What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4456014 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4456014?

Cleaning: $257.60 awarded to landlord; Decontamination Fees Paid To BC: $14,000.00 awarded to landlord; Dishwasher-New: $1,608.00 awarded to landlord; Dryer-New: $499.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Final Decontamination Report: $616.50 awarded to landlord; Lost Rent: $13,200.00 awarded to landlord; Oven-New: $1,139.00 awarded to landlord; Previous DC Judgment [Number Suppres…: $1,628.57 awarded to tenant; Rangehood-New: $224.37 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $17,825.00 awarded to landlord; Second Hand Bed, Bedside Tables And…: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Second Hand Dining Table: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Second Hand Kitchen Appliances: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Second Hand Sofa: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Second Hand Washing Machine: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Second Hand Waste Disposal: $329.00 awarded to landlord; TV-New: $849.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4456014?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4456014?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10868816-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4456014 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4456014?

Cleaning: $257.60 awarded to landlord; Decontamination Fees Paid To BC: $14,000.00 awarded to landlord; Dishwasher-New: $1,608.00 awarded to landlord; Dryer-New: $499.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Final Decontamination Report: $616.50 awarded to landlord; Lost Rent: $13,200.00 awarded to landlord; Oven-New: $1,139.00 awarded to landlord; Previous DC Judgment [Number Suppres…: $1,628.57 awarded to tenant; Rangehood-New: $224.37 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $17,825.00 awarded to landlord; Second Hand Bed, Bedside Tables And…: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Second Hand Dining Table: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Second Hand Kitchen Appliances: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Second Hand Sofa: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Second Hand Washing Machine: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Second Hand Waste Disposal: $329.00 awarded to landlord; TV-New: $849.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4456014?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4456014?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10868816-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4456014 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4456014 — net $50,039.34 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Decontamination fees paid to BC	$14,000.00		Decontamination fees paid to BC
Repairs: Building work, carpet replacement	$17,825.00		Repairs: Building work, carpet replacement
Rangehood-new	$224.37		Rangehood-new
Oven-new	$1,139.00		Oven-new
Dishwasher-new	$1,608.00		Dishwasher-new
Dryer-new	$499.00		Dryer-new
TV-new	$849.00		TV-new
Final decontamination report	$616.50		Final decontamination report
Second hand washing machine	$500.00		Second hand washing machine
Second hand sofa	$800.00		Second hand sofa
Second hand kitchen appliances	$600.00		Second hand kitchen appliances
Second hand bed, bedside tables and bedding	$1,200.00		Second hand bed, bedside tables and bedding
Second hand dining table	$400.00		Second hand dining table
Second hand waste disposal	$329.00		Second hand waste disposal
Lost rent 22 weeks	$13,200.00		Lost rent 22 weeks
Cleaning	$257.60		Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Previous DC Judgment [number suppressed		$1,628.57	Previous DC Judgment [number suppressed
Total award	$54,067.91	$1,628.57
Net award	$50,039.34
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$50,039.34

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
This order incorporates the District Court judgment made at Auckland on [date suppressed] under [Court number suppressed].
Yoriko Unno owes [the landlord] $50,039.34, calculated as shown in table below (“the debt”).
must repay the debt as follows: a. By 250 weekly payments of $200.00 each Tuesday, commencing on Tuesday 1 October 2024 and ending on 10 July 2029; and b. A final payment of $39.34, to fully repay the debt, to be paid on Tuesday 17 July 2029; and c. Where the tenant’s financial circumstances improve, the tenant has agreed to contact the landlord to make arrangements to increase the weekly amounts payable or to make lump sum payments.
If Yoriko Unno fails to pay debt repayments within 2 working days of any of thedue dates, the full amount of the remaining debt will fall due immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Prior District Court Judgment dated [date suppressed] and 6 September 2022 Tribunal Order
On 6 September 2022, the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for compensation and exemplary damages of $7,253.40 to the tenant and exemplary damages of $1,500.00 to the landlord. The total amount awarded to tenant was $5,753.40.
The landlord appealed this Order to the District Court. Judge Davenport KC at [11] of her judgment 1 , sets the 6 September 2022 Tribunal Order aside and substitutes it with an award to the tenant of a rent rebate of $600.00 per week for the period from 18 August 2022 to 6 September 2022 (2 weeks and 5-days) being $1,628.57.
At [11](c) of the District Court judgment, Judge Davenport KC notes “I order that the sums to be refunded to the tenant are not to be paid until such time as the Tribunal has considered and ruled on the apportionment of loss and damage to 1 [citation suppressed] unit 1710”. 2 Therefore, I have included the award from the [Court date suppressed] judgment in this Order for enforcement purposes.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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.
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 applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
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. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
In the Tribunal’s 6 September 2024 Order, Adjudicator Tam notes: “The high methamphetamine readings recorded in the premises indicate that the premises have been used unlawfully. 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.... It is unlawful to manufacture or use methamphetamine. 2 [citation suppressed] Despite the absence of methamphetamine testing at the start of the tenancy, I am satisfied that the methamphetamine contamination occurred during this tenancy. Evidence of methamphetamine related activity was observed by technicians taking samples of the premises on 12 August 2022. A broken meth pipe was found on side table of the bedroom. 2 samples taken in the kitchen resulted in readings of
4μg/100cm2 and 105μg/100cm2. Elsewhere, samples from the lounge, bedroom, bathroom and laundry areas recorded readings of 62μg/100cm2, 81μg/100cm2, 230μg/100cm2, and 23μg/100cm2 respectively. Those readings exceed by a substantial amount both current New Zealand Standard of
5μg/100cm2 as well as the opinion from the Chief Science Advisor Sir Peter Gluckman of 15μg/100cm2 regarded as acceptable levels. Tenants are responsible for the actions of their guests and other occupants at the premises with their permission”.
Judge Davenport KC at [8] of her [date suppressed] judgment states “I have considerable difficulty with the decision of the Tribunal that ordered the landlord to pay damages and compensation for circumstances that were caused an illicit act of the tenant”. In making this statement the Judge has accepted that the tenant was responsible for her boyfriend’s use of methamphetamine in the apartment that led to the landlord requirement to undertake full methamphetamine decontamination of the apartment, including repeated testing, renovation and refurbishment of the apartment.
The tenant says she should not be liable for the decontamination and refurbishment/renovation costs because: a. She did not use or manufacture methamphetamine in the apartment; b. She was unaware her boyfriend was using methamphetamine in the apartment as he hid this from her by using it in rooms such as the toilet and bathroom out of her view; and c. When she discovered her boyfriend had been secretly using methamphetamine in the apartment she confronted him, was assaulted by him and he has been imprisoned for assault and possession of an illicit substance.
Section 41(1) of the RTA confirms: “The tenant shall be responsible for anything done or omitted to be done by any person (other than the landlord or any person acting on the landlord’s behalf or with the landlord’s authority) who is in the premises with the tenant’s permission if the act or omission would have constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement had it been the act or omission of the tenant”.
The tenant confirmed her boyfriend was at her apartment with her permission and that he did not have a key. She says she let him in when he visited and he stayed over from time to time, but always with her knowledge and consent.
In accordance with s41(1) of the RTA, the tenant is liable for the damage to the apartment caused by her boyfriend’s use of methamphetamine inside it.
The landlord has proven that there was considerable intentional damage caused during the tenancy by the tenant’s boyfriend’s consumption of methamphetamine in the apartment. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord has proven that the decontamination costs, paid by the Body Corporate directly to the contractors, amounted to $88,907.79 and that $57,500.00 of this cost was paid by the Body Corporate’s insurance, $14,000.00 was paid by the tenant to the Body Corporate and the Body Corporate wrote off the remaining $17,407.79. The landlord sought reimbursement for the $14,000.00 she paid to the Body Corporate as a contribution to the decontamination costs the Body Corporate had to pay because of the tenant’s boyfriend’s illicit use of the apartment for unlawful purposes. I have awarded this cost to her.
The landlord has proved she tried to save cost by purchasing a lot of soft furnishings and appliances second hand and negotiating good discounts on soft furnishing and appliances that she had to purchase new. Because of the discounts she has negotiated I have not depreciated the amounts claimed for the original items contaminated (which were 4 to 5 years old) that she replaced with new items. The landlord has suffered far more loss than what has been claimed by her and she is in no way better off because I have not depreciated these items she has claimed compensation for.
All the amounts ordered in the table set out in the Order section above are proved. The tenant has not challenged any of these amounts ordered.
I have considered 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 have considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Lost rent
The landlord has proven she lost 42 weeks of rent because of the lengthy decontamination, renovation, and refurbishment process. Her insurance has compensated her for 20 of those weeks, leaving her to recover lost rent of 22 weeks.
I am satisfied the landlord lost 22 weeks rent, being $13,200.00 because of the tenant’s boyfriend’s unlawful use of the premise leading to it being unable to be re-rented for that period and award the lost rent claimed. Other miscellaneous landlord claims
The landlord has claimed compensation for emotional harm and stress caused by the tenant’s boyfriend’s use of methamphetamine in the apartment and the legal and administration fees she has incurred fighting the Body Corporate in relation to its recovery of the decontamination costs.
I find that these claims are outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to award and dismiss these claims accordingly. Reimbursement of filing fee
Because [the applicant] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name Suppression
The landlord applies for non-publication of her name and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has substantially succeeded in her proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4456014 — net $50,039.34 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Decontamination fees paid to BC	$14,000.00		Decontamination fees paid to BC
Repairs: Building work, carpet replacement	$17,825.00		Repairs: Building work, carpet replacement
Rangehood-new	$224.37		Rangehood-new
Oven-new	$1,139.00		Oven-new
Dishwasher-new	$1,608.00		Dishwasher-new
Dryer-new	$499.00		Dryer-new
TV-new	$849.00		TV-new
Final decontamination report	$616.50		Final decontamination report
Second hand washing machine	$500.00		Second hand washing machine
Second hand sofa	$800.00		Second hand sofa
Second hand kitchen appliances	$600.00		Second hand kitchen appliances
Second hand bed, bedside tables and bedding	$1,200.00		Second hand bed, bedside tables and bedding
Second hand dining table	$400.00		Second hand dining table
Second hand waste disposal	$329.00		Second hand waste disposal
Lost rent 22 weeks	$13,200.00		Lost rent 22 weeks
Cleaning	$257.60		Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Previous DC Judgment [number suppressed		$1,628.57	Previous DC Judgment [number suppressed
Total award	$54,067.91	$1,628.57
Net award	$50,039.34
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$50,039.34

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
This order incorporates the District Court judgment made at Auckland on [date suppressed] under [Court number suppressed].
Yoriko Unno owes [the landlord] $50,039.34, calculated as shown in table below (“the debt”).
must repay the debt as follows: a. By 250 weekly payments of $200.00 each Tuesday, commencing on Tuesday 1 October 2024 and ending on 10 July 2029; and b. A final payment of $39.34, to fully repay the debt, to be paid on Tuesday 17 July 2029; and c. Where the tenant’s financial circumstances improve, the tenant has agreed to contact the landlord to make arrangements to increase the weekly amounts payable or to make lump sum payments.
If Yoriko Unno fails to pay debt repayments within 2 working days of any of thedue dates, the full amount of the remaining debt will fall due immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Prior District Court Judgment dated [date suppressed] and 6 September 2022 Tribunal Order
On 6 September 2022, the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for compensation and exemplary damages of $7,253.40 to the tenant and exemplary damages of $1,500.00 to the landlord. The total amount awarded to tenant was $5,753.40.
The landlord appealed this Order to the District Court. Judge Davenport KC at [11] of her judgment 1 , sets the 6 September 2022 Tribunal Order aside and substitutes it with an award to the tenant of a rent rebate of $600.00 per week for the period from 18 August 2022 to 6 September 2022 (2 weeks and 5-days) being $1,628.57.
At [11](c) of the District Court judgment, Judge Davenport KC notes “I order that the sums to be refunded to the tenant are not to be paid until such time as the Tribunal has considered and ruled on the apportionment of loss and damage to 1 [citation suppressed] unit 1710”. 2 Therefore, I have included the award from the [Court date suppressed] judgment in this Order for enforcement purposes.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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.
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 applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
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. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
In the Tribunal’s 6 September 2024 Order, Adjudicator Tam notes: “The high methamphetamine readings recorded in the premises indicate that the premises have been used unlawfully. 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.... It is unlawful to manufacture or use methamphetamine. 2 [citation suppressed] Despite the absence of methamphetamine testing at the start of the tenancy, I am satisfied that the methamphetamine contamination occurred during this tenancy. Evidence of methamphetamine related activity was observed by technicians taking samples of the premises on 12 August 2022. A broken meth pipe was found on side table of the bedroom. 2 samples taken in the kitchen resulted in readings of
4μg/100cm2 and 105μg/100cm2. Elsewhere, samples from the lounge, bedroom, bathroom and laundry areas recorded readings of 62μg/100cm2, 81μg/100cm2, 230μg/100cm2, and 23μg/100cm2 respectively. Those readings exceed by a substantial amount both current New Zealand Standard of
5μg/100cm2 as well as the opinion from the Chief Science Advisor Sir Peter Gluckman of 15μg/100cm2 regarded as acceptable levels. Tenants are responsible for the actions of their guests and other occupants at the premises with their permission”.
Judge Davenport KC at [8] of her [date suppressed] judgment states “I have considerable difficulty with the decision of the Tribunal that ordered the landlord to pay damages and compensation for circumstances that were caused an illicit act of the tenant”. In making this statement the Judge has accepted that the tenant was responsible for her boyfriend’s use of methamphetamine in the apartment that led to the landlord requirement to undertake full methamphetamine decontamination of the apartment, including repeated testing, renovation and refurbishment of the apartment.
The tenant says she should not be liable for the decontamination and refurbishment/renovation costs because: a. She did not use or manufacture methamphetamine in the apartment; b. She was unaware her boyfriend was using methamphetamine in the apartment as he hid this from her by using it in rooms such as the toilet and bathroom out of her view; and c. When she discovered her boyfriend had been secretly using methamphetamine in the apartment she confronted him, was assaulted by him and he has been imprisoned for assault and possession of an illicit substance.
Section 41(1) of the RTA confirms: “The tenant shall be responsible for anything done or omitted to be done by any person (other than the landlord or any person acting on the landlord’s behalf or with the landlord’s authority) who is in the premises with the tenant’s permission if the act or omission would have constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement had it been the act or omission of the tenant”.
The tenant confirmed her boyfriend was at her apartment with her permission and that he did not have a key. She says she let him in when he visited and he stayed over from time to time, but always with her knowledge and consent.
In accordance with s41(1) of the RTA, the tenant is liable for the damage to the apartment caused by her boyfriend’s use of methamphetamine inside it.
The landlord has proven that there was considerable intentional damage caused during the tenancy by the tenant’s boyfriend’s consumption of methamphetamine in the apartment. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord has proven that the decontamination costs, paid by the Body Corporate directly to the contractors, amounted to $88,907.79 and that $57,500.00 of this cost was paid by the Body Corporate’s insurance, $14,000.00 was paid by the tenant to the Body Corporate and the Body Corporate wrote off the remaining $17,407.79. The landlord sought reimbursement for the $14,000.00 she paid to the Body Corporate as a contribution to the decontamination costs the Body Corporate had to pay because of the tenant’s boyfriend’s illicit use of the apartment for unlawful purposes. I have awarded this cost to her.
The landlord has proved she tried to save cost by purchasing a lot of soft furnishings and appliances second hand and negotiating good discounts on soft furnishing and appliances that she had to purchase new. Because of the discounts she has negotiated I have not depreciated the amounts claimed for the original items contaminated (which were 4 to 5 years old) that she replaced with new items. The landlord has suffered far more loss than what has been claimed by her and she is in no way better off because I have not depreciated these items she has claimed compensation for.
All the amounts ordered in the table set out in the Order section above are proved. The tenant has not challenged any of these amounts ordered.
I have considered 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 have considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Lost rent
The landlord has proven she lost 42 weeks of rent because of the lengthy decontamination, renovation, and refurbishment process. Her insurance has compensated her for 20 of those weeks, leaving her to recover lost rent of 22 weeks.
I am satisfied the landlord lost 22 weeks rent, being $13,200.00 because of the tenant’s boyfriend’s unlawful use of the premise leading to it being unable to be re-rented for that period and award the lost rent claimed. Other miscellaneous landlord claims
The landlord has claimed compensation for emotional harm and stress caused by the tenant’s boyfriend’s use of methamphetamine in the apartment and the legal and administration fees she has incurred fighting the Body Corporate in relation to its recovery of the decontamination costs.
I find that these claims are outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to award and dismiss these claims accordingly. Reimbursement of filing fee
Because [the applicant] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name Suppression
The landlord applies for non-publication of her name and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has substantially succeeded in her proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4456014 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4456014 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

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

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions