What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5304187 about?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders are made by the Tribunal.

How much money was awarded in case 5304187?

Compensation: $12,000.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5304187?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5304187?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12704766-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5304187 about?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders are made by the Tribunal.

How much money was awarded in case 5304187?

Compensation: $12,000.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5304187?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5304187?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12704766-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

22 Takapuwahia Drive, Takapuwahia, Porirua 5022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5304187 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5304187 — net $11,820.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation summarised in paragraphs 35 & 36 below	$12,000.00	Compensation summarised in paragraphs 35 & 36 below
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$11,820.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$11,820.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5304187 — net $11,820.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation summarised in paragraphs 35 & 36 below	$12,000.00	Compensation summarised in paragraphs 35 & 36 below
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$11,820.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$11,820.00

Order

No suppression orders are made by the Tribunal.
[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Te Ahuru Mowai Limited Partnership $11,820.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $208.00 (3493012-005) to Te Ahuru Mowai Limited Partnership immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing represented by Ms Trego. There was no appearance by the tenant
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
The tenancy lasted just over 7 years and was terminated with effect on Friday 14 June 2024 at 11.59pm following an order of the Tribunal under application [2024] NZTT 4857261 dated 6 June 2024 (“the 2024 order”). The 2024 order set out detailed reasons for termination which were primarily on the grounds that the premises were contaminated by methamphetamine to the extent that the premises were uninhabitable. However, the Tribunal also found that termination was justified under section 56(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) and made certain findings regarding methamphetamine contamination at the premises in paragraph [54] as follows: Ms Coker has breached the tenancy and RTA 1 as above. As discussed, whether or not it was her or her guest that permitted methamphetamine to be used in the property, she as the only tenant, remains liable for the consequences of doing so. Although there is no pre-tenancy methamphetamine test in evidence, the high levels satisfy me that it has been used during the tenancy. 2 It is simply not likely that the contamination has been present for the seven years of the tenancy as the levels are currently extremely high and it is accepted that surface levels of methamphetamine reduce over time. Also contributing to that finding is the evidence of neighbourhood complaints regarding drug use and gang affiliation, and the Police attendances. The breach is of such a nature that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. 3 The levels are so high that extensive remediation is going to be necessary; accordingly the whare is considerably damaged.
The results of testing for methamphetamine on 24 February 2024 were: 1 Section 56(1)(a) RTA 2 Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposure, risk levels and interpretation of standards. 29 May 2018 - Professor Gluckman – Prime Minister’s chief science advisor; (The Gluckman Report) at page 14 notes that surface residue of methamphetamine decreases over time and this tenancy has been in place for 7 years. 3 Section 56(1)(c) RTA
The landlord now brings the current application seeking a contribution from the tenant towards the costs it has incurred to clean, tidy and repair damage to the premises caused during the tenancy.

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) RTA.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy by failing to remove substantial amounts of rubbish and personal belongings from both the interior and exterior of the house as shown in photos taken at the end of the tenancy and produced in evidence.
The landlord incurred the following costs to remove rubbish: a. Hiring 5 trailers to remove rubbish–$3,518.75 b. Disposal cost of one fridge–$50 c. Removal and disposal of tyres from the site–$10.16 d. Labour to remove rubbish from exterior of house including tip fees–$502.68 Total rubbish removal costs $4,081.59
The rangehood filters were also dirty and required replacement at a cost of $93.66.
The above amounts ordered are proved.

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. In this case the landlord’s insurance excess is $25,000. Therefore for any incident of damage that costs less than this sum to fix, the tenants liability will be limited to four weeks’ market rent.
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.
Where damage is proved and results in the landlord having to replace items, I must consider betterment and depreciation. 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. In calculating depreciation, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. I deal with each of the damages claims in turn.
Damage caused by methamphetamine contamination: I accept that the tenant is liable for the contamination of the premises by methamphetamine as determined in the 2024 order and the damage was caused intentionally. The landlord seeks decontamination costs as follows: a. Cleaning the laundry, hall, toilet and back porch—$4,500; b. Cost of personal protective equipment (PPE) —$550; c. Sugar soap washing of 7 rooms—$2,800. Total decontamination costs $7,850
This Tribunal has previously held (as summarised in the 2024 order) that decontamination of a property is only necessary when levels of methamphetamine exceed 15 μg/100cm². This is the level adopted by the Gluckman report. 4 The District Court has also consistently confirmed that it is open to the Tribunal to apply the Gluckman report. 5
The only areas in this property in which methamphetamine exceeded 15μg/100cm² was the toilet 6 , laundry 7 and back porch 8 , which are all located 4 Ibid, note 2 above 5 See Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 and Acme Realty Ltd v Alexander James Hogg, Tuitui Grace Polotu, Leigh Sharyn Coughlin [2021] NZDC 3231 6 Toilet reading 23 μg/100cm² near the back porch area. There can be no dispute that those areas of the house are contaminated beyond the safe level promulgated by the Gluckman report and must be decontaminated.
Other areas tested were well below this limit with readings ranging from 1.2-
6μg/100cm² as shown in paragraph 4 above. The issue is whether these other areas are deemed contaminated and require the same level of cleaning and remediation. The Gluckman report says that remediation of premises to the 1.5 μg/100cm² standard is appropriate if there is reason to suspect manufacturing activity or excessive smoking. The report also noted that levels of 30μg/100cm² and above are considered by forensic experts to signify that manufacture is likely to have taken place.
Given that the back porch reading was 45 μg/100cm², I find that there is evidence to suggest that excessive smoking occurred in this case. Also the back porch, toilet and laundry are adjacent to each other and are close to nearby bedrooms and the hallway in a relatively small house. After carefully considering all those matters, I consider that the landlord is entitled to claim the total costs associated with remediating the other areas in the house.
Replacing internal doors in toilet, laundry and back porch—$855.93: The landlord says that it replaced these doors because they were located in areas which had high readings of methamphetamine. However, I am not satisfied that this could not have been remedied by cleaning. For that reason the claim is dismissed.
Re-construct wardrobe in bedroom 1—$3,694.36,: The landlord provided photos taken at the end of the tenancy which showed that the tenant had intentionally removed the wardrobe in bedroom 1 and constructed another cupboard without permission and to a poor standard. The tenant is liable for the damage. The landlord had to construct a new wardrobe including walls, door, shelf and hanging rail, and install new handles.
The landlord was not able to advise exactly how old the wardrobe door and fixings were. However, the property was built in 1969 (56 years old) and the internal fitout looks original in the pre-tenancy inspection report with the doors appearing to be solid wooden doors. Current depreciation guidelines estimate the life of internal solid wooden doors to be 50 years to a lifetime. In the circumstances, I consider that it is appropriate to depreciate the wardrobe replacement cost by 50% and award a total of $1,847.18.
Removal of bunk constructed in bedroom 2—$602.60: The landlord has proved that the tenant intentionally constructed a solid wooden bunk bed in 7 Laundry reading 26 μg/100cm² 8 Back porch reading 45 μg/100cm² bedroom 2 without permission which required removal. The tenant is liable for the cost of removal which is proved.
Replace missing wardrobe door and repair damaged wall and ceiling in bedroom 3—five invoices for $328.50, $358.50, $388.82, $270.48, $136.83: The landlord has proved that the tenant intentionally removed the wardrobe door and damaged the surrounding wall and ceiling with part of the ceiling missing to expose the insulation. The tenant is liable for the repair costs. It appears that the solid wardrobe door has been replaced with a low cost hollow- core door (costing $136.83). Therefore I consider no further reduction for depreciation is justified. The total costs proved are $1,483.13.
Replacing kitchen cabinet doors and kitchen bench—two invoices for $552.64, $511.35. The landlord provided photos which show that the kitchen cupboards beneath the bench had been removed by the end of the tenancy which I accept is intentional damage caused by the tenant. However, the pre- tenancy inspection report shows that there was already some damage to the cupboards and they are likely the original cabinetry which is 50 years old. Depreciation guidelines estimate the kitchen cabinetry has a life of 50 years. Therefore I consider the replacement cost should be fully depreciated and the claim against the tenant dismissed.
The landlord was unable to establish the basis for claiming the kitchen bench replacement cost from the tenant. It did not appear to be damaged and there was no evidence to establish that it could not be reused after the kitchen cabinets were replaced. Therefore, the claim is dismissed
Replacing wet wall linings and bath cradle in bathroom—four invoices for $166.91, $2,001.24, $435.70, $1,176.44: The landlord provided photos showing that the wet wall lining adjacent to the bath was severely damaged with parts of the lining missing and exposing the wall cavity. The landlord says they discovered that some wet wall lining work was required after an inspection in June 2023. The landlord gave the tenant multiple notices that they wished to attend the premises to repair the lining but the tenant was never home at the scheduled times and did not cooperate to enable the repairs to be completed. This likely led to deterioration of the wall. In those circumstances, I am satisfied that the tenant intentionally prevented the landlord from fixing the lining.
The question is whether the tenant’s failure to cooperate resulted in the landlord incurring further repair costs than they would have otherwise. Another associated issue is whether the landlord took reasonable steps to have the repair work done to mitigate any loss. For example, they could have applied to the Tribunal for work orders, or to terminate the tenancy for the breach, but they did not do so. Section 49 RTA provides that where one party has breached their obligations under the RTA or the tenancy agreement, the other party must take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.
The age of the wet wall lining is unknown. It could be original or may have been upgraded in the past. The pre-tenancy inspection records that the bathroom is in good condition. It is not clear on the evidence exactly what the problem with the lining was in June 2023 and whether it was from general wear and tear or through some fault of the tenant. While the tenant did not cooperate in having the problem fixed, it is also difficult to ascertain the extent to which the remediation costs were caused by the tenant’s failure to allow repairs. I also consider the landlord has not taken reasonable steps to mitigate their loss once they discovered the problem in June 2023. The onus is on the landlord to prove their claim on the balance of probabilities and I am not satisfied that they have done so. For those reasons, the claim is dismissed.
Reglazing windows—three invoices for $500.96, $250.48, $153.35: I am satisfied on the evidence that the tenant is liable for several broken windows in the living room, a bedroom and in one of the exterior timber doors. The amounts claimed of $904.79 are proved.
Replacing friction stays and catch & strike to timber sash window—two invoices for $1,329, $309.30: The landlord has proved that one of the sash windows was broken and the landlord needed to replace the 2 friction stays for the window and the catch and strike mechanism. The scope of works records (and the photo evidence shows) that 2 friction stays require replacement on this window. The scope records that each stay costs $132.90. However, the invoice appears to be for 10 stays at a cost of $1,329. I consider the claim is incorrect and award the cost of 2 friction stays only of $265.80 plus $309.30 for the catch and strike mechanism, a total of $575.10.
Replacing stove—$148.28: The landlord claims that the stove was left so dirty by the tenant that it required replacement. The landlord did not know the age of the stove. However, there is no evidence that it has been replaced during the tenancy, so it is at least seven years old, if not more. I am not persuaded on the photo evidence that the stove could not be cleaned. However, even if I’m wrong and replacement was required, current depreciation guidelines estimate the life of a stove is 8-12 years. In the circumstances, I consider the stove should be fully depreciated. Therefore, the claim is dismissed. Summary
In summary the landlord has proved the following claims: ClaimAward Rubbish removal$4,081.59 Rangehood filters replacement$93.66 Methamphetamine decontamination$7,850.00 Reconstruct bedroom 1 wardrobe$1,847.18 Remove bunk structure in bedroom 2$602.60: Repair bedroom 3 wardrobe, wall & ceiling$1,483.13 Reglaze windows$904.79 Replace sash window hardware$575.10 Total award$17,438.05
The landlord only wishes to recover a contribution of $12,000 from the tenant towards the above proved claims. Orders are made accordingly.
The landlord seeks suppression. However, the landlord did not seek suppression in relation to the previous order made regarding this tenancy in 2024 under application 4857261 which the landlord specifically referred to in these proceedings. Therefore, I consider suppression is not warranted in this case. The landlord is also a social housing provider and I consider there is public interest in publication of orders concerning the tenancies it manages. For those reasons, suppression is declined. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5304187 — Tenancy dispute at 22 Takapuwahia Drive, Takapuwahia, Porirua 5022

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5304187 — Tenancy dispute at 22 Takapuwahia Drive, Takapuwahia, Porirua 5022

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

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 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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.