What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4386940?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case.

How much money was awarded in case 4386940?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Rent: $2,369.72 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,496.42 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4386940?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4386940?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9581601-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4386940?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case.

How much money was awarded in case 4386940?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Rent: $2,369.72 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,496.42 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4386940?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4386940?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9581601-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

16 Leaming Place, Clarks Beach, Clarks Beach 2122 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4386940 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4386940 — net $2,319.24 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent to 4 February 2023	$2,369.72	Rent to 4 February 2023
Rubbish removal	$1,496.42	Rubbish removal
Lawns	$50.00	Lawns
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,319.24
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,319.24

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case.
Peter Vaughan must pay Port Property Management Limited T/A Harcourts $2,319.24 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the remaining bond of $1,617.34 (5164112-003) to Port Property Management Limited T/A Harcourts immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the telephone hearing on 9 October 2023. The purpose of the hearing was to consider the landlord’s remaining claims.
The tenant was provided with an opportunity to provide further evidence following the hearing, relating to the Auckland floods and the date of the ingoing inspection report. Nothing further had been received from the tenant by the deadline of 23 October 2023. Rent
The landlord claimed rent to 4 February 2023 in the sum of $2,369.72. The rent summary shows the last payment of rent was made on 26 January 2023.
The Tribunal granted possession of the property to the landlord on 26 January 2023. The parties subsequently agreed an extension for the tenant to vacate on 4 February 2023.
The tenant said that, due to the Auckland floods earlier this year, a state of emergency was declared, and all tenants significantly affected were to cease all rent payments. The tenant said the landlord was informed of this.
There is an email from the tenant to the Registrar, on 7 February 2023, which refers to the effect of the flooding: “We did our best to leave the house in as best condition we could notwithstanding the massive flow of water entering the building from the upper and lower levels as has been one of the issues with the property from soon after we took [the] tenancy in February 2020. The council, reference no 8250082614 deemed the property to be in critical condition”.
The exit inspection photographs, dated 7 February 2023, do not show any obvious damage of the kind that might be caused by flooding. The landlord has checked with Auckland Council whether the property was “red stickered” in the Auckland flooding. The Council said its records for the property showed there was an incident during the flooding, but this had been allocated in error. The Council also confirmed that the property had no sticker allocated to it.
I am not satisfied that the property was uninhabitable as a result of the flooding in Auckland in January/February 2023. Accordingly, the rent does not abate. I award the rent arrears in the amount claimed. Methamphetamine testing
The landlord claimed $598.69 for methamphetamine testing performed during the tenancy at the tenant’s request.
A review of the emails provided shows, in summary, that the tenant believed he had made a request for testing to be done near the start of the tenancy, but it was not followed through. The tenant said he was a qualified tester in the past and had ordered a test kit. A preliminary test was positive. A more accurate assessment was then done, and the tenant believed a further test was needed. The affected rooms were downstairs, and the tenant was concerned that one of the rooms had a lock on it from the inside. The tenant also referred to inflamed skin and said he worked in the affected rooms. They had left their former tenancy for the same reason.
In an email on 10 August 2022 the tenant said the test results in the “west room” were 1.5ug/100cm2 and in the “east room” were 0.5ug/100cm2.
The landlord then arranged for Meth Solutions to attend the property. Testing was performed on 15 August 2022. On 18 August 2023, the landlord reported that the test results showed no methamphetamine and attached the results (which the Tribunal has not seen). On 5 September 2022 the landlord advised that they had been instructed to charge for the testing.
The tenant disputes the claim on the basis he was not informed he would be responsible for the cost.
There are currently no regulations under the Act which prescribe when landlords must test for contaminants, the maximum acceptable levels for such contaminants, how they should be tested for or how decontamination processes should be performed. The New Zealand Standard relating to testing and decontamination (NZS 8510:2017) merely indicates that a screening assessment can be used to determine the presence of contamination (at 3.1.3) which is the assessment that appears to have been done.
The tenancy agreement provides (at clause 24) that the landlord has the right at all reasonable times to enter to inspect, including to test for methamphetamine, but the clause does not purport to pass this cost on to the tenant. There is no provision in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 which governs the position.
I appreciate the bind the landlord was in, as the landlord explained. If the request for testing was declined, and the premises turned out to be badly contaminated, the landlord might be found liable for not providing a healthy home. If the request for testing was approved, but turned out to be a false alarm, as it did, then the landlord would be left out of pocket.
In the absence of specific regulations, I consider the matter ought to be addressed from the standpoint of the landlord’s maintenance obligations. If potential methamphetamine contamination is brought to the landlord’s attention, and there is some reasonable basis for this, then that is in effect notification of possible damage or need for repair, and the landlord has an obligation to investigate.
Here, the landlord was being told in good faith by a tenant, who claimed to have specialist knowledge and qualifications, that further testing was needed. Responding positively to that request was in accordance with the landlord’s maintenance obligations. Without an express clause allowing the cost to be passed on if the further testing turned out to be unnecessary, there is no legal basis for the tenant to be asked to reimburse this cost. Cleaning
The landlord claimed cleaning costs of $724.50. This claim was withdrawn at the hearing because there was an issue with the cleanliness of the property at the start of the tenancy. The tenant had been told on 22 April 2020 that he would not be held responsible for the same cleaning at the end of the tenancy. Rubbish
The landlord claimed $1,301.24 for rubbish removal. The costs claimed appear to be the costs exclusive of GST.
The charges, including GST, total $1,496.42: • $230.00 for labour to dismantle furniture in the house for access by the carpet layer and disposal at the refuse station. • $156.42 for disposal fees by weight. • $650.00 for hire of a 10 cubic meter skip bin. • $460.00 for labour to break down rubbish in the garage and around the house and place in the skip.
The exit inspection report identifies rubbish in photographs 1, 14-17, 21-27, and 31-37 (in the garage). There is a bed and mattress shown in bedroom 1, some cabinets in bedroom 2, a wooden table in bedroom 4, and bookshelves in the lounge. The landlord said the recycle bin was full of non-recyclable items.
Overall, although the tenants clearly did their best to leave the property vacant, there was a large quantity of rubbish and hard rubbish left behind requiring disposal. The rubbish removal costs incurred are reasonable. I award the rubbish removal costs based on the actual charges. Lawns
The landlord claimed $171.93 for lawn mowing and weeding. The lawns look reasonably tidy in the entry report dated 18 February 2020. They were brown in places and clearly affected by the drought conditions typical at that time of the year. It is not clear that all the lawn edges and hedges were tidy (see for example, photograph 80).
That said, the lawns were definitely ready for mowing in the exit report dated 7 February 2023. The invoice provided from the contractor is dated 3 April 2023, which suggests the lawns were left unattended between February and April. This would have increased the work involved.
I award $50.00 for lawn mowing, on the basis that, if this had been performed after the tenant left in February, both the lawns and the gardens, while not perfect, would have been left reasonably tidy. Other matters
The tenant raised an issue about the date stamp on the ingoing inspection report dated 18 February 2020. The tenant noted that the photographs are stamped as having been taken at 11pm at night, when they were clearly taken in the daytime. The tenant says that misleading documents have been submitted to the Tribunal; the photographs have been backdated to cover up the landlord’s failure to comply with the Act.
It is difficult to rule on this issue in the absence of further evidence from the tenant. Even if the ingoing report was misdated, it is not easy to see how this would affect the landlord’s claims. It does not follow that all the landlord’s evidence should be disregarded as unreliable because of a misdated/mistimed document. Filing fee
The Tribunal dealt with possession in its order dated 26 January 2023 and with water charges in its order dated 12 April 2023. The Tribunal indicated that the filing fee would be addressed at the end of the proceedings.
The landlord has been substantially successful overall. It is appropriate to award the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4386940 — net $2,319.24 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent to 4 February 2023	$2,369.72	Rent to 4 February 2023
Rubbish removal	$1,496.42	Rubbish removal
Lawns	$50.00	Lawns
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,319.24
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,319.24

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case.
Peter Vaughan must pay Port Property Management Limited T/A Harcourts $2,319.24 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the remaining bond of $1,617.34 (5164112-003) to Port Property Management Limited T/A Harcourts immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the telephone hearing on 9 October 2023. The purpose of the hearing was to consider the landlord’s remaining claims.
The tenant was provided with an opportunity to provide further evidence following the hearing, relating to the Auckland floods and the date of the ingoing inspection report. Nothing further had been received from the tenant by the deadline of 23 October 2023. Rent
The landlord claimed rent to 4 February 2023 in the sum of $2,369.72. The rent summary shows the last payment of rent was made on 26 January 2023.
The Tribunal granted possession of the property to the landlord on 26 January 2023. The parties subsequently agreed an extension for the tenant to vacate on 4 February 2023.
The tenant said that, due to the Auckland floods earlier this year, a state of emergency was declared, and all tenants significantly affected were to cease all rent payments. The tenant said the landlord was informed of this.
There is an email from the tenant to the Registrar, on 7 February 2023, which refers to the effect of the flooding: “We did our best to leave the house in as best condition we could notwithstanding the massive flow of water entering the building from the upper and lower levels as has been one of the issues with the property from soon after we took [the] tenancy in February 2020. The council, reference no 8250082614 deemed the property to be in critical condition”.
The exit inspection photographs, dated 7 February 2023, do not show any obvious damage of the kind that might be caused by flooding. The landlord has checked with Auckland Council whether the property was “red stickered” in the Auckland flooding. The Council said its records for the property showed there was an incident during the flooding, but this had been allocated in error. The Council also confirmed that the property had no sticker allocated to it.
I am not satisfied that the property was uninhabitable as a result of the flooding in Auckland in January/February 2023. Accordingly, the rent does not abate. I award the rent arrears in the amount claimed. Methamphetamine testing
The landlord claimed $598.69 for methamphetamine testing performed during the tenancy at the tenant’s request.
A review of the emails provided shows, in summary, that the tenant believed he had made a request for testing to be done near the start of the tenancy, but it was not followed through. The tenant said he was a qualified tester in the past and had ordered a test kit. A preliminary test was positive. A more accurate assessment was then done, and the tenant believed a further test was needed. The affected rooms were downstairs, and the tenant was concerned that one of the rooms had a lock on it from the inside. The tenant also referred to inflamed skin and said he worked in the affected rooms. They had left their former tenancy for the same reason.
In an email on 10 August 2022 the tenant said the test results in the “west room” were 1.5ug/100cm2 and in the “east room” were 0.5ug/100cm2.
The landlord then arranged for Meth Solutions to attend the property. Testing was performed on 15 August 2022. On 18 August 2023, the landlord reported that the test results showed no methamphetamine and attached the results (which the Tribunal has not seen). On 5 September 2022 the landlord advised that they had been instructed to charge for the testing.
The tenant disputes the claim on the basis he was not informed he would be responsible for the cost.
There are currently no regulations under the Act which prescribe when landlords must test for contaminants, the maximum acceptable levels for such contaminants, how they should be tested for or how decontamination processes should be performed. The New Zealand Standard relating to testing and decontamination (NZS 8510:2017) merely indicates that a screening assessment can be used to determine the presence of contamination (at 3.1.3) which is the assessment that appears to have been done.
The tenancy agreement provides (at clause 24) that the landlord has the right at all reasonable times to enter to inspect, including to test for methamphetamine, but the clause does not purport to pass this cost on to the tenant. There is no provision in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 which governs the position.
I appreciate the bind the landlord was in, as the landlord explained. If the request for testing was declined, and the premises turned out to be badly contaminated, the landlord might be found liable for not providing a healthy home. If the request for testing was approved, but turned out to be a false alarm, as it did, then the landlord would be left out of pocket.
In the absence of specific regulations, I consider the matter ought to be addressed from the standpoint of the landlord’s maintenance obligations. If potential methamphetamine contamination is brought to the landlord’s attention, and there is some reasonable basis for this, then that is in effect notification of possible damage or need for repair, and the landlord has an obligation to investigate.
Here, the landlord was being told in good faith by a tenant, who claimed to have specialist knowledge and qualifications, that further testing was needed. Responding positively to that request was in accordance with the landlord’s maintenance obligations. Without an express clause allowing the cost to be passed on if the further testing turned out to be unnecessary, there is no legal basis for the tenant to be asked to reimburse this cost. Cleaning
The landlord claimed cleaning costs of $724.50. This claim was withdrawn at the hearing because there was an issue with the cleanliness of the property at the start of the tenancy. The tenant had been told on 22 April 2020 that he would not be held responsible for the same cleaning at the end of the tenancy. Rubbish
The landlord claimed $1,301.24 for rubbish removal. The costs claimed appear to be the costs exclusive of GST.
The charges, including GST, total $1,496.42: • $230.00 for labour to dismantle furniture in the house for access by the carpet layer and disposal at the refuse station. • $156.42 for disposal fees by weight. • $650.00 for hire of a 10 cubic meter skip bin. • $460.00 for labour to break down rubbish in the garage and around the house and place in the skip.
The exit inspection report identifies rubbish in photographs 1, 14-17, 21-27, and 31-37 (in the garage). There is a bed and mattress shown in bedroom 1, some cabinets in bedroom 2, a wooden table in bedroom 4, and bookshelves in the lounge. The landlord said the recycle bin was full of non-recyclable items.
Overall, although the tenants clearly did their best to leave the property vacant, there was a large quantity of rubbish and hard rubbish left behind requiring disposal. The rubbish removal costs incurred are reasonable. I award the rubbish removal costs based on the actual charges. Lawns
The landlord claimed $171.93 for lawn mowing and weeding. The lawns look reasonably tidy in the entry report dated 18 February 2020. They were brown in places and clearly affected by the drought conditions typical at that time of the year. It is not clear that all the lawn edges and hedges were tidy (see for example, photograph 80).
That said, the lawns were definitely ready for mowing in the exit report dated 7 February 2023. The invoice provided from the contractor is dated 3 April 2023, which suggests the lawns were left unattended between February and April. This would have increased the work involved.
I award $50.00 for lawn mowing, on the basis that, if this had been performed after the tenant left in February, both the lawns and the gardens, while not perfect, would have been left reasonably tidy. Other matters
The tenant raised an issue about the date stamp on the ingoing inspection report dated 18 February 2020. The tenant noted that the photographs are stamped as having been taken at 11pm at night, when they were clearly taken in the daytime. The tenant says that misleading documents have been submitted to the Tribunal; the photographs have been backdated to cover up the landlord’s failure to comply with the Act.
It is difficult to rule on this issue in the absence of further evidence from the tenant. Even if the ingoing report was misdated, it is not easy to see how this would affect the landlord’s claims. It does not follow that all the landlord’s evidence should be disregarded as unreliable because of a misdated/mistimed document. Filing fee
The Tribunal dealt with possession in its order dated 26 January 2023 and with water charges in its order dated 12 April 2023. The Tribunal indicated that the filing fee would be addressed at the end of the proceedings.
The landlord has been substantially successful overall. It is appropriate to award the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4386940 — Tenancy dispute at 16 Leaming Place, Clarks Beach, Clarks Beach 2122

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4386940 — Tenancy dispute at 16 Leaming Place, Clarks Beach, Clarks Beach 2122

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions