What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4928075?

The tribunal order states: Toko Hauraki must pay Mid North Real Estate Limited (as agent for Thomas

How much money was awarded in case 4928075?

Cleaning: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $190.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4928075?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4928075?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10942023-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4928075?

The tribunal order states: Toko Hauraki must pay Mid North Real Estate Limited (as agent for Thomas

How much money was awarded in case 4928075?

Cleaning: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $190.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4928075?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4928075?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10942023-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Flat 24, 11 Orrs Road, Kaikohe, Kaikohe 0405 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4928075 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4928075 — net $1,477.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Pest control	$190.00	Pest control
Cleaning	$80.00	20. I will award half of the pest treatment cost and I will award the $80.00 claimed for cleaning.
Methamphetamine de-contamination (insurance excess	$2,500.00	Methamphetamine de-contamination (insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,477.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,477.00

The adjournment order dated 5 September 2024 sets out the background to this application.

The second hearing took place on 10 October 2024. Mr Hauraki attended the hearing by phone.

At the hearing, Mid North: a. Clarified that the owner’s methamphetamine insurance cover includes testing costs, therefore there is no separate claim against the tenant for the cost of detailed testing. The compensation claim for methamphetamine costs is $2,500.00, being the amount of the owner’s insurance excess. b. Clarified that only the lounge, kitchen, and bathroom were de- contaminated. The total cost of this work as $4,224.81. c. Provided some photographs from the entry inspection report.

As noted in the previous order: a. Methamphetamine contamination at levels that necessitate de- contamination constitutes damage to the premises. b. Tenants are liable for damage that occurs during the period of the tenancy. c. Tenants are liable for damage that is caused by anyone who is at the premises with their consent. d. The test results prove that methamphetamine contamination occurred during the period of this tenancy. e. One of the samples, taken from the bathroom, showed contamination above 15 micrograms per 100cm2.

At the hearing Ms Maraki put forward an argument that there are indicators of methamphetamine manufacture during the tenancy, in which case the lower threshold of 1.5 micrograms per 100cm2 should apply. 1

It is not necessary for me to address that question because I am satisfied that the claim for $2,500 is proven even applying the 15 microgram threshold for methamphetamine use.

The question is whether the theoretical cost of de-contaminating just the bathroom would exceed $2,500.00. That is the only part of the house proven to be contaminated at a level above 15 micrograms.

The cost of de-contaminating just the bathroom is not known. The insurer didn’t just de-contaminate the bathroom. They de-contaminated the lounge kitchen and bathroom. The total cost of that work was $4,224.81.

However that is just the de-contamination cleaning cost. It doesn’t include the detailed testing cost and the testing after de-contamination cleaning. Those costs would be necessary even if only the bathroom was de-contaminated.

Taking those costs into account, it is clear that the cost of de-contaminating the bathroom would comfortably exceed $2,500.00. 1 As recommended in the Gluckman report.

Therefore, the claim for $2,500.00 is proven. Exemplary damages

A tenant is liable for repairs even if the tenant didn’t cause the damage. Tenants are liable for the damage caused by anyone who is at the premises with their consent.

That principle does not apply to exemplary damages. Exemplary damages are punitive, not compensatory. They are intended to punish and deter intentional breaches of a legal duty.

I can only award exemplary damages if I am satisfied that Mr Hauraki used methamphetamine at the premises or that he “permitted” it to be used.

Having heard from Mr Hauraki I am satisfied that some young family members who Mr Hauraki took in during his tenancy were responsible for the methamphetamine use at the premises. I am satisfied that Mr Hauraki was unaware of this activity at the time, and he do not “permit” it to occur at the premises.

Therefore I will not make an award of exemplary damages. Cockroaches, cleaning

As noted in the previous order, management of pests is a shared responsibility of landlords and tenants.

Ms Maraki provided some entry inspection photographs. The premises were clean and tidy and there were no visible cockroaches in the cupboards.

Ms Maraki’s photographs also show that the stove was clean and tidy at the beginning of the tenancy and the staining on the hob that can be seen on the exit photos was not present at the beginning.

I will award half of the pest treatment cost and I will award the $80.00 claimed for cleaning. Filing fee, bond

The landlord has been successful in this application and I must also award the landlord the filing fee of $27.00.

The proven claim exceeds the amount of the bond. The bond will be released to the landlord.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4928075 — net $1,477.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Pest control	$190.00	Pest control
Cleaning	$80.00	20. I will award half of the pest treatment cost and I will award the $80.00 claimed for cleaning.
Methamphetamine de-contamination (insurance excess	$2,500.00	Methamphetamine de-contamination (insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,477.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,477.00

Order

Toko Hauraki must pay Mid North Real Estate Limited (as agent for Thomas Jekyll Kiddle) $1,477.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,320.00 (3263830-018) to Mid North Real Estate Limited (as agent for Thomas Jekyll Kiddle) immediately.

Reasons

The adjournment order dated 5 September 2024 sets out the background to this application.
The second hearing took place on 10 October 2024. Mr Hauraki attended the hearing by phone.
At the hearing, Mid North: a. Clarified that the owner’s methamphetamine insurance cover includes testing costs, therefore there is no separate claim against the tenant for the cost of detailed testing. The compensation claim for methamphetamine costs is $2,500.00, being the amount of the owner’s insurance excess. b. Clarified that only the lounge, kitchen, and bathroom were de- contaminated. The total cost of this work as $4,224.81. c. Provided some photographs from the entry inspection report.
As noted in the previous order: a. Methamphetamine contamination at levels that necessitate de- contamination constitutes damage to the premises. b. Tenants are liable for damage that occurs during the period of the tenancy. c. Tenants are liable for damage that is caused by anyone who is at the premises with their consent. d. The test results prove that methamphetamine contamination occurred during the period of this tenancy. e. One of the samples, taken from the bathroom, showed contamination above 15 micrograms per 100cm2.
At the hearing Ms Maraki put forward an argument that there are indicators of methamphetamine manufacture during the tenancy, in which case the lower threshold of 1.5 micrograms per 100cm2 should apply. 1
It is not necessary for me to address that question because I am satisfied that the claim for $2,500 is proven even applying the 15 microgram threshold for methamphetamine use.
The question is whether the theoretical cost of de-contaminating just the bathroom would exceed $2,500.00. That is the only part of the house proven to be contaminated at a level above 15 micrograms.
The cost of de-contaminating just the bathroom is not known. The insurer didn’t just de-contaminate the bathroom. They de-contaminated the lounge kitchen and bathroom. The total cost of that work was $4,224.81.
However that is just the de-contamination cleaning cost. It doesn’t include the detailed testing cost and the testing after de-contamination cleaning. Those costs would be necessary even if only the bathroom was de-contaminated.
Taking those costs into account, it is clear that the cost of de-contaminating the bathroom would comfortably exceed $2,500.00. 1 As recommended in the Gluckman report.
Therefore, the claim for $2,500.00 is proven. Exemplary damages
A tenant is liable for repairs even if the tenant didn’t cause the damage. Tenants are liable for the damage caused by anyone who is at the premises with their consent.
That principle does not apply to exemplary damages. Exemplary damages are punitive, not compensatory. They are intended to punish and deter intentional breaches of a legal duty.
I can only award exemplary damages if I am satisfied that Mr Hauraki used methamphetamine at the premises or that he “permitted” it to be used.
Having heard from Mr Hauraki I am satisfied that some young family members who Mr Hauraki took in during his tenancy were responsible for the methamphetamine use at the premises. I am satisfied that Mr Hauraki was unaware of this activity at the time, and he do not “permit” it to occur at the premises.
Therefore I will not make an award of exemplary damages. Cockroaches, cleaning
As noted in the previous order, management of pests is a shared responsibility of landlords and tenants.
Ms Maraki provided some entry inspection photographs. The premises were clean and tidy and there were no visible cockroaches in the cupboards.
Ms Maraki’s photographs also show that the stove was clean and tidy at the beginning of the tenancy and the staining on the hob that can be seen on the exit photos was not present at the beginning.
I will award half of the pest treatment cost and I will award the $80.00 claimed for cleaning. Filing fee, bond
The landlord has been successful in this application and I must also award the landlord the filing fee of $27.00.
The proven claim exceeds the amount of the bond. The bond will be released to the landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4928075 — Property damage at Flat 24, 11 Orrs Road, Kaikohe, Kaikohe 0405

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4928075 — Property damage at Flat 24, 11 Orrs Road, Kaikohe, Kaikohe 0405

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions