How much money was awarded in case 5279287?

Cleaning: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Methamphetamine Decontamination: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5279287?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5279287?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12733779-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5279287?

Cleaning: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Methamphetamine Decontamination: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5279287?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5279287?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12733779-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5279287 — Cleanliness

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5279287 about?

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

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5279287 — net $1,683.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$460.00	Cleaning
Methamphetamine decontamination	$1,500.00	Methamphetamine decontamination
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,683.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,683.00

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Felicia Brown must pay [The landlord/s] $1,683.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $304.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

The landlord’s claim to replace the carpets and underlay is dismissed.

Reasons

[Mr W] attended the hearing for the landlord. The tenant was phoned on the number provided but the calls went to voicemail.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy as required by section 40(1)(ca) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).

The amount ordered is established by the production of an invoice. Mr Waters withdrew the cost ($86.25) to clean the oven.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

To be successful in a claim for damage to the premises, the landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they, or others at the premises with their permission, did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage: sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.

The landlord claims the cost to test and clean the premises for methamphetamine contamination.

A methamphetamine detailed screening assessment of the premises was completed on 20 November 2024. Testing of the 7 samples taken from the premises (three in the kitchen and living room area) showed one area, the kitchen window frame, had a level of 18.1 μg/100cm. This level is above the level (15 μg/100cm) that is considered to be likely to give rise to adverse effects and therefore requires cleaning/remediation (as determined in the report by Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, Methamphetamine Contamination in Residential Properties: Exposures, Risk Levels, and Interpretation of Standards). All other samples showed levels well below 15 μg/100cm.

While no pre tenancy methamphetamine testing was completed, the premises were new at the tenancy commencement. I am therefore satisfied that the landlord has established that it is more likely than not that the damage to the premises caused by methamphetamine occurred during the tenancy. Clearly the damage is beyond fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for it.

The landlord claims the cost of $4,251.32 to decontaminate the open plan kitchen and living room. However, as mentioned, the only area that tested above the level that is considered likely to give rise to adverse effects and therefore requires remediation is the area around the kitchen window frame. I therefore do not consider it reasonable that the tenant be liable to decontaminate the entire kitchen/living room area. In the circumstances I consider the sum of $1,500.00 reasonable to compensate the landlord for the decontamination of the kitchen area.

The landlord also claims the cost to replace the carpet and underlay. [Mr W] said that this was done because of the methamphetamine contamination. However, there is no evidence to support that the carpets were contaminated by methamphetamine. As mentioned, the proven contamination is confined to the kitchen area, is relatively low-level contamination at 18 ug/100cm, and the testing of the living room area showed levels well below 15 μg/100cm. The claim to replace the carpet and underlay is therefore dismissed.

The landlord has been partially successful in its claims, and I consider this an appropriate case to award it payment of the Tribunal application fee. Suppression

The landlord applied, in his application, for a suppression order. As the landlord has been mostly successful in its claims, it is entitled to an order pursuant to section 95A of the Act. I therefore order that the landlord’s name and identifying details be suppressed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5279287 — net $1,683.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$460.00	Cleaning
Methamphetamine decontamination	$1,500.00	Methamphetamine decontamination
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,683.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,683.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Felicia Brown must pay [The landlord/s] $1,683.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $304.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The landlord’s claim to replace the carpets and underlay is dismissed.

Reasons

[Mr W] attended the hearing for the landlord. The tenant was phoned on the number provided but the calls went to voicemail.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy as required by section 40(1)(ca) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The amount ordered is established by the production of an invoice. Mr Waters withdrew the cost ($86.25) to clean the oven.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

To be successful in a claim for damage to the premises, the landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they, or others at the premises with their permission, did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage: sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
The landlord claims the cost to test and clean the premises for methamphetamine contamination.
A methamphetamine detailed screening assessment of the premises was completed on 20 November 2024. Testing of the 7 samples taken from the premises (three in the kitchen and living room area) showed one area, the kitchen window frame, had a level of 18.1 μg/100cm. This level is above the level (15 μg/100cm) that is considered to be likely to give rise to adverse effects and therefore requires cleaning/remediation (as determined in the report by Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, Methamphetamine Contamination in Residential Properties: Exposures, Risk Levels, and Interpretation of Standards). All other samples showed levels well below 15 μg/100cm.
While no pre tenancy methamphetamine testing was completed, the premises were new at the tenancy commencement. I am therefore satisfied that the landlord has established that it is more likely than not that the damage to the premises caused by methamphetamine occurred during the tenancy. Clearly the damage is beyond fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for it.
The landlord claims the cost of $4,251.32 to decontaminate the open plan kitchen and living room. However, as mentioned, the only area that tested above the level that is considered likely to give rise to adverse effects and therefore requires remediation is the area around the kitchen window frame. I therefore do not consider it reasonable that the tenant be liable to decontaminate the entire kitchen/living room area. In the circumstances I consider the sum of $1,500.00 reasonable to compensate the landlord for the decontamination of the kitchen area.
The landlord also claims the cost to replace the carpet and underlay. [Mr W] said that this was done because of the methamphetamine contamination. However, there is no evidence to support that the carpets were contaminated by methamphetamine. As mentioned, the proven contamination is confined to the kitchen area, is relatively low-level contamination at 18 ug/100cm, and the testing of the living room area showed levels well below 15 μg/100cm. The claim to replace the carpet and underlay is therefore dismissed.
The landlord has been partially successful in its claims, and I consider this an appropriate case to award it payment of the Tribunal application fee. Suppression
The landlord applied, in his application, for a suppression order. As the landlord has been mostly successful in its claims, it is entitled to an order pursuant to section 95A of the Act. I therefore order that the landlord’s name and identifying details be suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5279287 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5279287 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with her 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

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with her 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