What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4873900 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders

How much money was awarded in case 4873900?

Carpet: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $96.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,800.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $282.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,302.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Curtains And Blinds: $410.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $310.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4873900?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4873900?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11275434-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4873900 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders

How much money was awarded in case 4873900?

Carpet: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $96.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,800.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $282.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,302.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Curtains And Blinds: $410.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $310.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4873900?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4873900?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11275434-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4873900 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4873900 — net $7,770.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace curtains and blinds	$410.00	Replace curtains and blinds
Lock/key replacement	$282.50	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning graffiti	$575.00	Cleaning graffiti
Cleaning	$345.00	Cleaning
Lawns: insurance excess only	$650.00	Lawns: insurance excess only
Repairs/painting walls	$2,302.00	Repairs/painting walls
Rubbish removal	$310.25	Rubbish removal
Carpet	$1,000.00	Carpet
Fence cleaning (graffiti only	$96.00	Fence cleaning (graffiti only
Exemplary damages - unlawful purpose	$1,800.00	Exemplary damages - unlawful purpose
Net award	$7,770.75
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,770.75

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details. This order amends and replaces the original order of 27 November 2024. 2.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and exemplary damages following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant filed a cross application and seeks compensation and exemplary damages.
The onus is on both parties to prove their claims on the balance of probabilities.
This tenancy commenced on 2 September 2022 and ended on 20 March 2024.

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 in some areas and did not remove all rubbish. However, I decline to make any award for emptying of the bins as the landlord is under a duty to mitigate their loss. The bins could have been left outside and emptied by the local council.
The tenant did not return the keys and there were 5 missing lampshades.
The amounts ordered are proved. This includes removing graffiti and paint from the exterior, driveway and fence.

Is the tenant responsible for general 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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: damage to walls and doors throughout, multiple carpet stains and a faeces stain, and damage to curtains and blinds The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amount ordered is proved. Although the carpet is at the end of its estimated useful life, it would still hold some residual value. I award $1,000.00 which is around 10% of the total carpet replacement. The landlord claimed $631.02 as a contribution towards replacement blinds which were stained and mouldy. I award $410.00 as fair and reasonable compensation taking into account at least 3 bedrooms had pre-existing damage.
I also award the insurance excess of $650.00 for repairs to the lawns instead of the $1,1113.22 claimed. Methamphetamine related claims
The landlord seeks compensation $1,821.500 for testing and decontamination costs, and exemplary damages for the premises being used for an unlawful purpose.
The in-going test for methamphetamine at the premises at the start of the tenancy found no trace. On 12 February 2024, the landlord commissioned composite testing for methamphetamine at the premises which reported a level of 0.53.
On 22 March 2024, comprehensive testing was carried out following the end of the tenancy and traces of methamphetamine were found in all 10 areas tested. The highest level of 2.2 was fund in the kitchen/lounge.
Section 138C RTA provides for regulations to be made prescribing the maximum acceptable level for contaminants, but as yet no regulations have been made in relation to methamphetamine.
There is an established position in the Tenancy Tribunal that in dealing with claims relating to methamphetamine contamination, the Gluckman Report 1 is to be adopted. I am therefore satisfied that the current level to be applied is the level of 15μg/100cm2 as expressed by the Gluckman Report. Levels around or exceeding 30μg are regarded as strongly suggestive of manufacturing activity therefore remediation of the premises is necessary using the NZS 8510:2017 standard as a guide.
I am therefore satisfied that the current level to be applied is the level of 15μg/100cm2 as expressed by the Gluckman Report. There is no evidence of manufacture in this case. 1 Report entitled ‘Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards,’ 29 May 2018, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman.
Applying the Gluckman levels, I can find no evidence that the premises were damaged or contaminated with methamphetamine in excess of 15μg/100cm2. In the absence of any other evidence to rebut the Gluckman report, that lower levels of methamphetamine residue are a risk to human health and have therefore caused damage, the Tribunal is unable to make any award for compensation for the landlord’s testing and decontamination costs. Exemplary damages – unlawful purpose
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Any use or possession of a Class A drug is unlawful and may be subject to a period of 6 months imprisonment (sections 3A, 7(1)(a) & (2)(a) and Schedule 1 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975).
The fact that traces of methamphetamine were found in all areas tested allows me to reasonably draw the inference of unlawful drug activity at the premises. I am satisfied that the tenant has either used the premises or permitted the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. The tenant has admitted her ex-partner was using methamphetamine at the premises.
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.
Bearing in mind the factors mentioned above and in particular, the considerable financial detrimental effects on the landlord, the possible ‘stigma’ effect on the premises, and the high public interest in ensuring rental properties are not used for illegal drug activities, I consider it ‘just’ to make an award of $1800.00 exemplary damages. Cross application

Did the landlord knowingly terminate the tenancy without grounds?

Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant says the notice terminating this tenancy was invalid and the landlord terminated the tenancy without grounds to do so. The tenant received a 90-day notice to terminate the tenancy on 8 April 2024 on the grounds that the premises were to be put on the market within 90 days of the termination date. The tenant says the premises were put on Trade Me for rent at a higher rent and there was a sign put outside. The tenant seeks $21,000.00 to enter a treatment centre for stress although I note that this is a private rehabilitation centre for people with drug or alcohol dependency. The tenant also seeks additional travel costs for both her and her boarder.
I do not find sufficient evidence that the landlord gave a notice in the knowledge that they were not entitled to do so. The landlord has provided evidence that the property was listed for sale for a brief time but due to a material change in financial circumstances and market conditions, it was no longer a viable option. I am satisfied there was a genuine intention to sell therefore this part of the tenant’s claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord discriminate against the tenant?

Lisa Terri O'Dwyer claims that the landlord discriminated against them. The tenant says the landlord discriminated against her in terminating the tenancy because of her ex partner’s criminal activities.
A landlord must not discriminate against a tenant in relation to the grant, renewal, variation or termination of a tenancy, in contravention of the Human Rights Act 1999. See sections 12(1) and 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Section 21 of the Human Rights Act specifies the prohibited grounds of discrimination, which include sex, marital status, religious or ethical belief, race or ethnicity, disability, age, political opinion, employment status, family status, and sexual orientation.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 12(1) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find no evidence of any discrimination due to the tenant’s family status. I accept the evidence of the landlord that they were unaware of the ex-partner’s criminal activities until the last day of the tenancy. The landlord was notified by police of an intended search at the premises after another search had been carried out on the tenant’s new rental premises. As a result, both the tenant and her ex-partner were arrested and charged with drug offences.
This part of the tenant’s claim is dismissed. Filing fee
Because [The applicant/s] has partially succeeded with the claim, the tenant must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
On 13 December 2024, the landlord requested name suppression of their name and identifying details.
Section 95A of the Act provides that the Tribunal must order suppression if the party applying for it has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings.
It is arguable that the landlord has been substantially successful in their claims therefore it is likely they are entitled to an order for suppression as of right.
In any event, the Tribunal may also, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published (section 95A(4) RTA).
Taking into consideration the parties’ interest, alongside that of the public interest, I find that in the particular circumstances of this case, the landlord considerations outweigh other considerations. The application for suppression is granted.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4873900 — net $7,770.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace curtains and blinds	$410.00	Replace curtains and blinds
Lock/key replacement	$282.50	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning graffiti	$575.00	Cleaning graffiti
Cleaning	$345.00	Cleaning
Lawns: insurance excess only	$650.00	Lawns: insurance excess only
Repairs/painting walls	$2,302.00	Repairs/painting walls
Rubbish removal	$310.25	Rubbish removal
Carpet	$1,000.00	Carpet
Fence cleaning (graffiti only	$96.00	Fence cleaning (graffiti only
Exemplary damages - unlawful purpose	$1,800.00	Exemplary damages - unlawful purpose
Net award	$7,770.75
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,770.75

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details. This order amends and replaces the original order of 27 November 2024. 2.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and exemplary damages following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant filed a cross application and seeks compensation and exemplary damages.
The onus is on both parties to prove their claims on the balance of probabilities.
This tenancy commenced on 2 September 2022 and ended on 20 March 2024.

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 in some areas and did not remove all rubbish. However, I decline to make any award for emptying of the bins as the landlord is under a duty to mitigate their loss. The bins could have been left outside and emptied by the local council.
The tenant did not return the keys and there were 5 missing lampshades.
The amounts ordered are proved. This includes removing graffiti and paint from the exterior, driveway and fence.

Is the tenant responsible for general 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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: damage to walls and doors throughout, multiple carpet stains and a faeces stain, and damage to curtains and blinds The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amount ordered is proved. Although the carpet is at the end of its estimated useful life, it would still hold some residual value. I award $1,000.00 which is around 10% of the total carpet replacement. The landlord claimed $631.02 as a contribution towards replacement blinds which were stained and mouldy. I award $410.00 as fair and reasonable compensation taking into account at least 3 bedrooms had pre-existing damage.
I also award the insurance excess of $650.00 for repairs to the lawns instead of the $1,1113.22 claimed. Methamphetamine related claims
The landlord seeks compensation $1,821.500 for testing and decontamination costs, and exemplary damages for the premises being used for an unlawful purpose.
The in-going test for methamphetamine at the premises at the start of the tenancy found no trace. On 12 February 2024, the landlord commissioned composite testing for methamphetamine at the premises which reported a level of 0.53.
On 22 March 2024, comprehensive testing was carried out following the end of the tenancy and traces of methamphetamine were found in all 10 areas tested. The highest level of 2.2 was fund in the kitchen/lounge.
Section 138C RTA provides for regulations to be made prescribing the maximum acceptable level for contaminants, but as yet no regulations have been made in relation to methamphetamine.
There is an established position in the Tenancy Tribunal that in dealing with claims relating to methamphetamine contamination, the Gluckman Report 1 is to be adopted. I am therefore satisfied that the current level to be applied is the level of 15μg/100cm2 as expressed by the Gluckman Report. Levels around or exceeding 30μg are regarded as strongly suggestive of manufacturing activity therefore remediation of the premises is necessary using the NZS 8510:2017 standard as a guide.
I am therefore satisfied that the current level to be applied is the level of 15μg/100cm2 as expressed by the Gluckman Report. There is no evidence of manufacture in this case. 1 Report entitled ‘Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards,’ 29 May 2018, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman.
Applying the Gluckman levels, I can find no evidence that the premises were damaged or contaminated with methamphetamine in excess of 15μg/100cm2. In the absence of any other evidence to rebut the Gluckman report, that lower levels of methamphetamine residue are a risk to human health and have therefore caused damage, the Tribunal is unable to make any award for compensation for the landlord’s testing and decontamination costs. Exemplary damages – unlawful purpose
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Any use or possession of a Class A drug is unlawful and may be subject to a period of 6 months imprisonment (sections 3A, 7(1)(a) & (2)(a) and Schedule 1 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975).
The fact that traces of methamphetamine were found in all areas tested allows me to reasonably draw the inference of unlawful drug activity at the premises. I am satisfied that the tenant has either used the premises or permitted the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. The tenant has admitted her ex-partner was using methamphetamine at the premises.
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.
Bearing in mind the factors mentioned above and in particular, the considerable financial detrimental effects on the landlord, the possible ‘stigma’ effect on the premises, and the high public interest in ensuring rental properties are not used for illegal drug activities, I consider it ‘just’ to make an award of $1800.00 exemplary damages. Cross application

Did the landlord knowingly terminate the tenancy without grounds?

Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant says the notice terminating this tenancy was invalid and the landlord terminated the tenancy without grounds to do so. The tenant received a 90-day notice to terminate the tenancy on 8 April 2024 on the grounds that the premises were to be put on the market within 90 days of the termination date. The tenant says the premises were put on Trade Me for rent at a higher rent and there was a sign put outside. The tenant seeks $21,000.00 to enter a treatment centre for stress although I note that this is a private rehabilitation centre for people with drug or alcohol dependency. The tenant also seeks additional travel costs for both her and her boarder.
I do not find sufficient evidence that the landlord gave a notice in the knowledge that they were not entitled to do so. The landlord has provided evidence that the property was listed for sale for a brief time but due to a material change in financial circumstances and market conditions, it was no longer a viable option. I am satisfied there was a genuine intention to sell therefore this part of the tenant’s claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord discriminate against the tenant?

Lisa Terri O'Dwyer claims that the landlord discriminated against them. The tenant says the landlord discriminated against her in terminating the tenancy because of her ex partner’s criminal activities.
A landlord must not discriminate against a tenant in relation to the grant, renewal, variation or termination of a tenancy, in contravention of the Human Rights Act 1999. See sections 12(1) and 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Section 21 of the Human Rights Act specifies the prohibited grounds of discrimination, which include sex, marital status, religious or ethical belief, race or ethnicity, disability, age, political opinion, employment status, family status, and sexual orientation.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 12(1) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find no evidence of any discrimination due to the tenant’s family status. I accept the evidence of the landlord that they were unaware of the ex-partner’s criminal activities until the last day of the tenancy. The landlord was notified by police of an intended search at the premises after another search had been carried out on the tenant’s new rental premises. As a result, both the tenant and her ex-partner were arrested and charged with drug offences.
This part of the tenant’s claim is dismissed. Filing fee
Because [The applicant/s] has partially succeeded with the claim, the tenant must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
On 13 December 2024, the landlord requested name suppression of their name and identifying details.
Section 95A of the Act provides that the Tribunal must order suppression if the party applying for it has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings.
It is arguable that the landlord has been substantially successful in their claims therefore it is likely they are entitled to an order for suppression as of right.
In any event, the Tribunal may also, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published (section 95A(4) RTA).
Taking into consideration the parties’ interest, alongside that of the public interest, I find that in the particular circumstances of this case, the landlord considerations outweigh other considerations. The application for suppression is granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4873900 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4873900 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for general damage to the premises?

Did the landlord knowingly terminate the tenancy without grounds?

Did the landlord discriminate against the tenant?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for general damage to the premises?

Did the landlord knowingly terminate the tenancy without grounds?

Did the landlord discriminate against the tenant?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions