What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4810317?

The tribunal order states: Charlotte Elizabeth Emery must pay The Property Management Team Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4810317?

Cleaning: $545.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $2,035.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $255.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Bedroom curtain…: $238.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4810317?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4810317?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10278988-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4810317?

The tribunal order states: Charlotte Elizabeth Emery must pay The Property Management Team Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4810317?

Cleaning: $545.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $2,035.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $255.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Bedroom curtain…: $238.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4810317?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4810317?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10278988-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

1 Lowry Terrace, Marewa, Napier 4110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4810317 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

1 Lowry Terrace, Marewa, Napier 4110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4810317 — Cleanliness | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4810317 — net $3,993.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Meth testing/Cleaning: Excess	$500.00	Meth testing/Cleaning: Excess
Lawns and Garden work: and rubbish removal	$2,035.00	Lawns and Garden work: and rubbish removal
Cleaning	$545.00	Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$255.00	Lock/key replacement
Replace furnishings: Bedroom curtains and fittings	$238.00	Replace furnishings: Bedroom curtains and fittings
Exemplary damages: s 40(3A) RTA	$400.00	s 40(3A) RTA
Net award	$3,993.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,993.44

Claims and awards for application 4810317 — net $3,993.44 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $20.44
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Meth testing/Cleaning: Excess

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Meth testing/Cleaning: Excess

Lawns and Garden work: and rubbish removal

Amount: $2,035.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns and Garden work: and rubbish removal

Cleaning

Amount: $545.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $255.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Exemplary damages Filing Fee Lawns And Garden Work Property damage

Order

Charlotte Elizabeth Emery must pay The Property Management Team Limited As Agent For Brent Montague $3,993.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, conducted via video conference. There was no appearance by the tenant. This was a continuation hearing after an initial hearing provided for further service on the tenant before this final hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
A prior order TT4647431 terminated the tenancy and also made a monetary order. This monetary order is under active enforcement action. It is not joined to this order.

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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord provided extensive photos of the premises condition at the end of the tenancy; inside and out. These supported the invoiced costs of cleaning ($545.00), and lawns and gardens and rubbish removal ($2035.00). A claim for further lawn costs some three months after the tenancy ended was dismissed as the tenant was not liable for such cost some three months after the tenancy ended.
The tenant did not return all of the keys. The landlord provided a locksmith invoice for $255.00. This is awarded in full.
Curtains and fitting were removed from one bedroom during the tenancy. The landlord had to replace these at a cost of $238.00. Photos provided show the missing items. Invoices established the cost as awarded.
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 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.
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 landlord incurred an insurance excess of $500.00 for a successful insurance claim for methamphetamine testing and decontamination costs. A claim for exemplary damages due to tenant unlawful activity at the premises was also lodged. 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).
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 (29 June 2022), just prior to the tenancy commencing. No methamphetamine was detected at that time.
A composite test was conducted after the tenancy ended. The composite identified a theoretical maximum contamination of 21μg/100cm² based on the samples taken. The landlord then conducted a comprehensive test and it reported contamination in multiple areas, with the highest reading being
1μg/100cm².
Section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the RTA requires the tenant to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. Section 41 assigns the tenant the responsibility for the actions of others.
Given the levels of methamphetamine at the end of the tenancy I needed to determine if the tenants were responsible for the costs of testing and cleaning. While the actual remediation and delays in reletting are not a tenant liability, given the actual results in the detailed test, the composite test results justified tenant liability for the costs of that test, and the subsequent comprehensive test. These costs were covered by the methamphetamine insurance claim and the excess is lower than the sum of the two. I therefore award the excess of $500.00.

Were the premises used unlawfully?

The landlord claimed the tenant has 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 tenant has 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). The failure of the tenant to attend the hearing made any evaluation of any alternative scenarios difficult.
From the evidence presented it is difficult to make any finding other than the 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 is to punish rather than to compensate the other party. The considerations are therefore different than those concerning compensation for remediation or cleaning.
I accept methamphetamine contamination is more likely than not to have occurred during this tenancy. It was an unlawful act, and some exemplary damages are considered appropriate for the consequential impact on the owner and the strong public interest in deterring tenants from using rented premises for unlawful activities.
For the reasons outlined above, I consider an award of exemplary damages appropriate but on the lower scale and award exemplary damages of $400.00. Application filing fee
Because The Property Management Team Limited As Agent For Brent Montague has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4810317 — net $3,993.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Meth testing/Cleaning: Excess	$500.00	Meth testing/Cleaning: Excess
Lawns and Garden work: and rubbish removal	$2,035.00	Lawns and Garden work: and rubbish removal
Cleaning	$545.00	Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$255.00	Lock/key replacement
Replace furnishings: Bedroom curtains and fittings	$238.00	Replace furnishings: Bedroom curtains and fittings
Exemplary damages: s 40(3A) RTA	$400.00	s 40(3A) RTA
Net award	$3,993.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,993.44

Claims and awards for application 4810317 — net $3,993.44 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $20.44
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Meth testing/Cleaning: Excess

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Meth testing/Cleaning: Excess

Lawns and Garden work: and rubbish removal

Amount: $2,035.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns and Garden work: and rubbish removal

Cleaning

Amount: $545.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $255.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Exemplary damages Filing Fee Lawns And Garden Work Property damage

Order

Charlotte Elizabeth Emery must pay The Property Management Team Limited As Agent For Brent Montague $3,993.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, conducted via video conference. There was no appearance by the tenant. This was a continuation hearing after an initial hearing provided for further service on the tenant before this final hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
A prior order TT4647431 terminated the tenancy and also made a monetary order. This monetary order is under active enforcement action. It is not joined to this order.

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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord provided extensive photos of the premises condition at the end of the tenancy; inside and out. These supported the invoiced costs of cleaning ($545.00), and lawns and gardens and rubbish removal ($2035.00). A claim for further lawn costs some three months after the tenancy ended was dismissed as the tenant was not liable for such cost some three months after the tenancy ended.
The tenant did not return all of the keys. The landlord provided a locksmith invoice for $255.00. This is awarded in full.
Curtains and fitting were removed from one bedroom during the tenancy. The landlord had to replace these at a cost of $238.00. Photos provided show the missing items. Invoices established the cost as awarded.
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 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.
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 landlord incurred an insurance excess of $500.00 for a successful insurance claim for methamphetamine testing and decontamination costs. A claim for exemplary damages due to tenant unlawful activity at the premises was also lodged. 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).
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 (29 June 2022), just prior to the tenancy commencing. No methamphetamine was detected at that time.
A composite test was conducted after the tenancy ended. The composite identified a theoretical maximum contamination of 21μg/100cm² based on the samples taken. The landlord then conducted a comprehensive test and it reported contamination in multiple areas, with the highest reading being
1μg/100cm².
Section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the RTA requires the tenant to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. Section 41 assigns the tenant the responsibility for the actions of others.
Given the levels of methamphetamine at the end of the tenancy I needed to determine if the tenants were responsible for the costs of testing and cleaning. While the actual remediation and delays in reletting are not a tenant liability, given the actual results in the detailed test, the composite test results justified tenant liability for the costs of that test, and the subsequent comprehensive test. These costs were covered by the methamphetamine insurance claim and the excess is lower than the sum of the two. I therefore award the excess of $500.00.

Were the premises used unlawfully?

The landlord claimed the tenant has 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 tenant has 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). The failure of the tenant to attend the hearing made any evaluation of any alternative scenarios difficult.
From the evidence presented it is difficult to make any finding other than the 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 is to punish rather than to compensate the other party. The considerations are therefore different than those concerning compensation for remediation or cleaning.
I accept methamphetamine contamination is more likely than not to have occurred during this tenancy. It was an unlawful act, and some exemplary damages are considered appropriate for the consequential impact on the owner and the strong public interest in deterring tenants from using rented premises for unlawful activities.
For the reasons outlined above, I consider an award of exemplary damages appropriate but on the lower scale and award exemplary damages of $400.00. Application filing fee
Because The Property Management Team Limited As Agent For Brent Montague has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4810317 — Cleanliness at 1 Lowry Terrace, Marewa, Napier 4110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4810317 — Cleanliness at 1 Lowry Terrace, Marewa, Napier 4110

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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

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