What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4965874?

The tribunal order states: Emily Kate Giles must pay Auckland Property Management Limited As Agent

How much money was awarded in case 4965874?

Cleaning: $195.01 awarded to landlord; Eviction Cost: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,238.57 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,426.60 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $75.63 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4965874?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4965874?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10962857-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4965874?

The tribunal order states: Emily Kate Giles must pay Auckland Property Management Limited As Agent

How much money was awarded in case 4965874?

Cleaning: $195.01 awarded to landlord; Eviction Cost: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,238.57 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,426.60 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $75.63 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4965874?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4965874?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10962857-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

2B Glenalmond Road, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4965874 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4965874 — net $3,662.81 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,238.57	Rent arrears
Windows: insurance excess	$500.00	Windows: insurance excess
Water rates	$75.63	Water rates
Cleaning	$195.01	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$1,426.60	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Eviction cost	$200.00	Eviction cost
Net award	$3,662.81
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,662.81

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant telephone number was not answered. There have been two prior applications heard pertaining to this tenancy and the tenant has not appeared at either.

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 and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 17 March 2024. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amounts owing at the end of the tenancy are as ordered. The rent arrears ordered here is for the period between the prior order termination date and rent arrears at that date, and the actual, later possession return date.

The tenancy was ended earlier by a prior Tribunal order and enforcement of the possession order was required. The rent arrears ordered here is for the period between the prior order termination date and the actual, later possession return date. The cost of this enforcement was $200.00 and the landlord sought compensation, supported by an invoice. The landlord confirmed the cost has not been added to the debt from the prior order (under enforcement) and so I award it here.

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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord sought $195.01 for cleaning and $1,426.60 for the cost of removal and disposal of a significant amount of abandoned items and rubbish. These claims were supported by invoices and photographs.

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. 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.

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.

Four windows and a sash butt were damaged beyond fair wear and tear. The repair cost was $1,526.10 but the landlord sought $500.00, stating that was the excess incurred in a successful insurance claim. That amount is awarded.

The amount ordered is proved. Methamphetamine

The landlord has applied for compensation for the cost methamphetamine testing and remediation. The insurance excess of $2,500.00 was sought.

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 in relation to methamphetamine.

There are currently two sources of guidance on the issue of a safe level of methamphetamine contamination in residential premises. In June 2017 Standards New Zealand published NZS 8510:2017. The standard recommended a maximum contamination level of 1.5μg/100cm2 for high use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture. It recommended a higher level of 3.8μg/100cm2 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/100cm2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect. It recommended retaining the level of 1.5μg/100cm2 where contamination resulted from manufacture, due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the process.

The District Court has held that remediation should be carried out in accordance with the prevailing guidelines at the time (Diamond Real Estate Limited v Allan [2017] NZDC 833, Judge Kellar).

The Tribunal has generally applied the Gluckman recommendation. This approach was approved by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947, where the Court stated (at para [36]):

The Tenancy Tribunal was in a difficult position. The best state of knowledge of risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination available to the adjudicator was the Gluckman Report. It would have been bold for the adjudicator to have ignored that report in favour of the New Zealand Standard given that the Gluckman report represents the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination in dwellings.

The District Court took a similar approach in Acme Realty Limited v Hogg and others [2021] NZDC 3231, where the Court referred to the Full Circle case and held that, because NZS 8510:2017 has not been adopted into law, the Tribunal was not bound to apply the 1.5μg standard.

The claim for methamphetamine contamination and associated remediation cost is dismissed. The evidence levels were lower than that considered as unsafe (being a maximum theoretical maximum of 10.29μg, based on eight samples from a composite test). A subsequent detailed test found the highest level (in a bedroom) to be 3.8μg.

Further, there was no baseline test to establish any methamphetamine contamination on or around the commencement of the tenancy. The lack of this, or alternative evidence, would likely be fatal for any subsequent methamphetamine claim. Application filing fee

Because Auckland Property Management Limited As Agent For Jguo Developments Limited Guo has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4965874 — net $3,662.81 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,238.57	Rent arrears
Windows: insurance excess	$500.00	Windows: insurance excess
Water rates	$75.63	Water rates
Cleaning	$195.01	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$1,426.60	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Eviction cost	$200.00	Eviction cost
Net award	$3,662.81
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,662.81

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant telephone number was not answered. There have been two prior applications heard pertaining to this tenancy and the tenant has not appeared at either.

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 and water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The amount ordered is proved. Methamphetamine

The landlord has applied for compensation for the cost methamphetamine testing and remediation. The insurance excess of $2,500.00 was sought.

The District Court has held that remediation should be carried out in accordance with the prevailing guidelines at the time (Diamond Real Estate Limited v Allan [2017] NZDC 833, Judge Kellar).

Because Auckland Property Management Limited As Agent For Jguo Developments Limited Guo has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4965874 — Rent arrears at 2B Glenalmond Road, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4965874 — Rent arrears at 2B Glenalmond Road, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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