What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4660989 about?

The tribunal order states: Halley Raponi and Jason Thomson must pay [The landlord/s] $11,392.61

How much money was awarded in case 4660989?

Blinds: $525.75 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $2,430.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Garage Door Motor: $620.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $168.47 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $7,176.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $310.53 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $141.42 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4660989?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4660989?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9995883-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4660989 about?

The tribunal order states: Halley Raponi and Jason Thomson must pay [The landlord/s] $11,392.61

How much money was awarded in case 4660989?

Blinds: $525.75 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $2,430.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Garage Door Motor: $620.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $168.47 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $7,176.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $310.53 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $141.42 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4660989?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4660989?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9995883-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4660989 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4660989 — net $11,392.61 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$141.42	Water rates
Carpet	$2,430.00	Carpet
Lock/key replacement	$168.47	Lock/key replacement
Repairs to walls/paintwork	$7,176.00	Repairs to walls/paintwork
Garage door motor	$620.00	Garage door motor
Rubbish removal	$310.53	Rubbish removal
Blinds	$525.75	Blinds
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$11,392.61
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$11,392.61

Order

Halley Raponi and Jason Thomson must pay [The landlord/s] $11,392.61 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not appear.
The landlord has applied for compensation for general damages, methamphetamine related damage, exemplary damages, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 17 July 2023. The landlord provided water rates invoices 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. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not remove all rubbish and did not return the keys.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for general damages to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: broken and stained blinds, carpet is so badly stained throughout the premises it had to be replaced, walls were damaged throughout with graffiti, marks, and holes, garage door motor was damaged, and a door had to be replaced.
The damage is widespread and can only be classified as intentional.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Methamphetamine related claims
The landlord seeks compensation for methamphetamine testing and decontamination, and exemplary damages for the premises being used for an unlawful purpose.
Section 138C RTA provides for regulations to be made prescribing the maximum acceptable level for contaminants, but as yet no regulations have been made in relation to methamphetamine.
There are currently two sources of guidance on the issue of a safe level of methamphetamine contamination in residential premises. On 29 June 2017, Standards New Zealand released NZS 8510:2017 Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine-contaminated properties, which provides industry guidance on good practice methods in the testing and cleaning of methamphetamine contamination in houses. The standard adopted a single level of 1.5μg/100cm2 that ‘high use areas’ of affected properties should be decontaminated to, regardless of whether the properties were involved in the production or use of methamphetamine.
In 2018, The Prime Minister’s former Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman determined that there is little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption (Report entitled ‘Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards’, 29 May 2018). The ‘Gluckman Report’ stated that guidelines should be proportionate to risk and that exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm 2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect therefore there should be no need for remediation. Where there is evidence of manufacture the NZS 8510:2017 standard is appropriate.
I note the recent comments of the Court of Appeal in Smith v Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited [2019] NZCA 38 at [16] in direct reference to the Gluckman Report, “We acknowledge that the testing in this case yielded results now considered not to raise any health and safety concerns.”
This has been discussed by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947. Judge Kellar upheld a decision of the Tribunal to apply the higher standard of 15μg/100cm2 from the Gluckman report. The Court discussed the conflict between the New Zealand Standard and the Gluckman 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 the 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.”
The District Court took a similar approach in Acme Realty Limited v Hogg and others [2021] NZDC 3231, where the Court referred to the Full Circle case and held that, because NZS 8510:2017 has not been adopted into law, the Tribunal was not bound to apply the 1.5μg standard.
More recently, in Barfoot and Thompson Limited v Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited [2021] NZTT Auckland 4276319, both parties presented scientific evidence at a hearing before the Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that there was no new scientific research to change the conclusions reached in the Gluckman Report.
I am therefore satisfied that the current level to be applied is the level of 15μg/100cm2 as expressed by the Gluckman Report. There is no evidence of manufacture in this case.
Gluckman notes, 1 “For initial screening of properties, combining multiple samples taken throughout a dwelling into a single composite sample, as permitted in NZS 8510:2017, has limited value in accurately reflecting levels of risk, and depending on how the data are integrated can lead to quite misleading interpretation and false impressions of high exposure, triggering another round of expensive testing. There is merit in using tests that rapidly provide a simple positive or negative result in multiple locations for detection of higher levels (for example >15 μg/100 cm2) on site, followed by sensitive testing targeted to areas that produce a positive signal to inform a decision to decontaminate. In most cases, if methamphetamine is not detected at this level anywhere within a property, there is little cause for concern unless there are other reasons to suspect methamphetamine manufacturing activity.”
It should also be noted that guidelines provide for a methodology involving analysis of individual area by area samples rather than analysis of composite samples taken 1 At paragraph 1, pg 7 of the Executive Summary. from different areas to produce a total amount of methamphetamine from multiple swabs. 2
It follows that results from the composite samples cannot be relied upon to prove the existence of methamphetamine residue exceeding the ‘Gluckman’ levels of 15μg/100cm2.
The landlord did not carry out an in-going test for methamphetamine at the premises at the start of the tenancy. On 15 May 2023, the landlord commissioned composite testing which recorded a result of 16.9 ug/100cm.
Individual testing was subsequently carried out on 26 July 2023. Traces of methamphetamine were found in all 14 areas tested with 11 samples above
5ug/100cm and the highest at 8.66 ug/100cm in the hallway.
Applying the Gluckman levels, I can find no evidence that the premises were damaged or contaminated with methamphetamine in excess of 15μg/100cm2. In the absence of any other evidence to rebut the Gluckman report, that lower levels of methamphetamine residue are a risk to human health and have therefore caused damage, the Tribunal is unable to make any award for compensation and exemplary damages. This part of the claim is dismissed. Filing fee
As the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, the tenant must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
Section 95A of the RTA provides that the Tribunal must order suppression if the party applying for it has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings.
I find that the landlord is entitled to name suppression as of right and make an order accordingly.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4660989 — net $11,392.61 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$141.42	Water rates
Carpet	$2,430.00	Carpet
Lock/key replacement	$168.47	Lock/key replacement
Repairs to walls/paintwork	$7,176.00	Repairs to walls/paintwork
Garage door motor	$620.00	Garage door motor
Rubbish removal	$310.53	Rubbish removal
Blinds	$525.75	Blinds
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$11,392.61
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$11,392.61

Order

Halley Raponi and Jason Thomson must pay [The landlord/s] $11,392.61 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not appear.
The landlord has applied for compensation for general damages, methamphetamine related damage, exemplary damages, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 17 July 2023. The landlord provided water rates invoices 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. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not remove all rubbish and did not return the keys.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for general damages to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: broken and stained blinds, carpet is so badly stained throughout the premises it had to be replaced, walls were damaged throughout with graffiti, marks, and holes, garage door motor was damaged, and a door had to be replaced.
The damage is widespread and can only be classified as intentional.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Methamphetamine related claims
The landlord seeks compensation for methamphetamine testing and decontamination, and exemplary damages for the premises being used for an unlawful purpose.
Section 138C RTA provides for regulations to be made prescribing the maximum acceptable level for contaminants, but as yet no regulations have been made in relation to methamphetamine.
There are currently two sources of guidance on the issue of a safe level of methamphetamine contamination in residential premises. On 29 June 2017, Standards New Zealand released NZS 8510:2017 Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine-contaminated properties, which provides industry guidance on good practice methods in the testing and cleaning of methamphetamine contamination in houses. The standard adopted a single level of 1.5μg/100cm2 that ‘high use areas’ of affected properties should be decontaminated to, regardless of whether the properties were involved in the production or use of methamphetamine.
In 2018, The Prime Minister’s former Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman determined that there is little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption (Report entitled ‘Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards’, 29 May 2018). The ‘Gluckman Report’ stated that guidelines should be proportionate to risk and that exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm 2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect therefore there should be no need for remediation. Where there is evidence of manufacture the NZS 8510:2017 standard is appropriate.
I note the recent comments of the Court of Appeal in Smith v Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited [2019] NZCA 38 at [16] in direct reference to the Gluckman Report, “We acknowledge that the testing in this case yielded results now considered not to raise any health and safety concerns.”
This has been discussed by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947. Judge Kellar upheld a decision of the Tribunal to apply the higher standard of 15μg/100cm2 from the Gluckman report. The Court discussed the conflict between the New Zealand Standard and the Gluckman 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 the 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.”
The District Court took a similar approach in Acme Realty Limited v Hogg and others [2021] NZDC 3231, where the Court referred to the Full Circle case and held that, because NZS 8510:2017 has not been adopted into law, the Tribunal was not bound to apply the 1.5μg standard.
More recently, in Barfoot and Thompson Limited v Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited [2021] NZTT Auckland 4276319, both parties presented scientific evidence at a hearing before the Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that there was no new scientific research to change the conclusions reached in the Gluckman Report.
I am therefore satisfied that the current level to be applied is the level of 15μg/100cm2 as expressed by the Gluckman Report. There is no evidence of manufacture in this case.
Gluckman notes, 1 “For initial screening of properties, combining multiple samples taken throughout a dwelling into a single composite sample, as permitted in NZS 8510:2017, has limited value in accurately reflecting levels of risk, and depending on how the data are integrated can lead to quite misleading interpretation and false impressions of high exposure, triggering another round of expensive testing. There is merit in using tests that rapidly provide a simple positive or negative result in multiple locations for detection of higher levels (for example >15 μg/100 cm2) on site, followed by sensitive testing targeted to areas that produce a positive signal to inform a decision to decontaminate. In most cases, if methamphetamine is not detected at this level anywhere within a property, there is little cause for concern unless there are other reasons to suspect methamphetamine manufacturing activity.”
It should also be noted that guidelines provide for a methodology involving analysis of individual area by area samples rather than analysis of composite samples taken 1 At paragraph 1, pg 7 of the Executive Summary. from different areas to produce a total amount of methamphetamine from multiple swabs. 2
It follows that results from the composite samples cannot be relied upon to prove the existence of methamphetamine residue exceeding the ‘Gluckman’ levels of 15μg/100cm2.
The landlord did not carry out an in-going test for methamphetamine at the premises at the start of the tenancy. On 15 May 2023, the landlord commissioned composite testing which recorded a result of 16.9 ug/100cm.
Individual testing was subsequently carried out on 26 July 2023. Traces of methamphetamine were found in all 14 areas tested with 11 samples above
5ug/100cm and the highest at 8.66 ug/100cm in the hallway.
Applying the Gluckman levels, I can find no evidence that the premises were damaged or contaminated with methamphetamine in excess of 15μg/100cm2. In the absence of any other evidence to rebut the Gluckman report, that lower levels of methamphetamine residue are a risk to human health and have therefore caused damage, the Tribunal is unable to make any award for compensation and exemplary damages. This part of the claim is dismissed. Filing fee
As the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, the tenant must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
Section 95A of the RTA provides that the Tribunal must order suppression if the party applying for it has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings.
I find that the landlord is entitled to name suppression as of right and make an order accordingly.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4660989 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4660989 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

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

Is the tenant responsible for general damages 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 water rates?

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

Is the tenant responsible for general damages to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions