What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4691649 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 4691649?

Claim 1: Trailer Hireage and Disposa…: $359.60 awarded to landlord; Claim 10: Methamphetamine Retest: $363.31 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $304.79 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $38.01 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $322.95 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $290.33 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $608.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $759.00 awarded to landlord; Claim 9: Labour Costs for Property R…: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,800.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Loss Of Rent: $930.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $863.58 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4691649?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4691649?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9679067-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4691649 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 4691649?

Claim 1: Trailer Hireage and Disposa…: $359.60 awarded to landlord; Claim 10: Methamphetamine Retest: $363.31 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $304.79 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $38.01 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $322.95 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $290.33 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $608.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $759.00 awarded to landlord; Claim 9: Labour Costs for Property R…: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,800.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Loss Of Rent: $930.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $863.58 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4691649?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4691649?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9679067-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

49A Fergusson Street, Tokoroa, Tokoroa 3420 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4691649 — Exemplary damages

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
The Shayna Freda Bonnar and Thomas Cook to pay [The landlord/s] $7,470.00 immediately, calculated as follows: DescriptionLandlord Rent Arrears$863.58 Loss of Rent$930.00 Claim 1: Trailer Hireage and Disposal Costs$359.60 Claim 2: Key Repinning and Window Repairs$304.79 Claim 3: Smoke Alarm Replacement$38.01 Claim 4: Gate Replacement$322.95 Claim 5: Interior Bedroom Door Replacement$290.33 Claim 6: Curtain and Carpet Replacement$608.00 Claim 7: Carpet Steam Cleaning$230.00 Claim 8: End of Tenancy Clean$759.00 Claim 9: Labour Costs for Property Restoration$1,500.00 Claim 10: Methamphetamine Retest$363.31 Exemplary Damages: Unlawful Use of Premises (Methamphetamine Contamination) $1,800.00 Exemplary Damages: Exceeding Maximum Number of Occupants$600.00 Filing Fee Reimbursement$20.44 Total award$8,990.01 Minus Bond$1,520.00 Tenant to pay$7,470.00
Bond Services is to pay the bond of $1,520.00 to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The Landlords have applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The Landlords have set out their claims as follows: Claim 1: Trailer Hireage and Disposal Costs - $359.60 Claim 2: Key Repinning and Window Repairs - $304.79 Claim 3: Smoke Alarm Replacement - $38.01 Claim 4: Gate Replacement - $322.95 Claim 5: Interior Bedroom Door Replacement and Repainting - $290.33 Claim 6: Curtain and Carpet Replacement - $608.00 Claim 7: Carpet Steam Cleaning - $230.00 Claim 8: End of Tenancy Clean - $759.00 Claim 9: Labour Costs for Property Restoration - $1,500.00 Claim 10: Methamphetamine Retest - $363.31 Claim 11: Outstanding Rent and Lost Rental Income - $1,793.58

How much is owed for rent?

Claim 11: Outstanding Rent and Lost Rental Income - $1,793.58

The tenants owe $863.58 in outstanding rent according to the Landlords’ rent summary, which I approve.
Additionally, the landlord suffered a loss of 2 weeks' rental income, amounting to $930.00.
The Tribunal recognises the validity of this claim and the financial impact on the landlord. I award $930.00 for lost rent.

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: s 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy: s 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs. Claim 1: Trailer Hireage and Disposal Costs - $359.60
The tenants vacated the property on September 24, 2023, leaving behind abandoned possessions, rubbish, and recycling, totalling approximately 390kgs.
The landlord provided a detailed quote for trailer hireage and disposal services, totalling $359.60.
The Tribunal finds this expense to be reasonable and directly related to the Tenants’ obligation to leave the premises clean and tidy upon vacating. Therefore, the tenants are liable for this cost. Claim 2: Key Repinning and Window Repairs - $304.79
The Tenants failed to return keys at the end of the tenancy, necessitating the repinning and recutting of keys for both doors.
Additionally, damages to the ranchslider and windows, including a removed ranchslider door handle, damaged rollers, removed security latch on a window, and broken window latches, required repair.
The landlord provided invoices and quotes from [glass company], [hardware store], and a locksmith, totalling $304.79.
The Tribunal considers these expenses to be directly attributable to the Tenants’ failure to return keys and the damages caused, justifying the claim. Claim 3: Smoke Alarm Replacement - $38.01
The Tenants removed a smoke alarm during their tenancy, and on testing, it was discovered that two other smoke alarms were deactivated due to not being securely fitted, following their removal. (They had been properly installed and tested prior to the tenancy.)
The Landlord incurred costs to replace the removed smoke alarm and rectify the deactivated alarms.
An invoice from [hardware store] totalling $38.01 was provided as evidence.
The Tribunal acknowledges the necessity of maintaining smoke alarms for the safety of the property and its occupants, thus supporting the claim. Claim 7: Carpet Steam Cleaning - $230.00
Despite attempts to clean the carpets, marks and staining remained, necessitating commercial steam cleaning. Photographic evidence of the stain was provided, which has not been present in earlier inspections during the tenancy.
The landlord provided evidence of the cost incurred, totalling $230.00.
The Tenant is responsible for the stain, and the cleaning of it. I approve this claim. Claim 8: End of Tenancy Clean - $759.00
A commercial end of tenancy and decontamination clean were required following a positive methamphetamine test result.
The Landlord has provided the results of a pre-tenancy methamphetamine test, together with the results of individual-sample meth-testing completed towards the end of the Tenant, which prove methamphetamine contamination has occurred during the tenancy.
The cost of this cleaning service was provided as evidence, totalling $759.00.
The Tribunal acknowledges the need for such cleaning to ensure the property’s safety and hygiene standards and finds the claim valid.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage 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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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: Claim 4: Gate Replacement - $322.95
The Tenants caused damage to a gate on the property, resulting in it being buckled and rendered non-functional.
The Landlord provided evidence of the replacement cost from [company], totalling $322.95.
The Tribunal finds that the damage to the gate was beyond fair wear and tear, and the tenants are responsible for its replacement. Claim 5: Interior Bedroom Door Replacement and Repainting - $290.33
During the tenancy, the Tenants damaged an interior bedroom door beyond reasonable wear and tear. The Landlord provided photographs proving the damage. The Tenants are responsible for the damage.
The Landlord incurred costs for the replacement of the damaged door and repainting other doors and windowsills that were marked and stained.
Invoices from suppliers, including the cost of paint, were provided as evidence, totalling $290.33. Claim 6: Curtain and Carpet Replacement - $378.00
The Tenants damaged curtain tracks, nets, and drapes during their tenancy, requiring replacement.
The costs for replacement curtain tracks, fabrics came to $378.00.
The Tribunal finds these expenses to be directly related to the Tenants’ actions and supports the claim. Claim 9: Labour Costs for Property Restoration - $1,500.00
The Landlord expended significant labour hours in restoring the property after the Tenants' departure.
This included various tasks such as dumping rubbish, water blasting, garden maintenance, replacing damaged fittings, preparing, and repainting doors and windowsills, cleaning, and other property improvements.
The Landlord and their spouse each dedicated 25 hours, totalling 50 hours, at a rate of $30.00 per hour.
The total labour cost incurred for property restoration amounted to $1,500.00.
The Tribunal recognises the substantial efforts undertaken by the Landlord and approves the claim. Claim 10: Methamphetamine Retest - $363.31
A retest for methamphetamine contamination has been initiated.
A retest was required following cleaning of the premises.
The cost of this retest was provided as evidence, totalling $363.31.
The Tribunal acknowledges the necessity of verifying the property's safety and supports the claim.
The amounts ordered are proved. Were the premises sublet without the Landlords’ consent and/or exceed the maximum number of occupants allowed?
[The landlord/s] claims the Tenants have sublet or parted with possession of the premises without their prior written consent, and/or exceeded the maximum number of occupants allowed.
In the absence of a specific provision in the tenancy agreement prohibiting subletting or parting of possession of the tenancy, a tenant may do so but only with the prior written consent of the landlord. The Landlord may not withhold consent unreasonably: s 44(2) and (3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00: s 44(2A)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
A tenant must not exceed the number of occupants as specified in the tenancy agreement:
Where the tenancy agreement specifies a maximum number of persons that may ordinarily reside in the premises during the tenancy, the tenant must ensure that no more than that number ordinarily reside in the premises at any time during the tenancy: s 40(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986
A breach of this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,000.00: s 40(3A)(e) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I have no evidence of the Tenants subletting the premises without the written consent of the landlord.
However, the Landlord has visited the premises and noted that there are more than three people living at the property, and their witness who lives nearby confirmed there were more than three occupants living at the property, and they were not visitors or temporary guests.
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: s 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I consider the requirement not to have more than three occupants at the premises is clear in the agreement. The Tenants were reminded of the requirement also but chose to disregard it. Exceeding the maximum number of occupants contributes to wear and tear in a home and creates health and safety issues. Such actions also impact the broader public interest, including the assessment of council rating valuations based on property amenities and the implied responsibility to maintain a safe and habitable living environment for all residents.
I award the Landlord $600.00 in exemplary damages. I consider this serves as a sufficient deterrent and provides acknowledgment of the wrong and hardship caused.

Were the premises used for an unlawful purpose?

[The landlord/s] claim that the Tenants used the premises unlawfully by engaging in methamphetamine use, which is illegal under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
Section 40(2)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 stipulates that a tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose.
Breaching this obligation constitutes an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum sum of $1,800.00: s 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986
The Landlords have provided conclusive evidence in the form of pre-tenancy methamphetamine test results and individual-sample meth-testing results completed toward the end of the tenancy, proving methamphetamine contamination occurred during the tenancy.
Methamphetamine is an illegal drug, and its use on the premises not only violates the law but also poses serious health and safety risks to occupants.
The contamination of the property is a breach of the Tenants' obligations and has led to significant financial and reputational damage to the landlords.
Section 109(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 empowers the Tribunal to award exemplary damages when a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally.
In assessing whether to award exemplary damages, the Tribunal considers the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest.
Methamphetamine is a highly illegal substance, and its use on the premises not only jeopardises the safety and well-being of occupants but also raises concerns about the broader public interest in upholding the law and community standards.
The Landlords, in their attempt to provide a rental opportunity in good faith, have suffered significant financial losses and reputational damage due to the Tenants’ unlawful actions.
The Landlord described the home as their nest egg, a place for their retirement and they were heartbroken to see how it was treated.
The Tribunal acknowledges the public interest in upholding legal standards, preventing illegal drug use in residential properties, and ensuring the safety of the community. Exemplary damages are warranted to deter such unlawful actions that can have far-reaching implications.
I find the Tenants must pay $1,800.00 for this serious breach, noting that while the level of contamination is not at the level which this Tribunal would consider to constitute damage, the levels are still high, indicating regular use and a brazen disregard for the law and the Landlord’s interests.
Because [The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee: $20.44.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
The Shayna Freda Bonnar and Thomas Cook to pay [The landlord/s] $7,470.00 immediately, calculated as follows: DescriptionLandlord Rent Arrears$863.58 Loss of Rent$930.00 Claim 1: Trailer Hireage and Disposal Costs$359.60 Claim 2: Key Repinning and Window Repairs$304.79 Claim 3: Smoke Alarm Replacement$38.01 Claim 4: Gate Replacement$322.95 Claim 5: Interior Bedroom Door Replacement$290.33 Claim 6: Curtain and Carpet Replacement$608.00 Claim 7: Carpet Steam Cleaning$230.00 Claim 8: End of Tenancy Clean$759.00 Claim 9: Labour Costs for Property Restoration$1,500.00 Claim 10: Methamphetamine Retest$363.31 Exemplary Damages: Unlawful Use of Premises (Methamphetamine Contamination) $1,800.00 Exemplary Damages: Exceeding Maximum Number of Occupants$600.00 Filing Fee Reimbursement$20.44 Total award$8,990.01 Minus Bond$1,520.00 Tenant to pay$7,470.00
Bond Services is to pay the bond of $1,520.00 to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The Landlords have applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The Landlords have set out their claims as follows: Claim 1: Trailer Hireage and Disposal Costs - $359.60 Claim 2: Key Repinning and Window Repairs - $304.79 Claim 3: Smoke Alarm Replacement - $38.01 Claim 4: Gate Replacement - $322.95 Claim 5: Interior Bedroom Door Replacement and Repainting - $290.33 Claim 6: Curtain and Carpet Replacement - $608.00 Claim 7: Carpet Steam Cleaning - $230.00 Claim 8: End of Tenancy Clean - $759.00 Claim 9: Labour Costs for Property Restoration - $1,500.00 Claim 10: Methamphetamine Retest - $363.31 Claim 11: Outstanding Rent and Lost Rental Income - $1,793.58

How much is owed for rent?

Claim 11: Outstanding Rent and Lost Rental Income - $1,793.58

The tenants owe $863.58 in outstanding rent according to the Landlords’ rent summary, which I approve.
Additionally, the landlord suffered a loss of 2 weeks' rental income, amounting to $930.00.
The Tribunal recognises the validity of this claim and the financial impact on the landlord. I award $930.00 for lost rent.

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: s 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy: s 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs. Claim 1: Trailer Hireage and Disposal Costs - $359.60
The tenants vacated the property on September 24, 2023, leaving behind abandoned possessions, rubbish, and recycling, totalling approximately 390kgs.
The landlord provided a detailed quote for trailer hireage and disposal services, totalling $359.60.
The Tribunal finds this expense to be reasonable and directly related to the Tenants’ obligation to leave the premises clean and tidy upon vacating. Therefore, the tenants are liable for this cost. Claim 2: Key Repinning and Window Repairs - $304.79
The Tenants failed to return keys at the end of the tenancy, necessitating the repinning and recutting of keys for both doors.
Additionally, damages to the ranchslider and windows, including a removed ranchslider door handle, damaged rollers, removed security latch on a window, and broken window latches, required repair.
The landlord provided invoices and quotes from [glass company], [hardware store], and a locksmith, totalling $304.79.
The Tribunal considers these expenses to be directly attributable to the Tenants’ failure to return keys and the damages caused, justifying the claim. Claim 3: Smoke Alarm Replacement - $38.01
The Tenants removed a smoke alarm during their tenancy, and on testing, it was discovered that two other smoke alarms were deactivated due to not being securely fitted, following their removal. (They had been properly installed and tested prior to the tenancy.)
The Landlord incurred costs to replace the removed smoke alarm and rectify the deactivated alarms.
An invoice from [hardware store] totalling $38.01 was provided as evidence.
The Tribunal acknowledges the necessity of maintaining smoke alarms for the safety of the property and its occupants, thus supporting the claim. Claim 7: Carpet Steam Cleaning - $230.00
Despite attempts to clean the carpets, marks and staining remained, necessitating commercial steam cleaning. Photographic evidence of the stain was provided, which has not been present in earlier inspections during the tenancy.
The landlord provided evidence of the cost incurred, totalling $230.00.
The Tenant is responsible for the stain, and the cleaning of it. I approve this claim. Claim 8: End of Tenancy Clean - $759.00
A commercial end of tenancy and decontamination clean were required following a positive methamphetamine test result.
The Landlord has provided the results of a pre-tenancy methamphetamine test, together with the results of individual-sample meth-testing completed towards the end of the Tenant, which prove methamphetamine contamination has occurred during the tenancy.
The cost of this cleaning service was provided as evidence, totalling $759.00.
The Tribunal acknowledges the need for such cleaning to ensure the property’s safety and hygiene standards and finds the claim valid.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage 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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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: Claim 4: Gate Replacement - $322.95
The Tenants caused damage to a gate on the property, resulting in it being buckled and rendered non-functional.
The Landlord provided evidence of the replacement cost from [company], totalling $322.95.
The Tribunal finds that the damage to the gate was beyond fair wear and tear, and the tenants are responsible for its replacement. Claim 5: Interior Bedroom Door Replacement and Repainting - $290.33
During the tenancy, the Tenants damaged an interior bedroom door beyond reasonable wear and tear. The Landlord provided photographs proving the damage. The Tenants are responsible for the damage.
The Landlord incurred costs for the replacement of the damaged door and repainting other doors and windowsills that were marked and stained.
Invoices from suppliers, including the cost of paint, were provided as evidence, totalling $290.33. Claim 6: Curtain and Carpet Replacement - $378.00
The Tenants damaged curtain tracks, nets, and drapes during their tenancy, requiring replacement.
The costs for replacement curtain tracks, fabrics came to $378.00.
The Tribunal finds these expenses to be directly related to the Tenants’ actions and supports the claim. Claim 9: Labour Costs for Property Restoration - $1,500.00
The Landlord expended significant labour hours in restoring the property after the Tenants' departure.
This included various tasks such as dumping rubbish, water blasting, garden maintenance, replacing damaged fittings, preparing, and repainting doors and windowsills, cleaning, and other property improvements.
The Landlord and their spouse each dedicated 25 hours, totalling 50 hours, at a rate of $30.00 per hour.
The total labour cost incurred for property restoration amounted to $1,500.00.
The Tribunal recognises the substantial efforts undertaken by the Landlord and approves the claim. Claim 10: Methamphetamine Retest - $363.31
A retest for methamphetamine contamination has been initiated.
A retest was required following cleaning of the premises.
The cost of this retest was provided as evidence, totalling $363.31.
The Tribunal acknowledges the necessity of verifying the property's safety and supports the claim.
The amounts ordered are proved. Were the premises sublet without the Landlords’ consent and/or exceed the maximum number of occupants allowed?
[The landlord/s] claims the Tenants have sublet or parted with possession of the premises without their prior written consent, and/or exceeded the maximum number of occupants allowed.
In the absence of a specific provision in the tenancy agreement prohibiting subletting or parting of possession of the tenancy, a tenant may do so but only with the prior written consent of the landlord. The Landlord may not withhold consent unreasonably: s 44(2) and (3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00: s 44(2A)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
A tenant must not exceed the number of occupants as specified in the tenancy agreement:
Where the tenancy agreement specifies a maximum number of persons that may ordinarily reside in the premises during the tenancy, the tenant must ensure that no more than that number ordinarily reside in the premises at any time during the tenancy: s 40(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986
A breach of this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,000.00: s 40(3A)(e) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I have no evidence of the Tenants subletting the premises without the written consent of the landlord.
However, the Landlord has visited the premises and noted that there are more than three people living at the property, and their witness who lives nearby confirmed there were more than three occupants living at the property, and they were not visitors or temporary guests.
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: s 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I consider the requirement not to have more than three occupants at the premises is clear in the agreement. The Tenants were reminded of the requirement also but chose to disregard it. Exceeding the maximum number of occupants contributes to wear and tear in a home and creates health and safety issues. Such actions also impact the broader public interest, including the assessment of council rating valuations based on property amenities and the implied responsibility to maintain a safe and habitable living environment for all residents.
I award the Landlord $600.00 in exemplary damages. I consider this serves as a sufficient deterrent and provides acknowledgment of the wrong and hardship caused.

Were the premises used for an unlawful purpose?

[The landlord/s] claim that the Tenants used the premises unlawfully by engaging in methamphetamine use, which is illegal under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
Section 40(2)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 stipulates that a tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose.
Breaching this obligation constitutes an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum sum of $1,800.00: s 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986
The Landlords have provided conclusive evidence in the form of pre-tenancy methamphetamine test results and individual-sample meth-testing results completed toward the end of the tenancy, proving methamphetamine contamination occurred during the tenancy.
Methamphetamine is an illegal drug, and its use on the premises not only violates the law but also poses serious health and safety risks to occupants.
The contamination of the property is a breach of the Tenants' obligations and has led to significant financial and reputational damage to the landlords.
Section 109(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 empowers the Tribunal to award exemplary damages when a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally.
In assessing whether to award exemplary damages, the Tribunal considers the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest.
Methamphetamine is a highly illegal substance, and its use on the premises not only jeopardises the safety and well-being of occupants but also raises concerns about the broader public interest in upholding the law and community standards.
The Landlords, in their attempt to provide a rental opportunity in good faith, have suffered significant financial losses and reputational damage due to the Tenants’ unlawful actions.
The Landlord described the home as their nest egg, a place for their retirement and they were heartbroken to see how it was treated.
The Tribunal acknowledges the public interest in upholding legal standards, preventing illegal drug use in residential properties, and ensuring the safety of the community. Exemplary damages are warranted to deter such unlawful actions that can have far-reaching implications.
I find the Tenants must pay $1,800.00 for this serious breach, noting that while the level of contamination is not at the level which this Tribunal would consider to constitute damage, the levels are still high, indicating regular use and a brazen disregard for the law and the Landlord’s interests.
Because [The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee: $20.44.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4691649 — Exemplary damages at 49A Fergusson Street, Tokoroa, Tokoroa 3420

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4691649 — Exemplary damages at 49A Fergusson Street, Tokoroa, Tokoroa 3420

At a glance

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?

Were the premises used for an unlawful purpose?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

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?

Were the premises used for an unlawful purpose?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent Arrears	$863.58	Rent Arrears
Loss of Rent	$930.00	Loss of Rent
Claim 1: Trailer Hireage and Disposal Costs	$359.60	Claim 1: Trailer Hireage and Disposal Costs
Claim 2: Key Repinning and Window Repairs	$304.79	Claim 2: Key Repinning and Window Repairs
Claim 3: Smoke Alarm Replacement	$38.01	Claim 3: Smoke Alarm Replacement
Claim 4: Gate Replacement	$322.95	Claim 4: Gate Replacement
Claim 5: Interior Bedroom Door Replacement	$290.33	Claim 5: Interior Bedroom Door Replacement
Claim 6: Curtain and Carpet Replacement	$608.00	Claim 6: Curtain and Carpet Replacement
Claim 7: Carpet Steam Cleaning	$230.00	Claim 7: Carpet Steam Cleaning
Claim 8: End of Tenancy Clean	$759.00	Claim 8: End of Tenancy Clean
Claim 9: Labour Costs for Property Restoration	$1,500.00	Claim 9: Labour Costs for Property Restoration
Claim 10: Methamphetamine Retest	$363.31	Claim 10: Methamphetamine Retest
Exemplary Damages: Unlawful Use of Premises (Methamphetamine Contamination	$1,800.00	Unlawful Use of Premises (Methamphetamine Contamination
Exemplary Damages: Exceeding Maximum Number of Occupants	$600.00	Exceeding Maximum Number of Occupants
Filing Fee Reimbursement	$20.44	andlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee: $20.44. M Steens 23 November 2023 _____________________________________________…