What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4756570?

The tribunal order states: Iriea Tauiti must pay Juanita Young and Dwayne Young $168.32 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4756570?

Power Costs As Agreed: $72.73 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $95.59 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4756570?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4756570?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10081431-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4756570?

The tribunal order states: Iriea Tauiti must pay Juanita Young and Dwayne Young $168.32 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4756570?

Power Costs As Agreed: $72.73 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $95.59 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4756570?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4756570?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10081431-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

391 Dukes Road North, North Taieri, RD 2, Mosgiel 9092 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4756570 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4756570 — net $168.32 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Power costs as agreed	$72.73	Power costs as agreed
Lock/key replacement as agreed	$95.59	Lock/key replacement as agreed
Net award	$168.32
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$168.32

Order

Iriea Tauiti must pay Juanita Young and Dwayne Young $168.32 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The application for rent arrears of $2,725.70 and further compensation of $1,920.00 is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy on 9/9/2023.
The tenancy was a periodic tenancy from 30/7/2021 @ $180.00 per week.
I consider the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the application.
Although the tenant was employed by the landlord until August 2023 the tenancy meets the definition of a service tenancy in section 2.
The tenant had exclusive possession of the premises as opposed to service occupation; NZ Railways Corporation v Te Aonui and Pelasio HC Wellington AP26/92 3 February 1993.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 9/9/2023.
The landlord claimed rent arrears of $2,725.70 and provided rent records.
The tenant disagreed that he owed any arrears and suggested he had undertaken work in lieu of rent or that his wages were low, both of which the landlord disputed.
I find I am not persuaded to the necessary standard by the evidence of the landlord.
The rent records suggest that rent was in arrears several times during the two year tenancy, but no 14 day notices were issued to the tenant.
Rather the landlord confirmed that they were unaware what rent was owed until the end of the tenancy.
While it is possible the tenant owes some or all the arrears claimed there is simply not enough evidence to establish it is more probable than not that he does.
The claim for rent arrears fails.

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 landlord claimed compensation of: a. $72.73 being the balance of the final power account, b. $95.59 for changing locks and replacement keys.
The tenant agreed he owed the power account and had lost the keys.
An award has been made for the amounts claimed.

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 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 landlord sought compensation of: a. $1,000.00 contribution towards replacement of the carpet, b. $920.00 for repainting of the bathroom.
The landlord suggested that the carpet needed replacing because the tenant had used illegal substances and as a result they were unable to claim on their insurance.
Further the landlord submitted that the tenant had painted the bathroom without consent, and it now needed repainting.
In support of the claims the landlord provided quotes for the carpet replacement and bathroom painting, photographs of the bathroom taken after the end of the tenancy and photographs of a test for illegal substances.
The tenant suggested that he had painted the bathroom soon after the tenancy began, with the consent of the landlord and in lieu of two weeks rent.
In addition, the tenant queried whether any test for illegal substances had been undertaken before his tenancy began. Discussion
The applicant, in this case the landlord, must prove all elements of the claim on the balance of probabilities; i.e., more probable than not.
In T v M [1984] 2 NZFLR, the Court of Appeal confirmed that, while ‘balance of probabilities’ is a constant standard: It is the principle of good common sense that the more serious the issue the greater should be the care used in assessing it”.
This approach was confirmed by the majority of the Supreme Court in Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, where the Court stated: [102] ... In New Zealand it has been emphasised that no intermediate standard of proof exists, between the criminal and civil standards, for application in certain types of civil case. Balance of probabilities still simply means more probable than not. Allowing the civil standard to be applied flexibly has not meant that the degree of probability required to meet this standard changes in serious cases. Rather, the civil standard is flexibly applied because it accommodates serious allegations through the natural tendency to require stronger evidence before being satisfied to the balance of probabilities standard.
Section 97(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that: ... the Tribunal may call for and receive as evidence any statement, document, information, matter, or thing that in its opinion may assist it to deal effectually with the matters before it, whether or not the same would be admissible in a court of law
It follows that, although the Tribunal is not bound by the usual rules of evidence when admitting evidence, where the allegation is serious, it is likely to require stronger evidence before finding the claim proved on the balance of probabilities.
The landlord has applied for compensation for replacement of the carpet due to contamination by what they consider was an illegal substance at a rate they were unable to quantify.
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.
However, there are currently two sources of guidance on the issue of a safe level of methamphetamine contamination in residential premises which are a useful guide when considering contamination generally.
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 Tribunal has generally applied the Gluckman recommendation, and this approach has been upheld by several District Court decisions such as Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947.
I am not persuaded by the evidence provided by the landlord that whatever substance their testing found was sufficient to cause damage to what were agreed to be older, worn carpets.
Moreover, in the absence of any pre tenancy test there is no objective evidence that it was the tenant who used the substance.
The claim for a contribution towards carpet replacement fails.
Nor am I satisfied that the evidence has established the tenant painted the bathroom without consent.
The tenant suggested he painted the bathroom soon after moving in and that the landlord agreed he could do so and had visited the premises.
The landlord confirmed that no property inspections were undertaken during the tenancy and no 14 day notice was issued about the painting.
The claim for the costs of repainting the bathroom fails.
No filing fee is awarded because the landlord was only partly successful.
Suppression is not available to either party pursuant to section 95A.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4756570 — net $168.32 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Power costs as agreed	$72.73	Power costs as agreed
Lock/key replacement as agreed	$95.59	Lock/key replacement as agreed
Net award	$168.32
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$168.32

Order

Iriea Tauiti must pay Juanita Young and Dwayne Young $168.32 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The application for rent arrears of $2,725.70 and further compensation of $1,920.00 is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy on 9/9/2023.
The tenancy was a periodic tenancy from 30/7/2021 @ $180.00 per week.
I consider the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the application.
Although the tenant was employed by the landlord until August 2023 the tenancy meets the definition of a service tenancy in section 2.
The tenant had exclusive possession of the premises as opposed to service occupation; NZ Railways Corporation v Te Aonui and Pelasio HC Wellington AP26/92 3 February 1993.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 9/9/2023.
The landlord claimed rent arrears of $2,725.70 and provided rent records.
The tenant disagreed that he owed any arrears and suggested he had undertaken work in lieu of rent or that his wages were low, both of which the landlord disputed.
I find I am not persuaded to the necessary standard by the evidence of the landlord.
The rent records suggest that rent was in arrears several times during the two year tenancy, but no 14 day notices were issued to the tenant.
Rather the landlord confirmed that they were unaware what rent was owed until the end of the tenancy.
While it is possible the tenant owes some or all the arrears claimed there is simply not enough evidence to establish it is more probable than not that he does.
The claim for rent arrears fails.

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 landlord claimed compensation of: a. $72.73 being the balance of the final power account, b. $95.59 for changing locks and replacement keys.
The tenant agreed he owed the power account and had lost the keys.
An award has been made for the amounts claimed.

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 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 landlord sought compensation of: a. $1,000.00 contribution towards replacement of the carpet, b. $920.00 for repainting of the bathroom.
The landlord suggested that the carpet needed replacing because the tenant had used illegal substances and as a result they were unable to claim on their insurance.
Further the landlord submitted that the tenant had painted the bathroom without consent, and it now needed repainting.
In support of the claims the landlord provided quotes for the carpet replacement and bathroom painting, photographs of the bathroom taken after the end of the tenancy and photographs of a test for illegal substances.
The tenant suggested that he had painted the bathroom soon after the tenancy began, with the consent of the landlord and in lieu of two weeks rent.
In addition, the tenant queried whether any test for illegal substances had been undertaken before his tenancy began. Discussion
The applicant, in this case the landlord, must prove all elements of the claim on the balance of probabilities; i.e., more probable than not.
In T v M [1984] 2 NZFLR, the Court of Appeal confirmed that, while ‘balance of probabilities’ is a constant standard: It is the principle of good common sense that the more serious the issue the greater should be the care used in assessing it”.
This approach was confirmed by the majority of the Supreme Court in Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, where the Court stated: [102] ... In New Zealand it has been emphasised that no intermediate standard of proof exists, between the criminal and civil standards, for application in certain types of civil case. Balance of probabilities still simply means more probable than not. Allowing the civil standard to be applied flexibly has not meant that the degree of probability required to meet this standard changes in serious cases. Rather, the civil standard is flexibly applied because it accommodates serious allegations through the natural tendency to require stronger evidence before being satisfied to the balance of probabilities standard.
Section 97(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that: ... the Tribunal may call for and receive as evidence any statement, document, information, matter, or thing that in its opinion may assist it to deal effectually with the matters before it, whether or not the same would be admissible in a court of law
It follows that, although the Tribunal is not bound by the usual rules of evidence when admitting evidence, where the allegation is serious, it is likely to require stronger evidence before finding the claim proved on the balance of probabilities.
The landlord has applied for compensation for replacement of the carpet due to contamination by what they consider was an illegal substance at a rate they were unable to quantify.
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.
However, there are currently two sources of guidance on the issue of a safe level of methamphetamine contamination in residential premises which are a useful guide when considering contamination generally.
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 Tribunal has generally applied the Gluckman recommendation, and this approach has been upheld by several District Court decisions such as Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947.
I am not persuaded by the evidence provided by the landlord that whatever substance their testing found was sufficient to cause damage to what were agreed to be older, worn carpets.
Moreover, in the absence of any pre tenancy test there is no objective evidence that it was the tenant who used the substance.
The claim for a contribution towards carpet replacement fails.
Nor am I satisfied that the evidence has established the tenant painted the bathroom without consent.
The tenant suggested he painted the bathroom soon after moving in and that the landlord agreed he could do so and had visited the premises.
The landlord confirmed that no property inspections were undertaken during the tenancy and no 14 day notice was issued about the painting.
The claim for the costs of repainting the bathroom fails.
No filing fee is awarded because the landlord was only partly successful.
Suppression is not available to either party pursuant to section 95A.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4756570 — Property damage at 391 Dukes Road North, North Taieri, RD 2, Mosgiel 9092

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4756570 — Property damage at 391 Dukes Road North, North Taieri, RD 2, Mosgiel 9092

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

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

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

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

Frequently asked questions