What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5030888?

The tribunal order states: Sean Byrne must pay Grenadier Rent Shop Limited As Agent For H Budulis

How much money was awarded in case 5030888?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5030888?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5030888?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11213124-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5030888?

The tribunal order states: Sean Byrne must pay Grenadier Rent Shop Limited As Agent For H Budulis

How much money was awarded in case 5030888?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5030888?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5030888?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11213124-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

115 Pages Road, Wainoni, Christchurch 8061 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5030888 — Cleanliness

Order

Sean Byrne must pay Grenadier Rent Shop Limited As Agent For H Budulis $384.07 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$538.57 Cleaning$678.50 Carpet Cleaning$210.00 Rubbish removal and lawns$350.00 Repairs: Walls$380.00 Repairs: Blinds$200.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$2,384.07 Bond (already paid to landlord)$2,000.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$384.07
The landlord’s other claims are dismissed.
Darragh Foley was released from the tenancy with the agreement of the parties on 3 August 2024.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The application was made against Mr Byrne and Mr Foley, but at the hearing the landlord conceded that Mr Foley had bee released from the tenancy.
The landlord has already received the bond and, without the agreement of the tenant applied some of it to rent arrears and some to rubbish removal and gardening work. The balance was not accounted for.
The landlord must prove all its claims, including those it has applied the bond to. Otherwise, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied ow much of the bond should be applied to this application.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 18 August 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at 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. 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 provided photographs and invoices for costs incurred. I have awarded the full amounts claimed for cleaning and carpet cleaning.
The landlord had applied $862.50 of the bond to rubbish removal and exterior tidying. The invoice refers to work which is landlord maintenance obligation such as tree pruning, although no amount is specifically applied to that work. The ingoing inspection report shows that the bins were not empty at the start of the tenancy. Having regard to the photographs provided and similar claims in the Tribunal, I award $350 for lawns and rubbish removal.
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.
The landlord claimed for a range of alleged damage to the premises. The largest claim was for a replacement shower and vinyl following leaks on the bathroom floor. Apparently, the shower base had a crack in it a start of the tenancy. There was no evidence of water damage or leakage until very late in this tenancy. An email from the property owner records the damage only being obvious in the last few weeks of the tenancy, but also claims that the tenant should pay the cost of a full replacement shower and should have advised the landlord of leaks during the tenancy. There was nothing to advise; on the owner’s evidence the damage was not apparent.
The replacement shower is a maintenance issue for the landlord to attend to. The cause and extent of any water damage or staining to the vinyl flooring is not clear. The vinyl has not been replaced and a new tenancy has started. The landlord has not proved this aspect of its claim.
Claims for replacement shower and vinyl are dismissed.
There was some wall damage caused during the tenancy and some blinds and net curtains were damaged. Having regard to the photographs, some of the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for that damage. I award $200 for the blinds and net curtains and $380.00 for wall damage.
In relation to the invoice for blind/curtain replacement, I note that the amount claimed included replacement light bulbs (which are not awarded), and that the contractor noted electrical fault in some lamps; which is a landlord maintenance issue. Methamphetamine Claims
The final issue was claims for methamphetamine testing and decontamination.
The landlord provided in-going test results showing that there was no methamphetamine detected at the premises.
The tenant moved out on 10 August 2024. The tenancy ended on 18 August 2024. Post tenancy testing samples were taken on 5 September 2024. Those results returned a composite reading of 0.85 μg/100cm 2 with a theoretical maximum of 8.5 μg/100cm 2 for any one sample.
Individual analysis of the 5 September samples returned low readings in most rooms with the results above NZS8510:2017 on the bedroom 2 door (2.3 μg/100cm 2 ) and hallway door (2.2 μg/100cm 2 ).
The landlord claimed that the test results show that the tenant was using the premises for an unlawful purpose and claimed exemplary damages. The landlord also claimed reimbursement of testing and decontamination costs.
The test samples were taken over three weeks after the tenant moved out and over a fortnight after the tenancy ended. The tenant said that there were tradespeople and others at the premises after he moved out. The invoices provided by the landlord also confirm that there were others at the premises before the testing was done.
The tenant denied using methamphetamine. He also gave evidence that he is subject to random drug testing during his employment and has not returned any positive tests.
On balance, the landlord has not established that it is more likely than not that methamphetamine has been used at the premises during this tenancy. The delay in testing and the range of people at premises in the meantime provides an alternative explanation for the low level readings.
Even if methamphetamine use had bee established, the recorded levels do not constitute “damage”.
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/100cm 2 for high use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture. It recommended a higher level of 3.8μg/100cm 2 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/100cm 2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect. It recommended retaining the level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 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.
More recently, in Barfoot and Thompson Limited v Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited [2021] NZTT Auckland 4276319, both parties presented scientific evidence at a hearing before the Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that there was no new scientific research to change the conclusions reached in the Gluckman Report.
The claims in relation to methamphetamine are dismissed.
As the landlord was partially successful, I have awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5030888 — Cleanliness at 115 Pages Road, Wainoni, Christchurch 8061

Tenancy Tribunal case 5030888 — Cleanliness at 115 Pages Road, Wainoni, Christchurch 8061

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Property management

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Property management