What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5071301?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,880.00 (5759286-006) to Abdul

How much money was awarded in case 5071301?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $192.63 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,800.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,714.29 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $880.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5071301?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5071301?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11587530-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5071301?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,880.00 (5759286-006) to Abdul

How much money was awarded in case 5071301?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $192.63 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,800.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,714.29 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $880.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5071301?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5071301?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11587530-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

123 Bay View Road, South Dunedin, Dunedin 9012 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5071301 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5071301 — net $2,833.92 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 19 September 2024	$1,714.29	Rent arrears to 19 September 2024
Window repairs	$192.63	Window repairs
Rubbish removal	$880.00	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$100.00	Cleaning
Carpet replacement	$1,800.00	Carpet replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,833.92
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,833.92

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,880.00 (5759286-006) to Abdul Baseet Masud immediately.
Rendina Elizabeth Henry and Mita Adrian Ranapiri Wilson must pay Abdul Baseet Masud $2,833.92 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing which was held by phone. Calls made to the tenants went unanswered.
The landlord’s application was filed more than two months after the end of the tenancy. The tenants have provided the landlord with their new address and the landlord’s application has been served at that address in accordance with section 91A (2)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
I am satisfied that the tenants have been served with the landlord’s application. The hearing proceeded in the tenants’ absence.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy began on 6 May 2021 and ended on 19 September 2024. The tenants did not pay rent for the last four weeks of the tenancy. The landlord provided a rent summary showing the rent of $2,000.00 owing to 23 September 2024. As the tenancy ended on 19 September 2024 I have reduced the amount by four days’ rent ($285.71) and order rent arrears in the amount of $1,714.29.

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

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.
The landlord said that they tenants did not leave the property reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord produced a quote from Busy Bees Cleaning Services in the amount of $800 plus GST ($1,000) for “full kitchen cleaning, rubbish sorting and removal and skip hire”. The landlord also had to hire an additional skip in the amount of $280.00 from “Save Money Skips” in the amount of $280.00.
The photos show a very large amount of rubbish left behind including a double/queen bed base, two large armchairs, a bookshelf and coffee table and various miscellaneous items inside the house. Outside the house the tenants left part of a couch and several tyres.
I award the sum of $880.00 for rubbish removal. This is for the additional skip ($280.00) together with $600 from the Busy Bee invoice for rubbish removal. I have had to estimate the portion of the invoice that relates to rubbish removal as the invoice does not provide a breakdown.
The photos of the kitchen related only to the oven, which was left very dirty. I have allowed $100.00 for cleaning the oven.

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 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.
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. Window
At the end of the tenancy there was a broken window. I accept the landlord’s evidence that the window was not broken at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord provided an invoice to repair the window in the amount of $192.63 which I consider to be reasonable. I award that amount. Carpet
The landlord said that the carpet was new at the start of the tenancy but that it was so badly stained and damaged at the end of the tenancy that it had to be replaced. The landlord produced photos showing the condition of the carpet.
The landlord initially had the carpet cleaned but has now withdrawn their claim for cleaning.
The landlord produced an invoice from Carpet Store Dunedin for replacing the carpet in the amount of $3,631.20.
I am satisfied that the damage to the carpet occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. As the carpet was approximately 3.5 years old at the end of the tenancy I have applied depreciation based on the Inland Revenue Department depreciation schedules. 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 award the amount of $1,800 for the carpet. Methamphetamine decontamination
The landlord said that they had concerns about methamphetamine use at the property and so had the property tested when the tenancy ended.
The landlord said that the testing showing methamphetamine contamination. They produced a quote for decontamination in the amount of $10,095.00 plus GST.
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 produced a report showing that the property had five readings above the NZS 8510:2017 at the end of the tenancy, ranging from 1.52 μg/100cm 2 in bedroom 3 to 7.87 μg/100cm 2 in the kitchen.
The landlord did not do methamphetamine testing at the start of the tenancy so I am unable to find that methamphetamine use (and associated damage) occurred during the tenancy. The contamination could have occurred before the tenants moved in. In any event all readings were well below the Gluckman standard.
The landlord did explain that the heat pump was installed during the tenancy, but the reading from the testing on the heat pump was very low, and below even NZS 8510:2017 at 0.58 μg/100cm 2 .
The landlord’s claim for methamphetamine decontamination is dismissed. Filing fee and name suppression
Because Abdul Baseet Masud has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord did not seek an order for name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5071301 — net $2,833.92 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 19 September 2024	$1,714.29	Rent arrears to 19 September 2024
Window repairs	$192.63	Window repairs
Rubbish removal	$880.00	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$100.00	Cleaning
Carpet replacement	$1,800.00	Carpet replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,833.92
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,833.92

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,880.00 (5759286-006) to Abdul Baseet Masud immediately.
Rendina Elizabeth Henry and Mita Adrian Ranapiri Wilson must pay Abdul Baseet Masud $2,833.92 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing which was held by phone. Calls made to the tenants went unanswered.
The landlord’s application was filed more than two months after the end of the tenancy. The tenants have provided the landlord with their new address and the landlord’s application has been served at that address in accordance with section 91A (2)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
I am satisfied that the tenants have been served with the landlord’s application. The hearing proceeded in the tenants’ absence.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy began on 6 May 2021 and ended on 19 September 2024. The tenants did not pay rent for the last four weeks of the tenancy. The landlord provided a rent summary showing the rent of $2,000.00 owing to 23 September 2024. As the tenancy ended on 19 September 2024 I have reduced the amount by four days’ rent ($285.71) and order rent arrears in the amount of $1,714.29.

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

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.
The landlord said that they tenants did not leave the property reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord produced a quote from Busy Bees Cleaning Services in the amount of $800 plus GST ($1,000) for “full kitchen cleaning, rubbish sorting and removal and skip hire”. The landlord also had to hire an additional skip in the amount of $280.00 from “Save Money Skips” in the amount of $280.00.
The photos show a very large amount of rubbish left behind including a double/queen bed base, two large armchairs, a bookshelf and coffee table and various miscellaneous items inside the house. Outside the house the tenants left part of a couch and several tyres.
I award the sum of $880.00 for rubbish removal. This is for the additional skip ($280.00) together with $600 from the Busy Bee invoice for rubbish removal. I have had to estimate the portion of the invoice that relates to rubbish removal as the invoice does not provide a breakdown.
The photos of the kitchen related only to the oven, which was left very dirty. I have allowed $100.00 for cleaning the oven.

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 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.
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. Window
At the end of the tenancy there was a broken window. I accept the landlord’s evidence that the window was not broken at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord provided an invoice to repair the window in the amount of $192.63 which I consider to be reasonable. I award that amount. Carpet
The landlord said that the carpet was new at the start of the tenancy but that it was so badly stained and damaged at the end of the tenancy that it had to be replaced. The landlord produced photos showing the condition of the carpet.
The landlord initially had the carpet cleaned but has now withdrawn their claim for cleaning.
The landlord produced an invoice from Carpet Store Dunedin for replacing the carpet in the amount of $3,631.20.
I am satisfied that the damage to the carpet occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. As the carpet was approximately 3.5 years old at the end of the tenancy I have applied depreciation based on the Inland Revenue Department depreciation schedules. 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 award the amount of $1,800 for the carpet. Methamphetamine decontamination
The landlord said that they had concerns about methamphetamine use at the property and so had the property tested when the tenancy ended.
The landlord said that the testing showing methamphetamine contamination. They produced a quote for decontamination in the amount of $10,095.00 plus GST.
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 produced a report showing that the property had five readings above the NZS 8510:2017 at the end of the tenancy, ranging from 1.52 μg/100cm 2 in bedroom 3 to 7.87 μg/100cm 2 in the kitchen.
The landlord did not do methamphetamine testing at the start of the tenancy so I am unable to find that methamphetamine use (and associated damage) occurred during the tenancy. The contamination could have occurred before the tenants moved in. In any event all readings were well below the Gluckman standard.
The landlord did explain that the heat pump was installed during the tenancy, but the reading from the testing on the heat pump was very low, and below even NZS 8510:2017 at 0.58 μg/100cm 2 .
The landlord’s claim for methamphetamine decontamination is dismissed. Filing fee and name suppression
Because Abdul Baseet Masud has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord did not seek an order for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5071301 — Property damage at 123 Bay View Road, South Dunedin, Dunedin 9012

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5071301 — Property damage at 123 Bay View Road, South Dunedin, Dunedin 9012

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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