What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5182094?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $420.00 (6164958-001) to QLCHT

How much money was awarded in case 5182094?

Carpet Removal: $414.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $488.75 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $3,272.39 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $3,071.11 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $499.68 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $260.57 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $4,550.00 awarded to landlord; Skip Hire: $1,022.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5182094?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5182094?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12037849-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5182094?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $420.00 (6164958-001) to QLCHT

How much money was awarded in case 5182094?

Carpet Removal: $414.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $488.75 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $3,272.39 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $3,071.11 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $499.68 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $260.57 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $4,550.00 awarded to landlord; Skip Hire: $1,022.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5182094?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5182094?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12037849-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

32 Marbleleaf Lane, Albert Town, Wanaka 9305 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5182094 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5182094 — net $13,185.64 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$260.57	Rent arrears
Lock/key replacement	$499.68	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning	$488.75	Cleaning
Carpet removal	$414.00	Carpet removal
Skip hire	$1,022.14	Skip hire
Meth testing/Cleaning	$3,272.39	Meth testing/Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$3,071.11	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs: Insurance excess	$4,550.00	Repairs: Insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$13,185.64
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$13,185.64

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $420.00 (6164958-001) to QLCHT Property Portfolio Limited immediately.

Tessa Rose Marianna Haddon must pay QLCHT Property Portfolio Limited $13,185.64 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below: DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$260.57 Lock/key replacement$499.68 Cleaning$488.75 Carpet removal$414.00 Skip hire$1,022.14 Meth testing/Cleaning$3,272.39 Lawns and Garden work$3,071.11 Repairs: Insurance excess$4,550.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$13,605.64 Minus bond-$420.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$13,185.64

Reasons

The Landlord attended the hearing. The Tenant did not.

The tenancy started in 2017. The house was new at that time. By September 2024, the Landlord had become concerned about the condition of the premises, and it issued a notice to remedy. The Landlord says that the Tenant performed some of the required work, but then allowed the premises to return to an untidy state.

The tenancy has ended because the Tenant has abandoned the premises. The Landlord has now applied to recover rent arrears and compensation. The amounts it seeks are: Rent arrears$260.57 Replacement of locks and garage door remotes$499.68 Cleaning the interior of the premises$488.75 Removing the carpets$414 Skip hire$1022.14 Meth testing and sampling$3272.39 Tidying the section and removal of rubbish and discarded items$3071.11 11 x insurance excesses for repairs necessitated by damage and meth contamination $7150 Filing fee$27 Rent arrears

The Landlord has supplied a rent summary, which shows that the rent was in arrears by $260.57 at the end of the tenancy. The Landlord is entitled to recover the amount. Replacement of locks and garage door remotes

The Tenant was required to return all keys and the garage door remotes at the end of the tenancy. 1 She did not. Sensibly, the Landlord has paid $261.05 to Locked and Loaded to disable the garage door so no one can enter with the door remotes and to rekey the locks on the premises. The Landlord is also in the process of replacing the garage door remotes and has provided an estimate of $238.63 from Locked and Loaded. The Landlord is entitled to recover those amounts. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 40(1)(e)(iv). Interior cleaning

The Tenant was required to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. 2 She did not.

The Landlord has provided photographs of the premises and a video of the premises taken on 7 January 2025. The video shows that the Tenant made no real effort to clean the premises at all. The house was left in an extremely untidy state, with clothes all over the floor, abandoned belongings, unclean dishes, unclean surfaces, including in the bathroom and kitchen.

The Landlord paid $488.75 to Ultra Property to clean the interior and exterior of the premises. It seeks to recover that cost. It is entitled to do so. $488.75 was an entirely reasonable amount for the work that would have been required to return the premises to a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy state. Carpet removal

The Landlord paid $414 to Ultra Property to remove and dispose of all carpets in the premises. The Landlord says that the carpets had been ruined by dog urine. Emma Roberts of QLCHT gave evidence. She says the Tenant kept two dogs, as shown in a Property Inspection Report dated 17 September 2024.

Ms Roberts says that she entered the premises on 7 January 2025 and was overwhelmed by the smell of dog urine from the carpets. She says that the smell was so strong that it could not be removed by cleaning and that the smell went away once the carpets were removed.

I accept Ms Roberts’ evidence and award the cost of removing the carpet to the Landlord. Skip hire

The Landlord hired two skip bins to remove the carpets and dispose of other items left behind at the premises. In that regard, the video provided by the Landlords shows that the Tenant appears to have abandoned nearly all her possessions, including furniture, clothing and appliances.

It has provided two invoices from Trojan Holdings Ltd for skip bin hire: (a) An invoice dated 31 January 2025 for $586.85; and (b) An invoice dated 31 March 2025 for $435.29.

The Landlord is entitled to recover those amounts. The Landlord gave the Tenant an opportunity to return and collect her belongings. The Landlord says that the Tenant’s mother collected some items but left the rest. Given the methamphetamine contamination discovered in the house (discussed later), I 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 40(1)(e)(ii). consider that the Landlord acted reasonably in incurring the cost of disposing of those items rather than selling or gifting them. Tidying the section

Under clauses 8.5 and 8.6 of the Tenancy Agreement, the Tenant was required to keep the exterior and grounds of the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. She had the same obligation under section 40(1)c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

The Tenant has not complied with those obligations. The Landlord has provided photographs showing the state of the grounds. The grounds were unkempt and overgrown, and there were planter boxes, a dog kennel and other items abandoned by the Tenant. The Landlord also says that the Tenant left behind chicken wire fences that she had erected to contain her dogs.

The Landlord has produced an invoice from Ultra Property for $3,071.11 for cleaning up the grounds. That invoice relates to 35.5 hours of labour time (at $100 for the first hour and $60 per hour thereafter) and other costs relating to tip fees and green waste disposal.

I acknowledge that this cost appears high, but I am satisfied that the extent of the work required at the premises is commensurate with that charge. The Landlord is entitled to recover that cost. Meth testing and sampling costs

The Landlord says that the Tenant has caused or permitted the premises to become contaminated with methamphetamine. It hired Betta Group to perform initial sampling to determine whether the premises were contaminated and then paid Tahuna Consultants Ltd to perform a more detailed sampling for methamphetamine contamination. Tahuna Consultants then produced a “Detailed Meth Report”, which shows the following results:

The references in the report to “μg”, for example 66 μg in the garage, is a reference to micrograms of methamphetamine present per 100 cm 2 in that area.

Tahuna Consultants says that the results in red indicate that the level of methamphetamine present is above the level at which the New Zealand Standard 3 recommends as safe for habitation and will present a health risk for occupants and that “decontamination is required”. The New Zealand Standard says that 1.5 μg /100 cm 2 . The results in green are below the New Zealand Standards threshold, and Tahuna Consultants advised that no further action is required for that room.

The Landlord then contacted its insurer. The insurer then conducted its own testing using Precise Consulting, which found methamphetamine contamination throughout the house, although at different levels. The highest concentration it found was 13.5 μg /100 cm 2 in the kitchen.

The Landlord considered that none of the rooms required decontamination. Its consultant used a different threshold. Whereas Tahuna Consultants had relied on the thresholds in the New Zealand Standards, Precise Consulting followed the guidance of Professor Sir Peter Gluckman in his report “Methamphetamine Concentrations in Residential Properties: exposures, risk levels and interpretation of Standards (the Gluckman Report). 3 NZS 8510:2017 Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine-contaminated properties

Relevant to this case, the Gluckman Report states that any levels below 15 μg/100 cm 2 were unlikely to present adverse effects: Taken together, these factors indicate that methamphetamine levels that exceed the NZS 8510:2017 clean-up standard of 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 should not be regarded as signalling a health risk. Indeed, exposure to methamphetamine levels below 15 μg/100 cm 2 would be unlikely to give rise to any adverse effects. This level still incorporates a 30- fold safety buffer on a conservative estimate of risk.

I agree with Precise Consultants that the Gluckman Report is the current best science for assessing methamphetamine contamination in residential properties. Consequently, based upon the two reports presented, only one room – the garage – required remediation. The Tahuna Consultants report shows that the garage had methamphetamine readings of 66 μg /100 cm 2 . All other rooms were less than the 15 μg /100 cm 2 threshold set out in the Gluckman Report.

I am satisfied that this contamination occurred during the tenancy. The premises were new when the Tenant moved in, and she lived at the premises for more than seven years. It is highly unlikely that the contamination could have predated her tenancy.

Because it has proven that the premises had methamphetamine contamination above the threshold in the Gluckman Report, I am satisfied that the Landlord is entitled to recover the testing and sampling costs that it incurred, specifically: (a) the payments of $424.35 and $304.12 to Betta Group for initial sampling; and (b) the payment of $2,544.92 to Tahuna Consultants Ltd to perform more detailed sampling for methamphetamine contamination. Damage

Almost every room in the house was damaged: (a) There were large areas of poorly repaired damage to the walls in the hallway and bedroom three. (b) An aluminium window frame in the living area was buckled where someone appears to have attempted to lever the window open. (c) A window above head height was broken in bedroom one. (d) The oven was so dirty that it could not be adequately cleaned and needed to be replaced. (e) The kitchen bench was damaged, including a chunk out of the middle of the bench and required replacement. (f)The wall in bedroom two was damaged. There were several pock marks in the wallboard and the wall was damaged where a television bracket had been partially ripped from the wall. (g) The garage was contaminated with methamphetamine and required extensive decontamination work; and (h) The bathroom vanity was damaged, and a drawer had been dislodged and damaged.

The Landlord has proven that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy. The house was new at the start of the tenancy, and I find it highly unlikely that any of this damage was present at that time.

The damage was also more than fair wear and tear. To avoid liability, the Tenant must then prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. The Tenant did not attend the hearing, so I have not heard her explanation. Given the nature of the damage – including the size of the damage to the walls, the location of the broken window, the pock marks in the wallboards and the damage to the bathroom vanity and kitchen bench, I consider that the damage was at least careless, if not intentional.

Ultimately though, whether or not the damage was deliberate or careless does not affect the final outcome, as the Landlord only seeks to recover the insurance excesses it paid to remedy this damage.

The evidence presented shows that the Landlord incurred 11 separate insurance excesses of $650 each. The Landlord is entitled to recover the following excesses, which relate to the remediation of the damage listed in paragraph 28, as itemised below: (a) replacement of kitchen benchtop, kitchen joinery, the broken bedroom window and lounge window frames. (b) replacement of the kitchen appliances, including the damaged oven,. (c) bathroom repairs (including for the damaged vanity unit). (d) middle bedroom repairs, including the damage to the walls. (e) front bedroom repairs, including the damage to the walls. (f)hallway and storage repairs, including remedying the poorly repaired wall damage (g) repairs to the laundry and garage due to methamphetamine contamination.

The Landlord is not entitled to recover the excesses relating to: (a) other damage to the kitchen, living and dining room; (b) master bedroom repairs; (c) toilet repairs; and (d) entry repair.

The Landlord has not provided evidence to prove that there was any damage in those areas that was not already covered by another insurance excess. For example, the only damage reported in the master bedroom was the broken window. That damage was covered by the excess listed at 32(a) above. Likewise, the evidence as to damage to the kitchen, living and dining rooms related to the benchtop, appliances and window frames. That damage was covered by the excesses listed in 32(a) and 32(b) above.

Instead, it seems that the insurer authorised these repairs due to the methamphetamine contamination. But, as explained above, the methamphetamine contamination in those rooms did not reach the threshold for remediation, so I am not satisfied that the Landlord can now recover those costs.

I therefore allow the landlord to recover compensation for 7 insurance excesses – a total of $4,550. Filing fee

The Landlord has been successful in its claim and I award the filing fee.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5182094 — net $13,185.64 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$260.57	Rent arrears
Lock/key replacement	$499.68	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning	$488.75	Cleaning
Carpet removal	$414.00	Carpet removal
Skip hire	$1,022.14	Skip hire
Meth testing/Cleaning	$3,272.39	Meth testing/Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$3,071.11	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs: Insurance excess	$4,550.00	Repairs: Insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$13,185.64
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$13,185.64