What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4551331 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 4551331?

Cleaning: $318.51 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $435.36 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Shower Rollers: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: curtains and bl…: $436.62 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Internal Doors: $1,384.39 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Light Fittings: $233.60 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $47.96 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4551331?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4551331?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9436699-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4551331 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 4551331?

Cleaning: $318.51 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $435.36 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Shower Rollers: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: curtains and bl…: $436.62 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Internal Doors: $1,384.39 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Light Fittings: $233.60 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $47.96 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4551331?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4551331?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9436699-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4551331 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4551331 — net $2,196.88 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$47.96	Rubbish removal
Replace furnishings: curtains and blinds	$436.62	Replace furnishings: curtains and blinds
Replace furnishings: internal doors	$1,384.39	Replace furnishings: internal doors
Repairs: shower rollers	$40.00	Repairs: shower rollers
Cleaning: products and hardware	$318.51	Cleaning: products and hardware
Replace furnishings: light fittings	$233.60	Replace furnishings: light fittings
Window repairs	$435.36	Window repairs
Insurance excess	$1,000.00	Insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,196.88
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,196.88

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord (owners) names and identifying details.
Alana Chalker must pay Reforma Pm Limited T/A Harcourts As Agent For [suppressed] $2,196.88 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
By consent: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,720.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Reforma Pm Limited T/A Harcourts As Agent For [suppressed] immediately.
The application for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Reasons

Ms Rewi and Ms Mitchell attended the hearing on 8 September 2023 for the landlord together with Ms Chalker and her support person.
This tenancy started on 4 June 2020 and ended on 3 April 2022 after the owner gave notice to end the tenancy because of planned renovations.
This application is for costs to repair damage at the premises. The landlord also seeks exemplary damages for use of the premises for an unlawful purpose. Orders made by consent
Ms Chalker accepts that she and her ex-partner used methamphetamine at the premises during the tenancy and that this resulted in damage to the house.
She is the sole tenant named on the tenancy agreement which means that the legal responsibility rests with her.
The orders for compensation are made with the agreement of the tenant. There are some changes to the amounts applied for, which I note below. A claim for interior painting was withdrawn as it has been covered by insurance. Full receipts were provided.
I also mention that the owners undertook much of the repair and clean-up work themselves. This has significantly reduced costs.
The orders for compensation to the landlord are for the costs of:- a. Replacing damaged blinds and curtains not covered by insurance (the cost to replace lounge curtains and hooks has been deducted as these belonged to the tenant); b. Replacing three internal doors (one glazed), two sets of wardrobe doors, and tracks due to physical damage; c. Replacing shower rollers (50% allowed for wear and tear); d. The cost of rubbish bags, hardware, and cleaning products; e. Replacing four light fittings; f. Repair of one broken window; g. An insurance excess of $1,000.00 1 for a claim to remediate methamphetamine residue. 1 Amended by the landlord after the hearing (this was thought to be $1,500.00 during the hearing).
I have not examined the evidence related to the methamphetamine testing in- depth because this order has been made by consent. I do record that a Hill Laboratories certificate of analysis from testing on 14 April 2022 reports methamphetamine residue levels of 7.1mcg 2 , 6.7mcg, and 5.4mcg in the kitchen, laundry and bathroom, respectively. Five of twelve samples tested between 1.5mcg and 2.6mcg. The remaining four samples were below 1.5mcg.
I also note that the landlord provided a 2-page report with a reference to methtestingkit.co.nz dated 4 May 2020 (one month before this tenancy started). The report says that 4 samples tested negative for methamphetamine.
I do not consider the ingoing report to be reliable evidence for the following reasons:- a. The report does not say who took the samples or the methods used. b. The brand name and manufacturer of the testing kits is not disclosed in the report. The only do-it-yourself testing kit that has been approved in New Zealand as reliable 3 is manufactured by M.M.C. International B.V. and sold under various brand names including Check4METH, Meth Rescue, Property Meth Test.
The tenant has accepted liability and this order is made by consent. This means that the problems with the reliability of the ingoing methamphetamine test are not fatal to the claim. However, I suggest that the landlord consider the reliability of any testing done in the future.
A claim for the costs to remediate methamphetamine residue of less than 15mcg/100cm 2 may not always be awarded by the Tribunal.
This is because there is no methamphetamine contamination standard set by law as yet 4 and the two most accepted sources of non-legally binding guidance are quite different in their recommendations:- a. New Zealand Standard 8510:2017 (NZS8510:2017) says methamphetamine residue of no more than 1.5mcg/100cm 2 is recommended; 2 Micrograms (one millionth of a gram) per sample area of 100 cm 2 3 Assessed in a June 2018 report by the ESR (Institute for Environmental Science and Research Limited); “MedNZ Limited – Assessment of Screening Test Methodology for Methamphetamine Contamination”. 4 The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2019 enacted section 59B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 which specifies that the whole of tenancy premises are treated as uninhabitable if any part of the premises is contaminated, including with methamphetamine. Section 59B will not be current law until maximum acceptable levels of contaminants are set by Parliament sometime in the future in new regulations for that purpose (see s138C RTA). b. The more recent “Gluckman Report” 5 says that residue levels up to 15mcg/100cm 2 (where there is no evidence of manufacture) is highly unlikely to cause adverse health effects.
In this case, the landlord holds insurance for remediation where residue levels are over 1.5mcg/100cm 2 and the tenant agrees to pay the insurance excess of $1,000.00. Exemplary damages
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states that a tenant must not use tenancy premises or permit them to be used for an unlawful purpose; section 40(2)(b) RTA. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages (which are like a fine, or a penalty) may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord seeks exemplary damages in this case.
Use of methamphetamine is an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 and is therefore a breach of s40(2)(b) RTA. The tenant has admitted this so the breach is proven.
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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I have considered this carefully.
Using and allowing others to use unlawful drugs in a house that you are renting is a deliberate and intentional act.
However, after considering the mandatory factors in section 109 RTA, I have decided that it would not be just to award exemplary damages. My reasons are:- a. The tenant’s intent (thinking) was impaired by addiction to methamphetamine that was being supplied by a previous partner. I accept her evidence that she has successfully undergone a lengthy recovery and rehabilitation process. b. The effect of the drug use on both the landlord and the tenant has been significant. The landlords have had to repair damage and make an 5 29 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.” insurance claim at considerable cost to their time, finances and probably also their wellbeing. The tenant has damaged relationships and her sense of self. c. It is in the interests of landlords and property managers that tenants are held to account for unlawful activity which damages the premises. In this case, the tenant has taken responsibility and compensation orders have been made by consent. The Tribunal can take into account any compensation already ordered when deciding whether exemplary damages should also apply. d. It is in the public interest that methamphetamine use is recognised to increase the risk of damage to property whether from chemical residue or from behaviour that can come with this drug. However, it is also in the public interest to encourage people to seek help for addiction and to take responsibility for their past actions – which is what the tenant has done.
I dismiss the application for exemplary damages. Filing fee, bond and suppression of names
I award the filing fee as the landlord has substantially succeeded with the application.
This also entitles the landlord to suppression of its name which it has applied for. After discussion with the agent for the landlord, I suppress the names of the owners and the tenancy address.
I do not suppress the tenant’s name as she is legally responsible for the damage. However, I do applaud her courage and wish her and the landlords the best.
The bond is refunded to the landlord in full.
The parties are free to agree on repayment arrangements.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4551331 — net $2,196.88 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$47.96	Rubbish removal
Replace furnishings: curtains and blinds	$436.62	Replace furnishings: curtains and blinds
Replace furnishings: internal doors	$1,384.39	Replace furnishings: internal doors
Repairs: shower rollers	$40.00	Repairs: shower rollers
Cleaning: products and hardware	$318.51	Cleaning: products and hardware
Replace furnishings: light fittings	$233.60	Replace furnishings: light fittings
Window repairs	$435.36	Window repairs
Insurance excess	$1,000.00	Insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,196.88
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,196.88

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord (owners) names and identifying details.
Alana Chalker must pay Reforma Pm Limited T/A Harcourts As Agent For [suppressed] $2,196.88 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
By consent: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,720.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Reforma Pm Limited T/A Harcourts As Agent For [suppressed] immediately.
The application for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Reasons

Ms Rewi and Ms Mitchell attended the hearing on 8 September 2023 for the landlord together with Ms Chalker and her support person.
This tenancy started on 4 June 2020 and ended on 3 April 2022 after the owner gave notice to end the tenancy because of planned renovations.
This application is for costs to repair damage at the premises. The landlord also seeks exemplary damages for use of the premises for an unlawful purpose. Orders made by consent
Ms Chalker accepts that she and her ex-partner used methamphetamine at the premises during the tenancy and that this resulted in damage to the house.
She is the sole tenant named on the tenancy agreement which means that the legal responsibility rests with her.
The orders for compensation are made with the agreement of the tenant. There are some changes to the amounts applied for, which I note below. A claim for interior painting was withdrawn as it has been covered by insurance. Full receipts were provided.
I also mention that the owners undertook much of the repair and clean-up work themselves. This has significantly reduced costs.
The orders for compensation to the landlord are for the costs of:- a. Replacing damaged blinds and curtains not covered by insurance (the cost to replace lounge curtains and hooks has been deducted as these belonged to the tenant); b. Replacing three internal doors (one glazed), two sets of wardrobe doors, and tracks due to physical damage; c. Replacing shower rollers (50% allowed for wear and tear); d. The cost of rubbish bags, hardware, and cleaning products; e. Replacing four light fittings; f. Repair of one broken window; g. An insurance excess of $1,000.00 1 for a claim to remediate methamphetamine residue. 1 Amended by the landlord after the hearing (this was thought to be $1,500.00 during the hearing).
I have not examined the evidence related to the methamphetamine testing in- depth because this order has been made by consent. I do record that a Hill Laboratories certificate of analysis from testing on 14 April 2022 reports methamphetamine residue levels of 7.1mcg 2 , 6.7mcg, and 5.4mcg in the kitchen, laundry and bathroom, respectively. Five of twelve samples tested between 1.5mcg and 2.6mcg. The remaining four samples were below 1.5mcg.
I also note that the landlord provided a 2-page report with a reference to methtestingkit.co.nz dated 4 May 2020 (one month before this tenancy started). The report says that 4 samples tested negative for methamphetamine.
I do not consider the ingoing report to be reliable evidence for the following reasons:- a. The report does not say who took the samples or the methods used. b. The brand name and manufacturer of the testing kits is not disclosed in the report. The only do-it-yourself testing kit that has been approved in New Zealand as reliable 3 is manufactured by M.M.C. International B.V. and sold under various brand names including Check4METH, Meth Rescue, Property Meth Test.
The tenant has accepted liability and this order is made by consent. This means that the problems with the reliability of the ingoing methamphetamine test are not fatal to the claim. However, I suggest that the landlord consider the reliability of any testing done in the future.
A claim for the costs to remediate methamphetamine residue of less than 15mcg/100cm 2 may not always be awarded by the Tribunal.
This is because there is no methamphetamine contamination standard set by law as yet 4 and the two most accepted sources of non-legally binding guidance are quite different in their recommendations:- a. New Zealand Standard 8510:2017 (NZS8510:2017) says methamphetamine residue of no more than 1.5mcg/100cm 2 is recommended; 2 Micrograms (one millionth of a gram) per sample area of 100 cm 2 3 Assessed in a June 2018 report by the ESR (Institute for Environmental Science and Research Limited); “MedNZ Limited – Assessment of Screening Test Methodology for Methamphetamine Contamination”. 4 The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2019 enacted section 59B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 which specifies that the whole of tenancy premises are treated as uninhabitable if any part of the premises is contaminated, including with methamphetamine. Section 59B will not be current law until maximum acceptable levels of contaminants are set by Parliament sometime in the future in new regulations for that purpose (see s138C RTA). b. The more recent “Gluckman Report” 5 says that residue levels up to 15mcg/100cm 2 (where there is no evidence of manufacture) is highly unlikely to cause adverse health effects.
In this case, the landlord holds insurance for remediation where residue levels are over 1.5mcg/100cm 2 and the tenant agrees to pay the insurance excess of $1,000.00. Exemplary damages
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states that a tenant must not use tenancy premises or permit them to be used for an unlawful purpose; section 40(2)(b) RTA. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages (which are like a fine, or a penalty) may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord seeks exemplary damages in this case.
Use of methamphetamine is an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 and is therefore a breach of s40(2)(b) RTA. The tenant has admitted this so the breach is proven.
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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I have considered this carefully.
Using and allowing others to use unlawful drugs in a house that you are renting is a deliberate and intentional act.
However, after considering the mandatory factors in section 109 RTA, I have decided that it would not be just to award exemplary damages. My reasons are:- a. The tenant’s intent (thinking) was impaired by addiction to methamphetamine that was being supplied by a previous partner. I accept her evidence that she has successfully undergone a lengthy recovery and rehabilitation process. b. The effect of the drug use on both the landlord and the tenant has been significant. The landlords have had to repair damage and make an 5 29 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.” insurance claim at considerable cost to their time, finances and probably also their wellbeing. The tenant has damaged relationships and her sense of self. c. It is in the interests of landlords and property managers that tenants are held to account for unlawful activity which damages the premises. In this case, the tenant has taken responsibility and compensation orders have been made by consent. The Tribunal can take into account any compensation already ordered when deciding whether exemplary damages should also apply. d. It is in the public interest that methamphetamine use is recognised to increase the risk of damage to property whether from chemical residue or from behaviour that can come with this drug. However, it is also in the public interest to encourage people to seek help for addiction and to take responsibility for their past actions – which is what the tenant has done.
I dismiss the application for exemplary damages. Filing fee, bond and suppression of names
I award the filing fee as the landlord has substantially succeeded with the application.
This also entitles the landlord to suppression of its name which it has applied for. After discussion with the agent for the landlord, I suppress the names of the owners and the tenancy address.
I do not suppress the tenant’s name as she is legally responsible for the damage. However, I do applaud her courage and wish her and the landlords the best.
The bond is refunded to the landlord in full.
The parties are free to agree on repayment arrangements.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4551331 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4551331 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions