What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4405350?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4405350?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $308.60 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $9,487.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,376.55 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,613.57 awarded to landlord; Previous order: application 4340881…: $8,970.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,821.40 awarded to landlord; Holes In The Walls: $747.50 awarded to landlord; Walls And Door Frames: $5,111.93 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $306.98 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4405350?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage, Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4405350?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9182283-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4405350?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4405350?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $308.60 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $9,487.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,376.55 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,613.57 awarded to landlord; Previous order: application 4340881…: $8,970.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,821.40 awarded to landlord; Holes In The Walls: $747.50 awarded to landlord; Walls And Door Frames: $5,111.93 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $306.98 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4405350?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage, Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4405350?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9182283-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1004, 17 Vogel Lane, Auckland Central, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4405350 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4405350 — net $29,964.91 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears: 22 July 2022 to 15 August 2022	$1,821.40	Rent arrears: 22 July 2022 to 15 August 2022
Previous order: application 4340881 dated 19/07/2022	$8,970.44	Previous order: application 4340881 dated 19/07/2022
Lock/key replacement: Eviction lock change	$308.60	Lock/key replacement: Eviction lock change
Meth testing/Cleaning: Pre-decontamination test	$1,613.57	Meth testing/Cleaning: Pre-decontamination test
Meth testing/Cleaning: Methamphetamine decontamination	$9,487.50	Meth testing/Cleaning: Methamphetamine decontamination
Meth testing/Cleaning: Post-decontamination test	$1,376.55	Meth testing/Cleaning: Post-decontamination test
Repairs: Holes in the walls	$747.50	Repairs: Holes in the walls
Repairs: Walls and door frames	$5,111.93	Repairs: Walls and door frames
Replace furnishings: Damaged doors	$306.98	Replace furnishings: Damaged doors
Rubbish removal: Including damaged doors	$200.00	Rubbish removal: Including damaged doors
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$29,964.91
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$29,964.91

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Persephone Rihanna and Lawrence Hunia must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Jeff Lau $29,964.91 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears: 22 July 2022 to 15 August 2022$1,821.40 Previous order: application 4340881 dated 19/07/2022$8,970.44 Lock/key replacement: Eviction lock change$308.60 Meth testing/Cleaning: Pre-decontamination test$1,613.57 Meth testing/Cleaning: Methamphetamine decontamination $9,487.50 Meth testing/Cleaning: Post-decontamination test$1,376.55 Repairs: Holes in the walls$747.50 Repairs: Walls and door frames$5,111.93 Replace furnishings: Damaged doors$306.98 Rubbish removal: Including damaged doors$200.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$29,964.91 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$29,964.91

Reasons

Mr Srivastava and Mr Joseph attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord.
On 12 April 2023, I adjourned the hearing because the landlord submitted a bundle of documents to support the claims for approximately $20,000. The amount of damages sought substantially differed from the application filed with the Tribunal on 22 September 2022.
It was in the interest of justice to adjourn the hearing for the landlord to provide the tenant with a copy of the bundle of documents submitted in the hearing today. The adjournment also gave the Tenancy Services to notify the tenant of the hearing date and time if the tenant wanted to participate in the process.
The tenant did not appear today. Nor did the tenant appear for the previous hearing on 12 April 2023.
The landlord submitted an email to the tenant with a download link. The email to the tenant was dated 12 April 2023. The email address is the same for Ms Rihanna and Mr Hunia. The Tenancy Services also notified the tenant as per the usual practice.
I am satisfied that the hearing can proceed in the tenant’s absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Eviction fee
The landlord seeks $200 as compensation. This relates to the eviction fee paid to the bailiff who removed the tenant from the premises.
I have decided not to grant this compensation because it is a cost that resulted from the tenant’s failure to vacate the premises upon termination. It is recoverable because this cost is automatically included in the District Court's process when a landlord seeks to enforce an Order through the court. I am not awarding it today to avoid any possible duplication of the cost. The landlord can inquire with Collections/Enforcement for further assistance on this matter.
The claim for compensation for the eviction fee is dismissed.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 21 July 2022 as per Tribunal Order 4340881 dated 19 July 2022. The tenant vacated the premises on 15 August 2022. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy is $1,821.40.

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 landlord submitted evidence to support the claims. I went through the evidence with the landlord in the hearing.
I am more than satisfied that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The rubbish included the doors damaged by the tenant during the tenancy, household rubbish and drug paraphernalia ... etc.
The tenant did not return the keys. The landlord incurred the cost of replacing the lock.
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: a. Holes in the walls; b. Walls and door frames; and c. Use of methamphetamine during the tenancy. Damages to the walls and doors
The damages to the walls and doors are consistent with a person withdrawing from methamphetamine. The damage to the premises was extensive, and the evidence before me supports that the tenant applied force intentionally during the tenancy.
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 did not factor in any improvements or depreciation as the damages were done intentionally. Furthermore, walls and doors have a typically long lifespan. It is my view that the tenant is entirely accountable for the damages, and it is their responsibility to restore the landlord to their original position before the breach of obligations. Use of methamphetamine during the tenancy
After the tenant vacated the premises, the landlord inspected and discovered drug paraphernalia. The landlord then initiated a pre-decontamination test and discovered that the premises was contaminated with methamphetamine.
The landlord did not submit evidence of a pre-tenancy methamphetamine test. However, the landlord submitted evidence of drug paraphernalia found in the premises to support that the tenant consumed methamphetamine during the tenancy.
Based on the evidence, I am satisfied that the property was contaminated with methamphetamine during the tenancy.
Detailed methamphetamine assessment testing was undertaken on 29 August 2022 with readings throughout the premises of up to 75μg/100cm2 which exceed both the current New Zealand Standard of 1.5μg/100cm2 as well as the opinion from the Chief Science Advisor Sir Peter Gluckman of 15μg/100cm2 regarded as acceptable levels.
The high readings of methamphetamine also indicate that the tenant used the premises for an unlawful purpose.
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord did not seek exemplary damage in the hearing. No exemplary damage is awarded.
I award the landlord for the cost of the pre-contamination test, decontamination and post-decontamination test. Filing fee
Because Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Jeff Lau has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4405350 — net $29,964.91 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears: 22 July 2022 to 15 August 2022	$1,821.40	Rent arrears: 22 July 2022 to 15 August 2022
Previous order: application 4340881 dated 19/07/2022	$8,970.44	Previous order: application 4340881 dated 19/07/2022
Lock/key replacement: Eviction lock change	$308.60	Lock/key replacement: Eviction lock change
Meth testing/Cleaning: Pre-decontamination test	$1,613.57	Meth testing/Cleaning: Pre-decontamination test
Meth testing/Cleaning: Methamphetamine decontamination	$9,487.50	Meth testing/Cleaning: Methamphetamine decontamination
Meth testing/Cleaning: Post-decontamination test	$1,376.55	Meth testing/Cleaning: Post-decontamination test
Repairs: Holes in the walls	$747.50	Repairs: Holes in the walls
Repairs: Walls and door frames	$5,111.93	Repairs: Walls and door frames
Replace furnishings: Damaged doors	$306.98	Replace furnishings: Damaged doors
Rubbish removal: Including damaged doors	$200.00	Rubbish removal: Including damaged doors
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$29,964.91
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$29,964.91

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Persephone Rihanna and Lawrence Hunia must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Jeff Lau $29,964.91 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears: 22 July 2022 to 15 August 2022$1,821.40 Previous order: application 4340881 dated 19/07/2022$8,970.44 Lock/key replacement: Eviction lock change$308.60 Meth testing/Cleaning: Pre-decontamination test$1,613.57 Meth testing/Cleaning: Methamphetamine decontamination $9,487.50 Meth testing/Cleaning: Post-decontamination test$1,376.55 Repairs: Holes in the walls$747.50 Repairs: Walls and door frames$5,111.93 Replace furnishings: Damaged doors$306.98 Rubbish removal: Including damaged doors$200.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$29,964.91 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$29,964.91

Reasons

Mr Srivastava and Mr Joseph attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord.
On 12 April 2023, I adjourned the hearing because the landlord submitted a bundle of documents to support the claims for approximately $20,000. The amount of damages sought substantially differed from the application filed with the Tribunal on 22 September 2022.
It was in the interest of justice to adjourn the hearing for the landlord to provide the tenant with a copy of the bundle of documents submitted in the hearing today. The adjournment also gave the Tenancy Services to notify the tenant of the hearing date and time if the tenant wanted to participate in the process.
The tenant did not appear today. Nor did the tenant appear for the previous hearing on 12 April 2023.
The landlord submitted an email to the tenant with a download link. The email to the tenant was dated 12 April 2023. The email address is the same for Ms Rihanna and Mr Hunia. The Tenancy Services also notified the tenant as per the usual practice.
I am satisfied that the hearing can proceed in the tenant’s absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Eviction fee
The landlord seeks $200 as compensation. This relates to the eviction fee paid to the bailiff who removed the tenant from the premises.
I have decided not to grant this compensation because it is a cost that resulted from the tenant’s failure to vacate the premises upon termination. It is recoverable because this cost is automatically included in the District Court's process when a landlord seeks to enforce an Order through the court. I am not awarding it today to avoid any possible duplication of the cost. The landlord can inquire with Collections/Enforcement for further assistance on this matter.
The claim for compensation for the eviction fee is dismissed.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 21 July 2022 as per Tribunal Order 4340881 dated 19 July 2022. The tenant vacated the premises on 15 August 2022. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy is $1,821.40.

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 landlord submitted evidence to support the claims. I went through the evidence with the landlord in the hearing.
I am more than satisfied that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The rubbish included the doors damaged by the tenant during the tenancy, household rubbish and drug paraphernalia ... etc.
The tenant did not return the keys. The landlord incurred the cost of replacing the lock.
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: a. Holes in the walls; b. Walls and door frames; and c. Use of methamphetamine during the tenancy. Damages to the walls and doors
The damages to the walls and doors are consistent with a person withdrawing from methamphetamine. The damage to the premises was extensive, and the evidence before me supports that the tenant applied force intentionally during the tenancy.
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 did not factor in any improvements or depreciation as the damages were done intentionally. Furthermore, walls and doors have a typically long lifespan. It is my view that the tenant is entirely accountable for the damages, and it is their responsibility to restore the landlord to their original position before the breach of obligations. Use of methamphetamine during the tenancy
After the tenant vacated the premises, the landlord inspected and discovered drug paraphernalia. The landlord then initiated a pre-decontamination test and discovered that the premises was contaminated with methamphetamine.
The landlord did not submit evidence of a pre-tenancy methamphetamine test. However, the landlord submitted evidence of drug paraphernalia found in the premises to support that the tenant consumed methamphetamine during the tenancy.
Based on the evidence, I am satisfied that the property was contaminated with methamphetamine during the tenancy.
Detailed methamphetamine assessment testing was undertaken on 29 August 2022 with readings throughout the premises of up to 75μg/100cm2 which exceed both the current New Zealand Standard of 1.5μg/100cm2 as well as the opinion from the Chief Science Advisor Sir Peter Gluckman of 15μg/100cm2 regarded as acceptable levels.
The high readings of methamphetamine also indicate that the tenant used the premises for an unlawful purpose.
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord did not seek exemplary damage in the hearing. No exemplary damage is awarded.
I award the landlord for the cost of the pre-contamination test, decontamination and post-decontamination test. Filing fee
Because Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Jeff Lau has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4405350 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 1004, 17 Vogel Lane, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4405350 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 1004, 17 Vogel Lane, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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