What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5303389 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5303389?

Cleaning: $169.83 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; To Ceiling Lining: $250.08 awarded to landlord; To Holes In Walls: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $421.66 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $58.97 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5303389?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5303389?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12895290-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5303389 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5303389?

Cleaning: $169.83 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; To Ceiling Lining: $250.08 awarded to landlord; To Holes In Walls: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $421.66 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $58.97 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5303389?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5303389?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12895290-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

61B Herewini Street, Titahi Bay, Porirua 5022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5303389 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5303389 — net $5,408.54 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$2,500.00	Rubbish removal
Lawns and garden work	$1,500.00	Lawns and garden work
Repairs: to holes in walls	$700.00	Repairs: to holes in walls
Window repairs: broken glass	$421.66	Window repairs: broken glass
Window repairs: security stays	$58.97	Window repairs: security stays
Repairs: to ceiling lining	$250.08	Repairs: to ceiling lining
Cleaning: graffiti on porch	$169.83	Cleaning: graffiti on porch
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,408.54
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,408.54

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Te Ahuru Mowai Limited Partnership $5,408.54 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $220.00 (3112938-013) to Te Ahuru Mowai Limited Partnership immediately.

All other claims are dismissed or were withdrawn at the hearing.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.

Since the last hearing the landlord has made attempts to find a service address for the tenant. The landlord cannot locate the tenant, despite making all reasonable efforts to do so and has applied to the Tribunal for a direction that service be dispensed with. I find that service may be dispensed with in these circumstances. See section 91B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. In particular the landlord wants the Tribunal to make an order for the costs of methamphetamine decontamination.

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

Tenants must return the premises 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.

The landlord provided photos taken at the end of the tenancy. A lot of rubbish was left inside the house, including appliances, mattresses and furniture. The landlord said five tandem trailers of rubbish were removed and the amount claimed includes the dump fees. The invoice does not provide any other detail and the amount claimed seems high to me. I allow $2500 for the rubbish removal, which seems reasonable to me based on the evidence provided.

There is a large claim for the cost of returning the over grown section to lawn. I have been provided with photos and I can see the grass was very high. I accept it would have taken two days to get the grass and weeds to a level where the lawn could be mowed. I have allowed an amount that seems reasonable to me, based on similar claims.

The landlord did not provide me with any photos supporting the claim for removing the rubbish found amongst the overgrown grass. This claim is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

There are claims for repairs and for the cost of methamphetamine decontamination of the tenancy premises. Contamination by methamphetamine above a certain level is considered to be damage. Methamphetamine damage

The house tested positive for methamphetamine contamination at the end of the tenancy. Seven rooms in the house had levels between 15 - 48μg/100cm 2 . The landlord has limited its claim for cleaning and reinstating to $18,000. There was no pretesting done by Kainga Ora, who was the landlord before Te Ahuru Mowai.

I advised the landlord it would be hard to establish that it was the tenant who had caused or allowed the contamination. This is because the landlord must prove that the damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.

The landlord submitted it was likely the tenant had contaminated the house because: • The tenancy lasted ten years and methamphetamine levels decrease over time. • A social worker saw a meth pipe at the house. • The tenant would not allow access for routine meth testing. • The tenant’s response to the landlord coming with a locksmith to carry out testing was to give his notice and leave immediately. • The neighbour also smoked methamphetamine, as proved by a previous Tribunal order.

The District Court considered a similar case where there was no pretesting in Eren Limited v Martin and Kukuruzsnayak [2021] NZDC 15210. The Judge found the absence of pre-let testing determinative of being unable to prove contamination occurred during ‘that’ tenancy. In that case there was also circumstantial evidence of methamphetamine use, such as drug paraphernalia in the rubbish and the neighbours reporting drug use. The Judge said: However, the significant problem for this claim is that there is no evidence of any methamphetamine testing carried out at the start of this tenancy. If there had been such testing and it revealed no methamphetamine then clearly the methamphetamine residue that was found at the end of the tenancy could only have occurred during the tenancy and could only have occurred either by the tenants using methamphetamine or permitting others to use methamphetamine inside the house. The lack of methamphetamine testing at the start of the tenancy significantly weakens the circumstantial case against the tenants to the point where it is impossible to prove it was the tenants who were responsible for the methamphetamine contamination at the end of their tenancy.

The District Court reached the same conclusion in Brooking and Hodges v Imrie [2021] NZDC 16976, finding that the difficulty for the landlord’s claim was that there was no methamphetamine test conducted at the beginning of the tenancy, and no actual proof of what occurred during the tenancy. The Judge noted there was also “evidence that methamphetamine does not degrade over time”, but no details were given in the decision.

I do not find the other evidence suggesting methamphetamine use during this tenancy to be persuasive. I have not been provided with any scientific evidence that supports the submission that methamphetamine levels decrease over time. Even if that were the case the levels could have decreased from 100μg to the current levels. The evidence about the meth pipe is not strong because having a pipe does not mean use is a given. I accept it is suspicious when tenants deny access, but that in itself is not sufficient to persuade me that methamphetamine was smoked in the house. Finally, there could be many reasons for the tenant giving notice when he was advised the locksmith would be used to gain entry.

I find the landlord has not proved the contamination happened during the tenancy. All the claims relating to methamphetamine are dismissed. Other damage

As well as establishing damage during the tenancy, the landlord must prove the damage was more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove he 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.

The landlord has claimed and proved that there were eight holes in the walls, ceiling damage, damage to a window, damage to some of the window stays, and there was graffiti on the porch. Given that the tenancy lasted around ten years, and it was managed by Kainga Ora previously, it seems most likely to me this damage occurred during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amounts ordered are proved.

In allowing compensation I have taken betterment and depreciation into account. 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. I have not allowed any of the claims for painting because the premises were due for maintenance anyway. Other orders

A request has been sent to the Bond Centre.

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

The landlord has made an application for suppression. This is not allowed because the landlord is a social housing provider and there is public interest in social housing. Sees section 95A RTA.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5303389 — net $5,408.54 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$2,500.00	Rubbish removal
Lawns and garden work	$1,500.00	Lawns and garden work
Repairs: to holes in walls	$700.00	Repairs: to holes in walls
Window repairs: broken glass	$421.66	Window repairs: broken glass
Window repairs: security stays	$58.97	Window repairs: security stays
Repairs: to ceiling lining	$250.08	Repairs: to ceiling lining
Cleaning: graffiti on porch	$169.83	Cleaning: graffiti on porch
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,408.54
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,408.54

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Te Ahuru Mowai Limited Partnership $5,408.54 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $220.00 (3112938-013) to Te Ahuru Mowai Limited Partnership immediately.

All other claims are dismissed or were withdrawn at the hearing.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.

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

Tenants must return the premises 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 landlord did not provide me with any photos supporting the claim for removing the rubbish found amongst the overgrown grass. This claim is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

I find the landlord has not proved the contamination happened during the tenancy. All the claims relating to methamphetamine are dismissed. Other damage

A request has been sent to the Bond Centre.

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

The landlord has made an application for suppression. This is not allowed because the landlord is a social housing provider and there is public interest in social housing. Sees section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5303389 — Property damage at 61B Herewini Street, Titahi Bay, Porirua 5022

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5303389 — Property damage at 61B Herewini Street, Titahi Bay, Porirua 5022

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

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.