What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4796565?

The tribunal order states: Tessa Anne Munday must pay Investment Portfolio Management Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4796565?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: $2,012.60 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4796565?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4796565?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10720126-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4796565?

The tribunal order states: Tessa Anne Munday must pay Investment Portfolio Management Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4796565?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: $2,012.60 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4796565?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4796565?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10720126-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 407A, 8 Lakewood Court, Manukau, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4796565 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4796565 — net $4,533.04 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Meth testing/Cleaning: Insurance excess	$2,500.00	Meth testing/Cleaning: Insurance excess
Replace furnishings	$2,012.60	Replace furnishings
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,533.04
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,533.04

Order

Tessa Anne Munday must pay Investment Portfolio Management Limited Partnership As Agent For Duval Portfolio Management $4,533.04 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy began on 17 November 2023. The previous tenancy ended on 14 November 2023. Methamphetamine testing of the property was conducted in between tenancies, on 15 November 2023. The results of this testing indicated low levels of methamphetamine. This testing was submitted in evidence.
On 12 December 2023, the Tenant vacated the premises due to the Landlord undertaking restoration works. The Tenant moved to an apartment within the same building but had no further access to the property. There were contractors that had access to the apartment after the Tenant vacated the property.
Upon termination of the tenancy, the Landlord requested the property to be tested for methamphetamine. The report was submitted in evidence. Compensation for methamphetamine
The Landlord claimed the cost of the insurance excess for the methamphetamine testing and decontamination. This was due to Landlord finding the property tested positive for methamphetamine at levels that made the property ‘uninhabitable’ when the Tenant moved out.
The methamphetamine testing was conducted by Meth Lab Detect Ltd Director, Mr Peter Lamb (“Mr Lamb”). Mr Lamb gave evidence at the hearing that he tested the property on 15 November 2023 and 19 December 2023. On the 19 December 2023, Mr Lamb conducted individual tests for methamphetamine which indicated levels between 3.2 and 162 ug/100cm2. This suggested high levels of methamphetamine use or storage. The report found the property was uninhabitable as per the Ministry of Health Guidelines and Gluckman report. It also recommended decontamination was required.
Mr Lamb found there was high concentration of methamphetamine in the air conditioning unit.
The Tenant disputed using any methamphetamine at the property and could not explain its presence. She submitted that she never had any issues with methamphetamine at the previous apartment she occupied. She never had visitors to her property. She suggested that the neighbouring apartment air conditioning unit may have contaminated her air conditioning unit as they were adjacent to each other and she often left the ranch slider open.. She also submitted that there were contractors who had access to the property when she moved out. She was subject to random drug testing at her workplace so had no motivation to abuse drugs.
Mr Lamb could not comment as to the potential of the neighbours air conditioning unit contaminating the Tenants air-conditioning unit as he was not aware of the filtration in the neighbouring unit. The law
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.
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.
In considering the evidence, I find it more likely than not that the Tenant has used methamphetamine during the tenancy from the test results provided and evidence given from Mr Lamb. I do not accept the air conditioning unit of the neighbour caused contamination or that a contractor used methamphetamine in the property in the three days that the Tenant had moved out. The Tenant provided no persuasive evidence to support this submission.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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: bed, sofa and two barstools. It was recommended by the testing experts that these needed to be disposed of as the amount of methamphetamine contamination could not be determined in them. The damage is more than fair wear and tear. An invoice was provided for the costs of replacement furniture. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. T he landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
As Investment Portfolio Management Limited Partnership As Agent For Duval Portfolio Management has wholly succeeded with the claim the Tenant must reimburse the filing fee.
As the Tenant has not been successful in their defence, name suppression is not granted to the Tenant.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4796565 — net $4,533.04 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Meth testing/Cleaning: Insurance excess	$2,500.00	Meth testing/Cleaning: Insurance excess
Replace furnishings	$2,012.60	Replace furnishings
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,533.04
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,533.04

Order

Tessa Anne Munday must pay Investment Portfolio Management Limited Partnership As Agent For Duval Portfolio Management $4,533.04 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy began on 17 November 2023. The previous tenancy ended on 14 November 2023. Methamphetamine testing of the property was conducted in between tenancies, on 15 November 2023. The results of this testing indicated low levels of methamphetamine. This testing was submitted in evidence.
On 12 December 2023, the Tenant vacated the premises due to the Landlord undertaking restoration works. The Tenant moved to an apartment within the same building but had no further access to the property. There were contractors that had access to the apartment after the Tenant vacated the property.
Upon termination of the tenancy, the Landlord requested the property to be tested for methamphetamine. The report was submitted in evidence. Compensation for methamphetamine
The Landlord claimed the cost of the insurance excess for the methamphetamine testing and decontamination. This was due to Landlord finding the property tested positive for methamphetamine at levels that made the property ‘uninhabitable’ when the Tenant moved out.
The methamphetamine testing was conducted by Meth Lab Detect Ltd Director, Mr Peter Lamb (“Mr Lamb”). Mr Lamb gave evidence at the hearing that he tested the property on 15 November 2023 and 19 December 2023. On the 19 December 2023, Mr Lamb conducted individual tests for methamphetamine which indicated levels between 3.2 and 162 ug/100cm2. This suggested high levels of methamphetamine use or storage. The report found the property was uninhabitable as per the Ministry of Health Guidelines and Gluckman report. It also recommended decontamination was required.
Mr Lamb found there was high concentration of methamphetamine in the air conditioning unit.
The Tenant disputed using any methamphetamine at the property and could not explain its presence. She submitted that she never had any issues with methamphetamine at the previous apartment she occupied. She never had visitors to her property. She suggested that the neighbouring apartment air conditioning unit may have contaminated her air conditioning unit as they were adjacent to each other and she often left the ranch slider open.. She also submitted that there were contractors who had access to the property when she moved out. She was subject to random drug testing at her workplace so had no motivation to abuse drugs.
Mr Lamb could not comment as to the potential of the neighbours air conditioning unit contaminating the Tenants air-conditioning unit as he was not aware of the filtration in the neighbouring unit. The law
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.
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.
In considering the evidence, I find it more likely than not that the Tenant has used methamphetamine during the tenancy from the test results provided and evidence given from Mr Lamb. I do not accept the air conditioning unit of the neighbour caused contamination or that a contractor used methamphetamine in the property in the three days that the Tenant had moved out. The Tenant provided no persuasive evidence to support this submission.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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: bed, sofa and two barstools. It was recommended by the testing experts that these needed to be disposed of as the amount of methamphetamine contamination could not be determined in them. The damage is more than fair wear and tear. An invoice was provided for the costs of replacement furniture. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. T he landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
As Investment Portfolio Management Limited Partnership As Agent For Duval Portfolio Management has wholly succeeded with the claim the Tenant must reimburse the filing fee.
As the Tenant has not been successful in their defence, name suppression is not granted to the Tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4796565 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 407A, 8 Lakewood Court, Manukau, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4796565 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 407A, 8 Lakewood Court, Manukau, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions