What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4660929 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4660929?

Bar Stool: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $40.88 awarded to landlord; Gas Bottle Refill: $43.13 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Loss Of Rent (Three Weeks: $1,695.00 awarded to landlord; Meth Decontamination (Excess: $3,000.00 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing: $3,959.45 awarded to landlord; Power: $110.57 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $640.55 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $208.90 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $309.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $498.58 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Shower Drip Strip: $11.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4660929?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4660929?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9474099-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4660929 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4660929?

Bar Stool: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $40.88 awarded to landlord; Gas Bottle Refill: $43.13 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Loss Of Rent (Three Weeks: $1,695.00 awarded to landlord; Meth Decontamination (Excess: $3,000.00 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing: $3,959.45 awarded to landlord; Power: $110.57 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $640.55 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $208.90 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $309.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $498.58 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Shower Drip Strip: $11.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4660929?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4660929?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9474099-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

10 Gore Street, Halswell, Christchurch 8025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4660929 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4660929 — net $13,857.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 17 May 2023	$498.58	Rent arrears to 17 May 2023
Power	$110.57	Power
Rubbish removal	$100.00	Rubbish removal
Bar stool	$50.00	Bar stool
Loss of rent (three weeks	$1,695.00	Loss of rent (three weeks
Meth testing	$3,959.45	Meth testing
Lock/key replacement	$640.55	Lock/key replacement
Lawns and Garden work	$200.00	Lawns and Garden work
Wall damage and painting	$1,500.00	Wall damage and painting
Gas bottle refill	$43.13	Gas bottle refill
Meth decontamination (Excess	$3,000.00	Meth decontamination (Excess
Master bedroom door replacement	$208.90	Master bedroom door replacement
Shower dome replacement	$309.00	Shower dome replacement
Shower drip strip	$11.50	Shower drip strip
Cleaning	$250.00	Cleaning
Carpet and window coverings cleaning	$2,000.00	Carpet and window coverings cleaning
Exemplary damages (unlawful use	$1,500.00	Exemplary damages (unlawful use
Filing fees reimbursement	$40.88	Filing fees reimbursement
Net award	$13,857.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$13,857.44

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply to publication of this decision.
[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay Streets Ahead Property Management Limited as agent for Satish Arva Venkatesham $13,857.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the balance of the bond in the sum of $1,130.00 (3258458-015) to Streets Ahead Property Management Limited as agent for Satish Arva Venkatesham immediately.
The landlord’s claims are otherwise dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord and Ms Roberts from Streets Ahead Property Management (the agent) attended the hearing. The tenants did not attend.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, exemplary damages, payment of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
This tenancy began on 7 January 2023 and ended, following a termination order made by this Tribunal on 5 May 2023, on 17 May 2023. That order, under application 4531109, also ordered payment of $1,130 from the bond of $ 2,260, to the landlord for rent arrears.
In March, the agent inspected the premises. She was not happy with what she found, and she recommended to the landlord that he get the premises tested for methamphetamine (meth) contamination. He agreed.
Samples were taken from the premises 22 March. Composite testing found meth at a level that was bound to be above the New Zealand standard (1.5μg/100cm²) and that could be above the threshold suggested by Professor Sir Peter Gluckman’s report (the Gluckman report) in 2019 (15μg/100cm)
On 27 March, samples were taken from the premises and individually tested. From 21 samples, two were above the Gluckman report threshold. They were in the Hall (15.5μg/100cm²) and in the open plan kitchen/living/dining area (18.4μg/100cm²).
After the tenants vacated the premises, the landlord had the premises cleaned by a meth contamination remediation business. The landlord’s insurance covered the cost of the remediation less an excess of $3,000. The landlord claims that excess.
The landlord did not have a pre-tenancy meth test done. He and his wife lived in the premises for five years after buying it. The tenancy was their first tenancy of the premises. Rent
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The Tenants’ Other Obligations
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.
The tenants must not carelessly or intentionally damage 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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00.
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. Claims Cleaning, Rubbish, Garden, Locks and Chattels (Excluding Meth Contamination)
The tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy or remove all rubbish.
Missing from the premises at the end of the tenancy were – a bar stool, shower dome and a shower drip strip.
The awards for cleaning, rubbish and chattels were proved by evidence given by the landlord and the agent. There was an invoice for the garden work.
I have also awarded the cost of refilling a gas bottle which was full at the start of the tenancy and left empty.
The tenants did not return all the keys to the premises. As well, the behaviour of the tenants during the tenancy caused the landlord to be concerned about the security of the premises if the locks were not changed. For reasons which I discuss below, I find that his concern was reasonable.
The cost of lock changing was proved by the production of an invoice. Damage (Other Than Meth Related Damage)
The landlord produced photographs taken at the end of the tenancy showing damage to walls in the premises that is beyond fair and tear. The landlord did not produce a pre-tenancy condition report or photographs, but I accept his evidence that the damage was not present at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord produced an invoice for wall repairs and painting in the sum of $4,500. That covered the repairs and painting the entire interior of the premises. The wall damage did not necessitate painting beyond the walls that were damaged. I have therefore awarded an amount that in my assessment represents the reasonable cost of the repairs and painting the damaged walls.
The bedroom door was damaged during the tenancy and needed to be replaced. The sum awarded was proved by the production of an invoice. Meth Contamination
I am satisfied that the premises were contaminated by meth during the tenancy. At the hearing that resulted in termination of the tenancy, the tenants said that someone in the premises with their permission probably used meth in the premises. The tenants are responsible for their guest’s actions.
The tenancy was problematic for several reasons. The Police attended several times for domestic violence and excessive noise and meth was found at the premises. Several arrests were made there. There were complaints from neighbours about disturbances from the premises.
There is no evidence that the premises were used for the manufacture of meth and the levels of meth found in the premises are not consistent with manufacture.
I rely on the Gluckman report for the level of meth contamination at which there is a risk to human health. That is because his report is based on a review of the scientific evidence and the NZ standard is not. His reports states “exposure to methamphetamine levels below 15μg/100cm² would be unlikely to give rise to any adverse health effects. This level still incorporates a 30-fold safety buffer on a conservative estimate of risk.” I take this to mean that levels slightly above that level may well not be a risk to human health.
It follows that I do not accept that any remediation of premises is needed where the Gluckman level was not exceeded and that where the level is exceeded, the extent of remediation must be proportionate to the extent of contamination above that level.
The landlord faces the difficulty that there was no ingoing meth test and that raises the possibility that they were already contaminated before the tenancy. But I accept the landlords’ evidence that there was no meth use in the premises during the five years that he and his wife lived there. The landlord pointed out that in his employment there is random drug testing, and he has never tested positive for drugs. He had the test results to prove it.
It is possible that the premises were contaminated before the landlord bought the premises but the chances of that are slight, as they are with any premises. I also take into consideration that the levels in the premises were only slightly above the threshold after meth use in the premises during the tenancy. If there was any meth contamination before the tenancy, it was likely to be below the threshold.
I find, therefore, that the tenants are responsible for the meth contamination of the premises above the threshold.
The level was exceeded in the living area and hallway and although it was not exceeded by much, I accept that it was reasonable to carry out some remediation of those areas to reduce the level of contamination. I also accept that the reasonable cost of such decontamination would exceed $3000, and so I have awarded the excess of $3,000 as claimed.
I also accept that the tenants’ breach of their obligations resulted in a delay before the premises were ready to be relet. The landlord claimed five weeks loss of rent. The period during which the premises were vacant was slightly less than that. As well, there may well have been a vacant period in any case. I have therefore awarded three weeks loss of rent.
The landlord was concerned about meth use in the premises, and he was right to be. It was therefore reasonable to have the premises tested. I have therefore awarded the cost of the testing.
I have also awarded the cost of power after the tenants vacated and before the premises were relet. The power use resulted from the tenants’ breach.
The landlord claims the cost of replacing the carpets, window coverings, curtain tracks and smoke alarm because they were meth contaminated. I do not accept these claims. The level of contamination in the living area and hallway was only slightly above the threshold and I was not provided with evidence to prove that the carpets and window coverings there, let alone anywhere else in the premises, needed to be replaced rather than cleaned. I therefore dismiss the claims.
But I accept that it would have been reasonable to professionally clean the carpets and window coverings. I have therefore awarded the sum of $2,000 for that cleaning which I consider to be a reasonable estimate of the cost of the cleaning. Exemplary Damages
I accept that the use of methamphetamine during the tenancy was an unlawful use of the premises. If the tenants were not using it themselves, they must have been aware that it was being used. That is an unlawful act.
The tenants’ unlawful act has caused the landlord considerable expense and no doubt stress and upset. The breach is serious and had serious consequences. An award towards the upper end of the scale is needed and I have therefore awarded $1,500 exemplary damages.
I accept that the tenants behaved in an anti-social manner and that they disturbed their neighbours. But it is an unlawful act only if it amounts to harassment of the neighbours. There was not enough evidence to prove harassment and so no exemplary damages can be awarded.
The landlord also claimed that more than the maximum number of three people occupied the premises. There was evidence that a fourth person stayed at the premises but not that they ordinarily resided there. Therefore, no exemplary damages can be awarded. Filing Fee
The landlord has had significant success and so I award the filing fee. I also award the filing from application 4531109 which was reserved to this application.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4660929 — net $13,857.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 17 May 2023	$498.58	Rent arrears to 17 May 2023
Power	$110.57	Power
Rubbish removal	$100.00	Rubbish removal
Bar stool	$50.00	Bar stool
Loss of rent (three weeks	$1,695.00	Loss of rent (three weeks
Meth testing	$3,959.45	Meth testing
Lock/key replacement	$640.55	Lock/key replacement
Lawns and Garden work	$200.00	Lawns and Garden work
Wall damage and painting	$1,500.00	Wall damage and painting
Gas bottle refill	$43.13	Gas bottle refill
Meth decontamination (Excess	$3,000.00	Meth decontamination (Excess
Master bedroom door replacement	$208.90	Master bedroom door replacement
Shower dome replacement	$309.00	Shower dome replacement
Shower drip strip	$11.50	Shower drip strip
Cleaning	$250.00	Cleaning
Carpet and window coverings cleaning	$2,000.00	Carpet and window coverings cleaning
Exemplary damages (unlawful use	$1,500.00	Exemplary damages (unlawful use
Filing fees reimbursement	$40.88	Filing fees reimbursement
Net award	$13,857.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$13,857.44

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply to publication of this decision.
[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay Streets Ahead Property Management Limited as agent for Satish Arva Venkatesham $13,857.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the balance of the bond in the sum of $1,130.00 (3258458-015) to Streets Ahead Property Management Limited as agent for Satish Arva Venkatesham immediately.
The landlord’s claims are otherwise dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord and Ms Roberts from Streets Ahead Property Management (the agent) attended the hearing. The tenants did not attend.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, exemplary damages, payment of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
This tenancy began on 7 January 2023 and ended, following a termination order made by this Tribunal on 5 May 2023, on 17 May 2023. That order, under application 4531109, also ordered payment of $1,130 from the bond of $ 2,260, to the landlord for rent arrears.
In March, the agent inspected the premises. She was not happy with what she found, and she recommended to the landlord that he get the premises tested for methamphetamine (meth) contamination. He agreed.
Samples were taken from the premises 22 March. Composite testing found meth at a level that was bound to be above the New Zealand standard (1.5μg/100cm²) and that could be above the threshold suggested by Professor Sir Peter Gluckman’s report (the Gluckman report) in 2019 (15μg/100cm)
On 27 March, samples were taken from the premises and individually tested. From 21 samples, two were above the Gluckman report threshold. They were in the Hall (15.5μg/100cm²) and in the open plan kitchen/living/dining area (18.4μg/100cm²).
After the tenants vacated the premises, the landlord had the premises cleaned by a meth contamination remediation business. The landlord’s insurance covered the cost of the remediation less an excess of $3,000. The landlord claims that excess.
The landlord did not have a pre-tenancy meth test done. He and his wife lived in the premises for five years after buying it. The tenancy was their first tenancy of the premises. Rent
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The Tenants’ Other Obligations
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.
The tenants must not carelessly or intentionally damage 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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00.
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. Claims Cleaning, Rubbish, Garden, Locks and Chattels (Excluding Meth Contamination)
The tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy or remove all rubbish.
Missing from the premises at the end of the tenancy were – a bar stool, shower dome and a shower drip strip.
The awards for cleaning, rubbish and chattels were proved by evidence given by the landlord and the agent. There was an invoice for the garden work.
I have also awarded the cost of refilling a gas bottle which was full at the start of the tenancy and left empty.
The tenants did not return all the keys to the premises. As well, the behaviour of the tenants during the tenancy caused the landlord to be concerned about the security of the premises if the locks were not changed. For reasons which I discuss below, I find that his concern was reasonable.
The cost of lock changing was proved by the production of an invoice. Damage (Other Than Meth Related Damage)
The landlord produced photographs taken at the end of the tenancy showing damage to walls in the premises that is beyond fair and tear. The landlord did not produce a pre-tenancy condition report or photographs, but I accept his evidence that the damage was not present at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord produced an invoice for wall repairs and painting in the sum of $4,500. That covered the repairs and painting the entire interior of the premises. The wall damage did not necessitate painting beyond the walls that were damaged. I have therefore awarded an amount that in my assessment represents the reasonable cost of the repairs and painting the damaged walls.
The bedroom door was damaged during the tenancy and needed to be replaced. The sum awarded was proved by the production of an invoice. Meth Contamination
I am satisfied that the premises were contaminated by meth during the tenancy. At the hearing that resulted in termination of the tenancy, the tenants said that someone in the premises with their permission probably used meth in the premises. The tenants are responsible for their guest’s actions.
The tenancy was problematic for several reasons. The Police attended several times for domestic violence and excessive noise and meth was found at the premises. Several arrests were made there. There were complaints from neighbours about disturbances from the premises.
There is no evidence that the premises were used for the manufacture of meth and the levels of meth found in the premises are not consistent with manufacture.
I rely on the Gluckman report for the level of meth contamination at which there is a risk to human health. That is because his report is based on a review of the scientific evidence and the NZ standard is not. His reports states “exposure to methamphetamine levels below 15μg/100cm² would be unlikely to give rise to any adverse health effects. This level still incorporates a 30-fold safety buffer on a conservative estimate of risk.” I take this to mean that levels slightly above that level may well not be a risk to human health.
It follows that I do not accept that any remediation of premises is needed where the Gluckman level was not exceeded and that where the level is exceeded, the extent of remediation must be proportionate to the extent of contamination above that level.
The landlord faces the difficulty that there was no ingoing meth test and that raises the possibility that they were already contaminated before the tenancy. But I accept the landlords’ evidence that there was no meth use in the premises during the five years that he and his wife lived there. The landlord pointed out that in his employment there is random drug testing, and he has never tested positive for drugs. He had the test results to prove it.
It is possible that the premises were contaminated before the landlord bought the premises but the chances of that are slight, as they are with any premises. I also take into consideration that the levels in the premises were only slightly above the threshold after meth use in the premises during the tenancy. If there was any meth contamination before the tenancy, it was likely to be below the threshold.
I find, therefore, that the tenants are responsible for the meth contamination of the premises above the threshold.
The level was exceeded in the living area and hallway and although it was not exceeded by much, I accept that it was reasonable to carry out some remediation of those areas to reduce the level of contamination. I also accept that the reasonable cost of such decontamination would exceed $3000, and so I have awarded the excess of $3,000 as claimed.
I also accept that the tenants’ breach of their obligations resulted in a delay before the premises were ready to be relet. The landlord claimed five weeks loss of rent. The period during which the premises were vacant was slightly less than that. As well, there may well have been a vacant period in any case. I have therefore awarded three weeks loss of rent.
The landlord was concerned about meth use in the premises, and he was right to be. It was therefore reasonable to have the premises tested. I have therefore awarded the cost of the testing.
I have also awarded the cost of power after the tenants vacated and before the premises were relet. The power use resulted from the tenants’ breach.
The landlord claims the cost of replacing the carpets, window coverings, curtain tracks and smoke alarm because they were meth contaminated. I do not accept these claims. The level of contamination in the living area and hallway was only slightly above the threshold and I was not provided with evidence to prove that the carpets and window coverings there, let alone anywhere else in the premises, needed to be replaced rather than cleaned. I therefore dismiss the claims.
But I accept that it would have been reasonable to professionally clean the carpets and window coverings. I have therefore awarded the sum of $2,000 for that cleaning which I consider to be a reasonable estimate of the cost of the cleaning. Exemplary Damages
I accept that the use of methamphetamine during the tenancy was an unlawful use of the premises. If the tenants were not using it themselves, they must have been aware that it was being used. That is an unlawful act.
The tenants’ unlawful act has caused the landlord considerable expense and no doubt stress and upset. The breach is serious and had serious consequences. An award towards the upper end of the scale is needed and I have therefore awarded $1,500 exemplary damages.
I accept that the tenants behaved in an anti-social manner and that they disturbed their neighbours. But it is an unlawful act only if it amounts to harassment of the neighbours. There was not enough evidence to prove harassment and so no exemplary damages can be awarded.
The landlord also claimed that more than the maximum number of three people occupied the premises. There was evidence that a fourth person stayed at the premises but not that they ordinarily resided there. Therefore, no exemplary damages can be awarded. Filing Fee
The landlord has had significant success and so I award the filing fee. I also award the filing from application 4531109 which was reserved to this application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4660929 — Property damage at 10 Gore Street, Halswell, Christchurch 8025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4660929 — Property damage at 10 Gore Street, Halswell, Christchurch 8025

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions