What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4936734 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay Online Rentals Limited as Agent for Keith Zanders

How much money was awarded in case 4936734?

Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $195.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $184.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4936734?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4936734?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10924546-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4936734 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay Online Rentals Limited as Agent for Keith Zanders

How much money was awarded in case 4936734?

Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $195.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $184.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4936734?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4936734?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10924546-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

64 Bandon Street, Frankton, Hamilton 3204 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4936734 — Exemplary damages

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4936734 — net $1,006.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Exemplary damages using or allowing property to be used for an unlawful purpose	$600.00	Exemplary damages using or allowing property to be used for an unlawful purpose
Lock/key replacement	$195.00	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal	$184.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,006.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,006.00

[The tenant/s] to pay Online Rentals Limited as Agent for Keith Zanders $1,006.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,006.00 (3477995-015) to Online Rentals Limited as Agent for Keith Zanders immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,034.00 (3477995-015) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Mr Meecham and Ms Bish appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant.

The landlord has applied for compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”). Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy – rubbish removal and keys.

The landlord claims the tenant failed to remove all rubbish and failed to return the keys. The landlord is seeking $184.00 for rubbish removal, and $195.00 to re key the locks.

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, and return all keys. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Act.

The landlord has produced photographs showing the property at the end of the tenancy. During the inspection, conducted by Mr Beecham and Ms Bish, an assortment of items and rubbish were found in the high cupboard above the fridge cavity, and in a small garden shed. The photographs also show a coffee table, an old tyre and rim, and the council supplied general waste, recycling waste and glass recycling bins all containing general rubbish.

I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to remove all rubbish. The compensation claimed to remove and dispose of the rubbish is reasonable and awarded in full.

The landlord has produced a photograph showing the keys given to the tenant at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord states that these keys were not returned at the end. I am satisfied that the keys were not returned. The compensation claimed to re key the locks is reasonable and awarded in full. Unlawful purpose

Online Rentals Limited as Agent for Keith Zanders claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, either by using or permitting the property to be used for the consumption of methamphetamine. During the tenancy

On 12 December 2023, the Tribunal dismissed a claim that the tenant had used or permitted the property to be used for an unlawful purpose. During an inspection on 22 September 2023, the landlord had reasons to believe that the property may have been contaminated by an illicit substance. Pre tenancy testing completed on 18 May 2022, did not detect the presence of methamphetamine, showing a composite result of 0.02 μg/100cm² (“ug”). However, discrete testing on 29 September 2023 revealed readings ranging from 10.7ug to 0.55ug. All readings were below 15ug, a threshold set by the Tribunal when determining damage by contamination (see Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Allan [ 2017] NZDC 833).

On 13 October 2024, the landlord filed a claim for termination on the basis that the tenant had used or permitted the property to be used for an unlawful purpose.

To be satisfied that contamination occurred during the tenancy, the Tribunal must be able to make an accurate pre / post tenancy comparison. While the pre / post tenancy testing sites do not necessarily have to be in exactly the same position, they should at least be in close proximity. Analysis of the reports showed that the only site in close proximity pre / post was a door leading from the lounge to a hallway, which returned a reading of 1.5ug. The landlord also produced a photograph showing a set of electronic kitchen scales in a cupboard under the sink. After considering the evidence, the Tribunal was not satisfied to the required standard that contamination had occurred during the tenancy, or that the tenant had used the property for an unlawful purpose. End of tenancy.

The tenancy ended 05 June 2024 after the landlord gave notice intending to offer the property for sale. On 17 June 2024, the landlord conducted post tenancy methamphetamine testing. This time, the landlord provided the technician with the pre tenancy report, and requested that they sample the same sites, which they did. The results revealed readings ranging from 0.04ug to 5.10ug.

The landlord again makes a claim that the tenant has used or allowed the property to be used for an unlawful purpose. In addition to the readings , which are still below 15ug, and the scales located under the bench , the landlord relies on additional evidence found at the property, namely three knives with blackened tips located in the high cupboard above the fridge cavity , which Mr Meecham submits is consistent with them having been used to consume illicit substances , and a small snap lock bag , often referred to as a point bag , which appears in a close up photograph to contain a white powder residue.

The landlord also states the tenant was warned twice for removing the smoke alarms, and once for smoking inside, evidence the landlord states is probative. Mr Meecham states that during the tenancy he had been asked to accompany the property manager because the tenant had become erratic. Law

Under section 40(2)(b) of the Act a tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. The possession of methamphetamine or allowing it to be consumed in a property are both offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.

There is a legal principle known as res judicata which states that once a matter is resolved, it cannot be revisited. Doing so constitutes an abuse of process, and the party seeking to do so should be estopped or barred from doing so.

This principle remains good law, as affirmed in Muir, Bradbury, Peebles, and Maud v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2015] NZHC 792.

Section 80 of the Act states, subject to sections 105 and 117 to 120 (which deals with rehearings and appeals), that every order made by the Tribunal shall, unless expressed to be an interim order, be final and binding on all parties. Decision

The fact that an unlawful act was not proven to have occurred before 29 September 2023, does not in my view prevent a new claim for the period after that date. In this case there is further evidence, in addition to the readings, and the scales, indicating that unlawful acts have more likely than not occurred after 29 September 2023, such as the snap lock bag with the residue, the blackened utensils, and the evidence of the tenant’s behaviour.

On the evidence I am satisfied that the tenant has either used or permitted the property to be used for an unlawful purpose.

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 of the Act.

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) of the Act.

Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. As stated 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.

Mr Meecham submits that the Tribunal should consider awarding exemplary damages to the maximum amount. The landlord has provided written submissions. Mr Meecham has produced results from a ESR meth calculator which provides a guide as to how much methamphetamine would have needed to be smoked to result in the ug level detected. Mr Meecham refers to the kitchen / dining / family room which produced a contamination reading of 2.3ug. The ESR calculator indicates that up to 151 doses of methamphetamine would have had to have been smoked to produce the reading of 2.3ug. Mr Meecham states that this is evidence of repeated use which shows an intention to commit an unlawful act.

Mr Meecham states that the property owner was preparing to sell the property, and that the contamination caused inconvenience and delays.

I accept the landlord’s submission that a clear message should be sent that using or allowing property to be used for unlawful purposes, namely consuming illicit substances is unacceptable and not in the public interest.

However, considering the factors in section 109(3), I am not satisfied that a maximum award is warranted.

There is no evidence that the tenant has previously been found liable for similar conduct. This is not a case of drug dealing from the property or manufacture, which could result in stigma attached to the property. The contamination levels did not reach the threshold requiring remedial cleaning. The landlord was aware of possible contamination on 29 September 2023.

Considering these factors, I find that an order of one-third of the maximum, $600.00, is appropriate. Costs

Because Online Rentals Limited as Agent for Keith Zanders has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression.

No name suppression is sought, and no orders are made.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4936734 — net $1,006.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Exemplary damages using or allowing property to be used for an unlawful purpose	$600.00	Exemplary damages using or allowing property to be used for an unlawful purpose
Lock/key replacement	$195.00	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal	$184.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,006.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,006.00