What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4586630?

The tribunal order states: Samuel Ivan Currie must pay Advantage Realty Limited T/A Harcourts

How much money was awarded in case 4586630?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4586630?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4586630?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9898112-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4586630?

The tribunal order states: Samuel Ivan Currie must pay Advantage Realty Limited T/A Harcourts

How much money was awarded in case 4586630?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4586630?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4586630?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9898112-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

34 Puhirake Crescent, Pyes Pa, Tauranga 3112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4586630 — Property damage

Order

Samuel Ivan Currie must pay Advantage Realty Limited T/A Harcourts Tauranga As Agent For Liguang Zhang $6,699.13 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Mr Currie did not attend the hearing and it proceeded in his absence.
The landlord has made a number of claims in this application and I will address each of those in turn. Methamphetamine contamination
I am satisfied that during Mr Currie’s tenancy the premises were contaminated by methamphetamine. A test taken prior to his tenancy showed no contamination and tests completed after his tenancy showed significant contamination.
The next issue to be considered is the level at which contamination requires remediation.
In May 2018, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the then-Chief Scientific Advisor in the Office of the Prime Minister, released a report recommending that below 15mu/100cm 2 methamphetamine levels would be unlikely to give rise to any adverse effects.
The Tenancy Tribunal, as well as the District Court has adopted this guideline which has meant requiring tenants who have contaminated premises to above the 15mu/100cm 2 to pay the costs of remediating the premises.
Further to this, the Gluckman report recommends remediation of an entire property, even where levels of contamination are below the 15mu/100cm 2 where there is reason to suspect meth lab activities. The Gluckman report states that “anything exceeding 30.00mu/100cm 2 are regarded as strongly suggestive of manufacturing activity”.
The facts of this particular case are that Mr Currie vacated the tenancy on 27 February 2023. An initial Composite Meth Test completed on 1 March 2023 indicated that there had been significant meth related behaviour at the premises, warranting a more detailed assessment to quantify levels and the extent of methamphetamine contamination.
The more detailed test was also undertaken on 1 March 2023. In summary, of the 16 samples taken throughout the premises, 11 samples were significantly above the 15mu/100cm 2 level.
On the evidence presented to me I am satisfied that the tenant ought to reimburse to the landlord the costs of remediating the entire premises, even though some samples taken indicate a level below the 15mu/100cm 2 guideline.
I say this because there is evidence of methamphetamine manufacture having taken place. A sample taken in the lounge records a level of 95mu/100cm 2 , a sample from the bathroom records a level of 79mu/100cm 2 , a sample from the kitchen records a level of methamphetamine contamination of 46mu/100cm2, a sample from the ensuite records a level of 42mu/100cm 2. , and a sample from the linen cupboard records a level of 39mu/100cm 2 .

How much ought the tenant to pay to remediate the premises?

I accept the evidence indicating that the insurer has paid the landlord $30,000 towards the costs of remediating the premises. The remediation procedure includes the costs of the decontamination procedure itself, the cost of testing, and the cost of replacing the carpet, blinds and curtains.
I also accept the evidence showing that the $30,000.00 lump sum payout did not cover the entire cost of remediation – there is a $555.80 shortfall which the landlord has had to pay. The tenant is therefore required to reimburse this amount to the landlord.
Further to this, the landlord has had to pay an insurance excess of $2,500.00. Given that this is a cost to the landlord as a result of the methamphetamine contamination, the tenant is also required to pay this amount to the landlord.

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 tenant did not leave outside of the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
Further, the rubbish bins provided with the tenancy were missing at the end of the tenancy.
The amounts ordered to remedy these issues are proved.

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 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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: the front door was damaged, walls and a ceiling were damaged, a light was broken as was an electrical switch cover. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered to remedy this damage are proved by invoices and receipts.
I note that these issues were not covered by the landlord’s insurance. Using the premises for an unlawful purpose
Section 40(2)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that a tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful activity. Section 40(3A) provides that a breach of this section is an unlawful act.
Section 109 provides that if the Tribunal is satisfied that a party has intentionally committed an unlawful act, then the Tribunal may make an award of exemplary damages after having regard to the intent of the person committing the unlawful act, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the person against whom the unlawful act was committed and the public interest.
Given my findings above relating to methamphetamine contamination, it is clear that the tenant has breached s40(2)(c). The maximum award of exemplary damages for this unlawful act is $1800.00.
With regard to the provisions of s109, the breach of s40(2)(c) is obviously intentional. Mr Currie did not attend today’s hearing to describe what his intent was. However, in coming to an award of exemplary damages of $1500.00 I have taken into account the significant nature of the breach, which has resulted in a significant impact on the landlord. I heard today of the considerable stress that the landlord has experienced as a result of the contamination, including the damage to the walls and ceilings as a result of the decontamination process which he has not been able to afford to repair. This was a brand new property in 2019.
Further to this, there is considerable public interest in tenants abiding by their obligation not to damage the premises they live in, particularly to such a significant extent and because of unlawful activity.
Exemplary damages are intended to act as a deterrent and to be punitive in nature and so for all the reasons above I am awarding the landlord $1500.00 in exemplary damages. Loss of rent
The landlord also claims loss of rent for the period 28 February 2023 to 28 April 2023 – an amount of $5,486.00.
The Tenancy Tribunal does not routinely make such awards because landlords, in running a tenancy as their business, are to expect periods when their premises are not rented. It is very common, for example, that there are periods of time between tenancies during which landlords ready the premises for new tenants.
However, on this occasion I am ordering the tenant to reimburse the landlord 5 weeks’ rent. This is because the damage caused by the tenant was extreme and required a significant period of time to remediate – more time that is ordinarily expected between tenancies where less significant issues require remedying. Filing fee reimbursement
Lastly, I am ordering the tenant to reimburse the filing fee to the landlord because the landlord was successful in their claim against him. C ter Haar 30 January 2024

Tenancy Tribunal case 4586630 — Property damage at 34 Puhirake Crescent, Pyes Pa, Tauranga 3112

Tenancy Tribunal case 4586630 — Property damage at 34 Puhirake Crescent, Pyes Pa, Tauranga 3112

Order

Reasons

How much ought the tenant to pay to remediate the premises?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Property management

Order

Reasons

How much ought the tenant to pay to remediate the premises?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Property management