How much money was awarded in case 5313323?

Cleaning: $345.06 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $777.40 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $133.25 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $163.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $10.01 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing: $309.35 awarded to landlord; Rent In Credit: $142.29 awarded to tenant; Walls and Doors: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Bedroom Carpet: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: net curtain in…: $204.64 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5313323?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5313323?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12297897-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5313323?

Cleaning: $345.06 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $777.40 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $133.25 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $163.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $10.01 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing: $309.35 awarded to landlord; Rent In Credit: $142.29 awarded to tenant; Walls and Doors: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Bedroom Carpet: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: net curtain in…: $204.64 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5313323?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5313323?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12297897-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5313323 — Cleanliness

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5313323 about?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5313323 — net $2,294.92 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet Cleaning: during tenancy	$345.06		Carpet Cleaning: during tenancy
Carpet Cleaning: end of tenancy	$777.40		Carpet Cleaning: end of tenancy
Lock/key replacement: during tenancy	$163.50		Lock/key replacement: during tenancy
Lock/key replacement: letterbox	$10.01		Lock/key replacement: letterbox
Cleaning: net curtains	$133.25		Cleaning: net curtains
Meth testing	$309.35		Meth testing
Replace furnishings: bedroom carpet	$650.00		Replace furnishings: bedroom carpet
Replace furnishings: net curtain in lounge	$204.64		Replace furnishings: net curtain in lounge
Repairs: Holes in walls and doors	$200.00		Repairs: Holes in walls and doors
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Rent in credit		$142.29	Rent in credit
Total award	$2,821.21	$142.29
Net award	$2,294.92
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,294.92

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

Nora Katene must pay [The landlord/s] $2,294.92 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $384.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. There was no attendance 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.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations during and at the end of the tenancy?

The tenant is required to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

During an inspection, the landlord discovered stains on the carpet in bedroom 2 caused during the tenancy. The tenant failed to clean the carpet as promised and the landlord was required to do the work. The tenant is liable for the cleaning costs.

The tenant asked the landlord to change the locks during the tenancy and is liable for the cost.

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).

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, as shown in photos produced in evidence. The carpets and curtains were stained and smelt. There was evidence of the tenant keeping a dog at the property which caused some of the stains and smell from pet urine.

The tenant did not return the keys to the letterbox.

The 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.

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.

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Stains and smell on the carpet in one of the bedrooms did not come out with cleaning and the carpet required replacement; a net curtain in the lounge was ripped and required replacement; there were holes in the lounge walls, a bedroom wall and the bathroom door that had to be repaired. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered are proved.

I have taken into account 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 have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. In this the case the premises and all fixtures were brand new at the start of the tenancy and this was the first tenancy. Claim for methamphetamine contamination

In June 2017, Standards New Zealand published New Zealand Standard 8510:2017 Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine-contaminated properties (the NZ standard) for testing and decontamination of methamphetamine (meth) contaminated properties. It adopted a maximum acceptable level of meth contamination in an affected property of 1.5μg/100cm² for high use areas, for both manufacture and use. Beyond that level, a property was regarded as needing decontamination. If a property needs decontamination, then for the purposes of the RTA, the property is damaged.

On 29 May 2018, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the then Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, released a report titled; “Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposure, risk levels and interpretation of standards” (the Gluckman report). This report concluded that, in the case of third-hand contact, exposure to meth at levels below 15μg/100cm² was unlikely to have an adverse effect and remediation to the 1.5μg/100cm² standard was only appropriate if there was reason to suspect manufacturing activity.

In Full Circle Real Estate v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947, the District Court considered an appeal from a decision of the Tribunal which adopted the Gluckman report and stated at paragraph [36] “the best state of knowledge of risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination available to the adjudicator was the Gluckman report. It would have been bold for the adjudicator to have ignored that report in favour of the New Zealand Standard given that the Gluckman report represents the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination in dwellings”.

Accordingly, the Tribunal has treated Full Circle Real Estate as confirmation that the Gluckman report is to be applied rather than the NZ standard.

It is now well settled that to recover the costs of remediating premises contaminated by meth, the landlord must prove; a. That the premises have been contaminated beyond the “safe level” promulgated by the Gluckman report such that the premises are damaged; and b. The damage occurred during the tenancy.

In this case, the landlord did not test the premises for meth prior to the tenancy starting. If there is no testing of the premises before, or at the start of the tenancy, as is the case here, the immediate hurdle is proving that the contamination at the end of the tenancy was caused by the tenant. In the absence of a baseline test, it is much harder for a landlord to establish that the contamination occurred during the tenancy. However, I accept that the premises were brand new in this case and this tenant was the first occupant.

At the end of the tenancy, the landlord had cause to suspect the use of meth at the property and arranged for a composite test. Sample A comprised of 5 surface samples and Sample B comprised of 4 surface samples. Sample A contained a meth level of 10.6 μg/100cm² and sample B contained a meth level of 4.75 μg/100cm². The landlord did not arrange for discrete testing of individual samples to determine the actual level of meth present.

Based on the composite test results it is clear that the meth level is below the safe level of 15 μg/100cm². Therefore, it follows that the premises have not been contaminated.

The landlord says that the contractor they engaged to conduct the testing recommended that the premises should be cleaned to reduce the levels of meth. They seek the cleaning cost they incurred for that purpose of $1,035.00.

While the premises may not be contaminated and damaged, they argue that the presence of meth is a breach of the tenancy agreement and section 40(2)(b) RTA which prohibits the tenant from using the premises, or permitting the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose. It is an imprisonable offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 (MDA) to use any controlled drug, or to knowingly permit any premises to be used for consuming controlled drugs, which includes meth (ss7 and 12 MDA). Therefore, the landlord argues that they are entitled to clean the property and reduce the level of meth present.

I am not persuaded that the landlord may claim cleaning cost to reduce the level of meth present at the property because they have not proved that the premises are contaminated and require cleaning. Therefore the claim is dismissed.

As the landlord has substantially succeeded with their application, they are entitled to suppression of their name and identifying details as requested and to reimbursement of the filing fee. .

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5313323 — net $2,294.92 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet Cleaning: during tenancy	$345.06		Carpet Cleaning: during tenancy
Carpet Cleaning: end of tenancy	$777.40		Carpet Cleaning: end of tenancy
Lock/key replacement: during tenancy	$163.50		Lock/key replacement: during tenancy
Lock/key replacement: letterbox	$10.01		Lock/key replacement: letterbox
Cleaning: net curtains	$133.25		Cleaning: net curtains
Meth testing	$309.35		Meth testing
Replace furnishings: bedroom carpet	$650.00		Replace furnishings: bedroom carpet
Replace furnishings: net curtain in lounge	$204.64		Replace furnishings: net curtain in lounge
Repairs: Holes in walls and doors	$200.00		Repairs: Holes in walls and doors
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Rent in credit		$142.29	Rent in credit
Total award	$2,821.21	$142.29
Net award	$2,294.92
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,294.92

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

Nora Katene must pay [The landlord/s] $2,294.92 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $384.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. There was no attendance 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.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations during and at the end of the tenancy?

The tenant is required to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

The tenant asked the landlord to change the locks during the tenancy and is liable for the cost.

The tenant did not return the keys to the letterbox.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The amounts ordered are proved.

Accordingly, the Tribunal has treated Full Circle Real Estate as confirmation that the Gluckman report is to be applied rather than the NZ standard.

Based on the composite test results it is clear that the meth level is below the safe level of 15 μg/100cm². Therefore, it follows that the premises have not been contaminated.

As the landlord has substantially succeeded with their application, they are entitled to suppression of their name and identifying details as requested and to reimbursement of the filing fee. .

Tenancy Tribunal case 5313323 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5313323 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations during and 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

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations during and 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