What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5312364 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal Orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5312364?

Cleaning: $90.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $175.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Detailed Methamphetamine Test: $1,955.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Loss Of Rent: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $75.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $84.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Coal Scuttle: $149.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Padlock Key And Hasp: $26.07 awarded to landlord; Replace Window Handle: $28.06 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5312364?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5312364?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12747462-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5312364 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal Orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5312364?

Cleaning: $90.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $175.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Detailed Methamphetamine Test: $1,955.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Loss Of Rent: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $75.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $84.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Coal Scuttle: $149.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Padlock Key And Hasp: $26.07 awarded to landlord; Replace Window Handle: $28.06 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5312364?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5312364?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12747462-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5312364 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5312364 — net $4,507.13 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet replacement	$200.00	Carpet replacement
Repair wall damage	$1,500.00	Repair wall damage
Detailed methamphetamine test	$1,955.00	Detailed methamphetamine test
Cleaning	$90.00	Cleaning
Air fryer replacement	$50.00	Air fryer replacement
Replace coal scuttle	$149.00	Replace coal scuttle
Replace padlock key and hasp	$26.07	Replace padlock key and hasp
Curtain replacement	$75.00	Curtain replacement
Clean blinds	$175.00	Clean blinds
Clean and service heat pump	$250.00	Clean and service heat pump
Replace window handle	$28.06	Replace window handle
Repair curtain rail	$84.00	Repair curtain rail
Loss of rent	$750.00	Loss of rent
Exemplary damages - unlawful use of premises	$600.00	Exemplary damages - unlawful use of premises
Net award	$4,507.13
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,507.13

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5312364 — net $4,507.13 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet replacement	$200.00	Carpet replacement
Repair wall damage	$1,500.00	Repair wall damage
Detailed methamphetamine test	$1,955.00	Detailed methamphetamine test
Cleaning	$90.00	Cleaning
Air fryer replacement	$50.00	Air fryer replacement
Replace coal scuttle	$149.00	Replace coal scuttle
Replace padlock key and hasp	$26.07	Replace padlock key and hasp
Curtain replacement	$75.00	Curtain replacement
Clean blinds	$175.00	Clean blinds
Clean and service heat pump	$250.00	Clean and service heat pump
Replace window handle	$28.06	Replace window handle
Repair curtain rail	$84.00	Repair curtain rail
Loss of rent	$750.00	Loss of rent
Exemplary damages - unlawful use of premises	$600.00	Exemplary damages - unlawful use of premises
Net award	$4,507.13
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,507.13

Order

The Tribunal Orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details. Identification of the landlord and the premises, which have now been fully remediated, may be unduly prejudicial. The potential harm to the tenant from publication of the allegations made, exceeds her culpability as found in this Order.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $4,507.13 immediately, calculated as shown below.

The Bond Centre must pay the bond of $1,425.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s], immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by [The landlord’s representative]. The tenant was represented by [The tenant’s representative].
At the start of the hearing [The tenant’s representative] confirmed that [The tenant/s]’s application for re-hearing of the 2 October 2025 order is not being pursued and it is dismissed. Corrigendum
In the Order dated 2 October 2025, I recorded as part of the background (para 15) that “The [premises] had previously been occupied by one of [The landlord/s]’s daughters.”
[The landlord/s] says that is incorrect and asks for a correction. [The tenant/s] does not object. I note the correction and apologise for my having mistaken that part of the evidence. It has no bearing on the findings made. Scope of this Order
The 2 October Order determined the parties’ claims as recorded in that Order. This Order determines the parties’ further and final claims, now that the tenancy has ended, and the landlord has recovered possession.
The claims brought and the amounts sought by the parties are these: DescriptionLandlordTenant Carpet replacement$1,000.00 Repair wall damage$7,000.00 Meth testing/Cleaning: detailed meth test$1,955.00 Cleaning Labour - management of remediation Replace air fryer Replace utensils Replace cutlery Replace dish rack Replace mop and bucket $450.00 $500.00 $105.00 $25.00 $22.00 $27.00 $28.82 Replace coal scuttle$149.00 Replace padlock key and hasp$26.07 Carpet Cleaning: recut keys$150.00 Carpet Cleaning: curtain replacement$359.00 Clean blinds$240.00 Replace couch$335.00 Replace window handle$28.06 Replace vacuum filter$26.88 Replace garden hose$99.98 Replace roasting pan$20.00 Repairs: curtain rail$84.00 Loss of rent$4,750.00 Exemplary damages - unlawful use of premises$1,800.00 Exemplary damages - smoking inside premises$1,800.00 Exemplary damages - unauthorised painting$1,500.00 Exemplary damages - holes in walls$1,800.00 Exemplary damages - interfere with smoke alarms$3,000.00 Exemplary damages - interfere with reasonable peace and comfort of neighbour $3,000.00 Exemplary damages - harassment $2,500.00 Exemplary damages - retaliatory action $4,000.00 Exemplary damages - making false statements $1,200.00 Exemplary damages - failure to mitigate loss $1,200.00 Exemplary damages - abuse of process $1,000.00 Compensation - general damages $2,000.00 Total $30,280.81.$11,900.00
Both parties claim costs. Both parties claim the filing fee.
Each asks the Tribunal to consider some claims that are simply unavailable.
In determining the claims, I will first set out the approach the Tribunal is required to take in assessing them.
I will then strike out those that cannot be pursued, either because there is no legal basis on which they can be brought, or because there is no evidential foundation for them.
I will then determine the remaining claims. Principles - Exemplary Damages
Exemplary damages can only be awarded where a party has committed an unlawful act as defined in the RTA. Not every breach of a party’s obligations is an unlawful act – only those specifically designated. 1
Where an unlawful act has been committed intentionally the Tribunal must consider whether it would be just to make an award of exemplary damages - up to the maximum specified in Schedule 1A RTA.
In making that assessment, the Tribunal must have regard to the criteria in s.109(3), which are: 1 In s.2 RTA “unlawful act” is defined as anything declared by the provisions of this act to be an unlawful act (my emphasis). “(a) the intent of that person in committing the unlawful act; and (b) the effect of the unlawful act; and (c) the interests of the landlord or the tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d) the public interest...”
In considering the parties’ intention, it is the intent to do the act itself, not an intention to act unlawfully, that is relevant.
Section 109 does not provide a blanket jurisdiction to award exemplary damages for any breach of a parties’ obligations. Rather, it sets out how the Tribunal is to proceed if it finds that an unlawful act, as defined elsewhere in the RTA, has been committed.
With those principles in mind the following exemplary damages claims are struck out, for the reasons given. The section references noted are those cited by the parties: Landlord’s claims a. Smoking cigarettes inside the property (s.40(3A)(c), 40(1)(c)) - the landlord’s allegations, if proved, would not constitute an unlawful act under s.40(3A); b. Painting walls without consent and failing to reinstate (s.42B(6)(1) – the landlord’s allegations, if proved, would not constitute an unlawful act under s.42B(6). Section 42B only applies to a minor change made in accordance with a request under s.42A. That is not the case here c. Holes in walls and failing to reinstate (s.42B(4)(6)) – the landlord’s allegations, if proved, would not constitute an unlawful act under s.42B(6). Section 42B only applies to a minor change made in accordance with a request under s.42A. That is not the case here d. Interfering with the peace, privacy and comfort of neighbour (s.40(3A)(d)) – such interference is only an unlawful act under s.40(3A) in circumstances that amount to harassment. There is no evidential basis for such a finding here. Tenant’s claims a. Harassment (s.38(1)-(3)) – s.38 is concerned with protecting the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment, “...in the use of the premises...” 2 These claims relate to the landlord’s conduct of the proceedings after the end of the tenancy. 2 S.38(2) RTA b. Retaliatory action (s.54(1)-(2)) – s.54 only concerns retaliatory notice of termination 3 ; c. Making knowingly false or misleading statements (s.109(1)) – as noted, s.109 does not of itself create any unlawful acts nor does it allow awards of exemplary damages for acts that might be unlawful in another context 4 ; d. Failure to mitigate loss (s.49B(4)) –breach of s.49 (obligation to mitigate loss) is not an unlawful act – it is a factor to be considered in assessing a party’s compensation claim 5 ; e. Bad faith, abuse of process (s.109(3)) – as for para c above. Principles - compensation
The Tribunal’s ability to award compensation is provided by s.77(2)(n) RTA under which the Tribunal has jurisdiction: “...to order the landlord or the tenant under any tenancy agreement to which this Act applies to pay to the other party such sum by way of damages or compensation as the Tribunal shall assess in respect of the breach of any express or implied provision of the tenancy agreement or any provision of this Act”
Even if a breach of the tenant’s obligations is established, the landlord does not have an entitlement to an award of damages as of right 6 . However, where loss is proved to have resulted from the tenant’s breach, in most circumstances an award of compensation should be made.
It is the loss actually and reasonably suffered that an award is intended to compensate for. For a landlord that loss might be represented by the cost of repair, or it might be from a lessening in value.
If the costs of repair exceed the lessening in value, good reason should be shown to award the higher compensation amount. 7
In assessing loss, the Tribunal is required to have regard to depreciation and betterment. The party is entitled to be put in the position they would have been in but for the breach, not better off. 3 That was also a claim brought by the tenant which was determined in the Tribunal’s 2 October 2025 Order 4 In s.2 RTA “unlawful act” is defined as anything declared by the provisions of this act to be an unlawful act (my emphasis). 5 For instance, a party may not be able to recover losses caused through it’s failure to take reasonable steps to mitigate that loss. 6 Gardiner v Upland Bay Investments Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2014-085-13, 27 August 2014 7 See for example Leisure Investments NZ Ltd. Partnership v Grace [2023] NZCA 89
Section 49 RTA requires the Tribunal to have specific regard to a party’s obligation to, “......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.”
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. 8
Proof is required on the balance of probabilities ie. more likely than not. Serious allegations require a solid evidential platform.
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. 9
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. 10 Methamphetamine
Several of the landlord’s claims relate to alleged methamphetamine contamination of the premises and the consequences.
The Tribunal needs to answer the following questions: a. Were the premises contaminated by methamphetamine? b. If so, did the contamination occur during the tenancy? c. If so, what loss was caused to the landlord? and i. what compensation should be ordered? ii. should exemplary damages be awarded?
When the tenancy ended, [The landlord/s]s daughter, who was moving into the premises with her son, asked for them to be tested for methamphetamine contamination. 8 Ss. 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 9 S.49B(3)(a) RTA 10 S. 49B(1) RTA.
The tenancy ended on 4 September 2025 11 . A composite methamphetamine test was undertaken on 16 September 2025. That test showed a total reading of 32μg per 100 cm 2 across the 11 samples taken.
Detailed testing was then completed which showed positive readings at all sites tested, ranging from 0.09μg per 100 cm 2 on the garage door bearer, through to
0μg per 100 cm 2 on the lounge door.
I find it proved that the premises were contaminated by methamphetamine.
Usually, a landlord would be required to provide a baseline test taken before the tenancy started, to prove that any contamination found at the end of the tenancy happened during it.
Here no baseline test was conducted. The landlord says though that 2 of the samples tested were taken from the kitchen rangehood and bathroom ceiling extractor fan, both installed in July 2025. The result from the rangehood was
47μg per 100 cm 2 . The result from the Bathroom extractor was 1.10μg per 100 cm 2 . He says that proves the contamination happened during the tenancy.
[The methamphetamine tester], who undertook the testing, and who is a recognised industry expert, gave evidence at the hearing. In his view, cross contamination of those appliances from a pre-existing contamination is theoretically possible, especially because as extractors, they are susceptible to airborne contamination. However, his opinion is that the levels of contamination found were very unlikely to have resulted in that way. [The methamphetamine tester]’s report noted that “....to understand how much methamphetamine vapour would be required to reach these levels of contamination, I ran the statistics for each sample through the NZ institute for Public Health and Forensic Science (previously ESR- Environmental Science and Research) methamphetamine calculator.....which showed that it would take up to 36 smoked doses for the kitchen rangehood to reach that level and up to 20 smoked doses for the bathroom extractor fan to reach that level. From my calculation this would require frequent smoked doses - almost daily- to achieve from installation to the end of the tenancy. I do not believe this level of contamination would be possible from de-gassing or emissions from other contaminated materials or items in the property during that short space of time.”
It is perhaps theoretically possible but in the absence of any such evidence highly unlikely, that the contamination could have occurred in the period between the end of the tenancy on 4 September and when the samples were taken on 16 September.
That evidence persuades me that it is more likely than not that at least the contamination found on the kitchen rangehood and bathroom extractor, 11 Tribunal Order dated 28 August 2025 occurred during the tenancy. The tenant is responsible for that contamination whoever caused it. 12
What is less clear to me is whether, as the landlord insists, I can infer that the tenant must therefore be responsible for all of the methamphetamine contamination found in the premises at the end of the tenancy.
The highest level of contamination found was 29μg per 100 cm 2 on the lounge door. That was the only site at which the contamination exceeded the level at which remediation would be required according to the Gluckman report standard applied by the Tribunal. 13 [The methamphetamine tester] calculates that would represent 1670 smoked doses. That is 12 smoked doses per day for every day of the tenancy.
[The methamphetamine tester] says that in his experience, that might be possible in situations where there has been prolonged smoking involving multiple smokers. It is undoubtedly though a very high level of contamination to have resulted from this very short tenancy, noting that no evidence of manufacture was found.
There is some evidence of socialising and gathering at the premises. A neighbour in a txt to the landlord on 20 May 2025 complained that, “The amount of traffic coming through at night with cars and people walking up the drive I have had minimal sleep since [the tenant] moved in and I am strongly considering moving as this is not fair on my kids or myself........I am not spending 725 of my hard earned money on rent and not be able to relax n peace because the neighbour is on P”.
That neighbour appears to have later changed her views, providing a statement for this hearing that “Since that period [May 2025] [The tenant/s] and I have become friends and supportive neighbours,. I have bever seen or suspected her to use methamphetamine. I fully retract any earlier comment or assumption that would suggest otherwise.”
As well as that neighbour’s first complaint, the landlord relies on other circumstantial evidence to prove the tenant’s responsibility for the contamination and that it was intentional on her part. That evidence comprises missing light bulb(s), small plastic bag found at the premises (not tested) and a glass object 12 S.41 RTA – “The tenant shall be responsible for anything done or omitted to be done by any person .....who is in the premises with the tenant’s permission if the act or omission would have constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement had it been the act or omission of the tenant.” 13 Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards: OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER’S CHIEF SCIENCE ADVISOR Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, ONZ KNZM FRSNZ FMedSci FRS - 29 May 2018. The report states that where premises have not been used for manufacture, “...“methamphetamine levels that exceed the NZS8510:2017 clean up standard of 1.5 15μg per 100 cm2 should not be regarded as signalling a health risk. The exposure to methamphetamine levels below 15μg per 100 cm2 would be highly unlikely to give rise to any adverse effects.” said to be an elaborate p-pipe (but which I must say appears more ornamental than functional, as asserted by the tenant).
[The tenant/s] has given direct evidence, under promise, that neither she nor, with her knowledge, anybody else, smoked methamphetamine in the premises.
The parties may recall that when considering the tenant’s exemplary damages claim for retaliatory notice in the 2 October Order, I noted that, “Despite the strong inferences to the contrary, for the Tribunal to find that the termination notice was not genuinely given to accommodate [The landlord’s daughter]’s need to move in and live there herself, I would need to reject [The landlord’s daughter]’s direct evidence. There is no basis for me to do that.”
I apply that same approach here.
The evidence establishes only that the kitchen rangehood and bathroom extractor were contaminated by methamphetamine during the tenancy, to the levels found in the detailed testing. It does not prove there was no pre-existing contamination. It does not prove the extent to which the contamination proved to have occurred during the tenancy, contributed to the levels found at the other sites tested.
The contamination levels found on the rangehood and extractor were both below the level at which remediation would be required in terms of NZS8510:2017 and very significantly below those at which remediation would be required applying the Gluckman Standard.
Allowing the premises to become methamphetamine contaminated during the tenancy is a breach of the tenant’s obligations. 14 The landlord should be compensated for the direct and reasonably foreseeable losses caused of that breach.
I assess the methamphetamine related claims as follows: a. the landlord should not be compensated for the cost of the composite test. That is a cost the landlord would have incurred whatever the results, so was not caused by the tenant’s breach; b. the landlord should be compensated for the detailed testing costs. Having allowed the premises to become contaminated, it is a direct and foreseeable consequence, that the landlord would need to arrange detailed testing to ascertain the location and concentration of any contamination; c. the landlord should not be compensated for remediation costs. As I have noted, the detailed testing does not prove that the tenant was responsible for contamination of the premises to a degree that decontamination was 14 S.40(1)(c) and (2)(b) required. That also includes claimed costs for removal of contaminated material and replacement of vacuum filters and replacement of the couch; d. a modest award of exemplary damages should be made for the tenant allowing the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. I note her direct evidence and do not find it proved that [The tenant/s] herself intentionally smoked or allowed methamphetamine to be smoked in the premises. However, the contamination was caused by an intentional act, and s.41 RTA makes her responsible for that intentional act. I take that into account as well as that the consequences for the landlord have been highly stressful. An award of 1/3 the maximum would be just. Chattels
Several of the landlord’s claims involve chattels said to have been provided as part of the tenancy found missing or damaged at the end of the tenancy.
A chattels list, signed by both parties, is included in the agreement. A second and more extensive list was provided in evidence by the landlord. It is not signed. I note that in the 2 October Order I found it proved that [The landlord/s] failed to provide [The tenant/s] with a full copy of the agreement. That failure is more likely than not to have included the chattels list now produced.
This is the landlord’s claim and the onus is on him to provide evidence to prove the claims. In case of dispute, I will generally take the signed chattels list included in the agreement, as the best evidence of the chattels provided with the tenancy.
Those claims are determined as follows: a. Air fryer – there is no dispute that an air fryer was provided, though not shown on the signed chattels list. It appears to have been unclean and damaged at the end of the tenancy and the landlord says it was then 6 months old so ought not to have failed through normal use. The tenant’s failure to notify the landlord about the damage 15 meant he could not make a warranty claim. On balance I find it more likely than not that the damage was more than fair wear and tear and the tenant should contribute to its replacement. Such chattels have a very limited life expectancy. b. Mop and bucket - there is no dispute that a mop and bucket was provided, though not shown on the signed chattels list. It appears to have been broken at the end of the tenancy. The evidence does not prove the damage was caused by other than normal wear and tear. That claim is declined. 15 Under s.40(1)(d) a tenant must notify the landlord of any damage and need for repair c. The cutlery, utensils, dish rack and roasting dish are not on the agreed chattels list. The tenant disputes that those were items removed during the tenancy. I do not find that claim proved. d. The evidence persuades me that although not included on the agreed chattels list an antique coal shuttle was left at the premises. The evidence suggests that the tenant took it with her, thinking it was hers, which was similar. The landlord should be compensated for the replacement cost as proved by the evidence of comparable items provided. e. The agreement records that a garage door padlock and key were provided. The tenant says that she didn’t use it. The landlord’s evidence, supported by photos is that the hasp was broken and key was not returned. As those items were included in the agreement, I find that claim proved on balance. f. A landlord may choose to replace keys at the end of a tenancy but is not entitled to be compensated for recutting all keys unless the tenant breaches her obligation to return the keys provided at the start 16 . That claim is not proved. g. The landlord has provided evidence showing a garden hose at the premises during the tenancy. The tenancy says it was hers. No hose is included in the signed chattels list. The landlord cannot prove his hose was taken. Carpet
Photographic evidence is supported by a builder’s statement dated 12 September 2025 that, “I helped the owner lift the carpet. There was a large
2m x 1.5m water stain visible on the subfloor where the carpet had been in the lounge. There was a smaller water stain on the subfloor in the bedroom. It appeared that the former tenant had saturated the carpet with water in the bedroom and living room. The carpet ws not salvageable and needed to be ripped up and thrown out.”
The landlord made an insurance claim and seeks compensation for the $1,000.00 excess on the claim.
The tenant’s evidence is that she hired a carpet cleaning machine and has provided photos which show the quantity of dirty water extracted from the carpet after cleaning, which she says proves that the carpet cannot have contained as much water as alleged. 16 S.40(1)(4) RTA
The photos and the builder’s statement prove it more likely than not that however well intentioned the tenant’s efforts to clean the carpet were, it resulted in the carpet needing to be replaced.
IRD depreciation tables give expected useful life for carpets in residential premises of 8 years. The carpet was older than that and so beyond its expected replacement date. I am however satisfied that it had some residual value and the landlord would not have chosen to replace it yet, but for the damage. The tenant should make a minor contribution to the replacement cost to reflect that residual value. Smoking
The evidence proves that there was smoking at the premises at least outside. The tenant acknowledges that she smoked outside, sometimes with the door open but says she didn’t smoke inside.
A cleaning quote obtained by the landlord says, “I was asked to provide a cleaning quote to clean [Tenancy address suppressed]. I attended the property on 8 th September. Upon entering the property I immediately observed: • A strong persistent cigarette odour throughout all rooms of the house • Black residue rings clearly visible around light fixtures, consistent with cigarette smoke damage • Yellowing/ discoloration on walls and ceilings indicating prolonged indoor smoking • The smoke odour was so strong it was noticeable from outside the property.
That evidence persuades me that it is more likely than not that the premises was damaged by stains and odours from smoke to the extent that: a. cleaning was required; b. the heat pump required a more thorough and earlier clean and service that would otherwise have been necessary; c. curtains needed to be replaced; d. the blinds needed cleaning.
Compensation is calculated as: a. $90.00 for the initial pre-paint cleaning work done to date, proved by the invoice provided; b. $250.00 of the $397.33 charged to the landlord for cleaning and service of the heat pump; c. $75.00 for the residual value of the curtains which were, like the carpets, beyond their projected useful life; d. $175.00 as a contribution to the landlord’s cost to have the blinds cleaned, against the quoted cost of $240.00, on the basis that the landlord will have received a benefit from a commercial clean of the blinds but may not need to have had them cleaned but for the smoke residues. Smoke Alarms
It is an unlawful act for a tenant to, “...cause or permit any interference with, or render inoperative, any means of escape from fire. 17 ”. That includes by interference with smoke alarms.
The landlord says that he found at the end of the tenancy that the smoke alarm was not working, took it home and mounted it on a bracket he had there and found it to be working. He then took it back to the premises, installed it and it was working there too.
I accept the landlord’s evidence about that.
The tenant gave direct evidence that she did not touch or interfere with the smoke alarm.
The landlord did not test the alarm at the start of the tenancy and is therefore unable to say whether the smoke alarm was properly installed and working then. I cannot therefore find it proved that the reason it was not working at the end of the tenancy was because the tenant had tampered with it. That claim is dismissed. Window latch and curtain rail
A window latch and curtain rail were broken during the tenancy. The evidence supplied shows the damage is likely to be more than fair wear and tear. The tenant should compensate the landlord for the repair cost. These are fixtures rather than depreciating chattels, so replacement cost is appropriate, as proved by the landlord’s receipts. Wall repairs 17 S.40(2)(ab) RTA
The evidence satisfies me that there was painting and patching work done by the tenant on interior walls of the premises during the tenancy.
The landlord insists it is intentional damage, to try and conceal the methamphetamine contamination the tenant knew she had caused.
The tenant says there was no major painting done but some filling of holes and overpainting was done to cover up holes where things had been hung on the walls.
Like the carpet cleaning, the tenant’s efforts may have been well intentioned, but the result was a need for further repair. The work did not leave a satisfactory finish.
The landlord has obtained an estimate of $7,000.00 for the interior walls and ceilings in the premises to be filled, plastered and painted.
I find it proved that the work needs to be done now as a result of damage caused by the tenant. I accept that the landlord would not have done the work now had that damage not been caused. Repainting of the interior was not needed as part of the methamphetamine remediation that I have found the tenant is not responsible for.
Having a complete and professional repaint of all walls and ceilings in the premises will however result in a very considerable improvement of the premises, from which the landlord will benefit. With normal wear and tear, an interior repaint for residential rental premises will be required on a reasonably regular basis.
The tenant should compensate the landlord for: a. the cost of any additional repair/ preparation work necessary before the repaint because of damage caused by her; and b. the loss caused by the work having to be done now, rather than later in the life of the interior paintwork.
I assess that compensation at $1,500.00. Loss of rents
If a tenant breaches their obligations by causing damage to the premises, loss to the landlord by not being able to rent the premises while repairs are carried out is a direct and foreseeable consequence.
The duration of that loss is however within the control of the landlord and his contractors, not the tenant, so caution is necessary in assessing compensation for that loss.
Here, the damage for which the tenant has been found responsible, caused the need to replace the carpet and curtains (due for replacement shortly anyway) but most obviously the need to have painters repair and repaint interior walls.
My finding is that the landlord’s loss of 3 weeks’ rent while that repair work was carried out is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the tenant’s damage.
I understand that the actual period during which the premises could not be rented is longer than that but some of the delay will have been to meth clean and remediate. As I have noted, the time taken to have the premises repaired and ready to relet, is within the landlord’s decision making and knowledge, not the tenant’s.
The award is to compensate the landlord for loss. His evidence is that his daughter was to rent the premises for around $250.00 per week so it is loss of that rent, not a loss of the rent the tenant was paying, that is relevant. General damages
The tenant seeks an award of general damages as compensation for false accusations leading to stress, embarrassment and loss of reputation.
General damages can be awarded to compensate for pain or suffering or emotional distress” 18 . However, a breach of the landlord’s obligations must first be proved, on which to base the compensation claim.
Here, the claim is that the landlord made unsubstantiated and serious allegations. There is some truth in that. However, a party is entitled to put claims to the Tribunal for consideration. If those claims are vexatious or frivolous that can be reflected in costs 19 . Suppression mitigates the consequences of those allegations.
The tenant has not proved a breach by the landlord of obligations owed under the agreement or the Act for which compensation either by way of general damages or otherwise, should be paid. Landlord’s labour
Time spent by a landlord managing residential rental properties is to be expected.
Here, the landlord was required to spend time helping with paint preparation, managing the meth remediation work, carpet and curtain replacement and painting. 18 See Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 (at para [35]) 19 See s.102(2)(a) RTA
I have found that the methamphetamine remediation is not proved to have been the tenant’s responsibility. The work done organising replacement of the carpets and curtains was required a little earlier than might otherwise have been required.
The landlord says he did some stripping of paint applied by the tenant, before the interior repaint.
The evidence does not prove a loss incurred by the landlord for undertaking those tasks, for which additional compensation should be paid. Costs
Generally, the Tribunal does not have power to award costs 20 . It can do so where the proceedings are vexatious or frivolous or where any party is represented by counsel.
Both parties have incurred costs for representation and advice.
Each has taken a combative approach to these proceedings. Time has been spent dealing with claims from both parties that ought not have been brought.
Over the proceedings as a whole, each party has had some claims upheld and several dismissed.
There is no obvious reason why each party should not bear their own costs.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5312364 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5312364 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions