What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4592757?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4592757?

Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,645.71 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $697.06 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4592757?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4592757?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9239455-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4592757?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4592757?

Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,645.71 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $697.06 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4592757?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4592757?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9239455-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

171 Solar Road, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4592757 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4592757 — net $5,143.21 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$3,645.71	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Water rates	$697.06	Water rates
Insurance excess	$2,500.00	Insurance excess
Exemplary damages	$600.00	Exemplary damages
Net award	$5,143.21
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,143.21

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision
Claire Cookson must pay Northwest Realty Limited Acting Agent for Richard & Leng Lee $5,143.21 immediately being rent arrears, exemplary damages, water bills, insurance excess and filing fee as calculated and shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$3,645.71 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Water rates$697.06 Insurance excess$2,500.00 Exemplary damages$600.00 Total award$7,463.21 Minus Bond$2,320.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$5,143.21
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 (3286344-011) to Northwest Realty Limited Acting Agent for Richard & Leng Lee immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, the tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water bills, insurance excess, exemplary damages, refund of the bond and reimbursement of filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy commenced on 8 December 2021. On 6 June 2023, the tenant advised the landlord that she had left the property because of people who had moved into her house and were causing problems.
The tenant did not give 28 days written notice to the landlord of her intention to leave the property.
The landlord seeks to claim 28 days rent in lieu of notice. The tenant had rent arrears before advising the landlord of the end of the tenancy.
The landlord is entitled to claim the 28 days’ notice.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 6 July 2023. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
As of 6 July 2023, the rent arrears were $3645.71, and the water bills were $697.06.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven her claim for rent arrears and water bills. Methamphetamine contamination
The landlord obtained a pre let methamphetamine (meth) report dated 3 December 2021, on the property before the tenant took over the property. That report concluded that there were no traces of meth in the property that exceeded the New Zealand standards.
It has been a policy of the landlord to conduct routine meth sampling tests during the tenancy of her tenants. The landlord has obtained a meth test on the property which concluded that the property had traces of meth. A further full analysis was completed which concluded that the property needed a full meth decontamination due to the levels of meth found in the samples taken from the house. A test report dated 13 May 2023, records methamphetamine levels up to
2 μg/100 cm2 in 5 locations in the premises.
In 2017 Standards New Zealand released Standard NZS 8510:2017 “Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine-contaminated properties”. The Standard confirmed that decontamination of methamphetamine contaminated premises was required for levels detected over 1.5 μg/100 cm2. The Standard states: After seeking expert advice on exposure risk from Environmental Science and Research Ltd (ESR) and the Ministry of Health, and reviewing a large number of public comments on a draft of this standard, the committee has decided to set the maximum acceptable level of methamphetamine in an affected property at 1.5 μg/100 cm2 after decontamination While this level is greater than the Ministry of Health 2010 guideline value of 0.5 μg/100 cm2 for properties used as clandestine laboratories, there are a number of reasons why the committee decided to adopt the single value of 1.5 μg/100 cm2 in this standard.
In short, this standard confirmed that the level at which habitation of residential premises was considered safe, was a level of 1.5 μg/100 cm2. The expectation on landlords arising from this Standard, was to remediate premises contaminated with methamphetamine, to a level of less than 1.5 μg/100 cm2.
As it relates to this case, five areas in the premises have been sampled for methamphetamine, and all samples are above the New Zealand Standard level, and above the level set by Professor Sir Peter Gluckman.
There is no doubt that these premises were significantly methamphetamine contaminated and required decontamination.
The landlord made an insurance claim for the decontamination, which was accepted. The landlord had to pay an excess of $2500.00
The landlord seeks the cost of the insurance excess. The landlord has provided evidence from the pre let meth test that the property had negligible readings for meth before the tenancy began. The test on 13 May 2023 showed high levels of meth in the property.
I find that it is more likely than not that meth consumption has occurred during the tenant’s tenancy.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven her claim for the insurance excess of $2500.00.

Were the Premises used for an unlawful purpose?

The landlord claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by consuming methamphetamine at the property. I have already found that it is more likely than not that methamphetamine consumption took place during the tenancy at the premises.
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.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A) (c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
It is an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 for any person to have in their possession or consume any controlled drug and to allow any premises to be used for the commission of an offence under that Act and (ss 7 and 12). “Methamphetamine” is included as a controlled drug under Schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
The Tenancy Tribunal has previously found, and I agree, that the consumption of methamphetamine on premises amounts to the use of those premises for an unlawful purpose, in breach of section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 1
In view of my finding that methamphetamine was more likely than not consumed at the premises, I find that the premises were used or permitted to be used for an unlawful purpose by the tenants.
I therefore find the tenant has committed an unlawful act.
The Residential Tenancies Act has recently been amended so that the upper limit of any award for exemplary damages under this head is now $1800.
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 find that an award of $600 is appropriate to reflect the public interest in stamping out methamphetamine consumption generally. Consumption of meth is a deliberate act and the stress and frustration it would have caused to the owner is undoubtable.
The bond is to be released to the landlord to offset the debt owed by the tenant to the landlord.
Because Northwest Realty Limited Acting Agent for Richard & Leng Lee has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4592757 — net $5,143.21 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$3,645.71	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Water rates	$697.06	Water rates
Insurance excess	$2,500.00	Insurance excess
Exemplary damages	$600.00	Exemplary damages
Net award	$5,143.21
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,143.21

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision
Claire Cookson must pay Northwest Realty Limited Acting Agent for Richard & Leng Lee $5,143.21 immediately being rent arrears, exemplary damages, water bills, insurance excess and filing fee as calculated and shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$3,645.71 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Water rates$697.06 Insurance excess$2,500.00 Exemplary damages$600.00 Total award$7,463.21 Minus Bond$2,320.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$5,143.21
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 (3286344-011) to Northwest Realty Limited Acting Agent for Richard & Leng Lee immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, the tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water bills, insurance excess, exemplary damages, refund of the bond and reimbursement of filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy commenced on 8 December 2021. On 6 June 2023, the tenant advised the landlord that she had left the property because of people who had moved into her house and were causing problems.
The tenant did not give 28 days written notice to the landlord of her intention to leave the property.
The landlord seeks to claim 28 days rent in lieu of notice. The tenant had rent arrears before advising the landlord of the end of the tenancy.
The landlord is entitled to claim the 28 days’ notice.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 6 July 2023. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
As of 6 July 2023, the rent arrears were $3645.71, and the water bills were $697.06.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven her claim for rent arrears and water bills. Methamphetamine contamination
The landlord obtained a pre let methamphetamine (meth) report dated 3 December 2021, on the property before the tenant took over the property. That report concluded that there were no traces of meth in the property that exceeded the New Zealand standards.
It has been a policy of the landlord to conduct routine meth sampling tests during the tenancy of her tenants. The landlord has obtained a meth test on the property which concluded that the property had traces of meth. A further full analysis was completed which concluded that the property needed a full meth decontamination due to the levels of meth found in the samples taken from the house. A test report dated 13 May 2023, records methamphetamine levels up to
2 μg/100 cm2 in 5 locations in the premises.
In 2017 Standards New Zealand released Standard NZS 8510:2017 “Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine-contaminated properties”. The Standard confirmed that decontamination of methamphetamine contaminated premises was required for levels detected over 1.5 μg/100 cm2. The Standard states: After seeking expert advice on exposure risk from Environmental Science and Research Ltd (ESR) and the Ministry of Health, and reviewing a large number of public comments on a draft of this standard, the committee has decided to set the maximum acceptable level of methamphetamine in an affected property at 1.5 μg/100 cm2 after decontamination While this level is greater than the Ministry of Health 2010 guideline value of 0.5 μg/100 cm2 for properties used as clandestine laboratories, there are a number of reasons why the committee decided to adopt the single value of 1.5 μg/100 cm2 in this standard.
In short, this standard confirmed that the level at which habitation of residential premises was considered safe, was a level of 1.5 μg/100 cm2. The expectation on landlords arising from this Standard, was to remediate premises contaminated with methamphetamine, to a level of less than 1.5 μg/100 cm2.
As it relates to this case, five areas in the premises have been sampled for methamphetamine, and all samples are above the New Zealand Standard level, and above the level set by Professor Sir Peter Gluckman.
There is no doubt that these premises were significantly methamphetamine contaminated and required decontamination.
The landlord made an insurance claim for the decontamination, which was accepted. The landlord had to pay an excess of $2500.00
The landlord seeks the cost of the insurance excess. The landlord has provided evidence from the pre let meth test that the property had negligible readings for meth before the tenancy began. The test on 13 May 2023 showed high levels of meth in the property.
I find that it is more likely than not that meth consumption has occurred during the tenant’s tenancy.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven her claim for the insurance excess of $2500.00.

Were the Premises used for an unlawful purpose?

The landlord claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by consuming methamphetamine at the property. I have already found that it is more likely than not that methamphetamine consumption took place during the tenancy at the premises.
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.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A) (c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
It is an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 for any person to have in their possession or consume any controlled drug and to allow any premises to be used for the commission of an offence under that Act and (ss 7 and 12). “Methamphetamine” is included as a controlled drug under Schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
The Tenancy Tribunal has previously found, and I agree, that the consumption of methamphetamine on premises amounts to the use of those premises for an unlawful purpose, in breach of section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 1
In view of my finding that methamphetamine was more likely than not consumed at the premises, I find that the premises were used or permitted to be used for an unlawful purpose by the tenants.
I therefore find the tenant has committed an unlawful act.
The Residential Tenancies Act has recently been amended so that the upper limit of any award for exemplary damages under this head is now $1800.
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 find that an award of $600 is appropriate to reflect the public interest in stamping out methamphetamine consumption generally. Consumption of meth is a deliberate act and the stress and frustration it would have caused to the owner is undoubtable.
The bond is to be released to the landlord to offset the debt owed by the tenant to the landlord.
Because Northwest Realty Limited Acting Agent for Richard & Leng Lee has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4592757 — Rent arrears at 171 Solar Road, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4592757 — Rent arrears at 171 Solar Road, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Were the Premises used for an unlawful purpose?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Were the Premises used for an unlawful purpose?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions