What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4945195 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For The

How much money was awarded in case 4945195?

Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Methamphetamine De-Contamination: $1,779.22 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4945195?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4945195?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10941398-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4945195 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For The

How much money was awarded in case 4945195?

Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Methamphetamine De-Contamination: $1,779.22 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4945195?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4945195?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10941398-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

23A Percy Street, Kensington, Whangarei 0112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4945195 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4945195 — net $4,106.22 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Methamphetamine de-contamination	$1,779.22	Methamphetamine de-contamination
Damage to bathroom ceiling (insurance excess	$550.00	Damage to bathroom ceiling (insurance excess
Repairs: Damage to garage (insurance excess	$550.00	Repairs: Damage to garage (insurance excess
Exemplary damages: Methamphetamine use	$1,200.00	Methamphetamine use
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	29. I will award exemplary damages of $1,200.00.
Net award	$4,106.22
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,106.22

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For The Golden Trust $4,106.22 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The tenancy ended on 25 June 2024.
The landlord’s application sought rent arrears, water rates, storage costs, change of locks, rubbish removal, repairs, and methamphetamine related costs.
After the application was filed, the bond of $2,760.00 was released to the landlord. The landlord applied the bond to: a. Rent arrears to 25 June 2024 ($492.86). b. Water use to the end of the tenancy ($445.56). c. Change of locks ($280.60). d. Storage costs ($180.00). e. Rubbish removal and transport of belongings ($640.20). f. Methamphetamine de-contamination (partial, $720.78).
The balance of the landlord’s claim seeks repairs and methamphetamine related costs.
The hearing took place in Whangarei on 11 October 2024. Mr Mariner represented the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant. Damage
The claim seeks the amount of the owner’s insurance excess ($550.00) for damage to: a. The bathroom ceiling. b. The garage.
Mr Mariner provided photographs showing what appear to be intentional cuts in the ceiling of the bathroom.
Mr Mariner provided photographs showing impact damage to a storage cupboard located on the back wall of the garage. It appears that Ms Hitchcock hit the cupboard with her vehicle.
The owner made insurance claims for both of these instances of damage. The claims were accepted. The owner paid an excess of $550.00 for each claim.
The damage is beyond fair wear and tear and it occurred during the period of the tenancy. Ms Hitchcock is liable for the cost of the two excesses.
There was other damage to the premises during the tenancy, in particular damage to the walls, damage to kitchen cupboards, and heavy staining on the carpet. The landlord is not pursuing any claim for these costs because remediation of these areas is covered in the de-contamination work that is being done by the owner’s insurer. Methamphetamine
The claim seeks compensation for methamphetamine de-contamination costs, and exemplary damages.
Methamphetamine contamination, at levels that necessitate de-contamination of the premises, constitutes damage to the premises.
There is currently no level specified in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 as the ‘trigger’ for de-contamination.
The Tenancy Tribunal has adopted the recommendation of the Gluckman report, which concluded that contamination at levels below 15 micrograms per 100m2 does not pose any threat to human health and does not necessitate de- contamination 1 .
In any damage claim: a. The landlord must establish that the damage occurred during the period of the tenancy 2 .
Tenants are liable for damage that they cause, and they are also liable for damage caused by anyone who is at the premises with their consent 3 .
The premises were tested for methamphetamine in October 2023, immediately before the start of this tenancy. The result was negative.
The landlord carried out another test in March 2024. The test was positive on a 2-sample composite test, at a level of 1.37 micrograms per 100cm2.
The landlord carried out another test after Ms Hitchcock vacated. The test was positive at a significantly elevated level. The landlord arranged for detailed ‘room by room’ testing, which showed contamination on all ten samples taken from around the property at levels ranging from 0.57 micrograms (bathroom) to
4 micrograms (bedroom). Two areas showed contamination above 15 micrograms.
The landlord holds insurance cover for methamphetamine contamination with an excess of $2,500.00.
I am satisfied that: a. The methamphetamine contamination occurred during Ms Hitchcock’s tenancy. b. One bathroom and the hallway were contaminated above 15 micrograms per 100cm2. 1 This approach was affirmed by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Ltd v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947. It is noted that the Gluckman report recommends de-contamination at levels above 1.5 micrograms per 100cm2 if the cause of the contamination is methamphetamine manufacture rather than methamphetamine use. There is no evidence of methamphetamine manufacture in this instance. 2 Section 49B(8) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 3 Section 41(1) RTA c. Ms Hitchcock is liable for the cost of the detailed testing. The level of contamination necessitated detailed testing to ascertain whether any part of the property was contaminated at a level above 15 micgrograms. d. Ms Hitchkock is liable for the cost of de-contaminating the bedroom and hallway. e. The cost of testing and de-contamination of those areas substantially exceeds the $2,500.00 claimed.
The bond has been applied to part of this cost, leaving a balance of $1,779.22.
It is an unlawful act for the tenant to use the premises, or to permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful activity 4 . The Tenancy Tribunal can award exemplary damages of up to $1,800.00 for that unlawful act.
Methamphetamine use is unlawful. There are grounds for an award of exemplary damages.
In considering an award of exemplary damages the Tribunal must have regard to: 5 a. The intention of the person who committed the unlawful act; and b. The effect of the unlawful act; and c. The interests of the person against whom the act was committed; and d. The public interest.
The Tribunal’s usual approach to exemplary damages is to award one third of the maximum unless there are aggravating or mitigating factors in play 6 .
In this instance it is an aggravating factor that the unlawful activity caused damage to the premises, and a cost and delay for the landlord. It is also relevant that the levels of contamination are high having regard to the relatively brief duration of this tenancy, indicating a significant amount of methamphetamine use at the premises.
I will award exemplary damages of $1,200.00. Filing fee
The landlord has been successful in this application and I must also award the landlord the filing fee of $20.44. 4 Section 40(2)(b) RTA 5 Section 109 RTA 6 Wellington Property Management Ltd v Hardie [2022] NZTT 4399281 4374781 N Blake, 11 October 2024

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4945195 — net $4,106.22 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Methamphetamine de-contamination	$1,779.22	Methamphetamine de-contamination
Damage to bathroom ceiling (insurance excess	$550.00	Damage to bathroom ceiling (insurance excess
Repairs: Damage to garage (insurance excess	$550.00	Repairs: Damage to garage (insurance excess
Exemplary damages: Methamphetamine use	$1,200.00	Methamphetamine use
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	29. I will award exemplary damages of $1,200.00.
Net award	$4,106.22
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,106.22

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For The Golden Trust $4,106.22 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The tenancy ended on 25 June 2024.
The landlord’s application sought rent arrears, water rates, storage costs, change of locks, rubbish removal, repairs, and methamphetamine related costs.
After the application was filed, the bond of $2,760.00 was released to the landlord. The landlord applied the bond to: a. Rent arrears to 25 June 2024 ($492.86). b. Water use to the end of the tenancy ($445.56). c. Change of locks ($280.60). d. Storage costs ($180.00). e. Rubbish removal and transport of belongings ($640.20). f. Methamphetamine de-contamination (partial, $720.78).
The balance of the landlord’s claim seeks repairs and methamphetamine related costs.
The hearing took place in Whangarei on 11 October 2024. Mr Mariner represented the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant. Damage
The claim seeks the amount of the owner’s insurance excess ($550.00) for damage to: a. The bathroom ceiling. b. The garage.
Mr Mariner provided photographs showing what appear to be intentional cuts in the ceiling of the bathroom.
Mr Mariner provided photographs showing impact damage to a storage cupboard located on the back wall of the garage. It appears that Ms Hitchcock hit the cupboard with her vehicle.
The owner made insurance claims for both of these instances of damage. The claims were accepted. The owner paid an excess of $550.00 for each claim.
The damage is beyond fair wear and tear and it occurred during the period of the tenancy. Ms Hitchcock is liable for the cost of the two excesses.
There was other damage to the premises during the tenancy, in particular damage to the walls, damage to kitchen cupboards, and heavy staining on the carpet. The landlord is not pursuing any claim for these costs because remediation of these areas is covered in the de-contamination work that is being done by the owner’s insurer. Methamphetamine
The claim seeks compensation for methamphetamine de-contamination costs, and exemplary damages.
Methamphetamine contamination, at levels that necessitate de-contamination of the premises, constitutes damage to the premises.
There is currently no level specified in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 as the ‘trigger’ for de-contamination.
The Tenancy Tribunal has adopted the recommendation of the Gluckman report, which concluded that contamination at levels below 15 micrograms per 100m2 does not pose any threat to human health and does not necessitate de- contamination 1 .
In any damage claim: a. The landlord must establish that the damage occurred during the period of the tenancy 2 .
Tenants are liable for damage that they cause, and they are also liable for damage caused by anyone who is at the premises with their consent 3 .
The premises were tested for methamphetamine in October 2023, immediately before the start of this tenancy. The result was negative.
The landlord carried out another test in March 2024. The test was positive on a 2-sample composite test, at a level of 1.37 micrograms per 100cm2.
The landlord carried out another test after Ms Hitchcock vacated. The test was positive at a significantly elevated level. The landlord arranged for detailed ‘room by room’ testing, which showed contamination on all ten samples taken from around the property at levels ranging from 0.57 micrograms (bathroom) to
4 micrograms (bedroom). Two areas showed contamination above 15 micrograms.
The landlord holds insurance cover for methamphetamine contamination with an excess of $2,500.00.
I am satisfied that: a. The methamphetamine contamination occurred during Ms Hitchcock’s tenancy. b. One bathroom and the hallway were contaminated above 15 micrograms per 100cm2. 1 This approach was affirmed by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Ltd v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947. It is noted that the Gluckman report recommends de-contamination at levels above 1.5 micrograms per 100cm2 if the cause of the contamination is methamphetamine manufacture rather than methamphetamine use. There is no evidence of methamphetamine manufacture in this instance. 2 Section 49B(8) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 3 Section 41(1) RTA c. Ms Hitchcock is liable for the cost of the detailed testing. The level of contamination necessitated detailed testing to ascertain whether any part of the property was contaminated at a level above 15 micgrograms. d. Ms Hitchkock is liable for the cost of de-contaminating the bedroom and hallway. e. The cost of testing and de-contamination of those areas substantially exceeds the $2,500.00 claimed.
The bond has been applied to part of this cost, leaving a balance of $1,779.22.
It is an unlawful act for the tenant to use the premises, or to permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful activity 4 . The Tenancy Tribunal can award exemplary damages of up to $1,800.00 for that unlawful act.
Methamphetamine use is unlawful. There are grounds for an award of exemplary damages.
In considering an award of exemplary damages the Tribunal must have regard to: 5 a. The intention of the person who committed the unlawful act; and b. The effect of the unlawful act; and c. The interests of the person against whom the act was committed; and d. The public interest.
The Tribunal’s usual approach to exemplary damages is to award one third of the maximum unless there are aggravating or mitigating factors in play 6 .
In this instance it is an aggravating factor that the unlawful activity caused damage to the premises, and a cost and delay for the landlord. It is also relevant that the levels of contamination are high having regard to the relatively brief duration of this tenancy, indicating a significant amount of methamphetamine use at the premises.
I will award exemplary damages of $1,200.00. Filing fee
The landlord has been successful in this application and I must also award the landlord the filing fee of $20.44. 4 Section 40(2)(b) RTA 5 Section 109 RTA 6 Wellington Property Management Ltd v Hardie [2022] NZTT 4399281 4374781 N Blake, 11 October 2024

Tenancy Tribunal case 4945195 — Exemplary damages at 23A Percy Street, Kensington, Whangarei 0112

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4945195 — Exemplary damages at 23A Percy Street, Kensington, Whangarei 0112

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions