What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4793557?

The tribunal order states: Shelley Watson and Blair Nathan Wallace must pay Irelands Real Estate

How much money was awarded in case 4793557?

Dismantling And Removing Playhouse A…: $503.30 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $381.80 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $906.98 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $855.60 awarded to landlord; Tiles Surounding Fireplace: $135.64 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,643.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: two bathroom si…: $312.53 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $937.67 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4793557?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4793557?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10122200-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4793557?

The tribunal order states: Shelley Watson and Blair Nathan Wallace must pay Irelands Real Estate

How much money was awarded in case 4793557?

Dismantling And Removing Playhouse A…: $503.30 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $381.80 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $906.98 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $855.60 awarded to landlord; Tiles Surounding Fireplace: $135.64 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,643.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: two bathroom si…: $312.53 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $937.67 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4793557?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4793557?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10122200-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

10 Princes Street, Springfield, RD 1, Springfield 7681 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4793557 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4793557 — net $4,546.96 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Dismantling and removing playhouse and removing and	$503.30		Dismantling and removing playhouse and removing and
Lawns and Garden work	$381.80		Lawns and Garden work
Meth testing/Cleaning: insurance excess	$650.00		Meth testing/Cleaning: insurance excess
Repairs: plaster and paint to damaged walls adjusted to	$855.60		Repairs: plaster and paint to damaged walls adjusted to
Repairs: tiles surounding fireplace	$135.64		Repairs: tiles surounding fireplace
Replace furnishings: two bathroom sinks	$312.53		Replace furnishings: two bathroom sinks
Replace furnishings: replacement for damaged fridge	$1,643.00		Replace furnishings: replacement for damaged fridge
Window repairs: ensuite window	$937.67		Window repairs: ensuite window
Lock/key replacement	$906.98		Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Bond received by landlord		$1,800.00	Bond received by landlord
Total award	$6,346.96	$1,800.00
Net award	$4,546.96
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,546.96

Ms Benge and Ms Binnie attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord. The tenant did not attend.

The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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 under section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).

The tenant had erected a playhouse during the tenancy and had not removed it as agreed at the end of the tenancy. The landlord arranged to have the playhouse dismantled and removed and also removed large amounts of grass clippings which had been left at the property.

The tenant was responsible for keeping the lawns and gardens mowed and weed free. The gardens were not tidy at the end of the tenancy.

The tenant did not return the keys. The tenant entered the property after the tenancy had ended and was removed by police. Keys were returned at that time but given the circumstances, the landlord could not feel confident that the tenant had returned all keys, so all locks and keys were replaced.

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 under sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.

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) under section 49B(3)(a) of the Act.

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) under section 49B(3)(b) of the Act. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage under section 49B(3A)(a) of the Act.

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 under section 49B(1) of the Act.

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 (Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541).

Methamphetamine testing carried out during the tenancy recorded various levels of methamphetamine contamination on the premises.

In 2010, the New Zealand Ministry of Health produced guidelines for the remediation of methamphetamine laboratories which determined that remediation was required if the environmental level of methamphetamine was over 0.5μg/100cm². This became the level at which premises were deemed to require decontamination.

In 2017 the level was increased when Standards New Zealand released Standard NZS 8510:2017 “Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine- contaminated properties”. This Standard confirmed that the level at which habitation of residential premises was considered safe was 1.5μg/100cm². At that time, this Standard set the definitive levels at which properties required decontamination.

In 2018, the then Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, reported that there was little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption (Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards, 29 May 2018). This report concluded that any levels below 15μg/100cm² were unlikely to present adverse effects.

Taken together these factors indicate that methamphetamine levels that exceed the NZS 8510:2017 clean-up standard of 1.5μg/100cm² should not be regarded as signalling a health risk. Indeed, exposure to methamphetamine levels below 15μg/100cm² would be unlikely to give rise to any adverse effects. This level still incorporates a 30-fold safety buffer on a conservative estimate of risk.

The matter was considered by the District Court, in relation to a Tenancy Tribunal order, in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 where Judge Keller stated that; “the Gluckman Report represents the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination in dwellings.”

This decision of the District Court has confirmed that the level to be applied by this Tribunal is that expressed by Professor Gluckman which is that there is no risk when levels of contamination are below 15μg/100cm².

In the present case, the levels recorded were between 0.40μg/100cm² (garage) and 27μg/100cm² (kitchen area). Six readings were at or above 16.2μg/100cm². This is above the threshold set by current New Zealand Standards and also above the risk level in the Gluckman Report. Objectively, the property did require decontamination.

Therefore, the landlord’s claim for compensation for the insurance excess for methamphetamine decontamination is proven.

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Damage to the fridge freezer which was in near new condition at the beginning of the tenancy. b. Damage to two bathroom sinks which were undamaged and near new at the beginning of the tenancy. c. Damage to the fireplace tiles which were undamaged and near new at the beginning of the tenancy. d. Damage to ensuite window which was undamaged at the beginning of the tenancy. e. Damage to walls and surfaces requiring replastering and repainting in some areas (reduced by 20% to reflect one existing area where visible paint patching had been completed prior to the tenancy commencing).

The landlord provided invoices, photographs and oral evidence to prove the amounts claimed.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered are proved.

As Irelands Real Estate Limited as agent for Thomas and Tegan Brady has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4793557 — net $4,546.96 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Dismantling and removing playhouse and removing and	$503.30		Dismantling and removing playhouse and removing and
Lawns and Garden work	$381.80		Lawns and Garden work
Meth testing/Cleaning: insurance excess	$650.00		Meth testing/Cleaning: insurance excess
Repairs: plaster and paint to damaged walls adjusted to	$855.60		Repairs: plaster and paint to damaged walls adjusted to
Repairs: tiles surounding fireplace	$135.64		Repairs: tiles surounding fireplace
Replace furnishings: two bathroom sinks	$312.53		Replace furnishings: two bathroom sinks
Replace furnishings: replacement for damaged fridge	$1,643.00		Replace furnishings: replacement for damaged fridge
Window repairs: ensuite window	$937.67		Window repairs: ensuite window
Lock/key replacement	$906.98		Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Bond received by landlord		$1,800.00	Bond received by landlord
Total award	$6,346.96	$1,800.00
Net award	$4,546.96
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,546.96

Order

Shelley Watson and Blair Nathan Wallace must pay Irelands Real Estate Limited as agent for Thomas and Tegan Brady $4,546.96 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Ms Benge and Ms Binnie attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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 under section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The tenant had erected a playhouse during the tenancy and had not removed it as agreed at the end of the tenancy. The landlord arranged to have the playhouse dismantled and removed and also removed large amounts of grass clippings which had been left at the property.
The tenant was responsible for keeping the lawns and gardens mowed and weed free. The gardens were not tidy at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant did not return the keys. The tenant entered the property after the tenancy had ended and was removed by police. Keys were returned at that time but given the circumstances, the landlord could not feel confident that the tenant had returned all keys, so all locks and keys were replaced.
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 under sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
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) under section 49B(3)(a) of the Act.
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) under section 49B(3)(b) of the Act. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage under section 49B(3A)(a) of the Act.
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 under section 49B(1) of the Act.
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 (Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541).
Methamphetamine testing carried out during the tenancy recorded various levels of methamphetamine contamination on the premises.
In 2010, the New Zealand Ministry of Health produced guidelines for the remediation of methamphetamine laboratories which determined that remediation was required if the environmental level of methamphetamine was over 0.5μg/100cm². This became the level at which premises were deemed to require decontamination.
In 2017 the level was increased when Standards New Zealand released Standard NZS 8510:2017 “Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine- contaminated properties”. This Standard confirmed that the level at which habitation of residential premises was considered safe was 1.5μg/100cm². At that time, this Standard set the definitive levels at which properties required decontamination.
In 2018, the then Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, reported that there was little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption (Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards, 29 May 2018). This report concluded that any levels below 15μg/100cm² were unlikely to present adverse effects.
Taken together these factors indicate that methamphetamine levels that exceed the NZS 8510:2017 clean-up standard of 1.5μg/100cm² should not be regarded as signalling a health risk. Indeed, exposure to methamphetamine levels below 15μg/100cm² would be unlikely to give rise to any adverse effects. This level still incorporates a 30-fold safety buffer on a conservative estimate of risk.
The matter was considered by the District Court, in relation to a Tenancy Tribunal order, in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 where Judge Keller stated that; “the Gluckman Report represents the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination in dwellings.”
This decision of the District Court has confirmed that the level to be applied by this Tribunal is that expressed by Professor Gluckman which is that there is no risk when levels of contamination are below 15μg/100cm².
In the present case, the levels recorded were between 0.40μg/100cm² (garage) and 27μg/100cm² (kitchen area). Six readings were at or above 16.2μg/100cm². This is above the threshold set by current New Zealand Standards and also above the risk level in the Gluckman Report. Objectively, the property did require decontamination.
Therefore, the landlord’s claim for compensation for the insurance excess for methamphetamine decontamination is proven.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Damage to the fridge freezer which was in near new condition at the beginning of the tenancy. b. Damage to two bathroom sinks which were undamaged and near new at the beginning of the tenancy. c. Damage to the fireplace tiles which were undamaged and near new at the beginning of the tenancy. d. Damage to ensuite window which was undamaged at the beginning of the tenancy. e. Damage to walls and surfaces requiring replastering and repainting in some areas (reduced by 20% to reflect one existing area where visible paint patching had been completed prior to the tenancy commencing).
The landlord provided invoices, photographs and oral evidence to prove the amounts claimed.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
As Irelands Real Estate Limited as agent for Thomas and Tegan Brady has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4793557 — Property damage at 10 Princes Street, Springfield, RD 1, Springfield 7681

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4793557 — Property damage at 10 Princes Street, Springfield, RD 1, Springfield 7681

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Order

Reasons

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