What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4734369 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Inspire Real Estate Limited As Agent For Fantail Family

How much money was awarded in case 4734369?

Cleaning: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4734369?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4734369?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9648453-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4734369 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Inspire Real Estate Limited As Agent For Fantail Family

How much money was awarded in case 4734369?

Cleaning: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4734369?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4734369?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9648453-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

2 Alastair Avenue, Owhata, Rotorua 3010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4734369 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4734369 — net $2,520.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Meth testing/Cleaning - landlord insurance excess	$2,500.00	Meth testing/Cleaning - landlord insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,520.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,520.44

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Inspire Real Estate Limited As Agent For Fantail Family Trust $2,520.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation in relation to a methamphetamine (meth) contamination discovered at the end of the tenancy and reimbursement of the filing fee. What does the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 say about methamphetamine damage to tenancy premises?
A tenant must not use, or permit the use of, the premises for any unlawful
purpose; section 40(2)(b) RTA. To do so is an unlawful act for which exemplary
damages may be awarded of up to $1,800.00; s40(3A)(c) RTA.
A landlord must prove that premises have been damaged during the tenancy and that the damage is the result of an 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 s49B(8)(a) RTA.
The use or possession of methamphetamine is an imprisonable offence; see the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
If the landlord proves this, then a tenant is liable for the costs of “making good the damage” and other reasonably foreseeable losses related to the damage; sections 49A and 49B(1)(b) RTA.
The standard of proof that applies is the civil standard “on the balance of probabilities”.
This means that I do not have to be completely certain, but I must be satisfied that what is alleged is “more probable than not”.
Generally, the more serious the claim, the stronger the evidence that is required (Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55).
This is an allegation of criminal behaviour so the evidence must be strong.

What has been proved in this case?

The landlord had a pre-tenancy methamphetamine test done the day the tenancy began in February 2020. This showed meth levels of 0.02 ug (which is essentially no meth) present on the surfaces at the property.
A few days after the tenants vacated (during which time the property was locked, and no one had access) composite meth testing showed meth levels of 4.7 ug, with a potential maximum ug sample of 9.3ug. Detailed testing then confirmed meth levels of 2.5 ug in the laundry and 1.92 in the hallway.
The testing shows that it is more probable than not that the tenant used, or allowed the use of, methamphetamine in the premises during the tenancy,
The tenant’s evidence that they are genuinely bewildered about how the contamination occurred is completely accepted both by the property manager, who was visibly upset at having to bring this claim, and by the Tribunal. However, that does not distract from the testing which shows that meth was used at the property during the tenancy.
Having made this finding, it follows that the tenant is responsible for the cost of the detailed testing that the landlord was then required to do. A landlord cannot rent a property knowing that it is contaminated with methamphetamine (to do so is an unlawful act).
Once the landlord had the initial test results showing meth was present, the landlord was required, because of those levels to have the more detailed assessment done.
It follows that the cost of that testing must be awarded as it is a direct consequence of the breach. That cost is $2,355.20.
The landlord also claimed the cost of a decontamination clean of $431.25. That cost is modest and awarded as it is cleaning required to remove the low levels of meth (using surface cleaners) and restore the property to a reasonably clean condition where it could be relet.
The landlord has insurance with an excess of $2,500 which the property manager confirmed is the “out of pocket cost”. So, reality is that only $145 of the cleaning cost is awarded.
That is a fair result as case law has confirmed that at the lower levels detected at this property, extensive decontamination, with its associated high costs is not required. It was however reasonable for the landlord to ensure any remaining meth residue was removed. Exemplary damages claim
The landlord has proven that the tenant used, or permitted the use of, the premises for an unlawful purpose (the use of methamphetamine). This is a breach of the RTA and an unlawful act pursuant to s40(3A)(c) RTA.
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 decline to award exemplary damages. The landlord has not proven that the use of methamphetamine during this tenancy caused “damage” to the premises. Only modest cleaning costs were incurred. In addition, the evidence clearly established that the tenants had no idea how the contamination occurred. It is likely that it was visitors to the property, but there is not the required element of intentionality on the part of the tenants. Suppression of the tenants’ names?
The tenants requested name suppression, while somewhat unusual to grant that request in a meth case, the landlord also asked that the tenants names not be published.
The property manager noted that she was as surprised and upset as the tenants were when the test results came back positive.
The bond had been refunded in full as the tenants had complied with every other requirement and had been exemplary tenants in every other way.
I have no doubt that the tenants will be super vigilant going forward in terms of supervising visitors at their property and consider it highly unlikely they will find themselves in the position they were in today again.
They agreed to make a repayment plan with the landlord to repay the costs awarded as soon as they can.
For these reasons, and by a fine margin, I grant the requested name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4734369 — net $2,520.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Meth testing/Cleaning - landlord insurance excess	$2,500.00	Meth testing/Cleaning - landlord insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,520.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,520.44

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Inspire Real Estate Limited As Agent For Fantail Family Trust $2,520.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation in relation to a methamphetamine (meth) contamination discovered at the end of the tenancy and reimbursement of the filing fee. What does the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 say about methamphetamine damage to tenancy premises?
A tenant must not use, or permit the use of, the premises for any unlawful
purpose; section 40(2)(b) RTA. To do so is an unlawful act for which exemplary
damages may be awarded of up to $1,800.00; s40(3A)(c) RTA.
A landlord must prove that premises have been damaged during the tenancy and that the damage is the result of an 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 s49B(8)(a) RTA.
The use or possession of methamphetamine is an imprisonable offence; see the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
If the landlord proves this, then a tenant is liable for the costs of “making good the damage” and other reasonably foreseeable losses related to the damage; sections 49A and 49B(1)(b) RTA.
The standard of proof that applies is the civil standard “on the balance of probabilities”.
This means that I do not have to be completely certain, but I must be satisfied that what is alleged is “more probable than not”.
Generally, the more serious the claim, the stronger the evidence that is required (Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55).
This is an allegation of criminal behaviour so the evidence must be strong.

What has been proved in this case?

The landlord had a pre-tenancy methamphetamine test done the day the tenancy began in February 2020. This showed meth levels of 0.02 ug (which is essentially no meth) present on the surfaces at the property.
A few days after the tenants vacated (during which time the property was locked, and no one had access) composite meth testing showed meth levels of 4.7 ug, with a potential maximum ug sample of 9.3ug. Detailed testing then confirmed meth levels of 2.5 ug in the laundry and 1.92 in the hallway.
The testing shows that it is more probable than not that the tenant used, or allowed the use of, methamphetamine in the premises during the tenancy,
The tenant’s evidence that they are genuinely bewildered about how the contamination occurred is completely accepted both by the property manager, who was visibly upset at having to bring this claim, and by the Tribunal. However, that does not distract from the testing which shows that meth was used at the property during the tenancy.
Having made this finding, it follows that the tenant is responsible for the cost of the detailed testing that the landlord was then required to do. A landlord cannot rent a property knowing that it is contaminated with methamphetamine (to do so is an unlawful act).
Once the landlord had the initial test results showing meth was present, the landlord was required, because of those levels to have the more detailed assessment done.
It follows that the cost of that testing must be awarded as it is a direct consequence of the breach. That cost is $2,355.20.
The landlord also claimed the cost of a decontamination clean of $431.25. That cost is modest and awarded as it is cleaning required to remove the low levels of meth (using surface cleaners) and restore the property to a reasonably clean condition where it could be relet.
The landlord has insurance with an excess of $2,500 which the property manager confirmed is the “out of pocket cost”. So, reality is that only $145 of the cleaning cost is awarded.
That is a fair result as case law has confirmed that at the lower levels detected at this property, extensive decontamination, with its associated high costs is not required. It was however reasonable for the landlord to ensure any remaining meth residue was removed. Exemplary damages claim
The landlord has proven that the tenant used, or permitted the use of, the premises for an unlawful purpose (the use of methamphetamine). This is a breach of the RTA and an unlawful act pursuant to s40(3A)(c) RTA.
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 decline to award exemplary damages. The landlord has not proven that the use of methamphetamine during this tenancy caused “damage” to the premises. Only modest cleaning costs were incurred. In addition, the evidence clearly established that the tenants had no idea how the contamination occurred. It is likely that it was visitors to the property, but there is not the required element of intentionality on the part of the tenants. Suppression of the tenants’ names?
The tenants requested name suppression, while somewhat unusual to grant that request in a meth case, the landlord also asked that the tenants names not be published.
The property manager noted that she was as surprised and upset as the tenants were when the test results came back positive.
The bond had been refunded in full as the tenants had complied with every other requirement and had been exemplary tenants in every other way.
I have no doubt that the tenants will be super vigilant going forward in terms of supervising visitors at their property and consider it highly unlikely they will find themselves in the position they were in today again.
They agreed to make a repayment plan with the landlord to repay the costs awarded as soon as they can.
For these reasons, and by a fine margin, I grant the requested name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4734369 — Property damage at 2 Alastair Avenue, Owhata, Rotorua 3010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4734369 — Property damage at 2 Alastair Avenue, Owhata, Rotorua 3010

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What has been proved in this case?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What has been proved in this case?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions