What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4938193 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 4938193?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $20.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $131.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4938193?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4938193?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10926845-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4938193 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 4938193?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $20.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $131.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4938193?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4938193?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10926845-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

79A Leyland Road, Whakamarama, RD 7, Whakamarama Tenancy Tribunal Case 4938193 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4938193 — net $798.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears as at 17 June 2024	$131.43		Rent arrears as at 17 June 2024
Insurance excess	$2,500.00		Insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation for repair of shower cubicle leak		$20.00	Compensation for repair of shower cubicle leak
Total award	$2,658.43	$20.00
Net award	$798.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$798.43

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s and Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The Tenant must pay the Landlord $798.43 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1840.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to the Landlord immediately.

Reasons

Both the landlord and the tenant have made a claim against the other.
Both parties attended the hearing which was held at [Event location suppressed]. The owner of the premises was telephoned twice and his evidence was also listened to during the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, reimbursement of an insurance excess, payment of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has made a claim for compensation for work done at the premises, exemplary damages for providing a house which is contaminated by methamphetamine, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
I will address each of the claims in turn. Landlord’s claim

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on Monday 17 June 2024 and the tenant moved out on that day. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy - $131.43. Methamphetamine contamination
I accept the evidence showing that 4 months before the tenant commenced living at the premises a methamphetamine test showed that there was no detectable methamphetamine contamination in the house.
I also accept that a test done two days after the tenant vacated the premises showed the presence of methamphetamine in the house and that a subsequent test done on 1 July 2024 showed that the levels of methamphetamine were as follows : 10.8ug/100cm 2 in the kitchen, 7.4ug/100cm 2 in the dining room,
0ug/100cm 2 in the lounge and 20.0ug/100cm 2 in bedroom 1.
For a number of years now the Tenancy Tribunal has accepted and applied District Court decisions (eg Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947) where the level at which premises can be considered contaminated by methamphetamine is 15ug/100cm 2 and above.
This means that in this case the lounge and bedroom 1 can be considered contaminated.
As the applicant in this part of the claim, the landlord must prove their case on the balance of probabilities.
Firstly, the landlord must prove that the contamination occurred during the tenancy.
The tenant states that he has never smoked methamphetamine and that the landlord is unable to show that the contamination occurred during his tenancy because the test was done four months before his tenancy began.
However, I am satisfied that more likely than not the contamination occurred during this tenancy. I say this because: (a) I accept the owner’s evidence that the premises were vacant during this four month period. The owner shares a driveway with the tenanted premises and can see whether there was anyone in the cottage from his residence. (b) While I accept that the tenant did not use methamphetamine, his partner came to stay for a four month period in total during his tenancy. This is when I think the contamination occurred.
Having found that the methamphetamine contamination occurred during the tenant’s tenancy, the second matter that needs to be determined is whether the tenant ought to pay the $2,500.00 insurance excess that the landlord has paid to have the premises decontaminated.
The tenant states that he ought not to have to pay this amount because he was not the person who contaminated the premises, and because the tenancy agreement shows that the insurance excess is $1,000.00 and not the $2,500.00 claimed.
Section 49B(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from activity which is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person for whom they are responsible.
Given that the tenant’s partner was residing at the premises with his consent, I find that the tenant is responsible for paying the insurance excess claimed - $2,500.00. That is the amount that the landlord has had to pay with regard to contamination of the premises.
With regard to the $1,000.00 insurance excess noted in the tenancy agreement, that excess relates only to careless damage. It is a statutory requirement that the insurance excess in relation to careless damage is noted in a tenancy agreement because with regard to careless damage, a tenant’s liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks’ rent.
Methamphetamine contamination is not careless damage and so the $1,000.00 insurance excess noted in the agreement does not apply. Filing fee reimbursement
The landlord was wholly successful in the claim they have made against the tenant and so the tenant is required to reimburse them the filing fee. Tenant’s claim Work done at premises
The tenant claims a total of $150.00 compensation for work done at the premises including cleaning of dirty blinds and curtains, weeding in and around the section including under the veranda, cleaning out the toilet cistern and repairing a leak in the shower cubicle.
I am not allowing the claims for compensation regarding the weeding and cleaning. This is because the landlord was not advised of these issues until 3 months after the tenancy began and there was no objective evidence provided showing that these issues were present at the beginning of the tenancy.
In the absence of any concrete evidence of the cost of repairing the leak, I am allowing $20.00 compensation for this. It was accepted that there was a leak and that the tenant repaired it. Exemplary damages
Given my findings above relating to methamphetamine contamination, I am dismissing the tenant’s claim for exemplary damages. Filing fee reimbursement
I am not ordering the landlord to reimburse the filing fee to the tenant because the tenant was not wholly or substantially successful in his claim against the landlord. Suppression of names
Section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that: (1) The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to the proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. (2) An order may be subject to any conditions that the Tribunal considers appropriate. (3) If a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings applies for an order that their name or identifying particulars not be published, the Tribunal must make the order unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest, or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
I am allowing the landlord’s application for suppression of their name because they were wholly successful in their claim – see s95A(3).
I am allowing suppression of the tenant’s name as per the provisions of s95A(1). I do so because I accept that the tenant himself was not responsible for the contamination and having his name published would have a disproportionately negative effect on his ability to obtain a tenancy in the future. I also note that the landlord supported the suppression of the tenant’s name. C ter Haar 08 October 2024

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4938193 — net $798.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears as at 17 June 2024	$131.43		Rent arrears as at 17 June 2024
Insurance excess	$2,500.00		Insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation for repair of shower cubicle leak		$20.00	Compensation for repair of shower cubicle leak
Total award	$2,658.43	$20.00
Net award	$798.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$798.43

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s and Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The Tenant must pay the Landlord $798.43 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1840.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to the Landlord immediately.

Reasons

Both the landlord and the tenant have made a claim against the other.
Both parties attended the hearing which was held at [Event location suppressed]. The owner of the premises was telephoned twice and his evidence was also listened to during the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, reimbursement of an insurance excess, payment of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has made a claim for compensation for work done at the premises, exemplary damages for providing a house which is contaminated by methamphetamine, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
I will address each of the claims in turn. Landlord’s claim

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on Monday 17 June 2024 and the tenant moved out on that day. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy - $131.43. Methamphetamine contamination
I accept the evidence showing that 4 months before the tenant commenced living at the premises a methamphetamine test showed that there was no detectable methamphetamine contamination in the house.
I also accept that a test done two days after the tenant vacated the premises showed the presence of methamphetamine in the house and that a subsequent test done on 1 July 2024 showed that the levels of methamphetamine were as follows : 10.8ug/100cm 2 in the kitchen, 7.4ug/100cm 2 in the dining room,
0ug/100cm 2 in the lounge and 20.0ug/100cm 2 in bedroom 1.
For a number of years now the Tenancy Tribunal has accepted and applied District Court decisions (eg Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947) where the level at which premises can be considered contaminated by methamphetamine is 15ug/100cm 2 and above.
This means that in this case the lounge and bedroom 1 can be considered contaminated.
As the applicant in this part of the claim, the landlord must prove their case on the balance of probabilities.
Firstly, the landlord must prove that the contamination occurred during the tenancy.
The tenant states that he has never smoked methamphetamine and that the landlord is unable to show that the contamination occurred during his tenancy because the test was done four months before his tenancy began.
However, I am satisfied that more likely than not the contamination occurred during this tenancy. I say this because: (a) I accept the owner’s evidence that the premises were vacant during this four month period. The owner shares a driveway with the tenanted premises and can see whether there was anyone in the cottage from his residence. (b) While I accept that the tenant did not use methamphetamine, his partner came to stay for a four month period in total during his tenancy. This is when I think the contamination occurred.
Having found that the methamphetamine contamination occurred during the tenant’s tenancy, the second matter that needs to be determined is whether the tenant ought to pay the $2,500.00 insurance excess that the landlord has paid to have the premises decontaminated.
The tenant states that he ought not to have to pay this amount because he was not the person who contaminated the premises, and because the tenancy agreement shows that the insurance excess is $1,000.00 and not the $2,500.00 claimed.
Section 49B(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from activity which is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person for whom they are responsible.
Given that the tenant’s partner was residing at the premises with his consent, I find that the tenant is responsible for paying the insurance excess claimed - $2,500.00. That is the amount that the landlord has had to pay with regard to contamination of the premises.
With regard to the $1,000.00 insurance excess noted in the tenancy agreement, that excess relates only to careless damage. It is a statutory requirement that the insurance excess in relation to careless damage is noted in a tenancy agreement because with regard to careless damage, a tenant’s liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks’ rent.
Methamphetamine contamination is not careless damage and so the $1,000.00 insurance excess noted in the agreement does not apply. Filing fee reimbursement
The landlord was wholly successful in the claim they have made against the tenant and so the tenant is required to reimburse them the filing fee. Tenant’s claim Work done at premises
The tenant claims a total of $150.00 compensation for work done at the premises including cleaning of dirty blinds and curtains, weeding in and around the section including under the veranda, cleaning out the toilet cistern and repairing a leak in the shower cubicle.
I am not allowing the claims for compensation regarding the weeding and cleaning. This is because the landlord was not advised of these issues until 3 months after the tenancy began and there was no objective evidence provided showing that these issues were present at the beginning of the tenancy.
In the absence of any concrete evidence of the cost of repairing the leak, I am allowing $20.00 compensation for this. It was accepted that there was a leak and that the tenant repaired it. Exemplary damages
Given my findings above relating to methamphetamine contamination, I am dismissing the tenant’s claim for exemplary damages. Filing fee reimbursement
I am not ordering the landlord to reimburse the filing fee to the tenant because the tenant was not wholly or substantially successful in his claim against the landlord. Suppression of names
Section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that: (1) The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to the proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. (2) An order may be subject to any conditions that the Tribunal considers appropriate. (3) If a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings applies for an order that their name or identifying particulars not be published, the Tribunal must make the order unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest, or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
I am allowing the landlord’s application for suppression of their name because they were wholly successful in their claim – see s95A(3).
I am allowing suppression of the tenant’s name as per the provisions of s95A(1). I do so because I accept that the tenant himself was not responsible for the contamination and having his name published would have a disproportionately negative effect on his ability to obtain a tenancy in the future. I also note that the landlord supported the suppression of the tenant’s name. C ter Haar 08 October 2024

Tenancy Tribunal case 4938193 — Property damage at 79A Leyland Road, Whakamarama, RD 7, Whakamarama

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4938193 — Property damage at 79A Leyland Road, Whakamarama, RD 7, Whakamarama

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions