What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5138888?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,540.00 (6502872-036) to Barfoot &

How much money was awarded in case 5138888?

Break Lease Reasonable Expenses: $738.73 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Difference In Rent From 30 December…: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,190.01 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $37.04 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5138888?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5138888?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12071688-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5138888?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,540.00 (6502872-036) to Barfoot &

How much money was awarded in case 5138888?

Break Lease Reasonable Expenses: $738.73 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Difference In Rent From 30 December…: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,190.01 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $37.04 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5138888?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5138888?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12071688-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 3, 110 Kervil Avenue, Te Atatu Peninsula, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5138888 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5138888 — net $2,082.78 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 29 December 2024 (less insurance	$3,190.01	Rent arrears to 29 December 2024 (less insurance
Difference in rent from 30 December 2024 to until the end of the fixed term on 10 March 2025 (less insurance	$400.00	Difference in rent from 30 December 2024 to until the end of the fixed term on 10 March 2025 (less insurance
Water rates to 11 November 2025	$37.04	Water rates to 11 November 2025
Break lease reasonable expenses	$738.73	Break lease reasonable expenses
Cleaning	$230.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,082.78
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,082.78

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,540.00 (6502872-036) to Barfoot & Thompson Limited Te Atatu acting as agent for Christopher Garrod immediately.
Archal Lal and Anesh Narsinh must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited Te Atatu acting as agent for Christopher Garrod $2,082.78 immediately, calculated as showing in the table below.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing, represented by Ms Williams and Ms Haggert.
I am satisfied that the tenants have been served with the landlord’s application and so the hearing proceeded in the tenants’ absence.
This tenancy began on 21 July 2023 and was for a fixed term until 10 March 2024. On 9 July 2024 the parties entered into an agreement to extend the fixed term until 10 March 2025.
The tenants told the landlords in October 2024 that they wanted to move to take up an employment opportunity.
On 4 November 2024 the parties entered into an agreement whereby the landlord would release the tenants from the fixed term tenancy on the basis that the tenants would be liable for: a. rent until a new tenant was found; b. any difference in the rent paid by the new tenant until the end of the fixed term; and c. the reasonable expenses incurred by the landlord in re-letting the property.
The tenants left the property on 10 November 2024. The last rent payment was made on 6 November 2024.
The landlord advertised for new tenants almost immediately. They conducted 14 viewings to find a tenant (viewing schedule produced in evidence) and did virtual staging to assist in this process (evidence produced). After a reasonable period the rent was reduced by $50.00 per week. What are the landlord’s claims?
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, exemplary damages, 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 landlord provided rent records showing rent arrears owing to the end of the tenancy of $4,082.14 to 29 December 2024. The difference in rent between 30 December 2024 and the end of the fixed term was $500 ($50 for ten weeks).
However the landlord has made an insurance claim and has received: a. the sum of $1,542.13 for the rent owing to 29 December 2024 less the insurance excess paid of $650 reducing the amount claimed to $3,190.01. b. the sum of $100 for the difference in rent between 30 December until the end of the fixed term reducing the amount claimed to $400.00.
Both amounts are proved.
The landlord also claimed the sum of $37.04 for water arrears until the date the tenants vacated the property. The landlord produced a water invoice and invoice sent onto the tenant for portion owing.
This claim is proved.

Is the landlord entitled to break-lease expenses?

The landlord provided the tenants with an itemised list of expenses incurred in re-tenanting the property including advertising, exit inspection, credit checks etc.
A copy of the list was produced at the hearing. The expenses claimed total $738.73.
At the hearing Ms Williams explained that the landlord had conducted many more viewings than were charged but had limited the expenses claimed as agreed with the tenant. The expenses charged are reasonable and less than those incurred.
This claim is proved.

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 landlord said that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and there were stains on the carpet that had to be cleaned.
The landlord said that the tenancy property was a new-build and the tenants were the first people to live there. The landlord provided both entry inspection reports. The exit inspection photos show that there were stains on the carpet in one room and that further cleaning was required in various areas in including the stove.
The landlord provided a copy of an email to the tenant advising that they had obtained various quotes for cleaning and that the most cost effective quote was $200 plus GST. The tenant replied asking the landlord to go ahead with that quote.
The landlord engaged the cleaner as quoted and produced an invoice in the amount of $230.00 for cleaning.
This claim is proved.

Is the landlord entitled to exemplary damages?

The landlord claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by using the premises for the consumption of methamphetamine.
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Methamphetamine is class A controlled drug and consumption is unlawful under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest (see section 109(3) RTA).
If the tenant breaches their obligations under section 40(2)(b) RTA the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Exemplary damages are different from compensation. They are not intended to compensate the landlord. They are a financial penalty intended to punish and deter.
The landlord produced a screening assessment report dated 17 July 2023 which showed no presence of methamphetamine above the detectable limit of
04μg/100cm 2 from a composite sample. The report states that the following areas were sampled: Kitchen, Lounge Room, Bedroom 1, Bedroom 2 and Bathroom.
The landlord then produced a screening assessment report dated 14 November 2024 which shows that residue of 0.24μg/100cm 2 from a composite sample. The report states that the following areas were sampled: Kitchen, Lounge Room, Bedroom 1, Bedroom 1 and Bathroom.
The landlord accepts that the levels found are well below both the New Zealand Standard and the Gluckman Standard and that remediation is not required 1 but said that they seek exemplary damages for unlawful use.
When questioned at the hearing whether there was any other evidence of methamphetamine use at the property (for example drug paraphernalia such as pipes or any unusual behaviour) the landlord confirmed that there was not. There was no evidence of any Police attendances.
Having considered all of the evidence I am not satisfied that the landlord has proved that the tenants used methamphetamine in the premises themselves or permitted another person to do so. I make this finding because: 1 The New Zealand Standard” refers to the June 2017 Standards New Zealand published NZS 8510:2017 which recommended a maximum safe contamination level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 . The Gluckman Standard refers to the May 2018 report by Sir Peter Gluckman which recommended a maximum safe contamination level of 15μg/100cm 2 a. The levels found a very low; b. The reports show a difference in the areas tested (bedroom 2 not tested in the second screening); c. I do not have any information showing where the tests areas were in each case (whether adjacent to the original tests or from a different area in each room); d. There were no other indications of methamphetamine use at the property.
The landlord’s claim for exemplary damages is not proven and is dismissed 2 . Filing fee and name suppression
Because Barfoot & Thompson Limited Te Atatu acting as agent for Christopher Garrod has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord did not seek an order for name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5138888 — net $2,082.78 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 29 December 2024 (less insurance	$3,190.01	Rent arrears to 29 December 2024 (less insurance
Difference in rent from 30 December 2024 to until the end of the fixed term on 10 March 2025 (less insurance	$400.00	Difference in rent from 30 December 2024 to until the end of the fixed term on 10 March 2025 (less insurance
Water rates to 11 November 2025	$37.04	Water rates to 11 November 2025
Break lease reasonable expenses	$738.73	Break lease reasonable expenses
Cleaning	$230.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,082.78
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,082.78

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,540.00 (6502872-036) to Barfoot & Thompson Limited Te Atatu acting as agent for Christopher Garrod immediately.
Archal Lal and Anesh Narsinh must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited Te Atatu acting as agent for Christopher Garrod $2,082.78 immediately, calculated as showing in the table below.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing, represented by Ms Williams and Ms Haggert.
I am satisfied that the tenants have been served with the landlord’s application and so the hearing proceeded in the tenants’ absence.
This tenancy began on 21 July 2023 and was for a fixed term until 10 March 2024. On 9 July 2024 the parties entered into an agreement to extend the fixed term until 10 March 2025.
The tenants told the landlords in October 2024 that they wanted to move to take up an employment opportunity.
On 4 November 2024 the parties entered into an agreement whereby the landlord would release the tenants from the fixed term tenancy on the basis that the tenants would be liable for: a. rent until a new tenant was found; b. any difference in the rent paid by the new tenant until the end of the fixed term; and c. the reasonable expenses incurred by the landlord in re-letting the property.
The tenants left the property on 10 November 2024. The last rent payment was made on 6 November 2024.
The landlord advertised for new tenants almost immediately. They conducted 14 viewings to find a tenant (viewing schedule produced in evidence) and did virtual staging to assist in this process (evidence produced). After a reasonable period the rent was reduced by $50.00 per week. What are the landlord’s claims?
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, exemplary damages, 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 landlord provided rent records showing rent arrears owing to the end of the tenancy of $4,082.14 to 29 December 2024. The difference in rent between 30 December 2024 and the end of the fixed term was $500 ($50 for ten weeks).
However the landlord has made an insurance claim and has received: a. the sum of $1,542.13 for the rent owing to 29 December 2024 less the insurance excess paid of $650 reducing the amount claimed to $3,190.01. b. the sum of $100 for the difference in rent between 30 December until the end of the fixed term reducing the amount claimed to $400.00.
Both amounts are proved.
The landlord also claimed the sum of $37.04 for water arrears until the date the tenants vacated the property. The landlord produced a water invoice and invoice sent onto the tenant for portion owing.
This claim is proved.

Is the landlord entitled to break-lease expenses?

The landlord provided the tenants with an itemised list of expenses incurred in re-tenanting the property including advertising, exit inspection, credit checks etc.
A copy of the list was produced at the hearing. The expenses claimed total $738.73.
At the hearing Ms Williams explained that the landlord had conducted many more viewings than were charged but had limited the expenses claimed as agreed with the tenant. The expenses charged are reasonable and less than those incurred.
This claim is proved.

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 landlord said that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and there were stains on the carpet that had to be cleaned.
The landlord said that the tenancy property was a new-build and the tenants were the first people to live there. The landlord provided both entry inspection reports. The exit inspection photos show that there were stains on the carpet in one room and that further cleaning was required in various areas in including the stove.
The landlord provided a copy of an email to the tenant advising that they had obtained various quotes for cleaning and that the most cost effective quote was $200 plus GST. The tenant replied asking the landlord to go ahead with that quote.
The landlord engaged the cleaner as quoted and produced an invoice in the amount of $230.00 for cleaning.
This claim is proved.

Is the landlord entitled to exemplary damages?

The landlord claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by using the premises for the consumption of methamphetamine.
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Methamphetamine is class A controlled drug and consumption is unlawful under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest (see section 109(3) RTA).
If the tenant breaches their obligations under section 40(2)(b) RTA the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Exemplary damages are different from compensation. They are not intended to compensate the landlord. They are a financial penalty intended to punish and deter.
The landlord produced a screening assessment report dated 17 July 2023 which showed no presence of methamphetamine above the detectable limit of
04μg/100cm 2 from a composite sample. The report states that the following areas were sampled: Kitchen, Lounge Room, Bedroom 1, Bedroom 2 and Bathroom.
The landlord then produced a screening assessment report dated 14 November 2024 which shows that residue of 0.24μg/100cm 2 from a composite sample. The report states that the following areas were sampled: Kitchen, Lounge Room, Bedroom 1, Bedroom 1 and Bathroom.
The landlord accepts that the levels found are well below both the New Zealand Standard and the Gluckman Standard and that remediation is not required 1 but said that they seek exemplary damages for unlawful use.
When questioned at the hearing whether there was any other evidence of methamphetamine use at the property (for example drug paraphernalia such as pipes or any unusual behaviour) the landlord confirmed that there was not. There was no evidence of any Police attendances.
Having considered all of the evidence I am not satisfied that the landlord has proved that the tenants used methamphetamine in the premises themselves or permitted another person to do so. I make this finding because: 1 The New Zealand Standard” refers to the June 2017 Standards New Zealand published NZS 8510:2017 which recommended a maximum safe contamination level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 . The Gluckman Standard refers to the May 2018 report by Sir Peter Gluckman which recommended a maximum safe contamination level of 15μg/100cm 2 a. The levels found a very low; b. The reports show a difference in the areas tested (bedroom 2 not tested in the second screening); c. I do not have any information showing where the tests areas were in each case (whether adjacent to the original tests or from a different area in each room); d. There were no other indications of methamphetamine use at the property.
The landlord’s claim for exemplary damages is not proven and is dismissed 2 . Filing fee and name suppression
Because Barfoot & Thompson Limited Te Atatu acting as agent for Christopher Garrod has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord did not seek an order for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5138888 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 3, 110 Kervil Avenue, Te Atatu Peninsula,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5138888 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 3, 110 Kervil Avenue, Te Atatu Peninsula,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Is the landlord entitled to break-lease expenses?

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

Is the landlord entitled to exemplary damages?

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?

Is the landlord entitled to break-lease expenses?

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

Is the landlord entitled to exemplary damages?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions