What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4882162 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4882162?

Cleaning: $20.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $280.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $201.43 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $171.85 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,052.50 awarded to landlord; Garage Door - Paintwork: $55.00 awarded to landlord; Garage Painting: $135.00 awarded to landlord; Living Room Ceiling: $45.00 awarded to landlord; Remedy Patch To Wallpaper: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Remedying Grass Areas: $61.06 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $75.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $84.54 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Clothesline: $5.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Curtains: $160.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $775.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $35.00 awarded to landlord; Varnish Floor - Dining Room: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Varnish Floors - Hallway: $150.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4882162?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4882162?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11039963-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4882162 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4882162?

Cleaning: $20.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $280.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $201.43 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $171.85 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,052.50 awarded to landlord; Garage Door - Paintwork: $55.00 awarded to landlord; Garage Painting: $135.00 awarded to landlord; Living Room Ceiling: $45.00 awarded to landlord; Remedy Patch To Wallpaper: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Remedying Grass Areas: $61.06 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $75.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $84.54 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Clothesline: $5.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Curtains: $160.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $775.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $35.00 awarded to landlord; Varnish Floor - Dining Room: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Varnish Floors - Hallway: $150.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4882162?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4882162?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11039963-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4882162 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4882162 — net $7,456.82 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to noon 8 April 2024	$2,052.50	Rent arrears to noon 8 April 2024
Rubbish removal: Rubbish	$775.00	Rubbish removal: Rubbish
Lawns and Garden work: Weed spraying	$30.00	Lawns and Garden work: Weed spraying
Cleaning: General cleaning - Inside the property	$280.00	19. Photographs of the condition of the garden and the weeds were provided.
Lock/key replacement: Lock replacement	$171.85	Lock/key replacement: Lock replacement
Cleaning: Oil and paint on driveway and garage - Labour and product	$201.43	19. Photographs of the condition of the garden and the weeds were provided.
Cleaning: Cleaning exterior of property	$20.00	19. Photographs of the condition of the garden and the weeds were provided.
Replace furnishings: Clothesline	$5.00	Replace furnishings: Clothesline
Replace furnishings: Curtains	$160.00	Replace furnishings: Curtains
Repairs: Garage door - paintwork	$55.00	Repairs: Garage door - paintwork
Repairs: Retaining wall damage	$75.00	Repairs: Retaining wall damage
Repairs: Remedying grass areas	$61.06	Repairs: Remedying grass areas
Repairs: Stay and window repairs	$84.54	Repairs: Stay and window repairs
Repairs: Remedy patch to wallpaper	$50.00	Repairs: Remedy patch to wallpaper
Repairs: Living room ceiling	$45.00	Repairs: Living room ceiling
Repairs: Garage painting	$135.00	Repairs: Garage painting
Meth testing/Cleaning: Insurance excess	$2,500.00	19. Photographs of the condition of the garden and the weeds were provided.
Meth testing/Cleaning: Work to varnished doors	$500.00	19. Photographs of the condition of the garden and the weeds were provided.
Varnish floors - Hallway	$150.00	Varnish floors - Hallway
Varnish floor - Dining room	$250.00	Varnish floor - Dining room
Smoke alarm replacement	$35.00	Smoke alarm replacement
Exemplary damages - Failure to quit	$250.00	Exemplary damages - Failure to quit
Exemplary damages - Unlawful purpose	$1,200.00	Exemplary damages - Unlawful purpose
Exemplary damages - Change of locks	$150.00	Exemplary damages - Change of locks
Filing fee reimbursement: Filing fee	$20.44	Filing fee
Net award	$7,456.82
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,456.82

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4882162 — net $7,456.82 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to noon 8 April 2024	$2,052.50	Rent arrears to noon 8 April 2024
Rubbish removal: Rubbish	$775.00	Rubbish removal: Rubbish
Lawns and Garden work: Weed spraying	$30.00	Lawns and Garden work: Weed spraying
Cleaning: General cleaning - Inside the property	$280.00	19. Photographs of the condition of the garden and the weeds were provided.
Lock/key replacement: Lock replacement	$171.85	Lock/key replacement: Lock replacement
Cleaning: Oil and paint on driveway and garage - Labour and product	$201.43	19. Photographs of the condition of the garden and the weeds were provided.
Cleaning: Cleaning exterior of property	$20.00	19. Photographs of the condition of the garden and the weeds were provided.
Replace furnishings: Clothesline	$5.00	Replace furnishings: Clothesline
Replace furnishings: Curtains	$160.00	Replace furnishings: Curtains
Repairs: Garage door - paintwork	$55.00	Repairs: Garage door - paintwork
Repairs: Retaining wall damage	$75.00	Repairs: Retaining wall damage
Repairs: Remedying grass areas	$61.06	Repairs: Remedying grass areas
Repairs: Stay and window repairs	$84.54	Repairs: Stay and window repairs
Repairs: Remedy patch to wallpaper	$50.00	Repairs: Remedy patch to wallpaper
Repairs: Living room ceiling	$45.00	Repairs: Living room ceiling
Repairs: Garage painting	$135.00	Repairs: Garage painting
Meth testing/Cleaning: Insurance excess	$2,500.00	19. Photographs of the condition of the garden and the weeds were provided.
Meth testing/Cleaning: Work to varnished doors	$500.00	19. Photographs of the condition of the garden and the weeds were provided.
Varnish floors - Hallway	$150.00	Varnish floors - Hallway
Varnish floor - Dining room	$250.00	Varnish floor - Dining room
Smoke alarm replacement	$35.00	Smoke alarm replacement
Exemplary damages - Failure to quit	$250.00	Exemplary damages - Failure to quit
Exemplary damages - Unlawful purpose	$1,200.00	Exemplary damages - Unlawful purpose
Exemplary damages - Change of locks	$150.00	Exemplary damages - Change of locks
Filing fee reimbursement: Filing fee	$20.44	Filing fee
Net award	$7,456.82
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,456.82

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The landlord’s claim in relation to power reconnection costs and power costs are dismissed.
The landlord’s claim in relation to missing hooks and missing cord is dismissed.
The landlord’s claim in relation to damage to the cutlery tray and toilet seat is dismissed.
The landlord’s claim for cleaning the garage is dismissed.
The landlord’s claims for exemplary damages for failure to restore minor changes, exceeding occupants and failure to allow entry is dismissed.
Lucas Dale Gordon must pay [The landlord/s] $7,456.82 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Attendance

Both parties attended the hearings that took place on two separate days. The tenant was around 15 minutes late for the first hearing but he was able to be told what had occurred so far and fully take part in the hearing.
The landlord filed an extensive, paginated bundle of around 800 pages prior to the hearing and helpfully bought a paginated bundle in hard copy to the hearing for me to refer to. There were also several additional/updated documents at both hearings and these were provided to the tenant. The civil burden of proof
As explained at the hearing a party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered.
I consider each of the landlord’s claims in full below. The landlord provided a table of their claims and for ease of reference the number allocated to each claim in the landlord’s table is set out below next to the header for each claim. Rent arrears (item 1 on the landlord’s table of claims)
The tenancy ended on 8 April 2024. The landlord and tenant agreed that the tenant would pay half a day of rent on his last day because he was to leave at noon.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy is as ordered being $2,052.50. This sum was also agreed to by the tenant.
The sum ordered is proven.

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. Power reconnection fee (17)
The landlord says that the power was disconnected on 10 April 2024. The landlord says that the tenant should have told the power company to provide a final reading, not to disconnect the power. The landlord seeks reimbursement for the reconnection cost.
The tenant says he was on pay as you go power. He would top up when needed and then use power, get an alert to pay more and then pay more. He says he did not think organising the future of power was up to him once he had left the property.
I dismiss this part of the claim. I am not satisfied that the landlord has established that the tenant is liable for the reconnection cost of the power. There is no obligation in the RTA for a tenant to pay for power once the tenancy has ended.
There is insufficient evidence why the power was disconnected or that it is a cost the tenant is liable for. Given that the tenant was using pre-paid power the power may have been disconnected simply because his credit ran out or due to the way he was paying. The disconnection occurred two days after the tenancy ended. The landlord could have transferred the power to their own account when they took possession to prevent this loss and disconnection from occurring. Rubbish removal (3)
The landlord provided extensive and detailed photographic evidence of the rubbish the tenant left behind. The tenant’s position was that he had not had time to remove everything but that he had tried.
Despite any effort the tenant had made, the property was not left free of rubbish. A considerable about of rubbish was left at the property. The landlord’s claim $1,036.10 in respect of this which includes both the labour and waste station fees (waste station fees evidenced by receipts are $450). $60 per hour has been claimed in labour costs. This work has been undertaken by the landlord themselves.
Given the extent and the nature of the rubbish remaining at the premises I consider the amount of $775 to be a reasonable sum overall for the labour and the waste disposal costs. I have reduced the sum sought because I consider that the hourly rate claimed by the landlord for doing this work themselves to be too high given the type of work involved. Weed spraying (8)
The landlord seeks $30 for the weed spraying sections of the premises following the end of the tenancy.
Photographs of the condition of the garden and the weeds were provided. In areas the weeds are considerable. I find that the tenant did not leave the garden reasonably tidy. The landlord has only charged for labour and not for the cost of the product. I consider the sum sought to be reasonable and proportionate to the effort required. The sum ordered is proven. Cleaning – kitchen, bathroom, floors toilet, laundry tub and windows (13, 21, 22, 23, 35 and 36)
The landlord says that the tenant did not leave the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided extensive photographic evidence. The landlord claims for cleaning the kitchen. bathroom, toilet, laundry sink, timber floors and windows.
I accept that the premises was not left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The kitchen was particularly unreasonable. I accept that the bench, cabinets, rangehood and floor all needed through cleaning. I accept that the process was made harder for the landlord due to the nature of some of the cleaning required (such as marker pen damage and other stains). I accept this would have taken additional time to remove.
Overall, I award the landlord $280 for cleaning those areas identified above. I have reduced the sum sought because I consider that the hourly rate claimed by the landlord ($60 per hour) for this work to be too high given the type of work involved and considering the landlord did the work themselves. I have also made no award in respect of window cleaning as I find that this was not sufficiently proven. Failure to return the keys (11)
The landlord says the tenant did not return all keys including a garage remote.
The landlord says the tenant also replaced the padlock that was provided on the garage with his own padlock during the course of the tenancy. He gave the landlord a key during the course of the tenancy but did not return is own key at the end of the tenancy for the padlock which remained on the garage.
The tenant agrees he did not return the keys. He says he still has them and could return them now but suspects it is too late.
The tenant did not return the keys and he is right that it is too late for him to return them now to escape liability because the work has been done.
The landlord had insurance which covered the cost of the replacement lock parts, written evidence of this was provided. The landlord seeks labour costs of $171.85. [The landlord/s] says he is a qualified builder and so was able to do the work himself. I am satisfied that the work has been done and I consider that the cost claimed in relation to this work is reasonable. I therefore award this in full. Cleaning - Oil and paint on driveway/outside and oil and paint inside the garages (19, 20 and 34)
The landlord claims $135.99 for the cost of oil removal products and labour for the removal of numerous oil stains on the concrete outside the premises. This includes labour and $49 for the cost of the product used.
The landlord claims $61.44 for the removal of paint on the concrete outside the premises. This includes labour and $31.44 of product.
The landlord also claims $120 in labour for removing oil and paint from inside the floor of the garage. The landlord says they used the same product as used outside so there is no additional claim for product.
The landlord had ample photographic evidence of the condition of the areas concerned pre and post tenancy.
I am satisfied that the property was not left reasonably clean given the amount of oil and paint marks evidenced by the photographs. The oil marks were particularly extensive and scattered.
I award the full cost of the product used to clean the areas ($49.99 and $31.44 together being $81.43). I also award the landlord $120 in labour. The total is $201.43.
I have adjusted the amount of the claim for labour down because I consider the rate here charged by the landlord to be too high given the nature of the work involved. The landlord did the work themselves and the full commercial rate should not apply. There was also some oil on the floor of the garage at the start of the tenancy.
I would have made the same award if I had considered this as a claim for damage rather than as part of the tenant’s obligation in relation to cleaning. This is because, given the extent of the issue, I consider this to be more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Given the extent of the damage I consider it more likely than not to be intentional.
The tenant says that he thought that some of the paint on the floor outside had been dealt with in an earlier order of the Tribunal. The damage identified on the landlord’s schedule in respect of this damage postdates the previous order of the Tribunal. In any event no order or finding was previously made for such damage. Further, and in any event, the landlords withdrew a number of claims for damage at a previous hearing bought in connection with an application to terminate because they were not in a position to proceed with them. They were not able to proceed at that stage because they had not yet remedied the damage and so could not provide sufficient evidence their loss (the tenant still being at the premises). I therefore find that bringing this claim once the tenancy had ended, and once they were able to proof of loss, is not an abuse of process. Cleaning outside of premises – Paint and grease (18)
The landlord claims $75 for the cleaning of the outside of the property because of grease and paint. The landlord says this took 1¼ hours. They say it involved scrubbing with sugar soap. The tenant says he must not have got round to cleaning this.
I consider the evidence presented in relation to grease is very minimal and make no award in respect of this. I do not find that this amounts to a property being left unreasonably clean (or anything other than fair wear and tear).
In relation to the paint, I accept that the tenant should have cleaned this, leaving purple paint hand marks on the exterior of a building does not amount to a property being left reasonably clean (or fair wear and tear if it was to be regarded as damage).
I award the landlord $20 to remedy this which I consider to be a reasonable amount to remedy this. Clothesline (10)
The landlord says that a clothesline in the garage was missing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided evidence of the clothesline in place at the start of the tenancy and it no longer being in place at the end of the tenancy. The landlord seeks $19.92. The landlord says that the clothesline was 4 years old.
The clothesline is what appears to be clothesline wire hung from the roof rafters. Given the age of the clothesline I award the landlord $5 towards the replacement cost. Hooks (14)
The landlord provided evidence that at the start of the tenancy the garage had 4 small hooks. I accept that the hooks are missing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord did not have a receipt to prove loss and I cannot be satisfied that the hooks will, in fact, be replaced.
The landlord has therefore not proven its loss. This part of the claim is dismissed. Missing light cord and attachment (15)
The landlord provided evidence that at the start of the tenancy there was a light fitting on a cord in the workshop. This was no longer there at the end of the tenancy. This is also shown by a photograph. The tenant says the landlord is mistaken as this was his.
I find it more likely than not that it is the landlord’s because there is a photograph of it before the tenant even moved in. However, the landlord has not yet replaced the cord and I cannot be satisfied that they will do so. I therefore decline to make an award. This part of the claim is dismissed. Curtains (38)
The landlord provided evidence that at the start of the tenancy there were curtains in the bedroom and lounge. Save for one single curtain these were no longer there at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided a photograph showing the one curtain in a wardrobe and other curtains hanging in place of the landlord’s curtains. The tenant says he thought the landlord’s curtains were there.
I prefer the landlord’s evidence that only one curtain was there. The landlords have been extremely well prepared for this hearing and clearly took much care when conducting their end of property inspection taking a huge volume of photographs. I find it very unlikely that they would have missed seeing the other curtains.
The landlords say the curtains were 4 years old. The Inland Revenue Department has published general depreciation rates for residential rental property chattels. This gives a guide to the expected useful life of various items including curtains which is stated to be 8 years. The curtains appeared to be in good condition at the start of the tenancy as evidenced by photographs.
The landlord claims $64.98 (lounge French door), $127.47 (other lounge window); $59.50 (bedroom 2) and $64.40 (bedroom 2 and 3).
Taking into account betterment and depreciation I award the landlord $160 for the replacement of the missing curtains. Damage claims
When claiming for damage the 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.
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.
A landlord must not be placed in a better position by an award for compensation so I must also consider betterment and depreciation. Garage door – paint work (4)
The landlord’s say that the tenant has painted the garage door so that it is now patchy. The landlord provided probative evidence of the door in early 2021 when it was painted by the landlord during the course of the tenancy. The landlord provided evidence of the door subsequently being damaged by grinding near it. The landlord says that the tenant attempted to fix it but he has used a random colour and appears to have been trying out test pots so that it is now patchy with three different colours.
The tenant says that he paid the neighbour to paint it and they were trying to get the colour right but it got left.
I accept that the painting is not to a reasonable standard and that this is damage that occurred during the course of the tenancy. It is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I am satisfied that this is intentional damage.
The landlord seeks $75 in labour costs and $189.40 in paint (although the same paint was used in respect of the garage walls and retainer walls considered below). The landlord undertook the work themselves and provided evidence of the cost of materials. I find that the overall the labour cost is reasonable.
I must still consider betterment and depreciation, the door was painted around 3 years prior to the end of the tenancy. I consider that paintwork to an exterior wooden garage door might be expected to last around 5-7 years.
Taking into account depreciation I award the landlord $40 for the labour cost and award $15 as a contribution in relation to the cost of the paint. The total award is $55. Cleaning and painting the retaining wall (5)
The landlord claims $150 for the labour cost of cleaning and then repainting the retaining wall because there were children’s drawings on it and paint had been splashed on it. The landlord also seeks the cost of the paint. The same paint was used in respect of the garage walls and garage door (referred to above).
The landlord say that the drawings and paint would not come off with cleaning. The tenant expressed that he thought that it would. He says he thought that the paint was just children’s paint. Given that the tenant did not make an effort to clean the wall, but the landlord did, I prefer the landlord’s evidence that it did not come off. The paint is also not faint but is reasonably vibrant.
The landlord had photographic evidence of the condition of the areas pre and post tenancy. I am satisfied that the damage was done during the course of the tenancy and that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant did not disprove liability for the damage. Give the paint throughout the property, and referred to elsewhere in this decision, I find it more likely than not that this was intentional damage. I find that the overall the labour cost is reasonable.
However, I must still consider betterment and depreciation and the landlord says that the retaining wall was last painted 7 years ago. Pre tenancy photographs show the paint on the wall to be in a reasonable condition. I consider that the expected lifespan of the paint on an outside concrete wall such as this to be in the region of 10 years. Taking this into account I award the landlord $55 for labour cost and $20 for the cost of the paint. The total award is therefore $75. Cutlery tray (7)
The landlord provided evidence that the cutlery tray was cracked during the course of the Tenancy and seek the replacement cost. I consider this most likely to be fair wear and tear and therefore dismiss this part of the claim. Grass sunken and bare patches (6)
The landlord says that at the end of the tenancy certain lawn areas had become sunken and grass has died leaving bare patches due to cars being parked on it. The landlord says that they built the areas up again with dirt and then resowed the grass and fertilised it. The landlord seeks $137.74 (being $30 in labour, $48.12 in grass seed, $46.04 in seed raising mix and $13.58 for fertiliser). Receipts are provided for the products purchased. Photographs were provided showing the grassed areas being in a reasonable condition at the start of the tenancy.
The tenant says that the area at the front of the house did get damaged by cars but he says that he did not cause the grass to die by the shed by tipping out weed spray, as the landlord said.
I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven that the tenant is responsible for the quality of the grass by the shed. I make no award in relation to this.
I am satisfied that the damage to the grass at the front of the property is however more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Given the way in which the damage has been caused I am satisfied that it is intentional damage.
I award the landlord $20 in labour and $16.04 for the grass seed because I find that 1kg of grass seed would have likely been ample to cover the patches that have been evidenced. I also award the landlord $25 for seed raising mix. I have made a deduction to the overall sum sought here because the landlord has not been successful in all of the claim and I consider this to be a reasonable sum given the extent of the tenant’s liability. I make no award in relation to fertiliser. I do not consider this to be a reasonable cost. The total sum awarded is therefore $61.06. Laundry window frame and stay (9)
The landlord says that damage was done to the laundry window during the course of the tenancy. The damage claimed relates to a stay that has been bent and the landlord’s say the frame itself has also been damaged.
I am satisfied from the photographs provided that this damage occurred during the course of the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for the loss. I accept that it appears that someone has tried to force their way into the window. Given the nature of the damage I find it most likely to be intentional.
The stay is said to be 4 years old and, the landlord says, the window was painted 4 years ago. Photographs provided of the exterior of the window frame during the course of the tenancy show it to be in an excellent condition.
I award the landlord the cost of the stay in full ($24.54). I do not consider that they have received a benefit by replacing a metal stay which was fairly recently replaced. I also award the landlord $60 towards the cost of the labour for the painting.
I have adjusted the amount of the claim down here because I consider the rate here charged by the landlord to be too high given the nature of the work involved. The landlord did the work themselves and the full commercial rate should not apply. I have also taken into account the fact that the window frame was in good condition in August 2023 but that some depreciation should apply. The total awarded is therefore $84.54. Toilet seat (12)
The landlord says that they had to replace the toilet seat due to damage done by the tenant. The plastic is peeling and the landlord says it is stained. A photograph shows the seat to be peeling with some discolouration around the peeling. The landlord’s evidence is that the toilet seat, at the end of the tenancy, is about 4 years old.
The tenant says that he cleaned the toilet during the tenancy but it was obviously used daily.
The toilet seat is clearly a high use item and is likely to deteriorate over time. I am not satisfied that the condition of the toilet seat is anything other than fair wear and tear. This part of the claim is dismissed. Bedroom - patch to wall (31)
The landlord says that the tenant has cut a hole in the wallpaper to patch a hole in the wall. A photograph of the repair was provided. I am satisfied that this was done during the course of the tenancy. The repair appears to be neat but is unfinished as there is a patch of missing wallpaper. This is more than fair wear and tear and I consider the damage to be intentional.
The landlord says they had to prepare the wall, cut wallpaper and fill the joins and paint the whole wall. They painted the whole room but only the cost of repair to the damaged wall is sought. The labour costs sought for the wall are $150. The landlord says that the wallpaper was hung 4 years previously.
Wallpaper is expected to have an anticipated life span of 5 to 12 years. The condition of the wallpaper at the start of this tenancy is good. This is shown by a photograph.
The landlord did the work themselves and the full commercial rate should not apply. Also, taking into account depreciation, I award the landlord $50 for the repair of this damage. I consider depreciation to be applicable as although the landlord did not claim for the cost of painting the whole room, the landlord did do this rather than just patch the damaged wall. The tenant is therefore contributing to an overall improvement to the room. Painting the lounge ceiling (24)
The landlord says that the ceiling was damaged by the tenant and had to be repainted in the lounge for two reasons. First, the landlord says that the tenant had put up decorations causing damage so that the ceiling to need re-painting.
The landlord says that the tenant had done this repainting and both parties agreed this was done in 2022. However, the landlord says that the tenant has since painted the ceiling again. The ceiling is patchy with the paint work not being professional. The landlord says that the paint only went up to a circular light fitting and did not fully reach the edge of the walls. Photographs of the ceiling were provided.
The landlord says that because the tenant had used Methamphetamine during the tenancy (referred to below) and because during the course of the tenancy he had painted the ceiling, Methamphetamine could no longer be simply cleaned from the ceiling. In essence, the landlord’s position is that by painting the ceiling mid tenancy, the tenant may have incapsulated Methamphetamine in the ceiling. The landlords say that they were advised by the Methamphetamine specialists to paint the ceiling with a specific type of paint to contain the Methamphetamine.
The tenant says he thought that the paint work that he did was fine. He thought the landlord was happy with it. He says he only painted the ceiling once. He says he thought this was agreed on at the last Tribunal hearing.
I accept that the state of the ceiling, with its patched areas, mean that it required painting at the end of the tenancy to remedy the paintwork that had been undertaken.
I do not accept that the issue was resolved at the previous hearing. The landlord was not in a position to proceed this this element of their claim because they had not yet remedied the damage and so could not evidence their loss (the tenant still being at the premises). I find that bringing this claim once the tenancy had ended, and therefore the landlord had proof of loss is not an abuse of process. The landlord did not, at the previous hearing, have knowledge of Methamphetamine use so could not have bought a claim at that date to seal encapsulated Methamphetamine.
I am satisfied that the tenant painted the ceiling during the course of the tenancy meaning that the ceiling could not be cleaned of Methamphetamine. I am also satisfied that the paint work done by the tenant was not to a professional standard in any event.
The landlord says they last painted the ceiling 4 years ago. The landlord claims $120 in labour.
The landlord did the work themselves and the full commercial rate should not apply. I must also consider that this paintwork would have otherwise had a likely lifespan of 10 years. Taking this into account, I award the landlord $45 towards the labour cost claimed. Garage walls – Repainting and cleaning (26)
The landlord no longer wanted to pursue its claim for cleaning the garage walls. This claim is therefore dismissed.
The landlord says that the tenant put random paint on the garage walls, in different colours as well as patching the walls using a different colour paint. This was supported by numerous photographs. The tenant says that there was an issue with someone painting on the walls. He said he had remedied it although he said parts he had struggled to colour match. He said he had painted the whole of the brick wall.
I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the course of the tenancy and was not fair wear and tear. I am not satisfied that the repair work undertaken by the tenant was satisfactory. There is a clear colour mismatch where repair work has been attempted and some areas have not been painted over at all. While it looks as if the tenant has painted the large brick wall during the tenancy at the end of the tenancy it is patchy again. It appears that the coloured areas are spray paint. I consider the damage to be intentional.
The landlord claims $480 for labour and the cost of the paint (being a proportion of $189.40 referred to above at paragraph 59). The landlord did the work themselves and therefore a full commercial rate should not apply.
The landlord says that the garage was last painted seven years ago. The photographs provided from the start of the tenancy show paintwork which is neat and in reasonable condition. I note however that the paint on the brick wall appears to be more worn. I consider that this paintwork would have had a likely lifespan of 10 years.
Taking into account the above, I award the landlord $100 towards the cost of the labour and $35 for the cost of the paint. The total award therefore is $135. Methamphetamine claims
The landlord states that prior to this tenancy commencing, the premises were tested for Methamphetamine contamination and provided evidence of this in a report with the sample dated 1 February 2021.
The report shows and I accept that no Methamphetamine was present.
Once the tenant had moved out a composite methamphetamine test was done on 9 April 2024 This recorded the total amount of methamphetamine in the composite samples was recorded as 175μg.
A detailed test was done on 12 April 2024. This report sets out the following results for methamphetamine. I have highlighted the results that are 15μg/100cm2 or over: Location μg/ 100cm2 Locationμg/ 100cm2 1Kitchen211Bathroom0.75 2Dining 0.0512Toilet 2.8 3Lounge 3913Laundry0.08 4Lounge2314Hall2.9 5Bed 115.315Hall19.5 6Bed 12.516Garage2.6 7Bed 2 1317Garage 1.08 8Bed 2 11.418Garage 3.2 9Bed 3 14.519Garage 6.3 10Bed 3 0.75
For a landlord to succeed in a claim for costs involved in Methamphetamine testing and decontamination there are two main aspects that must be proven. First, that the contamination was caused during the tenancy (and thus that the tenants are liable). Secondly that the level of methamphetamine detected is likely to constitute a health hazard and therefore would entitle the landlord to claim the cost of decontaminating the premises. It has been well recognised for years, that methamphetamine contamination presents risks for people living in dwellings, when the level of that contamination, is high. The difficulty has been determining what the tolerable level should be, above which the premises would be considered contaminated.
In 2017 Standards New Zealand released Standard NZS 8510:2017 “Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine-contaminated properties”. In short, this standard confirmed that the level at which habitation of residential premises was considered safe, was a level of 1.5 μg/100cm2. The expectation on landlords arising from this Standard, was to remediate premises contaminated with methamphetamine, to a level of less than 1.5μg/100 cm2.
However, in more recent times, the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman determined that there was little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption (Report entitled ‘Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards’, 29 May 2018). The report concluded that any levels below 15 μg/100 cm2 were unlikely to present adverse effects and therefore there should be no need for remediation.
This matter has been considered by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947. Judge Kellar needed to determine which level should be applied. The Court discussed the conflict between the New Zealand Standard and Chief Science Advisors report, and confirmed: The Tenancy Tribunal was in a difficult position. The best state of knowledge of risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination available to the adjudicator was the Gluckman Report. It would have been bold for the adjudicator to have ignored that report in favour of the New Zealand Standard given that the Gluckman report represents the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination in dwellings.
In my assessment, this decision of the Court has confirmed that the level to be applied is the level expressed by the Chief Science Advisor, which is that there is no risk when levels of contamination are below 15μg/100 cm2.
Further validating this 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.”

Is the tenant responsible for the Methamphetamine contamination?

I find that the testing proves that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean in respect of Methamphetamine or alternatively breached his responsibilities because Methamphetamine damaged the premises during the course of the tenancy, that damage is not fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The tenant admitted that his guests may have used Methamphetamine in the premises. Given the level of Methamphetamine found in the premises, and the extent of Methamphetamine use that would be needed to cause such a high level of contamination, I cannot accept that. I find that it is more likely than not that the tenant was at the very least aware of the Methamphetamine use and he permitted it. In any case the tenant is responsible for the actions of their guests and so his state of knowledge is irrelevant in relation to his liability for this damage.
The tenant says that the contamination came from those looking after his children, who he had located from places like Facebook. This is not relevant to the tenant’s liability. A tenant is responsible for anything done or omitted to be done by any person (other than the landlord or any person acting on the landlord’s behalf or with the landlord’s authority) who is in the premises with the tenant’s permission if the act or omission would have constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement had it been the act or omission of the tenant (s 41 RTA).
In summary, I find that this to be intentional damage. However, I find that the tenant’s liability in relation to the Methamphetamine damage is limited to those areas where contamination is proven to be 15 μg/100cm2 or over being the lounge, the hall and bedroom 1. In Lime Real Estate Limited as Agent for Penelope Ritchie v Kelly Sikma-Young [2024] NZTT 4847223 Adjudicator Armstrong sets out a detailed analysis of the position where part of a property is contaminated above 15μg/100cm2 and part remains contaminated below that level and I agree with and adopt his analysis. What are the landlord’s claims in relation to Methamphetamine contamination?
Arising out of the Methamphetamine contamination the landlord seeks: a. $2,500 being their insurance excess; and b. Other costs incurred which exceeded the insurance cover being: i. $41.32 for replacement smoke alarms ii. Power costs iii. $2,016.50 for damage to wooden varnished floors caused by the Methamphetamine contamination remediation process iv. $1,005 for damage to doors, architraves and skirtings caused by the Methamphetamine contamination remediation process Insurance excess (2)
The landlord seeks the cost of the $2,500.00 insurance excess their insurance policy was subject to which they had to first pay in respect of the Methamphetamine contamination. The landlord provided proof of the insurance of excess of $2,500. The excess was absorbed by the cost of the initial testing. Sufficient proof of this was provided of this loss. This sum is awarded in full. Claims not covered by the landlord’s insurance for decontamination
The landlord provided a schedule of all of the work carried and the cost of it to show how their insurance cover was exceeded. However, insurance pay-outs do not reduce a party’s liability for damage where the damage is intentional (Anderson v James 1908 28 NZLR 34) – this is the case even if there is some double recovery. Therefore, I do not need to analyse whether the sums claimed by the landlord would, or should, have fallen into their insurance cover. These claims are considered below. Doors, architraves and skirtings (39)
The landlord says that after the decontamination was undertaken the varnish on the doors, architraves and skirtings was damaged. Evidence was provided that surfaces were in a good condition at the start of the tenancy. Extensive photographic evidence was provided to support this and a report was provided to support the submission that it was the decontamination process that damaged these varnished surfaces. Photographs showed the surfaces had become rough with the varnish lifting, cracking and bubbling.
The landlord limited its claim to the areas exceeding 15μg/100cm2 being: a. Door and frame and architraves and skirting boards in bedroom 1 ($150) b. Doors and frame and architraves coming from the hallway (Linen cupboard, toilet, laundry) and skirting boards in the hallway - $450 c. Doors and frame and architraves coming from the hallway (hot water cupboard, kitchen and lounge) - $135 d. Door and frame and architraves and skirting boards in bedroom 2 (off the hallway) - $120 e. Door and frame and architraves and skirting boards in bedroom 3 (off the hallway) - $120 f. Lounge skirting - $30
The landlord says that the areas had to be scraped, washed and scraped again and repeated until the surface was smooth. They could not be sanded as this was not advised by those assisting them with the decontamination process because it would release Methamphetamine. The landlord says they had to rehang the doors and clean the hardware. Photographs of the hardware were also provided. The landlord has not included the re-painting as part of their claim.
I accept that this is damage that the tenant is liable to pay. It is directly connected to the Methamphetamine damage and the remediation process. However, the landlord did the work themselves and a full commercial rate should not apply. Further, I must take into account betterment. The landlord says the varnish was original 1950s but the landlord has not claimed the cost of painting only the preparation work. There would have been some preparation required whenever the landlord decided to revarnish the surfaces, but I find that the preparation would not have been as labour intensive.
Taking the above into account, I have also made some downward adjustment to the figure claimed and award the landlord $500 towards the cost of this work. Floors in kitchen, toilet, hallway and dining room (37)
The landlord says that after the decontamination was undertaken the varnish on the floors in the kitchen, hallway and toilet were damaged. I am satisfied from the evidence provided that the varnished floor in these areas was damaged by the decontamination process.
I am not satisfied that the tenant is liable for the cost claimed in remedying the floor in the kitchen or the toilet. The methamphetamine levels in these rooms did not exceed 15μg/100cm2. I refer to paragraph 112 above and the reasons in Lime Real Estate Limited as Agent for Penelope Ritchie v Kelly Sikma-Young [2024] NZTT 4847223.
There was no probative evidence of when the hallway was last varnished. There is no breakdown on the invoices provided apportioning the sum incurred for varnishing the hallway rather than other areas.
Therefore, I make a limited award of $150 in respect of damage to the hallway floor.
The landlord says that the wooden dining room floor was also damaged, not by the decontamination process, but by paint and scratches. Photographs were provided. I am satisfied the damage took place in the course of the tenancy. I consider the scratches to be fair wear and tear. However, I consider the paint to be more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord says the dining room was newly coated 4 years ago and provided a copy of their cash book log recording this. I would expect such a coating to have an anticipated life span of around 10 years. However, again, there is no breakdown on the invoices provided apportioning the sum incurred for varnishing the dining room rather than in other areas.
Therefore, I limit my award to $250 in respect of the damage to the dining room floor. Smoke alarms (16)
The landlord says that the smoke alarms in the hall and the lounge were thrown out due to Methamphetamine contamination as part of the decontamination process. I accept this.
The contamination levels in these rooms were above 15μg/100cm2 and I find the tenant is liable for their replacement.
The alarms were 1 and 6 years old. Smoke alarms have a lifespan of 10 years. Taking into account depreciation I award the landlord $35 towards the replacement cost. Power costs (17)
The landlord seeks the power costs for the power used during the decontamination process, the fitting of new carpet and the painting.
This part of the claim is dismissed. It is not possible to know with sufficient certainty how much power used can be attributable to the tenant’s liability. Exemplary damages
The landlord seeks exemplary damages under a number of different sections of the RTA. Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court said this: In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is sought. As the Tribunal in Chief Executive, ex parte Edmondson v Walls TT548/92 said: Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: (a) The intention of the person; (b) The effect of the unlawful act; (c) The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d) The public interest. Altering locks
The landlord seeks exemplary damages as a result of the tenant altering locks at the premises.
A landlord must provide and maintain locks to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure. Neither the landlord nor the tenant may alter or remove any locks without the other party's consent. See section 46(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 46(3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant removed an existing lock and placed his own padlock on the garage door which was not authorised by the landlord. This was discovered on 11 December 2023 at an inspection. After making contact with the tenant the landlord did an inspection on 28 January and was provided with a key on that occasion.
I find that the tenant did change the lock to the garage with no reasonable excuse. I find the tenant has committed an unlawful act. I find that the act was intentional.
It is not clear from the evidence to what extent, if any, the landlord would have been inconvenienced on their inspection in December but they received a key shortly afterwards at their next inspection which they could keep. The impact evidenced by the landlord has therefore been very minimal. However, it is in the public interest that locks are not changed without the other party’s consent in the course of the tenancy. Changing locks can present access problems on inspections and may impact the insurance of the landlord. I award exemplary damages of $150 in respect of this breach. Failure to allow entry
The landlords say that the tenant has not allowed them entry to the premises when they were entitled to enter.
A landlord may enter the premises during the tenancy with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I heard from the landlord that on 28 June 2024 the tenant denied them entry when they first arrived for an inspection. Later in the hearing the landlord said they were not denied entry but the tenant told them to come in and hurry up and was aggressive. I find that this does not amount to a failure to allow the landlord to enter. The landlord did enter.
I heard from the landlord that on 23 December they came for an inspection but the tenant said he would prefer them not to come in. The landlord says that the tenant said “you can come in if you have to” but “I’d rather you didn’t come in”. The landlord did not enter. The tenant says that it was because he had mixed up the day the landlord was coming. They were coming for inspections very frequently at this time. He said he offered to pay for petrol and that the landlords told him that it was “all good’ and that they would come back the following week.
I find there has been no failure to allow the landlord to enter on this occasion. On the landlord’s own evidence the tenant said they could come in if they had to. This does not amount to a failure to let the landlord enter.
The landlord’s say that in his notice letter dated 9 March the tenant said he hoped they were not going to visit during his notice period. The landlord did not visit or give notice of a visit. I find that this does not amount to a failure to let the landlord enter.
This part of the claim is dismissed. Minor change
The landlord says the tenant undertook minor changes which were not restored at the end of the tenancy.
Section 42B(4) RTA provides that if a minor change is made in accordance with a request under section 42A RTA, the tenant must, on or before the expiry of the tenancy, return the premises to a condition that is substantially the same as the condition that the premises were in before the minor change was made.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00 See section 42B(6) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord relies on an agreement with the tenant to put up wood over clear light plastic in the garage. One piece of this wood remained in the corner of the garage. Photographic evidence was provided of this. The landlords say there was a verbal agreement to this. The tenant says that he removed most of the wood but he has just missed the end piece.
The landlord also refers to a list of other changes the tenant made and did not restore. The landlord says that there was no consent for these changes at all.
I find that the tenant has committed an unlawful act in relation to the wood panel that was left. I do not however consider it to have been intentional as he removed the other wood in the same area and therefore decline to award exemplary damages. In any event, in the absence of any submissions as to the effect of this piece of wood being left, I would not award exemplary damages here. To the extent this was treated as rubbish left by the tenant the landlords have been compensated for rubbish disposal and no claim has been made for compensation in relation to any damage resulting from this.
As explained at the hearing, I find that exemplary damages is not an award I can make in relation to the other changes outlined by the landlord. For exemplary damages to be awarded for a failure to reinstate the property after a minor change, the minor change must have been requested under section 42A, RTA. Here the evidence is that no such request was made.
This part of the claim is therefore dismissed. Failure to quit
A tenant must vacate the premises on the termination of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(e)(i) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 40(3A)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord says that the tenant did not quit the premises in accordance with the notice he gave.
The tenant gave notice that his last day would be 6 April 2024. The landlords went to the property on 7 April to do an inspection and the tenant was still there in the garage. The landlord agreed he could have until 2pm but he was still moving out at this time. It was agreed that he could have until noon on 8 April. When the landlord arrived at the property at 1pm on that date he was not there. The landlord was worried he was still moving out particularly because they had a Methamphetamine tester booked. The tenant confirmed at 3pm that he had moved out.
The tenant says he got his dates mixed up and he thought that he had until 7 April. He says he had a lot to move out. At this point he says he was only clearing up.
Mixing up dates is not a reasonable excuse and therefore I find the tenant committed an unlawful act. The termination of the tenancy was based on the tenant’s own notice in which he stated “6 th April will be my last day here”. I find that he would have known that the final day of his tenancy was 6 April 2024 and that his failure to quit on time was intentional.
The effect on the landlord is that when they arrived at the property on 7 April they were inconvenienced and worried about plans they had made for the property. However, after that time they did agree to extensions and there is no evidence to suggest that the tenant failed to quit beyond the final deadline given of noon on 8 April 2024. Although there was subsequent agreement there was no agreement for the initial default, it is in the public interest that tenants quit premises when they say they will leave so that all parties have certainty.
In all the circumstances, I award the landlord exemplary damages of $250 in respect of this breach. Unlawful purpose
The landlord claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by using Methamphetamine.
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.
I have already found that it is proven there has been Methamphetamine use at the property by the tenant or someone within the property with his permission.
Given the level of contamination I am satisfied that the tenant would have known that Methamphetamine was being used at the property. The use of this drug is unlawful under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. I find the tenant has committed an unlawful act.
There should an award of exemplary damages in this case. The contamination in the lounge, in particular, was substantial and so the Methamphetamine use must have been substantial as well. Therefore, I find the unlawful purpose to have been intentional. It has caused considerable damage to the premises, great expense for the landlords (some of which has not been claimed) and it has no doubt caused the landlords a great deal of upset and distress.
An award of $1,800 must be reserved for the most serious cases. This case is towards the upper end of the scale and so I award $1,200 in exemplary damages. Exceeding number of occupants
The landlords claims that the number of people living at the premises exceeds the maximum number allowed in the tenancy agreement.
Where the tenancy agreement specifies the maximum number of persons that may ordinarily reside in the premises during the tenancy, the tenant must ensure that the number is not exceeded. See section 40(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,000.00. See section 40(3A)(e) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenancy agreement sets out the permitted number of occupants are 1 adult and 2 children.
The landlord’s evidence includes the following findings on inspections: a second fridge appearing in 2021, a female jacket being at the premises (2022), new things around the house and a handbag (2022), a request (which was denied) from the tenant in 2023 for a friend to move in, a dog being observed at the premises (2023), a bag of female gear in the third bedroom (2023), things in the third bedroom (2023), ashtrays and cigarette rubbish when the tenant does not smoke (2023), an occasion when the landlord could not test the alarm as someone was asleep in the third bedroom (2023), extra tooth brushes (2023), female products in the bathroom (2024), a female arriving at the property and on another occasion being in the garden (2024), female shoes (2024), beds made and laundry folded, a pink bag (2024), a female at the house (2024) and post addressed to various different people.
The tenant says that some of the post is explainable: one addressee is the mother of his children, one is his older daughter who lives with her mother but sees him and comes around and another addressee is a friend who is like his sister. He does not know the other people. He says that the people in the room on the occasion with the smoke alarm was a family attending a Tangi staying temporarily, the female things related to women who he was seeing but who were not living there. He says he did not want someone in a relationship with him living at the property he was happy with him and his children.
He says he has a good female friend who has stepped up to help him with the landlord’s demands for certain work to be done. She has her own place. His daughter would visit from time to time. The fridge was just a fridge he had been given, and he wasn’t sure if it was turned on. The toothbrushes were just a collection of his children’s toothbrushes – they are cheap and they have a whole drawer of them. The dog was just a neighbourhood dog. A friend had come to stay for a short while in 2021 and his girlfriend had joined him. They had stayed for a couple of months. He needed childminders to stay for his children while he was on a night shift between 10pm and 6pm. For a while he says he had a good arrangement as he used a daughter of someone local, because she wanted some space from her mother, but that stopped. She would only stay while he was at work.
The landlord acknowledged that they did not know that the tenant had a daughter and that they took the view that if people were staying at the property they should be told for insurance purposes.
I am not satisfied that the landlord has sufficiently proven that the tenant has breached the tenancy agreement by allowing additional occupants. I found the tenant’s evidence to be frank and forthcoming in relation to this part of the claim. Tenants are permitted their children to visit (and, stay from time to time where they do not live with them full time), they are also allowed to have childminders and they are allowed to have people stay from time to time.
While the tenant did admit to having people staying with him for an extended period of a couple of months in 2021 but I cannot award exemplary damages in relation to that because it occurred well over 12 months ago. Section 109(2)(b), RTA states that a claim for exemplary damages cannot be made 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act in this instance.
This part of the claim is therefore dismissed. Bond refund
The bond will be paid to the landlords and the tenant must pay the landlords the remaining liability as ordered. Filing Fee and suppression
The landlords have been substantially successful, and so I have awarded them the filing fee.
Under s 95A(1) RTA a suppression order must be granted on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings.
The landlord has been substantially successful and so I award them suppression of their identifying details. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful and so I do not award him name suppression. The disputes before me are not unusual or other than the ordinary business of the Tribunal and the open justice principle requires the outcome of adjudication to be available to the public. I find there is no other reason to grant the tenant name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4882162 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4882162 — Property damage

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 Methamphetamine contamination?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

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 Methamphetamine contamination?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions