How much money was awarded in case 4938439?

Cleaning: $1,469.27 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4938439?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4938439?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10852842-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4938439?

Cleaning: $1,469.27 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4938439?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4938439?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10852842-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 3, 12 Airedale Place, Christchurch Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4938439 — Cleanliness

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4938439?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Vanatee Tamati at Unit/Flat 3, 12 Airedale Place, Christchurch

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4938439 — net $2,184.27 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Meth testing/Cleaning	$1,469.27	Meth testing/Cleaning
Exemplary damages	$1,000.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,184.27
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,184.27

The tenancy of Vanatee Tamati at Unit/Flat 3, 12 Airedale Place, Christchurch Central, Christchurch 8013, Airedale Courts is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 5pm on Sunday 6 October 2024.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $312.00 (3138036-009) to Otautahi Community Housing Trust immediately.

Vanatee Tamati must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $2,184.27 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

Mr Woodbury and Ms Wyatt attended for the landlord.

The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission, and/or breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).

The landlord also claims compensation for the costs of methamphetamine testing and exemplary damages.

This is the rehearing of an application originally determined on 1 August 2024.

The claim for compensation for methamphetamine testing and the claim for termination for breach of s40(2)(b) of the Act (using the premises for an unlawful purpose) were added to the landlord’s claim after the first hearing.

Both the landlord and tenant had witnesses who appeared in support under a promise to tell the truth.

Both parties provided background and other information which, while useful to gain a picture of the tenancy, was not necessary in determining the outcome.

All material provided and all evidence given has been considered but may not be referred to in this order if it is not necessary to do so.

The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour includes using unauthorised common areas, allowing other non-tenants to use such areas, intimidation and abuse and interference with the reasonable peace of other tenants including at night.

Subject to certain considerations, the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied: a. on 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period the tenant, or a person in the premises with the tenant’s permission, engaged in anti-social behaviour in connection with the tenancy; and b. on each occasion the landlord gave the tenant written notice— i. describing clearly which specific behaviour was considered to be anti-social and (if known to the landlord) who engaged in it; and ii. advising the tenant of the date, approximate time, and location of the behaviour; and iii. stating how many other notices (if any) the landlord has given the tenant under this paragraph in connection with the same tenancy and the same 90-day period; and iv. advising the tenant of the tenant’s right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notice and; c. the landlord’s application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days after the landlord gave the third notice.

The Act confirms that antisocial behaviour includes harassment or any act (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor.

I have taken into account the evidence presented by the parties.

The Tribunal heard from a landlord witness who said he had seen and heard people, who he did not recognise, coming and going from a communal laundry over two nights on 6 and 7 July 2024.

This laundry is not one to which the tenant has authorised access and tenants are not permitted to use laundries outside of designated hours. They are also not permitted to allow non-tenants to access communal areas.

Two of the anti-social behaviour notices relate to events over these two nights.

The witness could not identify the tenant as being one of the people he saw over these two nights.

Another witness gave evidence that she found washing in the laundry after the night in question which she knew to belong to the tenant.

The tenant accepted that the washing was hers but said another occupant had done it for her and she had never been to the laundry room in question.

The third antisocial behaviour notice related to events on 8 July 2024 when the tenant allegedly verbally abused two landlord contactors who were at the premises completing work. An email was provided to support this accusation.

Another tenant was also abused around the same time, and this was overheard by the landlord handyman who gave evidence in person.

The tenant acknowledged that she was stressed at this time as her child was unwell. She said she could not remember precisely but accepted that she may have behaved as alleged.

The landlord has served notices on the tenant as required in the Act, and the application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days of the date of the third notice.

I have determined that the landlord has not established that anti-social behaviour has occurred on the premises by the tenant or a person on the tenancy with the tenant’s permission in relation to the two notices for 6 and 7 July. There is insufficient evidence before the Tribunal that the tenant was the person improperly accessing the laundry and/or allowing others to do so.

The landlord’s claim for termination for anti-social behaviour must fail.

Should the tenancy be terminated for other breaches?

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

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 under section 56(1) of the Act.

Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.

However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate.

The landlord alleges that the tenant has breached their obligations by failing, on two occasions, to allow access for methamphetamine testing despite appropriate notice having been given by the landlord.

On the first occasion the landlord could not gain access because the original fire safe door has been removed and replaced with a non-compliant door for which the landlord did not have keys.

No permission was sought or given for the replacement door or the change of locks.

The non-compliant door was replaced with a new fire safe door and the landlord changed the locks.

Another complying notice was sent for a methamphetamine test scheduled for 19 July 2024.

The tenant was home on that occasion and did not allow the landlord to enter.

Following the 1 August hearing, the tenant did allow access for methamphetamine testing, which was then carried out, so I consider that this breach has, as much as possible, now been remedied and it would not be inequitable to refuse to terminate for this breach.

The landlord claims that the tenant has also breached her obligations by using the premises or permitting the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose, being use or manufacture of methamphetamine.

It is unlawful under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 to use methamphetamine.

The landlord provided a pre-tenancy methamphetamine report which showed low levels of methamphetamine at the property.

This testing was completed some nine weeks before the tenancy began.

The landlord provided evidence of all the tradespeople who had visited the property between the testing and the commencement of the tenancy.

Tradespeople included a locksmith who visited on 11 April 2023; a painter, rubbish removal people and an electrician visited on 13 April 2023; a final clean was completed on 17 th April 2023.

The unit manager employed by the landlord confirmed by email that he checked on this work while it was in progress.

After this date, various prospective tenants were shown through the property always in the company of the landlord’s employees.

The tenancy began on 30 May 2023.

The fire door was replaced in July 2024 as detailed above.

A methamphetamine test was completed on 28 August 2024. Initial sampling showed that methamphetamine was present at a higher level than the pre- tenancy testing showed.

A detailed assessment report was then conducted which showed methamphetamine at levels up to 40μg/100cm². This is well above the levels considered by this Tribunal to require remediation.

Six of twelve separate testing sites showed levels over 15μg/100cm².

The fire door which had been replaced with a new door about six weeks prior to this testing gave a level of 9.9μg/100cm².

The tenant had no explanation for the methamphetamine contamination.

I find that the tenant has breached her obligations by using the premises or permitting the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose, being use or manufacture of methamphetamine.

I consider that the breach is of such a nature or such an extent that it would be inequitable not to order termination for this breach. Compensation

The landlord claimed for the cost of methamphetamine testing being $1,469.27.

The landlord provided the methamphetamine testing reports and invoices to support its claim.

The amount ordered is proved. Exemplary damages

Otautahi Community Housing Trust claims the tenant has interfered with means of escape from fire.

A tenant must not cause or permit any interference with, or render inoperative, any means of escape from fire within the meaning of the Building Act 2004 under section 40(2)(ab) of the Act. The definition of “means of escape” includes “all active and passive protection features required to warn people of fire...”,.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $4,000.00. See section 40(3A)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant removed a fire door and replaced it with a door that does not comply.

She also covered the escape lights with paper and/or tape to render them inoperable.

She also left items in the hallways thereby creating obstacles for escape from fire.

I find they have committed an unlawful act in relation to s40(2)(ab).

Otautahi Community Housing Trust also claims that the tenant changed locks on the front door twice without authority to do so.

This 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 of the Act.

I find they have committed an unlawful act in relation to s46(3).

Otautahi Community Housing Trust further claims 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.

The tenant refused the landlord entry for methamphetamine testing on two occasions after appropriate notice was given.

I find they have committed an unlawful act in failing to allow lawful access.

Otautahi Community Housing Trust further claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by using or permitting someone to use methamphetamine at the premises.

A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose under 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.

For reasons also outlined above, I find that the tenant has committed an unlawful act in using or permitting someone else to use the premises for an unlawful purpose.

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

In relation to the removal of the fire door and replacement with a non-complying door, the tenant said that an acquaintance of hers has damaged the door when she was away from the property. She had returned and attempted to repair the damage herself by replacing the door with another.

She said she had not realised that the landlord would have to replace the door with a fire door and had thought she was doing the right thing by fixing the door herself. This also necessitated the first lock change (also an unlawful act).

The tenant also provided a reasonable explanation for the second lock change so I consider that there was no intention to commit an unlawful act and no exemplary damages should flow from these breaches.

The landlord also claimed that the tenant committed an unlawful act for which exemplary damages should be paid in relation to refusing access for the methamphetamine testing.

I have already determined that this was remedied as far as possible by the granting of access for that purpose, so I do not consider that exemplary damages are appropriate for this breach.

In relation to placing items in the hallways and public areas, covering safety lights with tape, I find that the tenant’s actions were intentional.

These are serious breaches and relate to the tenant’s own safety and to the safety of others in the building. I consider that it is in the public interest to award exemplary damages.

In relation to using or permitting someone to use the property for an unlawful purpose, I also find that the breach was intentional. The levels proven are high and require the property to be remediated.

Whilst this is happening, the property is unavailable for other deserving tenants and the cost has to be borne by the landlord meaning funds are diverted from other worthy uses.

The landlord has a zero tolerance for methamphetamine use at its properties for these reasons and makes this clear to tenants prior to tenancies commencing.

It is in the public interest that people who allow properties to be used for unlawful purposes should be deterred from doing so again.

I award $1,000.00 to the landlord for these unlawful acts.

As Otautahi Community Housing Trust has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4938439 — net $2,184.27 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Meth testing/Cleaning	$1,469.27	Meth testing/Cleaning
Exemplary damages	$1,000.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,184.27
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,184.27