What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5044069 about?

The tribunal order states: Justin Shapleski to pay [The landlord/s] $590.99 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5044069?

Cleaning: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $163.13 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $262.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5044069?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5044069?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11052785-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5044069 about?

The tribunal order states: Justin Shapleski to pay [The landlord/s] $590.99 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5044069?

Cleaning: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $163.13 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $262.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5044069?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5044069?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11052785-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Room 1322, 430 Queen Street, Auckland Central, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5044069 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5044069 — net $590.99 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 24 October 2024	$262.86	Rent arrears to 24 October 2024
Compensation: smoke alarm installation	$163.13	smoke alarm installation
Compensation: carpet cleaning of other unit	$138.00	carpet cleaning of other unit
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$590.99
Bond	$590.99
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$590.99

Order

Justin Shapleski to pay [The landlord/s] $590.99 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay $590.99 from the bond of $1,560.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The balance of the bond of $969.01 is to remain at the Bond Centre.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
On 10 October 2024, the property was tested for the presence of methamphetamine. The kitchen returned a very high reading of 42mg/100cm².
On 17 October 2024, the landlord issued a notice to the tenant terminating the tenancy pursuant to section 59B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The tenancy ended on 25 October 2024 when the tenant vacated the premises.
The landlord sought to advance claims for compensation for the following matters: a. Re-installation of smoke alarms in one bedroom on 14/07/2022 and 05/08/2022; b. Carpet cleaning costs for the unit below; c. Methamphetamine testing; and d. Vacated damages and cleaning.
At the hearing on 8 November 2024, the landlord withdrew their claims for compensation for methamphetamine testing and vacated damages and cleaning.
The property manager who appeared on behalf of the landlord was unable to confirm whether the property was tested for methamphetamine at the beginning of the tenancy. In the absence of such a test, the Tribunal is unlikely to find that the landlord has proven that the tenant is responsible for consuming or allowing another person at the property with the tenant’s permission to consume methamphetamine inside the premises. The landlord advised that they would seek clarification from the owner as to whether the property was tested for methamphetamine at the beginning of the tenancy. Unfortunately, this information could not be obtained at the hearing, as the owner is currently overseas. If the property was tested at the beginning of the tenancy, it remains open to the landlord to file a fresh application to recover the costs of testing.
The landlord has not professionally cleaned the property, had repair work completed or replaced chattels/furniture yet. The landlord attended the hearing with quotes for this work. The Tribunal invited the landlord to seek confirmation from the landlord as to whether the property was tested for methamphetamine at the beginning of the tenancy, have the relevant work completed and then file a fresh application with appropriate invoices. The type of cleaning undertaken (e.g. decontamination, deep cleaning to remove the presence of methamphetamine or general cleaning) and the reason for replacing chattels (e.g. physically damaged, missing or decontaminated due to the presence of methamphetamine) is relevant to the issue of whether the landlord can prove the tenant is responsible for the presence of methamphetamine in the property. If the landlord can prove this, then decontamination or deep cleaning costs are more likely to be granted by the Tribunal, as well as any claim by the landlord that chattels and furniture needed to be replaced due to contamination. On the other hand, if the landlord is unable to prove that the tenant used methamphetamine during the tenancy, then this might influence the amount of compensation that the Tribunal awards for cleaning and damage (if any). In these circumstances, the landlord agreed to withdraw their claim for compensation for cleaning, damage and replacement of chattels/furniture at the hearing.
The landlord would be wise to file any further applications for compensation for testing costs, cleaning and damage on or before by 25 December 2024, which is two months from the date the tenancy ended (25 October 2024).
Due to the fact that the landlord anticipates filing further claims following the end of the tenancy, I have directed that the balance of the bond be held at the Bond Centre.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 25 October 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing up to 24 October 2024 ($262.86) and I have granted their claim for rent arrears up to this date. Compensation – smoke alarms
A tenant must comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed on the tenant by regulations made under section 138A RTA and must not damage, remove, or disconnect a smoke alarm. See sections 40(1)(ca) and 40(3A)(b) RTA.
The landlord gave evidence that during two inspections of the property by the Body Corporate on 14 July 2022 and 5 August 2022, it was discovered that the tenant had disconnected a smoke alarm in one of the bedrooms and not reinstated it properly. The landlord produced an invoice from the Body Corporate and two invoices from L A Fire Systems Ltd to remove and properly reinstate the smoke alarm on both occasions. These invoices totalled $163.13. These invoices were sent to the tenant, but never paid by them.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for $163.13 is granted. Compensation – carpet cleaning of neighbouring unit
A tenant must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood. See section 40(2)(c) RTA.
The landlord gave evidence that on the tenant left the shower running, which caused significant leakage of water through the bathroom floor and into the neighbouring unit below. This water leaked through the roof of the below unit and onto the carpet, which was sodden and smelly as a result. The occupier of the below unit had to have their carpet professionally dried and cleaned at a cost of $138.00. The landlord paid for this and submitted an invoice for this amount.
By leaving the shower running and causing water to overflow in the bathroom and leak through to the carpet of the neighbouring unit below, I find that the tenant interfered with the reasonable peace and comfort of a person residing in the tenant’s neighbourhood.
The landlord’s claim for compensation of $138.00 is granted in full. Filing fee
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5044069 — net $590.99 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 24 October 2024	$262.86	Rent arrears to 24 October 2024
Compensation: smoke alarm installation	$163.13	smoke alarm installation
Compensation: carpet cleaning of other unit	$138.00	carpet cleaning of other unit
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$590.99
Bond	$590.99
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$590.99

Order

Justin Shapleski to pay [The landlord/s] $590.99 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay $590.99 from the bond of $1,560.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The balance of the bond of $969.01 is to remain at the Bond Centre.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
On 10 October 2024, the property was tested for the presence of methamphetamine. The kitchen returned a very high reading of 42mg/100cm².
On 17 October 2024, the landlord issued a notice to the tenant terminating the tenancy pursuant to section 59B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The tenancy ended on 25 October 2024 when the tenant vacated the premises.
The landlord sought to advance claims for compensation for the following matters: a. Re-installation of smoke alarms in one bedroom on 14/07/2022 and 05/08/2022; b. Carpet cleaning costs for the unit below; c. Methamphetamine testing; and d. Vacated damages and cleaning.
At the hearing on 8 November 2024, the landlord withdrew their claims for compensation for methamphetamine testing and vacated damages and cleaning.
The property manager who appeared on behalf of the landlord was unable to confirm whether the property was tested for methamphetamine at the beginning of the tenancy. In the absence of such a test, the Tribunal is unlikely to find that the landlord has proven that the tenant is responsible for consuming or allowing another person at the property with the tenant’s permission to consume methamphetamine inside the premises. The landlord advised that they would seek clarification from the owner as to whether the property was tested for methamphetamine at the beginning of the tenancy. Unfortunately, this information could not be obtained at the hearing, as the owner is currently overseas. If the property was tested at the beginning of the tenancy, it remains open to the landlord to file a fresh application to recover the costs of testing.
The landlord has not professionally cleaned the property, had repair work completed or replaced chattels/furniture yet. The landlord attended the hearing with quotes for this work. The Tribunal invited the landlord to seek confirmation from the landlord as to whether the property was tested for methamphetamine at the beginning of the tenancy, have the relevant work completed and then file a fresh application with appropriate invoices. The type of cleaning undertaken (e.g. decontamination, deep cleaning to remove the presence of methamphetamine or general cleaning) and the reason for replacing chattels (e.g. physically damaged, missing or decontaminated due to the presence of methamphetamine) is relevant to the issue of whether the landlord can prove the tenant is responsible for the presence of methamphetamine in the property. If the landlord can prove this, then decontamination or deep cleaning costs are more likely to be granted by the Tribunal, as well as any claim by the landlord that chattels and furniture needed to be replaced due to contamination. On the other hand, if the landlord is unable to prove that the tenant used methamphetamine during the tenancy, then this might influence the amount of compensation that the Tribunal awards for cleaning and damage (if any). In these circumstances, the landlord agreed to withdraw their claim for compensation for cleaning, damage and replacement of chattels/furniture at the hearing.
The landlord would be wise to file any further applications for compensation for testing costs, cleaning and damage on or before by 25 December 2024, which is two months from the date the tenancy ended (25 October 2024).
Due to the fact that the landlord anticipates filing further claims following the end of the tenancy, I have directed that the balance of the bond be held at the Bond Centre.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 25 October 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing up to 24 October 2024 ($262.86) and I have granted their claim for rent arrears up to this date. Compensation – smoke alarms
A tenant must comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed on the tenant by regulations made under section 138A RTA and must not damage, remove, or disconnect a smoke alarm. See sections 40(1)(ca) and 40(3A)(b) RTA.
The landlord gave evidence that during two inspections of the property by the Body Corporate on 14 July 2022 and 5 August 2022, it was discovered that the tenant had disconnected a smoke alarm in one of the bedrooms and not reinstated it properly. The landlord produced an invoice from the Body Corporate and two invoices from L A Fire Systems Ltd to remove and properly reinstate the smoke alarm on both occasions. These invoices totalled $163.13. These invoices were sent to the tenant, but never paid by them.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for $163.13 is granted. Compensation – carpet cleaning of neighbouring unit
A tenant must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood. See section 40(2)(c) RTA.
The landlord gave evidence that on the tenant left the shower running, which caused significant leakage of water through the bathroom floor and into the neighbouring unit below. This water leaked through the roof of the below unit and onto the carpet, which was sodden and smelly as a result. The occupier of the below unit had to have their carpet professionally dried and cleaned at a cost of $138.00. The landlord paid for this and submitted an invoice for this amount.
By leaving the shower running and causing water to overflow in the bathroom and leak through to the carpet of the neighbouring unit below, I find that the tenant interfered with the reasonable peace and comfort of a person residing in the tenant’s neighbourhood.
The landlord’s claim for compensation of $138.00 is granted in full. Filing fee
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5044069 — Rent arrears at Room 1322, 430 Queen Street, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5044069 — Rent arrears at Room 1322, 430 Queen Street, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions