What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4727912?

The tribunal order states: Christopher Yeoman must pay [The landlord/s] $928.02 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4727912?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4623070 D…: $1,049.01 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,028.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4727912?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4727912?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10022696-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4727912?

The tribunal order states: Christopher Yeoman must pay [The landlord/s] $928.02 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4727912?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4623070 D…: $1,049.01 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,028.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4727912?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4727912?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10022696-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 12G, 16 Gore Street, Auckland Central, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4727912 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4727912 — net $928.02 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,028.57	Rent arrears
Previous order application 4623070 dated 21/07/2023	$1,049.01	Previous order application 4623070 dated 21/07/2023
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Lock/key replacement	$30.00	Lock/key replacement
Net award	$928.02
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$928.02

The landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenant.

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 tenancy ended on 21 July 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Having sighted the landlord’s rent ledger I am satisfied that the tenant is responsible for this debt.

The claim is proven.

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 landlord claims that the tenant did not return the building swipe card. I have sighted a payment receipt dated 2 September 2023 in support of this claim.

The amount ordered is proved.

The landlord also provided photographic evidence confirming the significant amount of rubbish and personal belongings left behind by the tenant. The landlord has not claimed for rubbish removal.

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.

The landlord claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by using or allowing persons at the property with their permission to consume methamphetamine.

Section 40(2)(b) of the Act states that the tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose.

Tenants are responsible for the acts or omissions of others at the property with their permission that may result in breach of the terms of the agreement or provisions the Act.

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.

Under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 possessing methamphetamine is a criminal offence.

The landlord claims that the tenant has damaged the property by using methamphetamine. The landlord says that the indication of methamphetamine use came about by a detector dog in May 2023. The tenant was the only person named on the tenancy agreement and residing at the premises.

The landlord advised there is no insurance available to cover these claims.

The landlord arranged for TDDA to carry out testing of the property on or about 21 June 2023. The report confirmed the presence of methamphetamine on the wall above the wardrobe. The reading was 11.9ug 1 .

The landlord makes the following claims as a result of contamination:

Blind replacement: The landlord has provided a paid invoice from number one bonds for $600.00. This is a direct result of the contamination of the apartment.

Queen bed frame and two bed side drawers: $872.00. An invoice from Target was provided in support. The age of the bed frame and side drawers is approximately 8 years.

Carpet damage (approximately 10 years old). An invoice from Grace Carpets Ltd $1495.00 was provided with the landlord’s application.

Painting of lounge and kitchen. An invoice from RK Investment for $1035.00 was provided in support.

Methamphetamine decontamination from Kiwi Safe As (two invoices). The first invoice is for $2645.00. The company then returned to retest and discovered they had missed an area, hence the second invoice of $747.50.

Body Corporate fee for methamphetamine testing as per report from TTDA $1884.66. 1 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/100cm2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect. It recommended retaining the level of

5μg/100cm2 where contamination resulted from manufacture, due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the process.

The landlord provided an email from a detector dog service dated 22 August 2024 where it was confirmed that apartment 12G did not appear in any previous screening efforts and it was in May 2023 that it first appeared on the drug detector screening reports.

There is no direct evidence that the tenant has either used methamphetamine or allowed others with their permission at the property to use methamphetamine. The evidence is circumstantial.

The landlord claims that together the evidence is sufficient to establish more likely than not that the tenant is responsible for the breach.

I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenant has conducted the activity as claimed by the landlord.

After hearing from the landlord and considering the other evidence produced, I cannot be satisfied to the required standard that, more likely than not, the tenant has used or allowed others to use the property for an unlawful purpose.

The significant problem for the landlord’s claim is that there is no evidence of any methamphetamine testing carried out at the start of this tenancy. If there had been such testing and it revealed no methamphetamine then clearly the methamphetamine residue that was found at the end of this tenancy could only have occurred during the tenancy and could only have occurred by either the tenant using methamphetamine or permitting others to use methamphetamine inside the house.

The lack of methamphetamine testing at the start of the tenancy significantly weakens the circumstantial case against the tenant to the point where it is not possible to conclude on the balance of probabilities that it was the tenant who was responsible for the methamphetamine residue located at the premises during their tenancy.

There was no pre tenancy testing for the presence of methamphetamine. There is insufficient evidence to be satisfied that any contamination discovered occurred during the tenancy.

The claim in respect of methamphetamine contamination must therefore be dismissed.

Because [The applicant/s] has partially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.

The landlord applied for a name suppression order. The landlord is entitled to name suppression as the application is successful – see section 95A RTA.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4727912 — net $928.02 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,028.57	Rent arrears
Previous order application 4623070 dated 21/07/2023	$1,049.01	Previous order application 4623070 dated 21/07/2023
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Lock/key replacement	$30.00	Lock/key replacement
Net award	$928.02
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$928.02