What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5089474 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 5089474?

Cleaning: $588.57 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $457.23 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,250.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $183.02 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,364.28 awarded to landlord; Walls and Doors: $874.47 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5089474?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5089474?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11554582-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5089474 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 5089474?

Cleaning: $588.57 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $457.23 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,250.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $183.02 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,364.28 awarded to landlord; Walls and Doors: $874.47 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5089474?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5089474?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11554582-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5089474 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5089474 — net $2,404.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 11 November 2024	$2,364.28	Rent arrears to 11 November 2024
Rubbish removal and lawns and garden tidy	$457.23	Rubbish removal and lawns and garden tidy
Lock/key replacement	$183.02	Lock/key replacement
Repairs to walls and doors and the shower rose	$874.47	Repairs to walls and doors and the shower rose
Carpet Cleaning to remove stains and cat urine smell	$588.57	Carpet Cleaning to remove stains and cat urine smell
Cleaning 2 x showers	$60.00	Cleaning 2 x showers
Meth testing/Cleaning: insurance excess	$1,250.00	Meth testing/Cleaning: insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,404.57
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,404.57

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Erica Hooper and Winston Turner must pay [The landlord/s] $2,404.57 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
All other clams are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenants were properly served and sent reminders but they did not attend the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 7 November 2024 but the tenants took until 11 November to move out completely. I find they should pay rent to 11 November 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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

Tenants must keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy, and they must return them in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act (RTA).
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
There is a claim for cleaning the main bedroom and the bathrooms. The landlord provided photos. I can see the showers needed additional cleaning and I have allowed an amount that seems reasonable to me.
The landlord arranged for the main bedroom to be treated because of stains on the carpet and a strong odour. The commercial cleaners identified the smell as cat urine and the carpet was treated. This claim is proved and allowed.
The photos show the tenants left rubbish and belongings behind and these had to be removed. The claim for the removal and the dump fees seems reasonable to me.
The photos show that the gardens and the lawns needed tidying. The amount claimed seems reasonable to me.
I accept the locks had to be changed because the police were involved on 11 November 2024. The amount claimed is reasonable.
There is a claim for a missing garage door remote but the landlord did not have the invoice for this clam and so it is dismissed.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

There is a claim for damage. A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. I have been provided with an ingoing inspection. To avoid liability, the tenants 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.
There is a claim for replacing the bottom panel on the garage door because of a dent. There was only a quote for this work. I have to consider if there will be a loss to the owner before I can allow compensation. The garage door still works and it seems unlikely to me the dent will affect the rent the landlord can charge in the future. I am not persuaded there has been a loss and this claim is dismissed.
The landlord provided photos showing damage to walls and two doors in the main bedroom, the ensuite, the hall and in the garage. Some of the repair work was for holes and dents the tenants had repaired and the repairs are not to a reasonable standard. I find the damage was more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage. The amounts ordered are proved.

Has the landlord proved the claim for methamphetamine remediation?

The landlord has applied for compensation in the amount of the insurance excess for methamphetamine testing and remediation. The landlord must prove that the tenants caused or permitted the contamination, or that it was caused by someone at the premises with the tenants’ consent. The landlord must also prove that, as a result of the contamination, the premises have been damaged or are not reasonably clean.
The landlord provided me with a composite test done before the tenancy started showing there was no contamination. I was also provided with a report done at the end of the tenancy which showed there was contamination.
There are currently two sources of guidance on the issue of a safe level of methamphetamine contamination in residential premises - Standards New Zealand NZS 8510:2017 and the Gluckman report.
The Tribunal has generally applied the Gluckman recommendation. 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.
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.
In this tenancy discrete testing was carried out by an accredited tester the same day the tenants moved out. The testing identified contamination at 22 μg/100cm 2 in the lounge and 15.5 μg/100cm 2 in the entrance. I find there was sufficient contamination using the Gluckman recommendation to warrant remediation. The claim for the insurance excess is proved and allowed. Other orders
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord’s application for suppression is allowed because the landlord is the most successful party. The tenants’ names will be published because there is public interest when tenants breach the RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5089474 — net $2,404.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 11 November 2024	$2,364.28	Rent arrears to 11 November 2024
Rubbish removal and lawns and garden tidy	$457.23	Rubbish removal and lawns and garden tidy
Lock/key replacement	$183.02	Lock/key replacement
Repairs to walls and doors and the shower rose	$874.47	Repairs to walls and doors and the shower rose
Carpet Cleaning to remove stains and cat urine smell	$588.57	Carpet Cleaning to remove stains and cat urine smell
Cleaning 2 x showers	$60.00	Cleaning 2 x showers
Meth testing/Cleaning: insurance excess	$1,250.00	Meth testing/Cleaning: insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,404.57
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,404.57

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Erica Hooper and Winston Turner must pay [The landlord/s] $2,404.57 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
All other clams are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenants were properly served and sent reminders but they did not attend the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 7 November 2024 but the tenants took until 11 November to move out completely. I find they should pay rent to 11 November 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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

Tenants must keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy, and they must return them in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act (RTA).
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
There is a claim for cleaning the main bedroom and the bathrooms. The landlord provided photos. I can see the showers needed additional cleaning and I have allowed an amount that seems reasonable to me.
The landlord arranged for the main bedroom to be treated because of stains on the carpet and a strong odour. The commercial cleaners identified the smell as cat urine and the carpet was treated. This claim is proved and allowed.
The photos show the tenants left rubbish and belongings behind and these had to be removed. The claim for the removal and the dump fees seems reasonable to me.
The photos show that the gardens and the lawns needed tidying. The amount claimed seems reasonable to me.
I accept the locks had to be changed because the police were involved on 11 November 2024. The amount claimed is reasonable.
There is a claim for a missing garage door remote but the landlord did not have the invoice for this clam and so it is dismissed.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

There is a claim for damage. A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. I have been provided with an ingoing inspection. To avoid liability, the tenants 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.
There is a claim for replacing the bottom panel on the garage door because of a dent. There was only a quote for this work. I have to consider if there will be a loss to the owner before I can allow compensation. The garage door still works and it seems unlikely to me the dent will affect the rent the landlord can charge in the future. I am not persuaded there has been a loss and this claim is dismissed.
The landlord provided photos showing damage to walls and two doors in the main bedroom, the ensuite, the hall and in the garage. Some of the repair work was for holes and dents the tenants had repaired and the repairs are not to a reasonable standard. I find the damage was more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage. The amounts ordered are proved.

Has the landlord proved the claim for methamphetamine remediation?

The landlord has applied for compensation in the amount of the insurance excess for methamphetamine testing and remediation. The landlord must prove that the tenants caused or permitted the contamination, or that it was caused by someone at the premises with the tenants’ consent. The landlord must also prove that, as a result of the contamination, the premises have been damaged or are not reasonably clean.
The landlord provided me with a composite test done before the tenancy started showing there was no contamination. I was also provided with a report done at the end of the tenancy which showed there was contamination.
There are currently two sources of guidance on the issue of a safe level of methamphetamine contamination in residential premises - Standards New Zealand NZS 8510:2017 and the Gluckman report.
The Tribunal has generally applied the Gluckman recommendation. 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.
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.
In this tenancy discrete testing was carried out by an accredited tester the same day the tenants moved out. The testing identified contamination at 22 μg/100cm 2 in the lounge and 15.5 μg/100cm 2 in the entrance. I find there was sufficient contamination using the Gluckman recommendation to warrant remediation. The claim for the insurance excess is proved and allowed. Other orders
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord’s application for suppression is allowed because the landlord is the most successful party. The tenants’ names will be published because there is public interest when tenants breach the RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5089474 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5089474 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Has the landlord proved the claim for methamphetamine remediation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Has the landlord proved the claim for methamphetamine remediation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions