What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4984174?

The tribunal order states: Olivia Holloway and Adam Hodgkiss to pay Robert James (Jim) Gilmore

How much money was awarded in case 4984174?

Rent Arrears: $390.00 awarded to landlord; - Carpet Stains: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $157.40 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4984174?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4984174?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11366526-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4984174?

The tribunal order states: Olivia Holloway and Adam Hodgkiss to pay Robert James (Jim) Gilmore

How much money was awarded in case 4984174?

Rent Arrears: $390.00 awarded to landlord; - Carpet Stains: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $157.40 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4984174?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4984174?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11366526-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

40A Philomel Crest, Welcome Bay, Tauranga 3112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4984174 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4984174 — net $747.40 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 1 July 2024	$390.00	Rent arrears to 1 July 2024
Water rates to 1 July 2024	$157.40	Water rates to 1 July 2024
Repairs: - carpet stains	$200.00	Repairs: - carpet stains
Net award	$747.40
Bond	$747.40
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$747.40

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4984174 — net $747.40 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 1 July 2024	$390.00	Rent arrears to 1 July 2024
Water rates to 1 July 2024	$157.40	Water rates to 1 July 2024
Repairs: - carpet stains	$200.00	Repairs: - carpet stains
Net award	$747.40
Bond	$747.40
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$747.40

Order

Olivia Holloway and Adam Hodgkiss to pay Robert James (Jim) Gilmore $747.20 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $747.20 (3589316-014) to Robert James (Jim) Gilmore immediately.
The balance of the bond of $1,772.80 is to remain at the Bond Centre.
The balance of the landlord’s claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing held in Tauranga on 24 January 2025.
On Tuesday 21 January 2025 the tenants emailed the registry seeking an adjournment to file a cross-application. The request was referred to me on the evening of 23 January 2025 and I declined to grant the adjournment.
The tenants did not attend the hearing. The tenants were phoned twice on the phone number provided but the calls went unanswered. I am satisfied the tenants were properly served with notice of the hearing. The hearing proceeded in their absence. Tenancy
The tenancy commenced on 3 January 2024 and was a fixed term tenancy with a contractual end date of 4 January 2025.
The parties ended the tenancy by agreement on 1 July 2024. Landlord’s claims
The landlord has applied for: a. Rent arrears - $390.00, b. Water rates to the end of the tenancy - $157.40, c. Kitchen cabinet repairs - $160.00, d. Carpet repairs for damage - $300.00. e. Reimbursement of a positive methamphetamine test - $318.26. f. Methamphetamine decontamination - $4,945.00. g. Curtain cleaning in relation to methamphetamine contamination - $90.00. h. Exemplary damages for permitting the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose - $1,800.00. i. Loss of rent due to methamphetamine contamination - $900.00. j. Reimbursement of the filing fee - $27.00. k. Payment of the bond.
In the application form the landlord sought remedies in relation to the tenants’ alleged breaches of the tenancy agreement or RTA in relation to: a. the tenants having extra people living in the premises, b. the tenants having unregistered vehicles on the property, and c. the tenants having a cat. The application form did not state the amount claimed in relation to these alleged breaches. Given the landlord had clearly specified he sought exemplary damages for permitting the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose I raised that if the landlord sought money orders in relation to these claims, I would adjourn the matter for the landlord to amend his application setting out the specific amounts he was claiming. The landlord did not want the matter adjourned and I dismiss these claims with consent of the landlord, without prejudice as I did not hear these matters. Relevant legal provisions
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
The more serious the claims made the greater the evidential burden on the applicant will be. 1
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy 2 , in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
The Tribunal is required to exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants and to determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but it is not bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms 1 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55. 2 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02 or technicalities. The Tribunal has determined this matter with these provisions in mind. 3
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the evidence provided, but the parties should know that I have considered all the evidence. Rent arrears
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $390.00 and I make an order for the full amount claimed. Water rates
The landlord has provided water rates invoices and photos of the water meter which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy is $157.40 and I make an order for water rates for 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. 4
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). 5
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). 6 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 7
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 3 See section 85 of the RTA. 4 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 5 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 6 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 7 See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA. applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. 8
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. 9
I must take into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The landlord said his insurance excess amount is $1,500.00 and rent was $630 per week. Kitchen wall
The landlord says the kitchen cabinet wall was water damaged during the tenancy by the tenant’s fridge leaking and the tenant leaving water to remain in the area.
The landlord claimed $160 being 2.5 hours of his time at the rate of $60 per hour and materials of $10.00 (no invoice was provided in support of the claim for materials).
The landlord says the kitchen was renovated in mid-2022. The property was tenanted after the renovation and prior to this tenancy commencing.
The landlord did not provide any photographs from the start of the tenancy or pre -inspection report in support of the claim. The landlord provided photographs of the damaged wall and the wall once the repair was completed.
Given the landlord has not provided any photographs from the start of the tenancy I am not satisfied on the evidence that the damage was caused during this tenancy nor in reviewing the photo of the damage, that it is beyond fair wear and tear. Accordingly, the claim for the kitchen wall damage is dismissed. Carpet damage from stains
The landlord says the tenant damaged the carpet during the tenancy. 8 See section 49B(1) of the RTA. 9 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord claims $300.00 for his 4 hours of time to repair the carpet. The landlord repaired the carpet with offcuts and a mat. The landlord brought part of the stained carpet to the hearing, and I was able to view it.
The landlord said the carpet was replaced in mid-2022.
The landlord did not provide any photographs from the start of the tenancy or pre -inspection report in support of the claim. The landlord relied on his oral evidence that the carpet looked like new at the commencement of the tenancy and photographs of the premises being left in a generally unclean state at the end of the tenancy.
In reviewing the photographs of the damage, in the context of the premises being left in an unclean state and based on oral evidence of the landlord, I consider that it is more likely than not that the carpet was carelessly damaged during the tenancy. Given the landlord is a retired builder I consider compensation at the rate of $50 per hour is reasonable for his time and make an order for the amount of $200.00. Methamphetamine claim
The landlord claims methamphetamine contamination testing and remediation costs for decontamination and cleaning the curtains. The landlord also seeks exemplary damages and loss of rent.
The landlord seeks these costs from the tenant. The landlord says the tenant used methamphetamine during the tenancy in the premises.
The landlord could not claim insurance for methamphetamine contamination. Relevant law – methamphetamine
Methamphetamine contamination, at levels that require de-contamination, constitutes damage to the premises.
Section 138C of the RTA provides for regulations to be made prescribing the maximum acceptable level for contaminants. There is currently no level specified for de-contamination for methamphetamine.
In 2017 the Standards New Zealand released Standard NZS 8510:2017 “Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine-contaminated properties” (the Standard) At that time, the Standard set the definitive levels at which properties which had methamphetamine contamination, required remediation. The Standard confirmed that the level at which habitation of residential premises was considered safe, was a level of 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 . The expectation on landlords arising from the Standard, was to remediate premises contaminated with methamphetamine, to a level of less than 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 .
Subsequently, the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman concluded that any levels below 15 μg/100 cm 2 were unlikely to present adverse effects. 10 The Gluckman report recommended decontamination to the level of 1.5μg/100cm2 only where contamination resulted from manufacture due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the manufacturing process.
There are therefore the two sources of guidance on the issue of a safe level of methamphetamine contamination in residential premises - the Standard level of
5 μg/100 cm 2 and the Gluckman report that there is no evidence of risk below 15 μg/100 cm 2 .
The Tenancy Tribunal has adopted the recommendations of the Gluckman report, which concluded that de-contamination is required if contamination is present at levels of 15 μg/100 cm 2 or above.
This approach has been approved by the District Court and has been applied in Tenancy Tribunal decisions. 11 Baseline testing at start of the tenancy
As stated above, with any claim before the Tribunal, the onus for establishing the claim sits with the applicant, that is the landlord. The landlord must establish that methamphetamine contamination is likely to have occurred during the tenancy. This would need to be by way of pre-tenancy methamphetamine testing being undertaken.
The tenancy commenced on 3 January 2024
The landlord provided the baseline rapid test result dated 3 January 2024 to show that there was no methamphetamine contamination at the start of the tenancy.
There were issues in respect of the testing which I address below. Testing at end of tenancy
The premises was rapid tested at the end of the tenancy. The landlord said the test was a composite test (samples were taken from different places in the premises and combined into one analysis) but the test results did not state the 10 Report entitled ‘Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards’, 29 May 2018. 11 Full Circle Real Estate Ltd v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947, Acme Realty Ltd v Alexander James Hogg, Tuitui Grace Polotu, Leigh Sharyn Coughlin [2021] NZDC 3231 and Eren Limited v Martin and Kukuruzsnayak [2021] NZDC 15210 level of contamination. The DetectaChem result indicates no meth was detected however the rapid test has a handwritten note saying one line indicates a positive test.
Aside from this rapid test result the landlord has no other reason to consider the tenants were using methamphetamine.
The landlord did not undertake further detailed testing of individual samples to identify the level of contamination.
At the hearing I queried the methodology used in respect of the methamphetamine testing undertaken by the landlord’s property manager.
The testing method should comply with the Standard. 12
The test results submitted from both the start and end of the tenancy do not refer to the Standard, and there is no information about the methodology or area/s sampled or what specific or average results were obtained. Without this information I consider the test results provided are insufficient evidence that the property has been contaminated to a level that requires decontamination or that the tenant has committed an unlawful act.
The claim for testing is dismissed for lack of information as to the level of contamination or methodology.
Further, as there is no evidence that any part of the premises was contaminated at a level above 15 μg/100 cm 2 the tenant is not liable for the post de- contamination test. The claim for decontamination costs is dismissed.
The landlord claimed cleaning costs in respect of the damage to the curtains from methamphetamine contamination. For the reasons above the claim for the curtain cleaning is dismissed.
The claim for loss of rent is dismissed for the reasons above.
Given the issues outlined in relation to the methodology in the testing of this premises, I consider there is insufficient evidence to find that the tenant has committed an unlawful act and the claim for exemplary damages is dismissed. Bond
Part of the bond is to be paid to the landlord immediately to offset the amount ordered. Filing fee 12 See Investment Rentals Ltd as agent for Ah Kim Foo v Cooper [2017] NZTT 4080731 at [13].
Because the landlord has not substantially succeeded with the claim, I have not reimbursed the filing fee. Suppression
The landlord confirmed that name suppression was not sought.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4984174 — Rent arrears at 40A Philomel Crest, Welcome Bay, Tauranga 3112

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4984174 — Rent arrears at 40A Philomel Crest, Welcome Bay, Tauranga 3112

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions