What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4655952?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,080.00 (5316847-009) to Eves Realty

How much money was awarded in case 4655952?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4655952?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4655952?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9756003-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4655952?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,080.00 (5316847-009) to Eves Realty

How much money was awarded in case 4655952?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4655952?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4655952?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9756003-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

51A Robinson Avenue, Holdens Bay, Rotorua 3010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4655952 — Cleanliness

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,080.00 (5316847-009) to Eves Realty Limited immediately.
Terri-Marie Dale Drummond is to pay Eves Realty Limited $15,849.75 immediately, calculated as follows: DescriptionLandlord Rent Arrears$34.29 Light Bulbs Replacement$247.71 Shower Curtain Replacement$24.00 Smoke Alarm Replacement$45.00 Rekeying Locks$123.63 Lawn and Garden Care$368.00 Rubbish Removal$690.00 Carpet Cleaning$180.00 House Cleaning (Exit Clean)$143.75 Methamphetamine Testing/Cleaning$4,885.32 Damaged Aluminium Glass Doors Repair$453.99 Internal Damage Repairs (Walls, Handles, etc.)$2,024.00 Repainting Costs$1,983.75 Incidental Repair Costs$300.00 Replacement of Door Hinges$248.40 Garage Door Repair$60.26 Kitchen and Toilet Glass Window Reglazing$151.46

Reasons

The Landlord attended the hearing. The Tenant did not.
The Landlord’s evidence, mostly in the form of photographs and oral evidence, proceeds unchallenged. However, I have endeavoured to scrutinise the Landlord’s claims.
The Landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy: $34.29

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: s 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy: s 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
Light bulbs: Two 10W LED Lamps required replacement at the end of the tenancy as they were missing. The approve the Landlord’s claim: $247.71
Shower curtain: Missing at the end of the tenancy, I award the Landlord’s claim of $24.00 for a replacement shower curtain.
Smoke alarm: The Tenant removed smoke alarms during the tenancy. They were present at the beginning of the tenancy and missing at the end. I award the Landlord $45.00 for replacing the smoke alarm.
Locks: The Tenant did not return the keys at the end of the tenancy. The cost of rekeying four locks came to $123.63. I approve this claim.
Lawns and TV Aerial: The Tenant did not mow the lawns or remove weeds from gardens and surrounds. A Sky TV Aerial, damaged by the Tenant’s dog, required removal. The cost of lawn and garden care – to return the property to a Trellis Fence Repair$995.75 Lost Rent (6 Weeks)$3,750.00 Exemplary Damages for Unlawful Methamphetamine Use $1,200.00 Filing Fee Reimbursement$20.44 Total award$17,929.75 Minus Bond$2,080.00 Tenant to Pay$15,849.75 reasonably clean and tidy state – came to $368.00, which amount and claim I approve.
Rubbish removal and cleaning: The Tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish as evidenced from the Landlord’s photographs taken before, during and after the tenancy. I award the following costs: a. Rubbish removal: $690.00 (2-3 large trailer loads and dump fees). b. Carpet clean: $180.00 (Jetvac) c. House clean (exit clean): $143.75
Methamphetamine testing/cleaning: The Landlord completed a pre-tenancy test and a post-tenancy test showing methamphetamine use at the premises during the tenancy. I award the following costs for restoring the tenancy to a reasonably clean and tidy state, free of methamphetamine contamination: a. Composite testing: $286.35 b. Individual testing: $2,545.07 c. Further individual test (due to Tenant’s children tampering with samples during testing): $358.80 d. Meth cleaning: $1,408.75 (sugar soap on walls and ceilings). e. Post clean composite test: $286.35

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:
Damaged aluminium glass doors: two glass panes were broken during the tenancy. The damage was more than fair wear and tear and sealing work was required at a cost of $453.99.
Internal damage as follows: a. Holes and dents in internal walls. The Landlord had a contractor plaster and sand all affected areas. The holes and dents in the walls have occurred due to significant impact, which are more severe than the minor scuffs or marks expected from normal wear and tear. Cost of repair: $250.00 b. Broken Handles in the Kitchen. The Landlord had a contractor replace or fix the broken handles. The damage to these handles is due to rough handling or excessive force, exceeding the gentle wear and tear typically seen with regular use. Cost of repair/replacement: $210.00 c. Damaged Doors in Bathroom, Toilet, Bedroom, and Hot Water Cupboard. The Landlord arranged for the replacement of all damaged doors. The extent of damage to these doors, likely from forceful shutting, slamming, or careless impact, is beyond what would be expected from normal wear and tear. Cost of replacement: $490.00 d. Missing or Broken Door Handles. The Landlord had a contractor replace the damaged or missing door handles. The condition of these handles suggests misuse or accidental damage, which is more than the usual wear from regular handling. Cost of replacement: $125.00 e. Broken Heater Brackets. The Landlord had the broken brackets replaced and the heater rehung. The brackets likely broke due to improper use, careless accidents, or excessive weight, indicating use beyond normal operation. Cost of replacement and rehanging: $40.00 f. Detached Kitchen Cupboard Door. The Landlord had the cupboard door rehung by a contractor. The detachment of the door is indicative of forceful or improper use, surpassing normal, gentle wear and tear. Cost of rehanging: $85.00 g. Dislodged Pelmit and Timber Bracket Above Bedroom Door. The Landlord had these items reinstalled. This type of damage has more likely than not resulted from rough handling or forceful impacts, which are not part of everyday use. Cost of reinstallation: $120.00 h. Loose or Detached Toilet Roll Holder. The Landlord arranged for the toilet roll holder to be rehung and fixed. The detachment of the holder would have resulted from rough usage or careless force, exceeding the expected gentle handling. Cost of repair: $40.00 i. Detached Bathroom Towel Rails. The Landlord had the towel rails fixed and rehung. The rails becoming loose or falling off usually indicates rough treatment or an excessive load, which is beyond normal, careful use. The Tenant did not advise the Landlord of the loosening of the rails either. Cost of repair: $140.00 j. Hot Water Cylinder Pipe Detached from the Wall. The Landlord had the pipe reattached to the wall. Such detachment is usually a result of forceful impact or undue stress on the pipe, exceeding normal operational strain. Cost of repair: $10.00 k. The total cost of repairs (including GST) came to $2,024.00. l. The total cost of repainting the repaired wall and door surfaces came to $1,983.75. I award this cost also. m. There were additional, incidental repair costs of $609.50, which I reduce to $300.00, given my assessment that some of the repairs related to items which were not damaged, but which had undergone fair wear and tear during the tenancy.
The downstairs bedroom’s door hinges and the garage back door hinges were damaged and required replacement. The damage was more than fair wear and tear. I award $248.40 for replacement of the hinges.
The garage tilt-a-door was also damaged during the tenancy and the garage door handle required replacement and adjustment to ensure it would close securely. I award $60.26 for repair of the garage door.
A glass window was broken in the kitchen and toilet. The cost of reglazing and installation of new rubbers came to $151.46.
A trellis fence was damaged during the tenancy and the Tenant tried to cover over the damage with a tarpaulin. The cost of repairing the trellis fence, which was in good condition prior to the commencement of the tenancy, was $995.75, which I award to the Landlord.
I have reviewed the Landlord’s timeline of work and I award 6 weeks’ of lost rent for the time the Landlord could not rent the premises while it was reinstated. I have particular regard to the presence of methamphetamine contaminants, as established by testing, in making this determination: $3,750.00
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.
Eves Realty Limited claims the Tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by using or allowing methamphetamine to be used at the premises. Methamphetamine is a Class A drug for the purposes of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
Eves Realty Limited claim that the Tenants used the premises unlawfully by engaging in methamphetamine use, which is illegal under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
Section 40(2)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 stipulates that a tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose.
Breaching this obligation constitutes an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum sum of $1,800.00: s 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986
The Landlords have provided conclusive evidence in the form of pre-tenancy methamphetamine test results and individual-sample meth-testing results completed toward the end of the tenancy, proving methamphetamine contamination occurred during the tenancy.
Methamphetamine is an illegal drug, and its use on the premises not only violates the law but also poses serious health and safety risks to occupants.
The contamination of the property is a breach of the Tenants' obligations and has led to significant financial damage to the owners, who gave evidence during the hearing.
Section 109(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 empowers the Tribunal to award exemplary damages when a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally.
In assessing whether to award exemplary damages, the Tribunal considers the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest.
Methamphetamine is a highly illegal substance, and its use on the premises not only jeopardises the safety and well-being of occupants but also raises concerns about the broader public interest in upholding the law and community standards.
The owners, in their attempt to provide a rental opportunity in good faith, have suffered significant financial losses and reputational damage due to the Tenant’s unlawful actions.
The owners described the home as their first home in New Zealand and they were heartbroken to see how it was treated.
The Tribunal acknowledges the public interest in upholding legal standards, preventing illegal drug use in residential properties, and ensuring the safety of the community. Exemplary damages are warranted to deter such unlawful actions that can have far-reaching implications.
It is difficult to establish the intentions of the Tenant in committing the unlawful act, but because the methamphetamine contaminants were found throughout the home and in high concentrations in the bedroom I find it hard to believe the Tenant would not have known about the illegal drug use.
I find the Tenant must pay $1,200.00 for this serious breach, noting that while the level of contamination is not at the level which this Tribunal would consider to constitute damage, the levels are still high, indicating regular use and a brazen disregard for the law and the Landlord's interests.
Because the Landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee: $20.44.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4655952 — Cleanliness at 51A Robinson Avenue, Holdens Bay, Rotorua 3010

Tenancy Tribunal case 4655952 — Cleanliness at 51A Robinson Avenue, Holdens Bay, Rotorua 3010

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?

Property management

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?

Property management