What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4661452 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4661452?

Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing: Composite Testing: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing: Detailed Testing: $2,328.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4661452?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4661452?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9515849-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4661452 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4661452?

Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing: Composite Testing: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing: Detailed Testing: $2,328.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4661452?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4661452?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9515849-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4661452 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4661452 — net $3,561.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Meth testing: Composite testing	$345.00	Meth testing: Composite testing
Meth testing: Detailed testing	$2,328.75	Meth testing: Detailed testing
Exemplary damages	$1,200.00	Exemplary damages
Net award	$3,561.75
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,561.75

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $3,561.75 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $312.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
The landlord has applied for compensation and exemplary damages arising from methamphetamine use at the premises and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord withdrew its claims for termination of the tenancy as the tenant gave notice following receipt of the application made against him and the tenancy ended on 28 August 2023. The landlord also withdrew its claim for cleaning and decontamination costs associated with methamphetamine presence.
The landlord raised new claims during the hearing for compensation following the end of the tenancy that were not included in their original application or notified to the tenant. Because the new claims were not notified to the tenant, I cannot fairly decide them. The landlord will need to make a new application for those new compensation claims.

Is the tenant responsible for the methamphetamine testing of the premises?

The landlord’s claim

The landlord produced a pre-tenancy methamphetamine screening test with samples taken in nine locations throughout the premises returning methamphetamine at levels below 1.5μg/100cm².
The landlord claims that it became aware that the tenant had effectively left, and gang members had taken over the premises. The landlord produced photographs from the premises with gang possession hanging on the walls.
Accordingly, the landlord arranged for composite methamphetamine testing on 3 August 2023 which recorded concentrations of 1.62μg/100cm² and a theoretical maximum of 16.2μg/100cm². As the theoretical maximum was above 15μg/100cm2, being the level considered safe NZS8510:2017, the Gluckman Report, and by this Tribunal, the landlord arranged for detailed testing to be undertaken on 16 August 2023. The detailed analysis of 22 samples then showed results ranging up to 2.9μg/100cm². None of the areas tested exceeded 15μg/100cm2 of methamphetamine.
While methamphetamine was detected, it was at levels that are considered safe for continued occupation. Accordingly, there was no damage to the premises. The landlord acknowledged this and had withdrawn its claim for compensation for cleaning and remediation at the start of the hearing.
However, the landlord claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, as the methamphetamine levels indicate at least use or attempts at manufacturing methamphetamine during the tenancy.
The landlord claims the costs associated with the: (i) screening/composite testing; (ii) the detailed testing; and (iii) the testing following the decontamination cleaning.
The landlord also seeks exemplary damages. The Law
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) RTA.
It is unlawful to knowingly permit any premises to be used for the purpose of the commission of an offence against the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. “Methamphetamine” is included as a controlled drug under Schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A) (c) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Section 41 of the RTA states that the tenant shall be responsible for anything done or omitted to be done by any person (other than the landlord or any person acting on the landlord's behalf or with the landlord's authority) who is in the premises with the tenant's permission if the act or omission would have constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement had it been the act or omission of the tenant. Analysis
I am satisfied, more likely than not, that there has been contamination by methamphetamine, of the premises. I am satisfied that this contamination has occurred during the tenancy. I am also satisfied more likely than not that the tenant has either caused or permitted the contamination to occur.
The landlord is awarded the costs associated with the composite and detailed testing. I award this as the composite test did detect the presence of methamphetamine beyond the levels established by the baseline test prior to this tenancy commencing, albeit at very low levels, and it also indicated a hypothetical reading above the level considered safe. In this instance I have considered the detection of methamphetamine as justification of the testing and a consequence being the tenant should compensate the landlord accordingly.
I dismiss the claim for the testing following the decontamination cleaning as none of the detailed testing results exceeded the level considered safe, being 15μg/100cm².
The Tenancy Tribunal has previously found, and I agree, that the consumption of methamphetamine on premises amounts to the use of those premises for an unlawful purpose, in breach of section 40(2)(b) RTA. In view of my finding that methamphetamine was more likely than not consumed at the premises, I find that the premises were used or permitted to be used for an unlawful purpose by the tenants. I therefore find the tenant has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
I find that an award of $1,200 is appropriate to reflect the public interest in stamping out methamphetamine consumption generally. Consumption and/or manufacture of methamphetamine is a deliberate act and the stress and frustration it would have caused to the owner is undoubtable.
The bond is to be released to the landlord to offset the debt owed by the tenant to the landlord. Suppression
The landlord requested name suppression for both parties. Section 95A of the RTA provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).
The landlord has been substantially successful in its claims.
The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in their defence to the landlord’s claims. However, section 95A(4) of the RTA provides that the Tribunal may, having regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest, order that the name and identifying details of any party be suppressed.
The landlord is a community housing provider. It follows that the landlord’s clients are vulnerable individuals who require assistance with their housing needs. I consider there is little public interest in the tenant’s name or identifying details being published.
I grant name suppression to both parties pursuant to section 95A(4) of the RTA. T Lee-Lewis 11 October 2023

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4661452 — net $3,561.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Meth testing: Composite testing	$345.00	Meth testing: Composite testing
Meth testing: Detailed testing	$2,328.75	Meth testing: Detailed testing
Exemplary damages	$1,200.00	Exemplary damages
Net award	$3,561.75
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,561.75

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $3,561.75 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $312.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
The landlord has applied for compensation and exemplary damages arising from methamphetamine use at the premises and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord withdrew its claims for termination of the tenancy as the tenant gave notice following receipt of the application made against him and the tenancy ended on 28 August 2023. The landlord also withdrew its claim for cleaning and decontamination costs associated with methamphetamine presence.
The landlord raised new claims during the hearing for compensation following the end of the tenancy that were not included in their original application or notified to the tenant. Because the new claims were not notified to the tenant, I cannot fairly decide them. The landlord will need to make a new application for those new compensation claims.

Is the tenant responsible for the methamphetamine testing of the premises?

The landlord’s claim

The landlord produced a pre-tenancy methamphetamine screening test with samples taken in nine locations throughout the premises returning methamphetamine at levels below 1.5μg/100cm².
The landlord claims that it became aware that the tenant had effectively left, and gang members had taken over the premises. The landlord produced photographs from the premises with gang possession hanging on the walls.
Accordingly, the landlord arranged for composite methamphetamine testing on 3 August 2023 which recorded concentrations of 1.62μg/100cm² and a theoretical maximum of 16.2μg/100cm². As the theoretical maximum was above 15μg/100cm2, being the level considered safe NZS8510:2017, the Gluckman Report, and by this Tribunal, the landlord arranged for detailed testing to be undertaken on 16 August 2023. The detailed analysis of 22 samples then showed results ranging up to 2.9μg/100cm². None of the areas tested exceeded 15μg/100cm2 of methamphetamine.
While methamphetamine was detected, it was at levels that are considered safe for continued occupation. Accordingly, there was no damage to the premises. The landlord acknowledged this and had withdrawn its claim for compensation for cleaning and remediation at the start of the hearing.
However, the landlord claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, as the methamphetamine levels indicate at least use or attempts at manufacturing methamphetamine during the tenancy.
The landlord claims the costs associated with the: (i) screening/composite testing; (ii) the detailed testing; and (iii) the testing following the decontamination cleaning.
The landlord also seeks exemplary damages. The Law
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) RTA.
It is unlawful to knowingly permit any premises to be used for the purpose of the commission of an offence against the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. “Methamphetamine” is included as a controlled drug under Schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A) (c) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Section 41 of the RTA states that the tenant shall be responsible for anything done or omitted to be done by any person (other than the landlord or any person acting on the landlord's behalf or with the landlord's authority) who is in the premises with the tenant's permission if the act or omission would have constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement had it been the act or omission of the tenant. Analysis
I am satisfied, more likely than not, that there has been contamination by methamphetamine, of the premises. I am satisfied that this contamination has occurred during the tenancy. I am also satisfied more likely than not that the tenant has either caused or permitted the contamination to occur.
The landlord is awarded the costs associated with the composite and detailed testing. I award this as the composite test did detect the presence of methamphetamine beyond the levels established by the baseline test prior to this tenancy commencing, albeit at very low levels, and it also indicated a hypothetical reading above the level considered safe. In this instance I have considered the detection of methamphetamine as justification of the testing and a consequence being the tenant should compensate the landlord accordingly.
I dismiss the claim for the testing following the decontamination cleaning as none of the detailed testing results exceeded the level considered safe, being 15μg/100cm².
The Tenancy Tribunal has previously found, and I agree, that the consumption of methamphetamine on premises amounts to the use of those premises for an unlawful purpose, in breach of section 40(2)(b) RTA. In view of my finding that methamphetamine was more likely than not consumed at the premises, I find that the premises were used or permitted to be used for an unlawful purpose by the tenants. I therefore find the tenant has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
I find that an award of $1,200 is appropriate to reflect the public interest in stamping out methamphetamine consumption generally. Consumption and/or manufacture of methamphetamine is a deliberate act and the stress and frustration it would have caused to the owner is undoubtable.
The bond is to be released to the landlord to offset the debt owed by the tenant to the landlord. Suppression
The landlord requested name suppression for both parties. Section 95A of the RTA provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).
The landlord has been substantially successful in its claims.
The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in their defence to the landlord’s claims. However, section 95A(4) of the RTA provides that the Tribunal may, having regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest, order that the name and identifying details of any party be suppressed.
The landlord is a community housing provider. It follows that the landlord’s clients are vulnerable individuals who require assistance with their housing needs. I consider there is little public interest in the tenant’s name or identifying details being published.
I grant name suppression to both parties pursuant to section 95A(4) of the RTA. T Lee-Lewis 11 October 2023

Tenancy Tribunal case 4661452 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4661452 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the methamphetamine testing of the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the methamphetamine testing of the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions