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $814.70 to repair the walls. This claim for compensation is granted in full.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $39.96 to replace the smoke alarms. This claim for compensation is granted in full.
The landlord gave evidence that the carpet was replaced at a cost of $1,989.52. The landlord submitted a quote for this amount and a screenshot of a payment made to Selected Flooring Ltd. 1 Ruxley Electronics v Forsyth [1996] 1 AC 344.
I asked the landlord if the carpet was cleaned first and they advised it was not. The landlord was unable to confirm why cleaning the carpet was not attempted first.
A reasonable step the landlord could have taken to mitigate their loss would have been to have the carpet professionally cleaned. This might have removed or reduced the stain and smell.
I do not consider the size of the stain justified replacing the entire carpet throughout the property.
In this case, I find it is reasonable to award the landlord an amount equivalent to the diminution in value sustained to the carpet. I consider $250.00 to be reasonable.
The landlord’s claim for compensation to replace the carpet is granted for a total of $250.00. Methamphetamine damage
A tenant must not use, or permit the use of, the premises for any unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) RTA.
A landlord must prove that premises have been damaged during the tenancy and that the damage is the result of an 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(8)(a) RTA. The use or possession of methamphetamine is an imprisonable offence. See the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
If the landlord proves this, then a tenant is liable for the costs of “making good the damage” and other reasonably foreseeable losses related to the damage. See sections 49A and 49B(1)(b) RTA.
The landlord claims the tenant used methamphetamine during the tenancy and this caused damage to the property which needed to be decontaminated. In support of their claim, the landlord submitted the following evidence: a. A photograph taken at the end of the tenancy showing a metal pipe and small, empty plastic bag on the handrail at the top of the stairs; b. Two invoices from Contaminated Property Investigations NZ Limited (CPINZ) who completed testing at the property; and c. An invoice from Cleaning Pro who completed the decontamination.
The landlord did not have the property tested before this tenancy began.
The landlord did not submit a copy of the testing report showing the level of methamphetamine found at the property at the end of the tenancy.
The absence of a pre-tenancy methamphetamine test means that it is not known whether methamphetamine residue was present before this tenancy began.
The photograph of the pipe and small plastic bag raise a suspicion that the tenant was using or permitting someone at the property with their permission to use drugs during the tenancy, but the landlord has not proven that such drugs were methamphetamine. This is because the landlord did not provide the testing report taken at the end of the tenancy.
Failure to provide the testing report taken at the end of the tenancy means the landlord is unable to prove the presence and level of methamphetamine residue. This means the landlord cannot prove that decontamination was required.
The general approach of the Tribunal when determining claims for decontamination due to the presence of methamphetamine residue is as follows: a. Methamphetamine residue of below 15mcg/100cm² does not cause damage to residential tenancy premises unless there is evidence of manufacturing; b. In premises or parts of premises, where residue is higher than 15mcg/100cm², this is considered damage and decontamination of those areas is appropriate; and c. Residue levels of higher than 30mcg/100cm² indicate a high level of use and may be indicative of manufacturing. Decontamination of premises to the lower level of below 1.5mcg/100cm² is justified.
The landlord has not provided the testing report for the samples taken at the end of the tenancy. This means I am uncertain what the level of methamphetamine residue was and whether decontamination was required.
The landlord’s claim for compensation damage caused during the tenancy due to methamphetamine use is dismissed.

FILING FEE

Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5015370 — Property damage at 17 Tokai Place, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5015370 — Property damage at 17 Tokai Place, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

DAMAGE

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

DAMAGE

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions