What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4770638?

The tribunal order states: Alana Wingrove must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Poobalan

How much money was awarded in case 4770638?

Cleaning: $320.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Removal Of Goods And Storage 2/12/23…: $447.99 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4770638?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4770638?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10180927-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4770638?

The tribunal order states: Alana Wingrove must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Poobalan

How much money was awarded in case 4770638?

Cleaning: $320.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Removal Of Goods And Storage 2/12/23…: $447.99 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4770638?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4770638?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10180927-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

62 Bert Wall Drive, Omokoroa, Omokoroa 3114 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4770638 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4770638 — net $2,088.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repair to ranchslider	$650.00	Repair to ranchslider
Repair damaged doors	$650.00	Repair damaged doors
Cleaning	$320.00	Cleaning
Removal of goods and storage 2/12/23-2/2/24	$447.99	Removal of goods and storage 2/12/23-2/2/24
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,088.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,088.43

Order

Alana Wingrove must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Poobalan Maistry $2,088.43 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Ms Wingrove did not attend today’s hearing and the hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for rent compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with her 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 photographs show that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all of her goods from the premises.
The landlord claims $644.00 for the invoiced cost of cleaning the premises. However, by agreement with the landlord today, this cost was reduced to $320.00 because the photographs taken do not reflect the cost charged to get the premises to a reasonable condition.
Ms Wingrove did not remove her furniture and belongings at the end of her tenancy. The cost of storing her belongings for the period 26 October 2023 to 1 December 2023 was covered by her bond. I accept that the costs of storage from 2 December 2023 to 2 January 2024 and the cost of removal of her belongings to storage amount to $447.97. She is required to pay this amount.

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.
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.
I accept the evidence showing that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: ranch slider glass was broken and there were damaged doors throughout the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The cost of repairing the ranch slider was $1071.96. The cost of repairing the doors amounted to a total of $3907.70.
These repairs were covered by insurance and so Ms Wingrove is required to pay the excess of $650.00 for each repair. Methamphetamine Contamination
The landlord also makes a claim of $2,500.00, that being the excess payable to his insurer for the remediation of the premises after it had been ‘contaminated’ by methamphetamine.
The reports show that there was no methamphetamine present at the premises at the beginning of the tenancy. However, a report completed at the end of Ms Wingrove’s tenancy shows the presence of methamphetamine in various rooms of the house and the garage.
The highest level was located on a sample on the garage door –
69mu/100cm 2 . The next highest level was 9.66mu/100m 2 on a sample on the kitchen cabinet. Methamphetamine was also detected at lower levels from samples taken in bedroom 2, the hallway, the ensuite, bedroom 1 and bedroom 3.
The issue for the Tribunal is whether these results establish that the tenant has caused damage to the premises during the tenancy by smoking methamphetamine and should pay compensation for testing and cleaning.
Since 2015 the Tribunal has received increasing numbers of applications involving “methamphetamine contamination”.
In July 2017, ESR, the Crown Research Institute, released NZS8510:2017. This report set one level – 1.5/100 cm 2 and this became the standard that in general, the Tenancy Tribunal applied in cases before it relating to methamphetamine contamination – that is, any reading above 1.5mu/100cm 2 was regarded as contaminated and the tenant was required to pay the costs of remediating the premises.
However, in May 2018, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the then-Chief Scientific Advisor in the Office of the Prime Minister, released a report indicating that the previous guideline was unnecessarily risk averse. Noting the findings of various overseas reports, the report’s authors conclude that there is currently no evidence that methamphetamine levels typically resulting from third hand exposure to smoking residues on household surfaces can elicit an adverse health effect. They recommended that below 15mu/100cm 2 methamphetamine levels would be unlikely to give rise to any adverse effects.
Tribunal decisions over the last few years show that the Tribunal has adopted the “Gluckman” level as the level at which premises could be regarded as being contaminated by methamphetamine.
The District Court has endorsed this approach – see for example Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947.
Given that all the levels in the current application are below the 15mu/100 cm 2 level, I am dismissing the claim for compensation for methamphetamine testing and cleaning. Filing fee reimbursement
Because Barfoot & Thompson Limited as Agent For Poobalan Maistry has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered Ms Wingrove to reimburse them the filing fee. C ter Haar 09 April 2024

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4770638 — net $2,088.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repair to ranchslider	$650.00	Repair to ranchslider
Repair damaged doors	$650.00	Repair damaged doors
Cleaning	$320.00	Cleaning
Removal of goods and storage 2/12/23-2/2/24	$447.99	Removal of goods and storage 2/12/23-2/2/24
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,088.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,088.43

Order

Alana Wingrove must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Poobalan Maistry $2,088.43 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Ms Wingrove did not attend today’s hearing and the hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for rent compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with her 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 photographs show that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all of her goods from the premises.
The landlord claims $644.00 for the invoiced cost of cleaning the premises. However, by agreement with the landlord today, this cost was reduced to $320.00 because the photographs taken do not reflect the cost charged to get the premises to a reasonable condition.
Ms Wingrove did not remove her furniture and belongings at the end of her tenancy. The cost of storing her belongings for the period 26 October 2023 to 1 December 2023 was covered by her bond. I accept that the costs of storage from 2 December 2023 to 2 January 2024 and the cost of removal of her belongings to storage amount to $447.97. She is required to pay this amount.

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.
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.
I accept the evidence showing that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: ranch slider glass was broken and there were damaged doors throughout the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The cost of repairing the ranch slider was $1071.96. The cost of repairing the doors amounted to a total of $3907.70.
These repairs were covered by insurance and so Ms Wingrove is required to pay the excess of $650.00 for each repair. Methamphetamine Contamination
The landlord also makes a claim of $2,500.00, that being the excess payable to his insurer for the remediation of the premises after it had been ‘contaminated’ by methamphetamine.
The reports show that there was no methamphetamine present at the premises at the beginning of the tenancy. However, a report completed at the end of Ms Wingrove’s tenancy shows the presence of methamphetamine in various rooms of the house and the garage.
The highest level was located on a sample on the garage door –
69mu/100cm 2 . The next highest level was 9.66mu/100m 2 on a sample on the kitchen cabinet. Methamphetamine was also detected at lower levels from samples taken in bedroom 2, the hallway, the ensuite, bedroom 1 and bedroom 3.
The issue for the Tribunal is whether these results establish that the tenant has caused damage to the premises during the tenancy by smoking methamphetamine and should pay compensation for testing and cleaning.
Since 2015 the Tribunal has received increasing numbers of applications involving “methamphetamine contamination”.
In July 2017, ESR, the Crown Research Institute, released NZS8510:2017. This report set one level – 1.5/100 cm 2 and this became the standard that in general, the Tenancy Tribunal applied in cases before it relating to methamphetamine contamination – that is, any reading above 1.5mu/100cm 2 was regarded as contaminated and the tenant was required to pay the costs of remediating the premises.
However, in May 2018, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the then-Chief Scientific Advisor in the Office of the Prime Minister, released a report indicating that the previous guideline was unnecessarily risk averse. Noting the findings of various overseas reports, the report’s authors conclude that there is currently no evidence that methamphetamine levels typically resulting from third hand exposure to smoking residues on household surfaces can elicit an adverse health effect. They recommended that below 15mu/100cm 2 methamphetamine levels would be unlikely to give rise to any adverse effects.
Tribunal decisions over the last few years show that the Tribunal has adopted the “Gluckman” level as the level at which premises could be regarded as being contaminated by methamphetamine.
The District Court has endorsed this approach – see for example Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947.
Given that all the levels in the current application are below the 15mu/100 cm 2 level, I am dismissing the claim for compensation for methamphetamine testing and cleaning. Filing fee reimbursement
Because Barfoot & Thompson Limited as Agent For Poobalan Maistry has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered Ms Wingrove to reimburse them the filing fee. C ter Haar 09 April 2024

Tenancy Tribunal case 4770638 — Property damage at 62 Bert Wall Drive, Omokoroa, Omokoroa 3114

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4770638 — Property damage at 62 Bert Wall Drive, Omokoroa, Omokoroa 3114

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with her 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

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with her 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