What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5152792?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $256.00 (6390865-014) to Linkpeople

How much money was awarded in case 5152792?

Cleaning: $1,495.07 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $230.75 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $493.70 awarded to landlord; Eviction Warrant: $258.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $498.09 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,685.30 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5152792?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5152792?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11669038-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5152792?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $256.00 (6390865-014) to Linkpeople

How much money was awarded in case 5152792?

Cleaning: $1,495.07 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $230.75 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $493.70 awarded to landlord; Eviction Warrant: $258.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $498.09 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,685.30 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5152792?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5152792?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11669038-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 5B Pantera Way, Hillpark, Auckland 2102 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5152792 — Cleanliness

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5152792 — net $4,431.91 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Balance of invoice for cleaning, repairs and methamphetamine decontamination	$1,495.07	Balance of invoice for cleaning, repairs and methamphetamine decontamination
Repairing locks and securing property following eviction	$498.09	Repairing locks and securing property following eviction
Rubbish removal (including skip bin hire	$1,685.30	Rubbish removal (including skip bin hire
Meth testing/Cleaning (composite	$230.75	Meth testing/Cleaning (composite
Meth testing/Cleaning (discrete	$493.70	Meth testing/Cleaning (discrete
Eviction Warrant	$258.00	Eviction Warrant
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,431.91
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,431.91

Only the landlord attended the hearing, represented by Ms Wisneski. Two calls were placed to the tenant but neither call connected. The hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence.

This tenancy was terminated by order of the Tribunal ([2024] NZTT 4843866) and possession was granted to the landlord on 30 September 2024.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Eviction (Eviction Warrant and locks)

The tenant did not leave the property by the possession date and so the landlord obtained an Eviction Warrant and the tenant was evicted on 7 October 2024.

The landlord is entitled to the cost of the Eviction Warrant of $258.00.

When they took back possession the landlord found that the property was not secure and so the door and locks was repaired. The landlord provided an invoice in the amount of $498.09 for locks to secure the property. This claim is proved. Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy? Is the tenant liable for damage to the premises?

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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy.

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.

This tenancy began on 23 April 2021. The property was a brand new build an the tenant was the first person to move into it.

The landlord provided a copy of the code of compliance report showing that the property was new together with a copy of an inspection report conducted early in the tenancy.

The landlord also produced an exit inspection report showing the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy. The photos show that the property was left in appalling state with various rubbish and household items strewn throughout the property. The property was very unclean, food had been left out and dirty dishes were piled up in the sink.

The landlord obtained a composite and discrete methamphetamine tests. The discrete test records methamphetamine contamination of very high levels of methamphetamine contamination in the kitchen at 35.0 μg/100cm 2 .

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.

I find it proved that the tenant did not leave the property clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The property was also contaminated with methamphetamine, at a level well over the levels referred to by Sir Peter Gluckman in his report. There was also substantial damage to the property (including carpet damage, damage to walls and door frames and missing blinds), all of which occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear.

The landlord produced an itemised invoice in the amount of $11,462.19 for cleaning, methamphetamine decontamination and repairs. The landlord explained that due to the nature of this tenancy (a “housing first” tenancy) the Ministry of Housing and Urban development had contributed the sum of $9,967.12 towards the cost of methamphetamine decontamination. The landlord has applied this sum to the invoice and therefore claims the balance of $1,495.07. This claim is proved and I award that amount.

The landlord also produced an invoice in the amount of $1,685.30 for rubbish removal and for hiring a skip bin. This amount is very reasonable given the amount of rubbish left behind. The claim for rubbish removal is proved.

The landlord also sought to recover the cost of methamphetamine testing (discrete testing and composite re-testing). The landlord said that they test for methamphetamine at every inspection and do not seek to pass on the cost of testing to the tenant unless a positive test is returned and discrete testing is required. The landlord provided an invoice for discrete testing ($493.70) and for composite re-testing ($230.75). I consider that these amounts are recoverable as these costs would not have been incurred if the contamination had not occurred. Filing fee and name suppression

Because Linkpeople Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

The landlord did not seek an order for name suppression. The tenant is not entitled to an order for name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5152792 — net $4,431.91 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Balance of invoice for cleaning, repairs and methamphetamine decontamination	$1,495.07	Balance of invoice for cleaning, repairs and methamphetamine decontamination
Repairing locks and securing property following eviction	$498.09	Repairing locks and securing property following eviction
Rubbish removal (including skip bin hire	$1,685.30	Rubbish removal (including skip bin hire
Meth testing/Cleaning (composite	$230.75	Meth testing/Cleaning (composite
Meth testing/Cleaning (discrete	$493.70	Meth testing/Cleaning (discrete
Eviction Warrant	$258.00	Eviction Warrant
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,431.91
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,431.91

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $256.00 (6390865-014) to Linkpeople Limited immediately.
Lily Hine Te Wera must pay Linkpeople Limited $4,431.91 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing, represented by Ms Wisneski. Two calls were placed to the tenant but neither call connected. The hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence.
This tenancy was terminated by order of the Tribunal ([2024] NZTT 4843866) and possession was granted to the landlord on 30 September 2024.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Eviction (Eviction Warrant and locks)
The tenant did not leave the property by the possession date and so the landlord obtained an Eviction Warrant and the tenant was evicted on 7 October 2024.
The landlord is entitled to the cost of the Eviction Warrant of $258.00.
When they took back possession the landlord found that the property was not secure and so the door and locks was repaired. The landlord provided an invoice in the amount of $498.09 for locks to secure the property. This claim is proved. Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy? Is the tenant liable for damage to the premises?
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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy.
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.
This tenancy began on 23 April 2021. The property was a brand new build an the tenant was the first person to move into it.
The landlord provided a copy of the code of compliance report showing that the property was new together with a copy of an inspection report conducted early in the tenancy.
The landlord also produced an exit inspection report showing the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy. The photos show that the property was left in appalling state with various rubbish and household items strewn throughout the property. The property was very unclean, food had been left out and dirty dishes were piled up in the sink.
The landlord obtained a composite and discrete methamphetamine tests. The discrete test records methamphetamine contamination of very high levels of methamphetamine contamination in the kitchen at 35.0 μg/100cm 2 .
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.
I find it proved that the tenant did not leave the property clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The property was also contaminated with methamphetamine, at a level well over the levels referred to by Sir Peter Gluckman in his report. There was also substantial damage to the property (including carpet damage, damage to walls and door frames and missing blinds), all of which occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear.
The landlord produced an itemised invoice in the amount of $11,462.19 for cleaning, methamphetamine decontamination and repairs. The landlord explained that due to the nature of this tenancy (a “housing first” tenancy) the Ministry of Housing and Urban development had contributed the sum of $9,967.12 towards the cost of methamphetamine decontamination. The landlord has applied this sum to the invoice and therefore claims the balance of $1,495.07. This claim is proved and I award that amount.
The landlord also produced an invoice in the amount of $1,685.30 for rubbish removal and for hiring a skip bin. This amount is very reasonable given the amount of rubbish left behind. The claim for rubbish removal is proved.
The landlord also sought to recover the cost of methamphetamine testing (discrete testing and composite re-testing). The landlord said that they test for methamphetamine at every inspection and do not seek to pass on the cost of testing to the tenant unless a positive test is returned and discrete testing is required. The landlord provided an invoice for discrete testing ($493.70) and for composite re-testing ($230.75). I consider that these amounts are recoverable as these costs would not have been incurred if the contamination had not occurred. Filing fee and name suppression
Because Linkpeople Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
The landlord did not seek an order for name suppression. The tenant is not entitled to an order for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5152792 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 2, 5B Pantera Way, Hillpark, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5152792 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 2, 5B Pantera Way, Hillpark, Auckland 2102

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