What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4600330 about?

The tribunal order states: Esther Ngarita Turnbull Westrupp and [Redacted] must pay PMS No.1 Limited /

How much money was awarded in case 4600330?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $292.61 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $357.14 awarded to landlord; 2 Doors: $544.40 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $550.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4600330?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4600330?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10220503-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4600330 about?

The tribunal order states: Esther Ngarita Turnbull Westrupp and [Redacted] must pay PMS No.1 Limited /

How much money was awarded in case 4600330?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $292.61 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $357.14 awarded to landlord; 2 Doors: $544.40 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $550.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4600330?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4600330?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10220503-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 1028A Fergusson Drive, Clouston Park, Upper Tenancy Tribunal Case 4600330 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4600330 — net $3,120.74 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 8/4/24	$357.14	Rent arrears to 8/4/24
Insurance excess: methamphetamine contamination	$2,500.00	Insurance excess: methamphetamine contamination
Repairs: 2 doors	$544.40	Repairs: 2 doors
Lock repair: ranch slider repair	$250.00	Lock repair: ranch slider repair
Lock/key replacement: re-keying 2 doors	$292.61	Lock/key replacement: re-keying 2 doors
Replace furnishings: insurance excess for vinyl damage	$550.00	Replace furnishings: insurance excess for vinyl damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,120.74
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,120.74

Order

Esther Ngarita Turnbull Westrupp and [Redacted] must pay PMS No.1 Limited / Trading As Property Management Solutions $3,120.74 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,393.85 [Bond number suppressed] to PMS No.1 Limited / Trading As Property Management Solutions immediately.
The Tribunal orders suppression of the guarantor, [Redacted] name from the published order only.

Reasons

Mr Fairbrass for the landlord attended the hearing. Ms Westrupp had advised the court that she would like to attend remotely as she currently resides in the South Island. Accordingly, it was arranged for her to attend by teleconference at Nelson District Court.
Ms Westrupp did not answer the calls to the Nelson District Court teleconference room, nor did she answer the calls made to her mobile. As I am satisfied that she had opportunity to engage in the hearing but chose not to, the hearing went ahead in her absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 4 April 2023 by Tribunal Order (TT4492580). Rent was ordered to that date as part of that order however Ms Westrupp remained in the property until 8 April.
I am satisfied on the evidence that Ms Westrupp is liable for rent arrears until 8 April. The order is made as sought.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord seeks compensation for the following damage to the property that they contend occurred during this tenancy: i. Methamphetamine contamination. ii. Two doors had holes that were consistent with punching and needed to be replaced. iii. Repairs to the ranch slider and the re-keying of two locks. iv. A large gouge and tear in the kitchen vinyl.
In order to be successful in a claim, 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (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.
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.
I discuss each claim separately as follows, bearing in mind the burden of proof 1 lying with the landlord. Methamphetamine contamination
Due to information provided to the landlord by Ms Westrupp’s family, they tested the property for methamphetamine on 20 March. The results were as follows:
Given the high readings, Mr Fairbrass served a section 59B of the RTA termination notice on Ms Westrupp. The service of this was simultaneous to the Tenancy Tribunal hearing for termination.
Also because of the high readings, the entire property had to be decontaminated. The owner did have insurance that absorbed the bulk of the cost, but they had to pay the excess of $2,500 which is what the landlord claims reimbursement of now.
Methamphetamine contamination is considered by the Tribunal to be intentional damage. The 2018 report “Methamphetamine contamination in residential 1 The balance of probabilities properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards” written by Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the then Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, (“the Gluckman Report”), states that contamination found at levels over 15μg/100cm² present a risk of “third hand” exposure and therefore requires remediation. The Gluckman Report has been accepted by the Tenancy Tribunal 2 following the lead of the higher courts. Accordingly, as levels in this property well exceed 15μg/100cm², I accept that the property was damaged by methamphetamine contamination to the extent that it required remediation.
It therefore is up to the landlord to establish that this damage occurred during this tenancy. Mr Fairbrass explains that the property was not tested for methamphetamine prior to this tenancy as they had previously had two sets of reliable and professional tenants. At various points over those tenancies the curtains had been replaced and some walls had been repainted. He says he saw a cannabis bong in the property and was told by others that Ms Westrupp used methamphetamine. This evidence in itself is not sufficient to establish that methamphetamine was or was not present at the commencement of this tenancy.
Mr Fairbrass however also called a witness whom I will not name for safety reasons. He is a relative of Ms Westrupp and gave the following oral evidence: a. He attended the property a number of times during this tenancy. b. On two occasions he personally witnessed the following: i. Ms Westrupp smoking methamphetamine. ii. Bags of methamphetamine. iii. Utensils for smoking methamphetamine. iv. Members of the Mongrel Mob using and holding methamphetamine. c. Ms Westrupp is known to the family to be a methamphetamine user. d. The family have had to assist her on a number of occasions with her drug addiction such as arranging for her to get treatment, taking her children when they were removed from her, cleaning up after and repairing damage she has caused, and assisting her financially. e. Ms Westrupp left the property damaged and filthy and her family had to clean up after her and remove all of the items she left there including drug paraphernalia. 2 Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947; Smith v Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited [2019] NZCA 38 f. He has no doubt she was using methamphetamine in the property as were her guests who are members of the Mongrel Mob.
I accept this evidence as reliable given the veracity of the witness, the detail provided to me and the reasons this witness had for providing this evidence. Accordingly, I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that Ms Westrupp and her guests caused this damage during this tenancy.
I therefore find that Ms Westrupp is liable for the insurance excess incurred here in remediating the property after it had been damaged by excessive methamphetamine use in the property. Doors
Mr Fairbrass has provided evidence that two doors were damaged during the tenancy by what appears to have been punches. They could not be repaired and had to be replaced.
I am satisfied that it has been established that this damage was caused intentionally and during the tenancy. Accordingly, Ms Westrupp is liable for this repair cost. Locks
Mr Fairbrass has also established in evidence that the ranch slider handle was broken, and Ms Westrupp did not return the keys to either door. Mr Fairbrass has kept costs low by replacing the locks with second hand ones he had and just incurring the cost of re-keying those locks.
I make the order as sought as I am satisfied that it was Ms Westrupp’s actions that incurred these costs. Vinyl
Mr Fairbrass has established with evidence that during the tenancy a large gouge and tear occurred in the kitchen vinyl. The vinyl was only three years old and given the size and nature of the damage had to be replaced. The owner’s insurance company covered the cost, but the landlord had to pay the excess of $550.
Given the way Ms Westrupp treated this house and the state in which she left it (which would have been a lot worse for the landlord and consequently her had her family not cleaned it up) I am satisfied that this damage was caused by her careless actions. Accordingly, I find her liable for the insurance excess. Guarantor
On 13 April 2022 the guarantor, [Redacted], provided a guarantee to the landlord, which undertook that she would be liable for any breach of Ms Westrupp’s obligations.
The Tribunal has ordered Ms Westrupp to pay $3,120.74 to the landlord for her breaches, which are all matters covered by the guarantee.
I am therefore satisfied that the guarantor is liable under the guarantee to pay the landlord the sum ordered. See section 77(2)(ka) RTA.
Given [Redacted] has assisted the landlord with many of Ms Westrupp’s breaches both during and post tenancy, I do not find it just that her details be published. She has tried to help Ms Westrupp, and the landlord, however now finds herself financially liable for Ms Westrupp’s actions. Accordingly, pursuant to section 95A of the RTA I direct that her details be suppressed from the published order. Filing fee
As the landlord was successful in their claim, I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4600330 — net $3,120.74 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 8/4/24	$357.14	Rent arrears to 8/4/24
Insurance excess: methamphetamine contamination	$2,500.00	Insurance excess: methamphetamine contamination
Repairs: 2 doors	$544.40	Repairs: 2 doors
Lock repair: ranch slider repair	$250.00	Lock repair: ranch slider repair
Lock/key replacement: re-keying 2 doors	$292.61	Lock/key replacement: re-keying 2 doors
Replace furnishings: insurance excess for vinyl damage	$550.00	Replace furnishings: insurance excess for vinyl damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,120.74
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,120.74

Order

Esther Ngarita Turnbull Westrupp and [Redacted] must pay PMS No.1 Limited / Trading As Property Management Solutions $3,120.74 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,393.85 [Bond number suppressed] to PMS No.1 Limited / Trading As Property Management Solutions immediately.
The Tribunal orders suppression of the guarantor, [Redacted] name from the published order only.

Reasons

Mr Fairbrass for the landlord attended the hearing. Ms Westrupp had advised the court that she would like to attend remotely as she currently resides in the South Island. Accordingly, it was arranged for her to attend by teleconference at Nelson District Court.
Ms Westrupp did not answer the calls to the Nelson District Court teleconference room, nor did she answer the calls made to her mobile. As I am satisfied that she had opportunity to engage in the hearing but chose not to, the hearing went ahead in her absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 4 April 2023 by Tribunal Order (TT4492580). Rent was ordered to that date as part of that order however Ms Westrupp remained in the property until 8 April.
I am satisfied on the evidence that Ms Westrupp is liable for rent arrears until 8 April. The order is made as sought.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord seeks compensation for the following damage to the property that they contend occurred during this tenancy: i. Methamphetamine contamination. ii. Two doors had holes that were consistent with punching and needed to be replaced. iii. Repairs to the ranch slider and the re-keying of two locks. iv. A large gouge and tear in the kitchen vinyl.
In order to be successful in a claim, 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (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.
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.
I discuss each claim separately as follows, bearing in mind the burden of proof 1 lying with the landlord. Methamphetamine contamination
Due to information provided to the landlord by Ms Westrupp’s family, they tested the property for methamphetamine on 20 March. The results were as follows:
Given the high readings, Mr Fairbrass served a section 59B of the RTA termination notice on Ms Westrupp. The service of this was simultaneous to the Tenancy Tribunal hearing for termination.
Also because of the high readings, the entire property had to be decontaminated. The owner did have insurance that absorbed the bulk of the cost, but they had to pay the excess of $2,500 which is what the landlord claims reimbursement of now.
Methamphetamine contamination is considered by the Tribunal to be intentional damage. The 2018 report “Methamphetamine contamination in residential 1 The balance of probabilities properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards” written by Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the then Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, (“the Gluckman Report”), states that contamination found at levels over 15μg/100cm² present a risk of “third hand” exposure and therefore requires remediation. The Gluckman Report has been accepted by the Tenancy Tribunal 2 following the lead of the higher courts. Accordingly, as levels in this property well exceed 15μg/100cm², I accept that the property was damaged by methamphetamine contamination to the extent that it required remediation.
It therefore is up to the landlord to establish that this damage occurred during this tenancy. Mr Fairbrass explains that the property was not tested for methamphetamine prior to this tenancy as they had previously had two sets of reliable and professional tenants. At various points over those tenancies the curtains had been replaced and some walls had been repainted. He says he saw a cannabis bong in the property and was told by others that Ms Westrupp used methamphetamine. This evidence in itself is not sufficient to establish that methamphetamine was or was not present at the commencement of this tenancy.
Mr Fairbrass however also called a witness whom I will not name for safety reasons. He is a relative of Ms Westrupp and gave the following oral evidence: a. He attended the property a number of times during this tenancy. b. On two occasions he personally witnessed the following: i. Ms Westrupp smoking methamphetamine. ii. Bags of methamphetamine. iii. Utensils for smoking methamphetamine. iv. Members of the Mongrel Mob using and holding methamphetamine. c. Ms Westrupp is known to the family to be a methamphetamine user. d. The family have had to assist her on a number of occasions with her drug addiction such as arranging for her to get treatment, taking her children when they were removed from her, cleaning up after and repairing damage she has caused, and assisting her financially. e. Ms Westrupp left the property damaged and filthy and her family had to clean up after her and remove all of the items she left there including drug paraphernalia. 2 Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947; Smith v Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited [2019] NZCA 38 f. He has no doubt she was using methamphetamine in the property as were her guests who are members of the Mongrel Mob.
I accept this evidence as reliable given the veracity of the witness, the detail provided to me and the reasons this witness had for providing this evidence. Accordingly, I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that Ms Westrupp and her guests caused this damage during this tenancy.
I therefore find that Ms Westrupp is liable for the insurance excess incurred here in remediating the property after it had been damaged by excessive methamphetamine use in the property. Doors
Mr Fairbrass has provided evidence that two doors were damaged during the tenancy by what appears to have been punches. They could not be repaired and had to be replaced.
I am satisfied that it has been established that this damage was caused intentionally and during the tenancy. Accordingly, Ms Westrupp is liable for this repair cost. Locks
Mr Fairbrass has also established in evidence that the ranch slider handle was broken, and Ms Westrupp did not return the keys to either door. Mr Fairbrass has kept costs low by replacing the locks with second hand ones he had and just incurring the cost of re-keying those locks.
I make the order as sought as I am satisfied that it was Ms Westrupp’s actions that incurred these costs. Vinyl
Mr Fairbrass has established with evidence that during the tenancy a large gouge and tear occurred in the kitchen vinyl. The vinyl was only three years old and given the size and nature of the damage had to be replaced. The owner’s insurance company covered the cost, but the landlord had to pay the excess of $550.
Given the way Ms Westrupp treated this house and the state in which she left it (which would have been a lot worse for the landlord and consequently her had her family not cleaned it up) I am satisfied that this damage was caused by her careless actions. Accordingly, I find her liable for the insurance excess. Guarantor
On 13 April 2022 the guarantor, [Redacted], provided a guarantee to the landlord, which undertook that she would be liable for any breach of Ms Westrupp’s obligations.
The Tribunal has ordered Ms Westrupp to pay $3,120.74 to the landlord for her breaches, which are all matters covered by the guarantee.
I am therefore satisfied that the guarantor is liable under the guarantee to pay the landlord the sum ordered. See section 77(2)(ka) RTA.
Given [Redacted] has assisted the landlord with many of Ms Westrupp’s breaches both during and post tenancy, I do not find it just that her details be published. She has tried to help Ms Westrupp, and the landlord, however now finds herself financially liable for Ms Westrupp’s actions. Accordingly, pursuant to section 95A of the RTA I direct that her details be suppressed from the published order. Filing fee
As the landlord was successful in their claim, I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4600330 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1, 1028A Fergusson Drive, Clouston Park, Upper

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4600330 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1, 1028A Fergusson Drive, Clouston Park, Upper

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions