What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5300074 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Te Ahuru Mowai Limited Partnership $2,025.84

How much money was awarded in case 5300074?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,325.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Missing Kitchen Door: $285.31 awarded to landlord; Replace Missing Shed Door: $387.53 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5300074?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5300074?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12766933-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5300074 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Te Ahuru Mowai Limited Partnership $2,025.84

How much money was awarded in case 5300074?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,325.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Missing Kitchen Door: $285.31 awarded to landlord; Replace Missing Shed Door: $387.53 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5300074?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5300074?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12766933-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

50 Tremewan Street, Tawa, Wellington 5028 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5300074 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5300074 — net $2,025.84 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace missing kitchen door	$285.31	Replace missing kitchen door
Wardrobe repairs and new rail	$1,325.00	Wardrobe repairs and new rail
Replace missing shed door	$387.53	Replace missing shed door
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,025.84
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,025.84

The landlord attended the hearing.

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

Mr Forrester sent an email to the landlord last night asking that the hearing be done in January instead because he is away at the moment. We checked the court records and Mr Forrester has not requested an adjournment. The notice of hearing was sent out over two weeks ago so there was plenty of time for Mr Forrester to ask for an adjournment and provide supporting information. I decided the hearing time should be used and I had the hearing with the landlord.

Is the tenant responsible for the cost of decontamination?

The landlord carried out a test for methamphetamine contamination at the end of the tenancy and has claimed the cost of decontamination work. One of the rooms had a reading greater than 15μg/100cm 2 when the house was tested. Professor Gluckman advised that exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm 2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect to human health. See Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards”.

The landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy. There was no testing done at the start of the tenancy which means there is no way of knowing when the contamination happened. I did not make any finding on the credibility of the report or the levels once I realised the claim could not be proved. All claims relating to decontamination work, including rubbish removal, are dismissed.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

There is a claim for rubbish removal. This is the landlord’s claim to prove. It is not clear from the claim if the landlord has been charged for general rubbish removal as well as rubbish removal for the decontamination process. I cannot estimate an amount based on the photos if there is no evidence the landlord had to pay an invoice. This claim is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

There is a claim for repairs. The 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.

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.

I have allowed the claims for replacing doors and for the wardrobe repair. The damage was caused during the tenancy. I have seen photos and I find the damage is more than fair wear and tea. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amounts ordered are proved.

I have not allowed any of the claims for repairing hinges or cabinetry or for decorating. This is because cabinets are old and any repairs are likely to be maintenance, which is a landlord’s responsibility. The gate hinge looks to be a maintenance issue rather than damage. I have also taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position it would have been in had the tenant not breached his obligations, and should not be better or worse off. When the items requiring repairs or decorating are very old then any repairs will mean the tenant paying for an improvement. These claims are dismissed. Other orders

Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

The landlord’s application for suppression is not allowed. The landlord is a social housing provider and there is public interest in the management of social housing. The tenant’s name will be published because there is also public interest when tenants owe money at the end of a tenancy. See section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5300074 — net $2,025.84 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace missing kitchen door	$285.31	Replace missing kitchen door
Wardrobe repairs and new rail	$1,325.00	Wardrobe repairs and new rail
Replace missing shed door	$387.53	Replace missing shed door
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,025.84
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,025.84

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Te Ahuru Mowai Limited Partnership $2,025.84 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Mr Forrester sent an email to the landlord last night asking that the hearing be done in January instead because he is away at the moment. We checked the court records and Mr Forrester has not requested an adjournment. The notice of hearing was sent out over two weeks ago so there was plenty of time for Mr Forrester to ask for an adjournment and provide supporting information. I decided the hearing time should be used and I had the hearing with the landlord.

Is the tenant responsible for the cost of decontamination?

The landlord carried out a test for methamphetamine contamination at the end of the tenancy and has claimed the cost of decontamination work. One of the rooms had a reading greater than 15μg/100cm 2 when the house was tested. Professor Gluckman advised that exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm 2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect to human health. See Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards”.
The landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy. There was no testing done at the start of the tenancy which means there is no way of knowing when the contamination happened. I did not make any finding on the credibility of the report or the levels once I realised the claim could not be proved. All claims relating to decontamination work, including rubbish removal, are dismissed.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
There is a claim for rubbish removal. This is the landlord’s claim to prove. It is not clear from the claim if the landlord has been charged for general rubbish removal as well as rubbish removal for the decontamination process. I cannot estimate an amount based on the photos if there is no evidence the landlord had to pay an invoice. This claim is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

There is a claim for repairs. The 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.
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.
I have allowed the claims for replacing doors and for the wardrobe repair. The damage was caused during the tenancy. I have seen photos and I find the damage is more than fair wear and tea. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amounts ordered are proved.
I have not allowed any of the claims for repairing hinges or cabinetry or for decorating. This is because cabinets are old and any repairs are likely to be maintenance, which is a landlord’s responsibility. The gate hinge looks to be a maintenance issue rather than damage. I have also taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position it would have been in had the tenant not breached his obligations, and should not be better or worse off. When the items requiring repairs or decorating are very old then any repairs will mean the tenant paying for an improvement. These claims are dismissed. Other orders
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord’s application for suppression is not allowed. The landlord is a social housing provider and there is public interest in the management of social housing. The tenant’s name will be published because there is also public interest when tenants owe money at the end of a tenancy. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5300074 — Property damage at 50 Tremewan Street, Tawa, Wellington 5028

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5300074 — Property damage at 50 Tremewan Street, Tawa, Wellington 5028

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the cost of decontamination?

Did the tenant comply with his 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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the cost of decontamination?

Did the tenant comply with his 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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.