2D Melleray Place, Randwick Park, Auckland 2105 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5426113 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

2D Melleray Place, Randwick Park, Auckland 2105 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5426113 — Cleanliness | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards for application 5426113 — net $17,653.96 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Replace furnishings: remove stain from bedroom 2 wardrobe walls

Amount: $172.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace furnishings: remove stain from bedroom 2 wardrobe walls

Lock/key replacement: Sliding door

Amount: $298.55
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement: Sliding door

Replace furnishings: Garage door opener

Amount: $644.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace furnishings: Garage door opener

Rubbish removal: Hire skip bin

Amount: $517.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal: Hire skip bin

Rubbish removal

Amount: $552.00
Awarded to: Landlord

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Replace Smoke Alarms Rubbish Removal

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Jk Realty Group Limited T/A Harcourts Jk Realty As The Agent For Waipukurau Trust (Trustee: Sam Gounder) $17,653.96 immediately, being rent arrears to 16 December 2025.
The Bond centre shall pay the Landlord $3,320.00 immediately.

Reasons

The Landlord attended the hearing. The Tenants did not appear.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The tenancy was from 3 May 2024 to 16 December 2025. The Tenants abandoned the property.
The Landlord submitted the house was brand new built in 2023 and the Tenants were the first occupants.

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. As the Tenants abandoned the property there was considerable amount of items left behind including blankets, mattresses, appliances, food, cutlery and wood. A skip bin was required. Cleaning was also required of the entire house and the kitchen cabinets. Ingoing and outgoing inspection reports and invoices were provided to substantiate the costs.
The tenant did not return the keys for the ranch slider and the main entrance door required recoding. An invoice was provided for the repairs.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: The landlord had to replace four smoke alarms, garage opener remote, ONT box, sink grate, lounge and bedroom heat pump remotes, kitchen waste bin, oven grill and roast dish tray. Invoices were provided for the replacement items.
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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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: Damage to the garage walls, garage door, all the bedroom walls, bedroom 3 door frame, common bathroom door, stains on the floors, balustrade and hallway walls, skirting frames, ground level floor and the curtains. Ingoing and outgoing inspection reports were provided along with an invoice to substantiate the costs. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The Landlord claimed for repairs to the entrance gate, the exterior sensor light and the laundry sliding doors however there was no photo of the gate damage and the Landlord was uncertain of what the issue with the light and the damage to the laundry sliding doors.
These claims are dismissed.
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. Methamphetamine damage
The landlord has applied for compensation for the cost methamphetamine testing and remediation.
The landlord must prove that the tenant caused or permitted the contamination, or that it was caused by someone at the premises with the tenant’s consent. The landlord must also prove that, as a result of the contamination, the premises have been damaged or are not reasonably clean.
Section 138C Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides for regulations to be made prescribing the maximum acceptable level for contaminants, but as yet no regulations have been made in relation to methamphetamine.
There are currently two sources of guidance on the issue of a safe level of methamphetamine contamination in residential premises. In June 2017 Standards New Zealand published NZS 8510:2017. The standard recommended a maximum contamination level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 for high use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture. It recommended a higher level of 3.8μg/100cm 2 for limited use areas.
In May 2018 Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the then Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor, released a report "Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards”. The report noted that there is a lack of scientific evidence to prove that low-level third-hand methamphetamine exposure poses a health risk to humans. It stated that guidelines should be proportionate to risk and that exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm 2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect. It recommended retaining the level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 where contamination resulted from manufacture, due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the process.
The District Court has held that remediation should be carried out in accordance with the prevailing guidelines at the time (Diamond Real Estate Limited v Allan [2017] NZDC 833, Judge Kellar).
The Tribunal has generally applied the Gluckman recommendation. This approach was approved by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947, where the Court stated (at para [36]): The Tenancy Tribunal was in a difficult position. 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.
The District Court took a similar approach in Acme Realty Limited v Hogg and others [2021] NZDC 3231, where the Court referred to the Full Circle case and held that, because NZS 8510:2017 has not been adopted into law, the Tribunal was not bound to apply the 1.5μg standard.
More recently, in Barfoot and Thompson Limited v Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited [2021] NZTT Auckland 4276319, both parties presented scientific evidence at a hearing before the Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that there was no new scientific research to change the conclusions reached in the Gluckman Report.
The Landlord claimed for testing, decontamination and post decontamination testing. A pre-let test screening conducted by the Landlord which indicated less than 0.04 μg. When the Tenants vacated, the Landlord noted a cannabis odour. Baseline testing undertaken on 24 December 2025 indicated the presence of methamphetamine.On 29 December 2025, the Landlord conducted a composite test which indicated readings above 1.5 μg in bathroom 2, bedrooms 2 and 3 and the ensuite bathroom. The Landlord undertook decontamination around January 2026 and then re-tested the property on 13 January 2026. The Landlord provided test results and invoices to prove the amounts owing.
As Jk Realty Group Limited T/A Harcourts Jk Realty As The Agent For Waipukurau Trust (Trustee: Sam Gounder) has substantially succeeded with the claim the Tenants shall reimburse the filing fee.

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5426113 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Jk Realty Group Limited T/A Harcourts Jk

How much money was awarded in case 5426113?

Cleaning: $517.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $322.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Heatpump Remotes Lounge And Bedroom: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $298.55 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,092.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $7,734.03 awarded to landlord; Bedroom 1 Wall: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Bedroom 2: $113.71 awarded to landlord; Bedroom 3 Door: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Bedroom 3 Stains: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Bedroom 3 Wall Corner: $113.71 awarded to landlord; Bedroom 3 wardrobe stains and scribb…: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Cook Top: $319.46 awarded to landlord; Downstairs Hallway Walls: $517.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $422.75 awarded to landlord; Garage Walls: $517.50 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Walls, Frames And Skirtings: $402.50 awarded to landlord; Lounge Walls: $517.50 awarded to landlord; Pen marks, stains, graffitti bedroom…: $747.50 awarded to landlord; remove fly faeces kitchen and hallwa…: $402.50 awarded to landlord; Remove Graffiti Bedroom 2: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Remove Graffiti Common Bathroom Door: $113.71 awarded to landlord; Stair Walls Balustrade: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Upstairs Hallway Walls, Skirting: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Wardrobe In Bedroom 4: $74.75 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Curtain rod by…: $97.75 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Curtains bedroo…: $212.75 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Garage Door: $458.34 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Garage door ope…: $644.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Lounge Curtains: $327.75 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Missing oven gr…: $343.71 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Missing waste b…: $370.30 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: ONT Box: $172.05 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: remove stain fr…: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Sink Grate: $34.44 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $227.70 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $552.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $517.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5426113?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5426113?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13852396-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards for application 5426113 — net $17,653.96 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Replace furnishings: remove stain from bedroom 2 wardrobe walls

Amount: $172.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace furnishings: remove stain from bedroom 2 wardrobe walls

Lock/key replacement: Sliding door

Amount: $298.55
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement: Sliding door

Replace furnishings: Garage door opener

Amount: $644.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace furnishings: Garage door opener

Rubbish removal: Hire skip bin

Amount: $517.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal: Hire skip bin

Rubbish removal

Amount: $552.00
Awarded to: Landlord

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Replace Smoke Alarms Rubbish Removal

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Jk Realty Group Limited T/A Harcourts Jk Realty As The Agent For Waipukurau Trust (Trustee: Sam Gounder) $17,653.96 immediately, being rent arrears to 16 December 2025.
The Bond centre shall pay the Landlord $3,320.00 immediately.

Reasons

The Landlord attended the hearing. The Tenants did not appear.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The tenancy was from 3 May 2024 to 16 December 2025. The Tenants abandoned the property.
The Landlord submitted the house was brand new built in 2023 and the Tenants were the first occupants.

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. As the Tenants abandoned the property there was considerable amount of items left behind including blankets, mattresses, appliances, food, cutlery and wood. A skip bin was required. Cleaning was also required of the entire house and the kitchen cabinets. Ingoing and outgoing inspection reports and invoices were provided to substantiate the costs.
The tenant did not return the keys for the ranch slider and the main entrance door required recoding. An invoice was provided for the repairs.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: The landlord had to replace four smoke alarms, garage opener remote, ONT box, sink grate, lounge and bedroom heat pump remotes, kitchen waste bin, oven grill and roast dish tray. Invoices were provided for the replacement items.
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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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: Damage to the garage walls, garage door, all the bedroom walls, bedroom 3 door frame, common bathroom door, stains on the floors, balustrade and hallway walls, skirting frames, ground level floor and the curtains. Ingoing and outgoing inspection reports were provided along with an invoice to substantiate the costs. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The Landlord claimed for repairs to the entrance gate, the exterior sensor light and the laundry sliding doors however there was no photo of the gate damage and the Landlord was uncertain of what the issue with the light and the damage to the laundry sliding doors.
These claims are dismissed.
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. Methamphetamine damage
The landlord has applied for compensation for the cost methamphetamine testing and remediation.
The landlord must prove that the tenant caused or permitted the contamination, or that it was caused by someone at the premises with the tenant’s consent. The landlord must also prove that, as a result of the contamination, the premises have been damaged or are not reasonably clean.
Section 138C Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides for regulations to be made prescribing the maximum acceptable level for contaminants, but as yet no regulations have been made in relation to methamphetamine.
There are currently two sources of guidance on the issue of a safe level of methamphetamine contamination in residential premises. In June 2017 Standards New Zealand published NZS 8510:2017. The standard recommended a maximum contamination level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 for high use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture. It recommended a higher level of 3.8μg/100cm 2 for limited use areas.
In May 2018 Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the then Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor, released a report "Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards”. The report noted that there is a lack of scientific evidence to prove that low-level third-hand methamphetamine exposure poses a health risk to humans. It stated that guidelines should be proportionate to risk and that exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm 2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect. It recommended retaining the level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 where contamination resulted from manufacture, due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the process.
The District Court has held that remediation should be carried out in accordance with the prevailing guidelines at the time (Diamond Real Estate Limited v Allan [2017] NZDC 833, Judge Kellar).
The Tribunal has generally applied the Gluckman recommendation. This approach was approved by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947, where the Court stated (at para [36]): The Tenancy Tribunal was in a difficult position. 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.
The District Court took a similar approach in Acme Realty Limited v Hogg and others [2021] NZDC 3231, where the Court referred to the Full Circle case and held that, because NZS 8510:2017 has not been adopted into law, the Tribunal was not bound to apply the 1.5μg standard.
More recently, in Barfoot and Thompson Limited v Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited [2021] NZTT Auckland 4276319, both parties presented scientific evidence at a hearing before the Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that there was no new scientific research to change the conclusions reached in the Gluckman Report.
The Landlord claimed for testing, decontamination and post decontamination testing. A pre-let test screening conducted by the Landlord which indicated less than 0.04 μg. When the Tenants vacated, the Landlord noted a cannabis odour. Baseline testing undertaken on 24 December 2025 indicated the presence of methamphetamine.On 29 December 2025, the Landlord conducted a composite test which indicated readings above 1.5 μg in bathroom 2, bedrooms 2 and 3 and the ensuite bathroom. The Landlord undertook decontamination around January 2026 and then re-tested the property on 13 January 2026. The Landlord provided test results and invoices to prove the amounts owing.
As Jk Realty Group Limited T/A Harcourts Jk Realty As The Agent For Waipukurau Trust (Trustee: Sam Gounder) has substantially succeeded with the claim the Tenants shall reimburse the filing fee.

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5426113 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Jk Realty Group Limited T/A Harcourts Jk

How much money was awarded in case 5426113?

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5426113?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5426113?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13852396-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5426113 — Cleanliness at 2D Melleray Place, Randwick Park, Auckland 2105

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5426113 — Cleanliness at 2D Melleray Place, Randwick Park, Auckland 2105

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

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

Award balance

Claims & awards

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

Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace furnishings: remove stain from bedroom 2 wardrobe walls	$172.50	Replace furnishings: remove stain from bedroom 2 wardrobe walls
Lock/key replacement: Sliding door	$298.55	Lock/key replacement: Sliding door
Replace furnishings: Garage door opener	$644.00	Replace furnishings: Garage door opener
Rubbish removal: Hire skip bin	$517.50	Rubbish removal: Hire skip bin
Rubbish removal	$552.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs: Garage walls	$517.50	Repairs: Garage walls
Replace furnishings: Garage door	$458.34	Replace furnishings: Garage door
Replace furnishings: ONT box	$172.05	Replace furnishings: ONT box
Repairs: Bedroom 1 wall	$287.50	Repairs: Bedroom 1 wall
Replace furnishings: Curtains bedroom 1	$212.75	Replace furnishings: Curtains bedroom 1
Repairs: Bedroom 2	$113.71	Repairs: Bedroom 2
Repairs: Downstairs hallway walls	$517.50	Repairs: Downstairs hallway walls
Replace smoke alarms: x 4	$227.70	Replace smoke alarms: x 4
Heatpump remotes lounge and bedroom	$575.00	Heatpump remotes lounge and bedroom
Replace furnishings: Lounge curtains	$327.75	Replace furnishings: Lounge curtains
Repairs: Kitchen walls, frames and skirtings	$402.50	Repairs: Kitchen walls, frames and skirtings
Replace furnishings: Sink grate	$34.44	Replace furnishings: Sink grate
Repairs: Lounge walls	$517.50	Repairs: Lounge walls
Repairs: Stair walls balustrade	$287.50	Repairs: Stair walls balustrade
Repairs: Upstairs hallway walls, skirting	$287.50	Repairs: Upstairs hallway walls, skirting
Repairs: Wardrobe in bedroom 4	$74.75	Repairs: Wardrobe in bedroom 4
Repairs: Pen marks, stains, graffitti bedroom 4	$747.50	Repairs: Pen marks, stains, graffitti bedroom 4
Repairs: Bedroom 3 door	$172.50	Repairs: Bedroom 3 door
Repairs: Bedroom 3 stains	$287.50	Repairs: Bedroom 3 stains
Repairs: Bedroom 3 wardrobe stains and scribble	$172.50	Repairs: Bedroom 3 wardrobe stains and scribble
Repairs: Bedroom 3 wall corner	$113.71	Repairs: Bedroom 3 wall corner
Replace furnishings: Curtain rod by hallway window	$97.75	Replace furnishings: Curtain rod by hallway window
Repairs: remove graffiti common bathroom door	$113.71	Repairs: remove graffiti common bathroom door
Repairs: remove graffiti bedroom 2	$287.50	Repairs: remove graffiti bedroom 2
Repairs: remove fly faeces kitchen and hallway	$402.50	Repairs: remove fly faeces kitchen and hallway
Repairs: Cook top	$319.46	Repairs: Cook top
Replace furnishings: Missing waste bin	$370.30	Replace furnishings: Missing waste bin
Replace furnishings: Missing oven grill and roast dish	$343.71	Replace furnishings: Missing oven grill and roast dish
Cleaning	$517.50	Cleaning
Cleaning: Kitchen cabinets	$322.00	Cleaning: Kitchen cabinets
Meth testing/Cleaning: Baseline test	$230.00	Meth testing/Cleaning: Baseline test
Meth testing/Cleaning: Composite test	$1,092.50	Meth testing/Cleaning: Composite test
Meth testing/Cleaning: Decontamination	$7,734.03	Meth testing/Cleaning: Decontamination
Repairs: Floor damage ground floor	$422.75	Repairs: Floor damage ground floor
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$17,653.96
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$17,653.96