What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4713569?

The tribunal order states: Catherine Ann Miller and Carol Ann Miller must pay Perpetual Property

How much money was awarded in case 4713569?

Property Damage: $606.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing - Composite: $201.25 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing - Comprehensive: $1,210.95 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $984.29 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpet: $850.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4713569?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4713569?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10020146-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4713569?

The tribunal order states: Catherine Ann Miller and Carol Ann Miller must pay Perpetual Property

How much money was awarded in case 4713569?

Property Damage: $606.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing - Composite: $201.25 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing - Comprehensive: $1,210.95 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $984.29 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpet: $850.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4713569?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4713569?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10020146-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

83A Howick Road, Redwoodtown, Blenheim 7201 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4713569 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4713569 — net $3,022.93 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$984.29	Rent arrears
Repairs (insurance excess	$550.00	Repairs (insurance excess
Lawns and Garden work	$100.00	Lawns and Garden work
Electrical fittings replacement/repair: parts and labour	$606.00	Electrical fittings replacement/repair: parts and labour
Replace furnishings: Carpet	$850.00	Replace furnishings: Carpet
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Meth testing - composite	$201.25	Meth testing - composite
Meth testing - comprehensive	$1,210.95	Meth testing - comprehensive
Exemplary damages: illegal activity	$300.00	illegal activity
Net award	$3,022.93
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,022.93

Order

Catherine Ann Miller and Carol Ann Miller must pay Perpetual Property Management Limited As Agent For Xu Wang $3,022.93 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 (6224685-002) to Perpetual Property Management Limited As Agent For Xu Wang immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Tom Miller appeared as a tenant support person. He was also involved during and at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant counterclaimed regarding the baseline methamphetamine testing and notification, and exemplary damages for incorrect notice for meth testing, and not receiving a copy of insurance details when requested.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 18 June 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $984.29.

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.
The tenants did not remove all rubbish. The landlord produced an invoice for $1,049.00 but the photos and invoice do not reflect the outside work completed by Tom Miller after the tenancy, nor balance the condition at the start of the tenancy. After reviewing the evidence and hearing the submissions I consider some partial compensation should be ordered for the items left behind and later removed by the landlord. I award $100.00 towards the landlord costs incurred.

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 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. Walls
During the tenancy there was damage to the walls. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. An insurance claim was accepted and the excess of $550.00 was sought. The tenant accepted the damage and the liability for the excess. The excess cost of $550.00 is ordered. Methamphetamine
The New Zealand Standard 8510:2017 Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine-contaminated properties (“NZS8510:2017”) provides industry guidance on good practice methods in the testing and clean-up of methamphetamine contamination in houses. NZS8510:2017 was released on 29 June 2017. The standard adopts a single level of 1.5μg/100cm² (1.5 micrograms of methamphetamine per 100 square centimetres of surface sampled) 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. Consider high use areas as those areas that can be easily accessed by the occupants.
On 29 May 2018, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman (the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor at that time) determined that there was little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption (See ‘Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards’, 29 May 2018.
His report concluded that in the absence of other evidence of manufacture, any levels below 15μg/100cm² are highly unlikely to present adverse effects therefore there should be no need for remediation. Where there is evidence of manufacture the NZS8510:2017 standard is appropriate (noting there is no suggestion of manufacturing during this tenancy).
There are many decisions from the Tribunal that have found, based on the conclusions in the Gluckman Report, applicants were unable to prove that methamphetamine contamination below 15μg/100cm² posed a health risk and therefore amounted to damage (New Plymouth PM 2013 Limited v French [2019] NZTT 4179550, New Plymouth; Oaks Property Management Limited v Harrington & Harrington [2019] NZTT Waitakere 4196563; Seymour v Grant [2019] NZTT 4162810). While not bound by these decisions, I concur with the approach taken by the Adjudicators in these decisions, and prior decisions of my own. I find that there is no legal requirement to apply NZS8510:2017 to the present case.
In 2019 there was a judgement in the District Court which dismissed an appeal after the Tribunal adopted the Gluckman Report to determine whether the tenant had caused damage to the premises or permitted any other person to do so (Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947).
Finally, I consider further validating are the 2019 comments of the Court of Appeal in Smith v Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited [2019] NZCA 38 where, in paragraph [16], with reference to the Gluckman Report, the decision stated: “We acknowledge that the testing in this case yielded results now considered not to raise any health and safety concerns.”

Was there a need to decontaminate/clean?

The premises was tested for methamphetamine (26 May 2020), just prior to the tenancy commencing. Low levels of methamphetamine were detected at that time. The theoretical maximum reported was 3.56μg. The tenancy agreement provided, in the Additional Terms and Conditions
Conditional Methamphetamine Clause - If the rental property shall be pre-tested and the resultant reading is less than: 1.5 micrograms per 100 square centimeters on a room by room basis then the property shall be deemed to be habitable and the tenant shall be given the option of making the tenancy agreement unconditional on the date of the receipt of the test results by the tenant. If the pretest shall have a positive result in excess of the value set out above then the tenancy agreement shall be deemed to have never become unconditional and neither party shall have any claim against each other and any money paid shall be refunded forthwith. If the pretest shall have result of less than .02 micrograms per 100 sq centimeters then the contract shall be deemed to have gone unconditional so far as methamphetamine is concerned.
Although recommended per the NZS, no comprehensive test was conducted. The level would not trigger the need for a comprehensive test per Gluckman. The average per sample could be calculated at 0.11μg but this is not as accurate as actual individual readings. The tenants said they never received the results until near the end of the tenancy, when they received it with the two later test reports. The landlord was unable to evidence the report ever being sent prior to the tenants. This was a failing of the landlord but I do not consider the result at that time, compared to the later results, can be used as an argument that the higher contamination later was pre-existing the tenancy. I also do not consider it likely that the tenants would have rejected the tenancy agreement, even if further testing isolated the contamination to one location such that the NZS threshold was breached.
A composite test was conducted on 23 May 2023, during the tenancy. This highlighted concerning levels of methamphetamine, with a theoretical maximum of 41.4μg reported. A comprehensive test was conducted 29 May 2023. This confirmed high levels of contamination. Filtering the room by room results in that report to those above the 15μg level, considered here to require remediation, shows levels in the Dining Room of 20.8μg, Hallway of 20.5μg, and one bedroom at 16.9 μg. All other results were below the minimum level that requires remediation with tenant liability for costs. The costs of the 23 May 2023 composite test ($210.25), the 29 May 2023 comprehensive test ($1210.95) and confirming test after remediation ($760.73) were sought by the landlord. I award the first two as tenant liabilities. The third test is not considered a tenant liability for two reasons. Firstly, a cheaper composite test is typically accepted as sufficient to establish a baseline for any future comparison, and, the final test is considered a business cost for the landlord – the decision to test beyond a composite one is open to the landlord but it is not considered recoverable from the tenant. If, post-remediation, contamination was still present after testing that would more appropriately be an issue between the owner and the remediator, including who carries the cost of the test that established such.
Considering the very low levels of methamphetamine at the start of the tenancy, but the clearly evidenced high readings at the end, I am satisfied it is more likely than not that methamphetamine contamination happened during the tenancy. The tenant has some liability.
I do not consider the costs of the full remediation undertaken is a tenant responsibility or liability. There was a windfall to the tenants from the wall repairs. These repairs negated some reasonably expected decontamination costs if not already covered by the insurance protection.
Time was spent at the hearing reviewing the invoices produced and calculating an apportionment of these costs to the contaminated areas of tenant liability. There are two related compensation orders that follow. The first is a tenant contribution to carpet replacement. This is determined as $850.00 based on the area. The second is the electrical switch/plug replacement costs and these are calculated as $506.00 for the parts, and an allowance of $100.00 for the labour, equalling a total of $606.00 to be compensated.

Were the premises used unlawfully?

The landlord claimed the tenants have used the premises unlawfully, by using an unlawful drug, namely methamphetamine or allowing someone else to use methamphetamine on the premises. See the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
As found above, the tenants have used in the premises, or permitted to be used, methamphetamine in the premises during the tenancy. This is in breach of s 40(2)(b), RTA as it is unlawful to use premises, or allow them to be used, for the purpose of consuming methamphetamine which is a class A controlled drug (s 3A, 7(1)(a) and Schedule 1 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975). Section 40(3A)(c) of the Act provides that failure to comply with this is an unlawful act.
Schedule 1A of the Act provides that the maximum award of exemplary damages for such an act is $1,800.
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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find this act has been intentionally committed. The requirement of intention is about whether a party intended to do what they did or did not do (Parton v Fifita TT 1815/00, DC Auckland 1/5/2001).
From the evidence presented it is more likely than not that at least one tenant knew, or should have known, methamphetamine was being used in the premises and allowed that to continue. I find the requirement of intention under s 109 is established.
The purpose of exemplary damages it to punish rather than to compensate the other party. The considerations are therefore different than those concerning compensation for remediation or cleaning. The owner has incurred the cost of remediation to remove the methamphetamine residue. The bulk of that remediation was not required to meet the safety levels adopted by this Tribunal.
I find methamphetamine contamination occurred during this tenancy. It was an unlawful act. Some exemplary damages are appropriate for the consequential impact on the owner.
A final consideration here is the is strong public interest in deterring tenants from using rented premises for unlawful activities.
I have also considered the existing, albeit low, methamphetamine detected at the commencement of the tenancy and the failure of the landlord to communicate that.
For the reasons outlined above, I consider an award of exemplary damages appropriate but on the lower scale and award exemplary damages of $300.00. Merits and justice
When considering claims, the Tribunal must consider s 85 RTA which provides that the Tribunal shall determine a dispute according to the substantial merits and justice of the case and in doing so, shall have regard for the law but shall not be bound to give legal effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. This provision recognises that, although applying established legal principles will generally produce a fair result, there are circumstances where it will not. In this situation, the Tribunal is entitled to depart from the strict application of the law to achieve a just outcome. Equally, where the law is uncertain, the Tribunal may adapt an approach that best meets the merits and justice of the case.
There have been lapses in communication from the landlord. A change during the tenancy in the landlord’s tenancy management system as well as property managers may account for some of this, but I have considered these lapses as part of the determination of the above orders.
In terms of the tenants claims, I make no specific orders. As indicated, some recognition of the issues raised in their application is reflected in the orders made. The matter was adjourned open to receive an Email Log from the landlord for the period prior to 19 May 2023 (that date was selected by the landlord in the report parameter) in case that evidenced other communication to the tenants of relevance. No report was received.
I find no grounds for any specific orders from the tenant application. Application filing fee
Because Perpetual Property Management Limited As Agent For Xu Wang has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. I make no order regarding the tenant filing fee. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenants requested suppression in their application. As they have been unsuccessful overall (across the two applications) no suppression is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4713569 — net $3,022.93 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$984.29	Rent arrears
Repairs (insurance excess	$550.00	Repairs (insurance excess
Lawns and Garden work	$100.00	Lawns and Garden work
Electrical fittings replacement/repair: parts and labour	$606.00	Electrical fittings replacement/repair: parts and labour
Replace furnishings: Carpet	$850.00	Replace furnishings: Carpet
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Meth testing - composite	$201.25	Meth testing - composite
Meth testing - comprehensive	$1,210.95	Meth testing - comprehensive
Exemplary damages: illegal activity	$300.00	illegal activity
Net award	$3,022.93
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,022.93

Order

Catherine Ann Miller and Carol Ann Miller must pay Perpetual Property Management Limited As Agent For Xu Wang $3,022.93 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 (6224685-002) to Perpetual Property Management Limited As Agent For Xu Wang immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Tom Miller appeared as a tenant support person. He was also involved during and at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant counterclaimed regarding the baseline methamphetamine testing and notification, and exemplary damages for incorrect notice for meth testing, and not receiving a copy of insurance details when requested.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 18 June 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $984.29.

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.
The tenants did not remove all rubbish. The landlord produced an invoice for $1,049.00 but the photos and invoice do not reflect the outside work completed by Tom Miller after the tenancy, nor balance the condition at the start of the tenancy. After reviewing the evidence and hearing the submissions I consider some partial compensation should be ordered for the items left behind and later removed by the landlord. I award $100.00 towards the landlord costs incurred.

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 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. Walls
During the tenancy there was damage to the walls. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. An insurance claim was accepted and the excess of $550.00 was sought. The tenant accepted the damage and the liability for the excess. The excess cost of $550.00 is ordered. Methamphetamine
The New Zealand Standard 8510:2017 Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine-contaminated properties (“NZS8510:2017”) provides industry guidance on good practice methods in the testing and clean-up of methamphetamine contamination in houses. NZS8510:2017 was released on 29 June 2017. The standard adopts a single level of 1.5μg/100cm² (1.5 micrograms of methamphetamine per 100 square centimetres of surface sampled) 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. Consider high use areas as those areas that can be easily accessed by the occupants.
On 29 May 2018, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman (the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor at that time) determined that there was little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption (See ‘Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards’, 29 May 2018.
His report concluded that in the absence of other evidence of manufacture, any levels below 15μg/100cm² are highly unlikely to present adverse effects therefore there should be no need for remediation. Where there is evidence of manufacture the NZS8510:2017 standard is appropriate (noting there is no suggestion of manufacturing during this tenancy).
There are many decisions from the Tribunal that have found, based on the conclusions in the Gluckman Report, applicants were unable to prove that methamphetamine contamination below 15μg/100cm² posed a health risk and therefore amounted to damage (New Plymouth PM 2013 Limited v French [2019] NZTT 4179550, New Plymouth; Oaks Property Management Limited v Harrington & Harrington [2019] NZTT Waitakere 4196563; Seymour v Grant [2019] NZTT 4162810). While not bound by these decisions, I concur with the approach taken by the Adjudicators in these decisions, and prior decisions of my own. I find that there is no legal requirement to apply NZS8510:2017 to the present case.
In 2019 there was a judgement in the District Court which dismissed an appeal after the Tribunal adopted the Gluckman Report to determine whether the tenant had caused damage to the premises or permitted any other person to do so (Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947).
Finally, I consider further validating are the 2019 comments of the Court of Appeal in Smith v Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited [2019] NZCA 38 where, in paragraph [16], with reference to the Gluckman Report, the decision stated: “We acknowledge that the testing in this case yielded results now considered not to raise any health and safety concerns.”

Was there a need to decontaminate/clean?

The premises was tested for methamphetamine (26 May 2020), just prior to the tenancy commencing. Low levels of methamphetamine were detected at that time. The theoretical maximum reported was 3.56μg. The tenancy agreement provided, in the Additional Terms and Conditions
Conditional Methamphetamine Clause - If the rental property shall be pre-tested and the resultant reading is less than: 1.5 micrograms per 100 square centimeters on a room by room basis then the property shall be deemed to be habitable and the tenant shall be given the option of making the tenancy agreement unconditional on the date of the receipt of the test results by the tenant. If the pretest shall have a positive result in excess of the value set out above then the tenancy agreement shall be deemed to have never become unconditional and neither party shall have any claim against each other and any money paid shall be refunded forthwith. If the pretest shall have result of less than .02 micrograms per 100 sq centimeters then the contract shall be deemed to have gone unconditional so far as methamphetamine is concerned.
Although recommended per the NZS, no comprehensive test was conducted. The level would not trigger the need for a comprehensive test per Gluckman. The average per sample could be calculated at 0.11μg but this is not as accurate as actual individual readings. The tenants said they never received the results until near the end of the tenancy, when they received it with the two later test reports. The landlord was unable to evidence the report ever being sent prior to the tenants. This was a failing of the landlord but I do not consider the result at that time, compared to the later results, can be used as an argument that the higher contamination later was pre-existing the tenancy. I also do not consider it likely that the tenants would have rejected the tenancy agreement, even if further testing isolated the contamination to one location such that the NZS threshold was breached.
A composite test was conducted on 23 May 2023, during the tenancy. This highlighted concerning levels of methamphetamine, with a theoretical maximum of 41.4μg reported. A comprehensive test was conducted 29 May 2023. This confirmed high levels of contamination. Filtering the room by room results in that report to those above the 15μg level, considered here to require remediation, shows levels in the Dining Room of 20.8μg, Hallway of 20.5μg, and one bedroom at 16.9 μg. All other results were below the minimum level that requires remediation with tenant liability for costs. The costs of the 23 May 2023 composite test ($210.25), the 29 May 2023 comprehensive test ($1210.95) and confirming test after remediation ($760.73) were sought by the landlord. I award the first two as tenant liabilities. The third test is not considered a tenant liability for two reasons. Firstly, a cheaper composite test is typically accepted as sufficient to establish a baseline for any future comparison, and, the final test is considered a business cost for the landlord – the decision to test beyond a composite one is open to the landlord but it is not considered recoverable from the tenant. If, post-remediation, contamination was still present after testing that would more appropriately be an issue between the owner and the remediator, including who carries the cost of the test that established such.
Considering the very low levels of methamphetamine at the start of the tenancy, but the clearly evidenced high readings at the end, I am satisfied it is more likely than not that methamphetamine contamination happened during the tenancy. The tenant has some liability.
I do not consider the costs of the full remediation undertaken is a tenant responsibility or liability. There was a windfall to the tenants from the wall repairs. These repairs negated some reasonably expected decontamination costs if not already covered by the insurance protection.
Time was spent at the hearing reviewing the invoices produced and calculating an apportionment of these costs to the contaminated areas of tenant liability. There are two related compensation orders that follow. The first is a tenant contribution to carpet replacement. This is determined as $850.00 based on the area. The second is the electrical switch/plug replacement costs and these are calculated as $506.00 for the parts, and an allowance of $100.00 for the labour, equalling a total of $606.00 to be compensated.

Were the premises used unlawfully?

The landlord claimed the tenants have used the premises unlawfully, by using an unlawful drug, namely methamphetamine or allowing someone else to use methamphetamine on the premises. See the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
As found above, the tenants have used in the premises, or permitted to be used, methamphetamine in the premises during the tenancy. This is in breach of s 40(2)(b), RTA as it is unlawful to use premises, or allow them to be used, for the purpose of consuming methamphetamine which is a class A controlled drug (s 3A, 7(1)(a) and Schedule 1 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975). Section 40(3A)(c) of the Act provides that failure to comply with this is an unlawful act.
Schedule 1A of the Act provides that the maximum award of exemplary damages for such an act is $1,800.
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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find this act has been intentionally committed. The requirement of intention is about whether a party intended to do what they did or did not do (Parton v Fifita TT 1815/00, DC Auckland 1/5/2001).
From the evidence presented it is more likely than not that at least one tenant knew, or should have known, methamphetamine was being used in the premises and allowed that to continue. I find the requirement of intention under s 109 is established.
The purpose of exemplary damages it to punish rather than to compensate the other party. The considerations are therefore different than those concerning compensation for remediation or cleaning. The owner has incurred the cost of remediation to remove the methamphetamine residue. The bulk of that remediation was not required to meet the safety levels adopted by this Tribunal.
I find methamphetamine contamination occurred during this tenancy. It was an unlawful act. Some exemplary damages are appropriate for the consequential impact on the owner.
A final consideration here is the is strong public interest in deterring tenants from using rented premises for unlawful activities.
I have also considered the existing, albeit low, methamphetamine detected at the commencement of the tenancy and the failure of the landlord to communicate that.
For the reasons outlined above, I consider an award of exemplary damages appropriate but on the lower scale and award exemplary damages of $300.00. Merits and justice
When considering claims, the Tribunal must consider s 85 RTA which provides that the Tribunal shall determine a dispute according to the substantial merits and justice of the case and in doing so, shall have regard for the law but shall not be bound to give legal effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. This provision recognises that, although applying established legal principles will generally produce a fair result, there are circumstances where it will not. In this situation, the Tribunal is entitled to depart from the strict application of the law to achieve a just outcome. Equally, where the law is uncertain, the Tribunal may adapt an approach that best meets the merits and justice of the case.
There have been lapses in communication from the landlord. A change during the tenancy in the landlord’s tenancy management system as well as property managers may account for some of this, but I have considered these lapses as part of the determination of the above orders.
In terms of the tenants claims, I make no specific orders. As indicated, some recognition of the issues raised in their application is reflected in the orders made. The matter was adjourned open to receive an Email Log from the landlord for the period prior to 19 May 2023 (that date was selected by the landlord in the report parameter) in case that evidenced other communication to the tenants of relevance. No report was received.
I find no grounds for any specific orders from the tenant application. Application filing fee
Because Perpetual Property Management Limited As Agent For Xu Wang has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. I make no order regarding the tenant filing fee. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenants requested suppression in their application. As they have been unsuccessful overall (across the two applications) no suppression is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4713569 — Property damage at 83A Howick Road, Redwoodtown, Blenheim 7201

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4713569 — Property damage at 83A Howick Road, Redwoodtown, Blenheim 7201

At a glance

Award balance

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?

Was there a need to decontaminate/clean?

Were the premises used unlawfully?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

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?

Was there a need to decontaminate/clean?

Were the premises used unlawfully?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions