What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4655629 about?

The tribunal order states: Tammy Dolman must pay [The landlord/s] $6,915.81 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4655629?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $734.80 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,191.57 awarded to landlord; Front Door And Back Window: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Carpet: $994.40 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Curtains: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4655629?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4655629?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9667914-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4655629 about?

The tribunal order states: Tammy Dolman must pay [The landlord/s] $6,915.81 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4655629?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $734.80 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,191.57 awarded to landlord; Front Door And Back Window: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Carpet: $994.40 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Curtains: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4655629?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4655629?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9667914-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4655629 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4655629 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4655629 — net $6,915.81 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 10/8/23	$1,191.57	Rent arrears to 10/8/23
Methamphetamine contamination insurance excess	$2,500.00	Methamphetamine contamination insurance excess
Cleaning	$300.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$500.00	Rubbish removal
Replace furnishings: curtains	$30.00	Replace furnishings: curtains
Repairs: front door and back window	$400.00	Repairs: front door and back window
Replace carpet	$994.40	Replace carpet
Replace vinyl	$734.80	Replace vinyl
Exemplary damages: subletting	$500.00	subletting
Exemplary damages: unlawful use	$800.00	unlawful use
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Lock/key replacement	$250.00	Lock/key replacement
Net award	$6,915.81
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,915.81

Claims and awards for application 4655629 — net $6,915.81 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 10/8/23

Amount: $1,191.57
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 10/8/23

Methamphetamine contamination insurance excess

Amount: $2,500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Methamphetamine contamination insurance excess

Cleaning

Amount: $300.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Rubbish removal

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Replace furnishings: curtains

Amount: $30.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace furnishings: curtains

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Exemplary damages Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears Rubbish Removal

Order

Tammy Dolman must pay [The landlord/s] $6,915.81 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,305.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

[The landlord/s] attended the hearing. There was no appearance for the tenant Ms Dolman. As she had been served with the notice of hearing, it continued it in her absence.
Ms Dolman had a periodic tenancy for this property which commenced in June 2022. In April 2023 she got behind on her rent. In May the Police did a welfare check on her finding a man in the property who damaged the house as he escaped from Police, however Ms Dolman was not there. The landlords subsequently got hold of her and she said she would move out on 23 July. She did not, and the landlords applied to the Tribunal for termination of the tenancy for rent arrears.
Ms Dolman then said she would leave by 10 August but refused to participate in handover procedures. When the landlords attempted to take back possession of the property after the 10th, they found two occupants who were on electronically monitored bail who had allegedly sub-let the property from Ms Dolman. The Police were involved, and the property returned to the landlords with some damage.
[The landlord/s] has now applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended when the landlord regained possession of the property on 10 August 2023 after Police involvement. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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 (RTA).
The landlord has established in evidence that Ms Dolman did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, did not remove all rubbish and did not return the keys.
The amounts ordered are proven in evidence and considered reasonable.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

[The landlord/s] claims compensation for methamphetamine damage to the property, damage to the curtains, damage to the flooring and for having to repair the glass door and a broken window. I discuss each claim below.
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.
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. Methamphetamine contamination
Given that Ms Dolman had unlawfully sublet the property to people remanded on methamphetamine charges and her erratic behaviour towards the end of the tenancy, [The landlord/s] had it tested for methamphetamine contamination. A composite reading of 41.3 micrograms (μg) per 100 square cm was found and accordingly subsequent discrete testing was undertaken. Those readings all tested positive with varying levels from 0.22μg to 15.6μg.
The landlord’s insurance company has provided cover for the remediation however they have had to pay the excess of $2,500 which they seek back from Ms Dolman.
[The landlord/s] had arranged a methamphetamine test prior to the tenancy however the company failed to attend, and this was not noticed by [The landlord/s] at the time. However during the tenancy they purchased a washing machine which was sent directly to the property from the manufacturer. This machine tested positive for methamphetamine at the end. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the landlord has established that the contamination occurred during the tenancy.
Methamphetamine contamination is considered by the Tribunal to be intentional damage.
There is currently no legislative standard or criteria by which the Tribunal can determine what level of methamphetamine residue is to be considered “damage” in terms of s40(2)(a) RTA. However, the Tribunal takes guidance from sources that it considers to be reliable.
A New Zealand Standards committee approved and appointed under the Standards and Accreditation Act 2015 published “Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine-contaminated properties” as NZS 8510:2017 on 29 June 2017. This adopted a “maximum acceptable level” of methamphetamine of
5μg for ‘high use areas’ (easily accessed and regularly used) as being appropriate to minimise exposure risk to occupants including young children. The Tribunal applied this level as the best guidance available at the time.
However, subsequently in 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” (“the Gluckman Report”).
The Gluckman Report notes a lack of data on the effect of living in a house previously used for smoking methamphetamine (“third-hand” exposure). It says that currently there is no available evidence that low-level exposure from skin contact or oral ingestion of household surface residues pose a risk to human health. The report goes on to recommend a ‘safe’ level of methamphetamine residue caused by smoking as below 15μg/100cm².
This matter has been considered by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947. Judge Kellar needed to determine which level should be applied. The Court discussed the conflict between the New Zealand Standard and Chief Science Advisors report, and confirmed: “The Tenancy Tribunal was in a difficult position. The best state of knowledge of risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination available to the adjudicator was the Gluckman Report. It would have been bold for that adjudicator to have ignored that report in favour of the New Zealand Standard given that the Gluckman report represents the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination in dwellings.”
Although there has been no legislative direction to change the standard yet, Housing New Zealand (Kainga Ora), the country’s largest landlord, adopted the 15μg/100cm² level upon consideration of the Gluckman Report. The Tenancy Tribunal has also taken this stance. This means that it is considered by the Tribunal that remedial action is not required unless an individual residue level exceeds 15μg/100cm².
There was one area in this property over 15μg/100cm² and it has taken extensive remediation to reduce the levels in the property; it was therefore deeply engrained. Accordingly, I find that the premises were “damaged” by the methamphetamine contamination and the landlords are entitled to reimbursement of the insurance excess they have had to pay to remediate the property. I note this amount is reasonable even though only one area tested positive for contamination over 15μg/100cm² as the total amount spent on the remediation exceeds $30,000. Curtains
[The landlord/s] seeks compensation for the cost of having to replace the curtains due to an extremely heavy smell of smoke. I consider this intentional damage as it is clearly foreseeable that smoking inside without sufficient airing of a property will leave a smell in the curtains. I also note that the tenant was not permitted by the tenancy agreement to smoke inside the property.
The cost of replacement is $146.96. In determining the compensation payable, depreciation must be taken into account. Depreciation is linked to the concept of betterment. Everything is subject to wear and tear and will need to be replaced in time. Where an item has to be replaced as a result of tenant damage, this hastens the process. If the damaged item is replaced with a ‘better’ item, compensation is adjusted to reflect that.
Current depreciation guidelines estimate that the life of curtains in a rental property is approximately 8 years. The landlord estimates these curtains to be approximately 8 years old however says they were in good condition. Although the curtains were at the end of its lifespan based on depreciation guidelines, I accept they were nevertheless in reasonable condition at the start of the tenancy and should have had a few extra years left. On that basis, I have awarded the landlord approximately 20% of the replacement cost as compensation for the damage. Flooring
[The landlord/s] provided evidence that established that Ms Dolman had left her dog locked in the home for a substantial length of time prior to vacating. During this time the dog had defecated and urinated on all of the floors. Subsequently, the person she sublet to had used a rug doctor for 12 hours straight pouring water directly onto the flooring (as opposed to cleaning). The flooring was therefore soaking to the touch when they regained possession.
As a result, the carpet and vinyl all had to be immediately removed and now has to be replaced. I consider this intentional damage; accordingly Ms Dolman is responsible for the replacements costs.
In considering depreciation, I note that the vinyl was approximately 15 years old (current depreciate guidelines estimate a lifespan of 10 years) and the carpet was approximately 5-8 years (estimated lifespan 8-10 years). Therefore, the vinyl had exceeded its lifespan and the carpet was close too. The evidence has established that it was all in reasonable condition and should have had more use. Accordingly, I have awarded 20% of the vinyl cost and 40% of the carpet replacement cost. Glass
I approve the claim for the insurance excess for the broken glass of $400 as I am satisfied on the evidence that the damage was caused during the tenancy, was more than fair wear and tear, and likely careless damage. Was the property unlawfully sublet
[The landlord/s] claims Ms Dolman has sublet the premises without their prior written consent. Ms Dolman had told them that she would be vacating, meanwhile she had sublet the premise to another who used it as their bail address. [The landlord/s] provided documentary evidence from the “sub-tenant” and the Police that this was the case, accordingly I find the claim proven.
A tenant may only sublet a property with the prior written consent of the landlord who may not withhold consent unreasonably; see section 44(2) and (3) RTA. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 44(2A)(b) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Ms Dolman has committed an unlawful act in subletting the property without consent.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, as Ms Dolman did here, 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) RTA.
I award $500 exemplary damages taking into account the following: a. Ms Dolman deceived her landlords and the person she ‘sublet’ to. b. In doing so she also provided false evidence to the District Court in supporting the sub-tenant’s bail application. c. The effect on the landlords was considerable as they had to obtain Police assistance to regain possession of the property. Further, the sub-tenant’s actions with the rug doctor have additionally damaged the property. d. Ms Dolman has unlawfully obtained at least $700 from the sub-tenant by her actions. e. It is in the public interest that this type of situation is not sanctioned.

Was the premise used for unlawful purposes?

A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose; section 40(2)(b)RTA. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00; section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A RTA.
It is unlawful to use premises, or allow them to be used, for the purpose of consuming controlled drugs (ss7 and 12 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975). Methamphetamine has been used in the premises; therefore Ms Dolman has committed an unlawful act pursuant to the RTA.
Accordingly, pursuant to 109(3) of the RTA, I make an award of $800 exemplary damages taking into account the following: a. The entire property tested positive to varying amounts of methamphetamine showing the extent of the use. b. The effect on the landlord has been considerable. They have incurred financial costs to clean and remediate the premises, have not been able to use the property as they intended, and they have suffered a period of stress and worry. The direct effect on the landlord of the tenant’s actions cannot be understated. c. It is clearly in the public interests to discourage the use of methamphetamine in rental properties. Filing fee and suppression
Because [The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee and approve her claim for suppression.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4655629 — net $6,915.81 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 10/8/23	$1,191.57	Rent arrears to 10/8/23
Methamphetamine contamination insurance excess	$2,500.00	Methamphetamine contamination insurance excess
Cleaning	$300.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$500.00	Rubbish removal
Replace furnishings: curtains	$30.00	Replace furnishings: curtains
Repairs: front door and back window	$400.00	Repairs: front door and back window
Replace carpet	$994.40	Replace carpet
Replace vinyl	$734.80	Replace vinyl
Exemplary damages: subletting	$500.00	subletting
Exemplary damages: unlawful use	$800.00	unlawful use
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Lock/key replacement	$250.00	Lock/key replacement
Net award	$6,915.81
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,915.81

Claims and awards for application 4655629 — net $6,915.81 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 10/8/23

Amount: $1,191.57
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 10/8/23

Methamphetamine contamination insurance excess

Amount: $2,500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Methamphetamine contamination insurance excess

Cleaning

Amount: $300.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Rubbish removal

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Replace furnishings: curtains

Amount: $30.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace furnishings: curtains

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Exemplary damages Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears Rubbish Removal

Order

Tammy Dolman must pay [The landlord/s] $6,915.81 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,305.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

[The landlord/s] attended the hearing. There was no appearance for the tenant Ms Dolman. As she had been served with the notice of hearing, it continued it in her absence.
Ms Dolman had a periodic tenancy for this property which commenced in June 2022. In April 2023 she got behind on her rent. In May the Police did a welfare check on her finding a man in the property who damaged the house as he escaped from Police, however Ms Dolman was not there. The landlords subsequently got hold of her and she said she would move out on 23 July. She did not, and the landlords applied to the Tribunal for termination of the tenancy for rent arrears.
Ms Dolman then said she would leave by 10 August but refused to participate in handover procedures. When the landlords attempted to take back possession of the property after the 10th, they found two occupants who were on electronically monitored bail who had allegedly sub-let the property from Ms Dolman. The Police were involved, and the property returned to the landlords with some damage.
[The landlord/s] has now applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended when the landlord regained possession of the property on 10 August 2023 after Police involvement. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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 (RTA).
The landlord has established in evidence that Ms Dolman did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, did not remove all rubbish and did not return the keys.
The amounts ordered are proven in evidence and considered reasonable.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

[The landlord/s] claims compensation for methamphetamine damage to the property, damage to the curtains, damage to the flooring and for having to repair the glass door and a broken window. I discuss each claim below.
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.
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. Methamphetamine contamination
Given that Ms Dolman had unlawfully sublet the property to people remanded on methamphetamine charges and her erratic behaviour towards the end of the tenancy, [The landlord/s] had it tested for methamphetamine contamination. A composite reading of 41.3 micrograms (μg) per 100 square cm was found and accordingly subsequent discrete testing was undertaken. Those readings all tested positive with varying levels from 0.22μg to 15.6μg.
The landlord’s insurance company has provided cover for the remediation however they have had to pay the excess of $2,500 which they seek back from Ms Dolman.
[The landlord/s] had arranged a methamphetamine test prior to the tenancy however the company failed to attend, and this was not noticed by [The landlord/s] at the time. However during the tenancy they purchased a washing machine which was sent directly to the property from the manufacturer. This machine tested positive for methamphetamine at the end. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the landlord has established that the contamination occurred during the tenancy.
Methamphetamine contamination is considered by the Tribunal to be intentional damage.
There is currently no legislative standard or criteria by which the Tribunal can determine what level of methamphetamine residue is to be considered “damage” in terms of s40(2)(a) RTA. However, the Tribunal takes guidance from sources that it considers to be reliable.
A New Zealand Standards committee approved and appointed under the Standards and Accreditation Act 2015 published “Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine-contaminated properties” as NZS 8510:2017 on 29 June 2017. This adopted a “maximum acceptable level” of methamphetamine of
5μg for ‘high use areas’ (easily accessed and regularly used) as being appropriate to minimise exposure risk to occupants including young children. The Tribunal applied this level as the best guidance available at the time.
However, subsequently in 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” (“the Gluckman Report”).
The Gluckman Report notes a lack of data on the effect of living in a house previously used for smoking methamphetamine (“third-hand” exposure). It says that currently there is no available evidence that low-level exposure from skin contact or oral ingestion of household surface residues pose a risk to human health. The report goes on to recommend a ‘safe’ level of methamphetamine residue caused by smoking as below 15μg/100cm².
This matter has been considered by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947. Judge Kellar needed to determine which level should be applied. The Court discussed the conflict between the New Zealand Standard and Chief Science Advisors report, and confirmed: “The Tenancy Tribunal was in a difficult position. The best state of knowledge of risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination available to the adjudicator was the Gluckman Report. It would have been bold for that adjudicator to have ignored that report in favour of the New Zealand Standard given that the Gluckman report represents the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination in dwellings.”
Although there has been no legislative direction to change the standard yet, Housing New Zealand (Kainga Ora), the country’s largest landlord, adopted the 15μg/100cm² level upon consideration of the Gluckman Report. The Tenancy Tribunal has also taken this stance. This means that it is considered by the Tribunal that remedial action is not required unless an individual residue level exceeds 15μg/100cm².
There was one area in this property over 15μg/100cm² and it has taken extensive remediation to reduce the levels in the property; it was therefore deeply engrained. Accordingly, I find that the premises were “damaged” by the methamphetamine contamination and the landlords are entitled to reimbursement of the insurance excess they have had to pay to remediate the property. I note this amount is reasonable even though only one area tested positive for contamination over 15μg/100cm² as the total amount spent on the remediation exceeds $30,000. Curtains
[The landlord/s] seeks compensation for the cost of having to replace the curtains due to an extremely heavy smell of smoke. I consider this intentional damage as it is clearly foreseeable that smoking inside without sufficient airing of a property will leave a smell in the curtains. I also note that the tenant was not permitted by the tenancy agreement to smoke inside the property.
The cost of replacement is $146.96. In determining the compensation payable, depreciation must be taken into account. Depreciation is linked to the concept of betterment. Everything is subject to wear and tear and will need to be replaced in time. Where an item has to be replaced as a result of tenant damage, this hastens the process. If the damaged item is replaced with a ‘better’ item, compensation is adjusted to reflect that.
Current depreciation guidelines estimate that the life of curtains in a rental property is approximately 8 years. The landlord estimates these curtains to be approximately 8 years old however says they were in good condition. Although the curtains were at the end of its lifespan based on depreciation guidelines, I accept they were nevertheless in reasonable condition at the start of the tenancy and should have had a few extra years left. On that basis, I have awarded the landlord approximately 20% of the replacement cost as compensation for the damage. Flooring
[The landlord/s] provided evidence that established that Ms Dolman had left her dog locked in the home for a substantial length of time prior to vacating. During this time the dog had defecated and urinated on all of the floors. Subsequently, the person she sublet to had used a rug doctor for 12 hours straight pouring water directly onto the flooring (as opposed to cleaning). The flooring was therefore soaking to the touch when they regained possession.
As a result, the carpet and vinyl all had to be immediately removed and now has to be replaced. I consider this intentional damage; accordingly Ms Dolman is responsible for the replacements costs.
In considering depreciation, I note that the vinyl was approximately 15 years old (current depreciate guidelines estimate a lifespan of 10 years) and the carpet was approximately 5-8 years (estimated lifespan 8-10 years). Therefore, the vinyl had exceeded its lifespan and the carpet was close too. The evidence has established that it was all in reasonable condition and should have had more use. Accordingly, I have awarded 20% of the vinyl cost and 40% of the carpet replacement cost. Glass
I approve the claim for the insurance excess for the broken glass of $400 as I am satisfied on the evidence that the damage was caused during the tenancy, was more than fair wear and tear, and likely careless damage. Was the property unlawfully sublet
[The landlord/s] claims Ms Dolman has sublet the premises without their prior written consent. Ms Dolman had told them that she would be vacating, meanwhile she had sublet the premise to another who used it as their bail address. [The landlord/s] provided documentary evidence from the “sub-tenant” and the Police that this was the case, accordingly I find the claim proven.
A tenant may only sublet a property with the prior written consent of the landlord who may not withhold consent unreasonably; see section 44(2) and (3) RTA. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 44(2A)(b) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Ms Dolman has committed an unlawful act in subletting the property without consent.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, as Ms Dolman did here, 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) RTA.
I award $500 exemplary damages taking into account the following: a. Ms Dolman deceived her landlords and the person she ‘sublet’ to. b. In doing so she also provided false evidence to the District Court in supporting the sub-tenant’s bail application. c. The effect on the landlords was considerable as they had to obtain Police assistance to regain possession of the property. Further, the sub-tenant’s actions with the rug doctor have additionally damaged the property. d. Ms Dolman has unlawfully obtained at least $700 from the sub-tenant by her actions. e. It is in the public interest that this type of situation is not sanctioned.

Was the premise used for unlawful purposes?

A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose; section 40(2)(b)RTA. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00; section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A RTA.
It is unlawful to use premises, or allow them to be used, for the purpose of consuming controlled drugs (ss7 and 12 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975). Methamphetamine has been used in the premises; therefore Ms Dolman has committed an unlawful act pursuant to the RTA.
Accordingly, pursuant to 109(3) of the RTA, I make an award of $800 exemplary damages taking into account the following: a. The entire property tested positive to varying amounts of methamphetamine showing the extent of the use. b. The effect on the landlord has been considerable. They have incurred financial costs to clean and remediate the premises, have not been able to use the property as they intended, and they have suffered a period of stress and worry. The direct effect on the landlord of the tenant’s actions cannot be understated. c. It is clearly in the public interests to discourage the use of methamphetamine in rental properties. Filing fee and suppression
Because [The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee and approve her claim for suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4655629 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4655629 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Was the premise used for unlawful purposes?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Was the premise used for unlawful purposes?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions