What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4681734?

The tribunal order states: Ben Frans Ellis must pay Heam Properties Limited $4,490.42 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4681734?

Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $2,727.02 awarded to landlord; Legal Costs: $914.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $109.29 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $159.42 awarded to landlord; Wardrobes - Repaint: $400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4681734?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4681734?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10507678-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4681734?

The tribunal order states: Ben Frans Ellis must pay Heam Properties Limited $4,490.42 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4681734?

Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $2,727.02 awarded to landlord; Legal Costs: $914.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $109.29 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $159.42 awarded to landlord; Wardrobes - Repaint: $400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4681734?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4681734?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10507678-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

4 Pounamu Avenue, Greenhithe, Auckland 0632 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4681734 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4681734 — net $4,490.42 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$159.42	Rubbish removal
Wardrobes - repaint	$400.00	Wardrobes - repaint
Repair wardrobe rail	$109.29	Repair wardrobe rail
Replace vinyl floors	$2,727.02	Replace vinyl floors
Exemplary damages – meth offending	$1,500.00	Exemplary damages – meth offending
Legal costs	$914.25	Legal costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,490.42
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,490.42

Order

Ben Frans Ellis must pay Heam Properties Limited $4,490.42 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,340.00 (3442028-009) to Heam Properties Limited immediately.

Reasons

The landlord’s directors attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, exemplary damages, the filing fee, and payment over of the bond following 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 remove all rubbish.
The tenant did not organise removal of some rubbish he had collected.
The landlord had to pay $159.20 for its collection.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord seeks compensation for the tenant painting the premises’ vinyl floors and damaging and painting a wardrobe.
The tenant painted the vinyl floors and the wardrobe black and altered the wardrobe rails without the landlord’s permission.
The landlord’s directors speculate this bizarre behaviour was connect to the consumption of methamphetamine in the house.
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. 1
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). 2 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 3
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. 4 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), ss 40(2)(a), 41, and 49B. 2 RTA, s49B(3)(b). 3 RTA, s 49B(3A)(a). 4 RTA, s 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. 5
The damage was not malicious, but it was intentional.
The landlord had to pay $6,817.56 to replace the vinyl floors. However, the flooring was about nine years old, so had an expected life of only about six years. The loss is assessed at 6/15ths of the cost to account betterment and depreciation. The cost of repainting a repairing the wardrobe is allowed. Methamphetamine decontamination costs
The landlord seeks reimbursement of its insurance excess related to meth decontamination costs and exemplary damages for the tenant using or permitting the consumption of methamphetamine in the house.
A recent amendment to s 138C of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides for regulations to be made prescribing the maximum acceptable level for contaminants, but no regulations have been made in relation to methamphetamine levels yet.
There are currently two sources of guidance on the issue of a safe level of methamphetamine contamination in residential premises. In June 2017 Standards New Zealand published NZS 8510:2017. The standard recommended a maximum contamination level of 1.5μg/100cm2 for high use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture. It recommended a higher level of 3.8μg/100cm2 for limited use areas.
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 report noted that there is a lack of scientific evidence to prove that low-level third-hand methamphetamine exposure poses a health risk to humans and exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm 2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect.
The report recommended decontamination to the level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 only where contamination resulted from manufacture due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the manufacturing process.
The District Court has held that remediation should be carried out in accordance with the prevailing guidelines at the time. 6 5 Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The Tribunal has endorsed the Gluckman recommendations and has applied them for several years. The District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 approved the Tribunal’s approach: 7 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.
In this case the methamphetamine samples tested below the Gluckman level, so the Tribunal declines to make an order for the landlord’s excess. Methamphetamine use at the premises
While the methamphetamine testing returned contamination results below the current level considered to be harmful, it does prove that methamphetamine was consumed at the premises during the tenancy.
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. 8 Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. 9
It is unlawful to consume or permit the consumption of methamphetamine In New Zealand. I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenant did so at the premises.
Therefore, the tenant intentionally committed an unlawful act. 6 Diamond Real Estate Limited v Allan [2017] NZDC 833. 7 At [36]. 8 RTA, s 40(2)(b). 9 RTA, s 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A.
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. 10
The tenant’s use or permission to use methamphetamine was probably for recreational purposes, the effect on the landlord has been costly, it is the landlord’s interest that the harm done to it by the unlawful act is vindicated, it is in the public interest to punish the tenant and to deter other would-be offenders by an award of exemplary damages.
I am satisfied it is just to order exemplary damages in favour of the landlord and they are set at $1,500.00. Filing fee
The landlord has substantially succeeded in its claim. The Tribunal orders the tenant to reimburse the landlord for the filing fee. Bond
The bond should be paid out to the landlord in part payment of the judgment debt.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4681734 — net $4,490.42 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$159.42	Rubbish removal
Wardrobes - repaint	$400.00	Wardrobes - repaint
Repair wardrobe rail	$109.29	Repair wardrobe rail
Replace vinyl floors	$2,727.02	Replace vinyl floors
Exemplary damages – meth offending	$1,500.00	Exemplary damages – meth offending
Legal costs	$914.25	Legal costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,490.42
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,490.42

Order

Ben Frans Ellis must pay Heam Properties Limited $4,490.42 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,340.00 (3442028-009) to Heam Properties Limited immediately.

Reasons

The landlord’s directors attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, exemplary damages, the filing fee, and payment over of the bond following 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 remove all rubbish.
The tenant did not organise removal of some rubbish he had collected.
The landlord had to pay $159.20 for its collection.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord seeks compensation for the tenant painting the premises’ vinyl floors and damaging and painting a wardrobe.
The tenant painted the vinyl floors and the wardrobe black and altered the wardrobe rails without the landlord’s permission.
The landlord’s directors speculate this bizarre behaviour was connect to the consumption of methamphetamine in the house.
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. 1
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). 2 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 3
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. 4 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), ss 40(2)(a), 41, and 49B. 2 RTA, s49B(3)(b). 3 RTA, s 49B(3A)(a). 4 RTA, s 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. 5
The damage was not malicious, but it was intentional.
The landlord had to pay $6,817.56 to replace the vinyl floors. However, the flooring was about nine years old, so had an expected life of only about six years. The loss is assessed at 6/15ths of the cost to account betterment and depreciation. The cost of repainting a repairing the wardrobe is allowed. Methamphetamine decontamination costs
The landlord seeks reimbursement of its insurance excess related to meth decontamination costs and exemplary damages for the tenant using or permitting the consumption of methamphetamine in the house.
A recent amendment to s 138C of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides for regulations to be made prescribing the maximum acceptable level for contaminants, but no regulations have been made in relation to methamphetamine levels yet.
There are currently two sources of guidance on the issue of a safe level of methamphetamine contamination in residential premises. In June 2017 Standards New Zealand published NZS 8510:2017. The standard recommended a maximum contamination level of 1.5μg/100cm2 for high use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture. It recommended a higher level of 3.8μg/100cm2 for limited use areas.
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 report noted that there is a lack of scientific evidence to prove that low-level third-hand methamphetamine exposure poses a health risk to humans and exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm 2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect.
The report recommended decontamination to the level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 only where contamination resulted from manufacture due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the manufacturing process.
The District Court has held that remediation should be carried out in accordance with the prevailing guidelines at the time. 6 5 Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The Tribunal has endorsed the Gluckman recommendations and has applied them for several years. The District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 approved the Tribunal’s approach: 7 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.
In this case the methamphetamine samples tested below the Gluckman level, so the Tribunal declines to make an order for the landlord’s excess. Methamphetamine use at the premises
While the methamphetamine testing returned contamination results below the current level considered to be harmful, it does prove that methamphetamine was consumed at the premises during the tenancy.
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. 8 Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. 9
It is unlawful to consume or permit the consumption of methamphetamine In New Zealand. I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenant did so at the premises.
Therefore, the tenant intentionally committed an unlawful act. 6 Diamond Real Estate Limited v Allan [2017] NZDC 833. 7 At [36]. 8 RTA, s 40(2)(b). 9 RTA, s 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A.
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. 10
The tenant’s use or permission to use methamphetamine was probably for recreational purposes, the effect on the landlord has been costly, it is the landlord’s interest that the harm done to it by the unlawful act is vindicated, it is in the public interest to punish the tenant and to deter other would-be offenders by an award of exemplary damages.
I am satisfied it is just to order exemplary damages in favour of the landlord and they are set at $1,500.00. Filing fee
The landlord has substantially succeeded in its claim. The Tribunal orders the tenant to reimburse the landlord for the filing fee. Bond
The bond should be paid out to the landlord in part payment of the judgment debt.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4681734 — Property damage at 4 Pounamu Avenue, Greenhithe, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4681734 — Property damage at 4 Pounamu Avenue, Greenhithe, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions