What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4930734?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Waitai Norman Rikiti at Unit/Flat 1, 112 Great South Road,

How much money was awarded in case 4930734?

Property Damage: $2,039.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4930734?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4930734?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11129945-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4930734?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Waitai Norman Rikiti at Unit/Flat 1, 112 Great South Road,

How much money was awarded in case 4930734?

Property Damage: $2,039.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4930734?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4930734?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11129945-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 112 Great South Road, Manurewa, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4930734 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4930734 — net $1,791.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Electrical fittings replacement/repair, oven rangehood, etc	$2,039.00	Electrical fittings replacement/repair, oven rangehood, etc
Net award	$1,791.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,791.00

Order

The tenancy of Waitai Norman Rikiti at Unit/Flat 1, 112 Great South Road, Manurewa, Auckland 2102 is terminated, and possession is granted to Linkpeople Limited, at 11.59 pm on Monday 9 December 2024.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $248.00 (3525946-019) to Linkpeople Limited immediately.
Waitai Norman Rikiti must pay Linkpeople Limited $1,791.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. The landlord is also seeking compensation for damage cause by a fire, and is seeking refund of the bond.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
A tenant is responsible for not allowing their premises to be used for any unlawful purpose, and to do so is declared to be an unlawful act, see RTA section 40(2)( b), and 40(3A)(c) below. 40Tenant’s responsibilities ... (2)The tenant shall not— (a)intentionally or carelessly damage, or permit any other person to damage, the premises; or (ab)cause or permit any interference with, or render inoperative, any means of escape from fire within the meaning of the Building Act 2004; or (b)use the premises, or permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose; ... (3A)The following are declared to be unlawful acts: (a)a failure, without reasonable excuse, to quit the premises in contravention of subsection (1)(e)(i): (b)a contravention of subsection (2)(ab): (c)a contravention of subsection (2)(b):
Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
A baseline methamphetamine test was conducted on 20 January 2021, three days after the start of the tenancy, which showed that the premises was not contaminated with methamphetamine at the beginning of the tenancy.
The landlord stated that in 2024 following them establishing that the tenant’s associates had been staying at the premises, they conducted a composite test for methamphetamine at the premises on 23 October 2024 which returned a positive result of 44.7μg/100cm2.
An itemised test was conducted which returned a level of 15.2μg/100cm in the lounge and lower levels in other areas of the house.
The landlord provided oral evidence that a 14-day notice to remedy was served on the tenant on 24 October 2024 to remedy the methamphetamine contamination.
On 11 November 2024 the premises was retested and again the lounge returned a level of 15.2μg/100cm2.
There are currently two sources of guidance on the issue of a safe level of methamphetamine contamination in residential premises. In June 2017 Standards New Zealand published NZS 8510:2017. The standard recommended a maximum contamination level of 1.5μg/100cm2 for high use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture. It recommended a higher level of 3.8μg/100cm2 for limited use areas.
In May 2018 Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the then Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, released a report, Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels and interpretation of standards. The report noted that there is a lack of scientific evidence to prove that low-level third-hand methamphetamine exposure poses a health risk to humans and exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect.
The report recommended decontamination to the level of 1.5μg/100cm2only where contamination resulted from manufacture due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the manufacturing process.
The Tribunal has endorsed the Gluckman recommendations and has applied them for several years. The District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 approved the Tribunal’s approach.
More recently in Barfoot and Thompson Limited v Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited [2021] NZTT Auckland 4276319, both parties presented scientific evidence at a hearing before the Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded there was no new scientific research to draw different conclusions from those reached in the Gluckman Report.
Allowing others to consume a class A drug on the premises is a breach of the RTA for which the tenant is responsible. The current levels are marginally higher than the limits that are currently considered safe.
The tenant has been served the correct notice to remedy the breach, but has not done do. In my view it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the current levels of methamphetamine contamination in the house are unsafe, and the tenant’s inability to rectify the breach within 14 days as required, strongly indicates the tenant is not currently resourced sufficiently to remedy this breach.
The tenant accepts responsibility for the contamination that has occurred at his premises, and he understands that in the circumstances termination of his tenancy is likely because of this.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
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.
In August 2024 Linkpeople Limited became aware that a fire had occurred on the oven at the tenant’s premises. There was significant damage to the oven, the rangehood, the ceiling and the surrounding wall areas.
The tenant stated that he had not been home when the fire occurred, and that it had been started by the other people living at his premises.
In all of the circumstances of the damage, I find that it is intentional damage: That is, the tenant knew he had people staying at his address who were using class A drugs and using his oven.
The landlord produced a Quote for $2,505.85 for the repairs which he stated had been paid. The tenant has since paid off some of this amount, and $2,039.00 is outstanding.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4930734 — net $1,791.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Electrical fittings replacement/repair, oven rangehood, etc	$2,039.00	Electrical fittings replacement/repair, oven rangehood, etc
Net award	$1,791.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,791.00

Order

The tenancy of Waitai Norman Rikiti at Unit/Flat 1, 112 Great South Road, Manurewa, Auckland 2102 is terminated, and possession is granted to Linkpeople Limited, at 11.59 pm on Monday 9 December 2024.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $248.00 (3525946-019) to Linkpeople Limited immediately.
Waitai Norman Rikiti must pay Linkpeople Limited $1,791.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. The landlord is also seeking compensation for damage cause by a fire, and is seeking refund of the bond.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
A tenant is responsible for not allowing their premises to be used for any unlawful purpose, and to do so is declared to be an unlawful act, see RTA section 40(2)( b), and 40(3A)(c) below. 40Tenant’s responsibilities ... (2)The tenant shall not— (a)intentionally or carelessly damage, or permit any other person to damage, the premises; or (ab)cause or permit any interference with, or render inoperative, any means of escape from fire within the meaning of the Building Act 2004; or (b)use the premises, or permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose; ... (3A)The following are declared to be unlawful acts: (a)a failure, without reasonable excuse, to quit the premises in contravention of subsection (1)(e)(i): (b)a contravention of subsection (2)(ab): (c)a contravention of subsection (2)(b):
Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
A baseline methamphetamine test was conducted on 20 January 2021, three days after the start of the tenancy, which showed that the premises was not contaminated with methamphetamine at the beginning of the tenancy.
The landlord stated that in 2024 following them establishing that the tenant’s associates had been staying at the premises, they conducted a composite test for methamphetamine at the premises on 23 October 2024 which returned a positive result of 44.7μg/100cm2.
An itemised test was conducted which returned a level of 15.2μg/100cm in the lounge and lower levels in other areas of the house.
The landlord provided oral evidence that a 14-day notice to remedy was served on the tenant on 24 October 2024 to remedy the methamphetamine contamination.
On 11 November 2024 the premises was retested and again the lounge returned a level of 15.2μg/100cm2.
There are currently two sources of guidance on the issue of a safe level of methamphetamine contamination in residential premises. In June 2017 Standards New Zealand published NZS 8510:2017. The standard recommended a maximum contamination level of 1.5μg/100cm2 for high use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture. It recommended a higher level of 3.8μg/100cm2 for limited use areas.
In May 2018 Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the then Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, released a report, Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels and interpretation of standards. The report noted that there is a lack of scientific evidence to prove that low-level third-hand methamphetamine exposure poses a health risk to humans and exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect.
The report recommended decontamination to the level of 1.5μg/100cm2only where contamination resulted from manufacture due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the manufacturing process.
The Tribunal has endorsed the Gluckman recommendations and has applied them for several years. The District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 approved the Tribunal’s approach.
More recently in Barfoot and Thompson Limited v Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited [2021] NZTT Auckland 4276319, both parties presented scientific evidence at a hearing before the Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded there was no new scientific research to draw different conclusions from those reached in the Gluckman Report.
Allowing others to consume a class A drug on the premises is a breach of the RTA for which the tenant is responsible. The current levels are marginally higher than the limits that are currently considered safe.
The tenant has been served the correct notice to remedy the breach, but has not done do. In my view it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the current levels of methamphetamine contamination in the house are unsafe, and the tenant’s inability to rectify the breach within 14 days as required, strongly indicates the tenant is not currently resourced sufficiently to remedy this breach.
The tenant accepts responsibility for the contamination that has occurred at his premises, and he understands that in the circumstances termination of his tenancy is likely because of this.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
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.
In August 2024 Linkpeople Limited became aware that a fire had occurred on the oven at the tenant’s premises. There was significant damage to the oven, the rangehood, the ceiling and the surrounding wall areas.
The tenant stated that he had not been home when the fire occurred, and that it had been started by the other people living at his premises.
In all of the circumstances of the damage, I find that it is intentional damage: That is, the tenant knew he had people staying at his address who were using class A drugs and using his oven.
The landlord produced a Quote for $2,505.85 for the repairs which he stated had been paid. The tenant has since paid off some of this amount, and $2,039.00 is outstanding.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4930734 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1, 112 Great South Road, Manurewa, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4930734 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1, 112 Great South Road, Manurewa, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions