What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4994168 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 4994168?

Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing: $827.54 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $757.14 awarded to landlord; Replace Remote: $63.59 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4994168?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4994168?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11202760-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4994168 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 4994168?

Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing: $827.54 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $757.14 awarded to landlord; Replace Remote: $63.59 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4994168?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4994168?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11202760-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4994168 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4994168 — net $668.27 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 29 April 2024	$757.14	Rent arrears to 29 April 2024
Meth testing	$827.54	Meth testing
Replace remote	$63.59	Replace remote
Exemplary damages - premises used for an unlawful purpose (methamphetamine	$600.00	Exemplary damages - premises used for an unlawful purpose (methamphetamine
Net award	$668.27
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$668.27

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord names and identifying details. 2. 3.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 21 May 2020.
[The tenant/s] is a social housing provider. [The tenant/s] sub-let the premises to its clients, with the landlord’s consent.
The tenancy ended on 29 April 2024.
The landlord’s application seeks rent arrears, change of locks, methamphetamine related costs, and exemplary damages.
The tenant’s application disputes parts of the landlord’s claim and raises issues relating to bond top-up payments during the tenancy, and failure to disclose the methamphetamine insurance excess in the tenancy agreement.
The hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 20 November 2024. Both parties attended the hearing. [The landlord’s representative] represented the landlord. [The tenant’s representative] represented the tenant. Landlord application Rent arrears
The landlord’s rent record shows rent arrears of $757.14.
The original intended end date of the tenancy was extended by agreement.
The tenant surrendered possession and returned the keys to the landlord on 29 April 2024.
The tenant is liable for rent to that date.
The amount of arrears is proven. Change of locks and replacement of remote control
The claim seeks $342.00 for change of locks and replacement of a remote control.
The tenant returned the keys, but not the remote, on 29 April.
[The landlord’s representative] explained that the landlord changed the locks before that date due to concerns that the sub-tenant may have made copies of the key.
The tenant’s only legal duty in respect of keys is to return to the landlord all of the keys that were provided to them at the beginning of the tenancy. [The tenant/s] met that duty. There is no basis to hold [The tenant/s] liable for the change of locks.
The garage door remote was not returned to the landlord. Per the invoice from [Locksmiths], the cost of replacing the remote was $63.59. [The tenant/s] is liable for this cost. Methamphetamine
The premises were tested for methamphetamine shortly before the start of this tenancy. No methamphetamine was present at that time.
The premises were tested again at the end of the tenancy.
The initial composite test was positive at composite level of 4.8 micrograms per 100cm2 on a nine-sample test.
Further testing showed individual levels of contamination ranging from 0.09 micrograms (dining room wall sample) to 10.5 micrograms (lounge door sample).
The owner has insurance for methamphetamine contamination. De- contamination was carried out by the landlord’s insurer. The owner paid the policy excess of $2,500.
The landlord claims the amount of the insurance excess for de-contamination, plus testing costs, and exemplary damages.
Methamphetamine contamination, at levels that necessitate de-contamination, 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 adopted the recommendations of the Gluckman report, which concluded that de-contamination is required if contamination is present at levels of 15 micrograms per 100cm2 or above 1 . This approach was approved by the District Court 2 , and has been applied in many hundreds of Tenancy Tribunal decisions since late 2018.
In this instance there is no evidence that any part of the premises was contaminated at a level above 15 micrograms.
Therefore, the tenant is not liable for any of the de-contamination costs.
The claim for testing costs includes the end of tenancy composite test, the detailed test, and the post de-contamination test.
The tenant is not liable for the end of tenancy composite test. This is a test that the landlord routinely carries out between tenancies. 1 If the contamination is due to methamphetamine use. If there is evidence of methamphetamine manufacture, the Gluckman report recommends de-contamination if contamination is present at levels of 1,5 micgrograms per 100cm. There is no evidence of methamphetamine manufacture in this instance. 2 Full Circle Real Estate Ltd v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947
The tenant is not liable for the post de-contamination test. For the reasons set out above, the level of contamination in these premises did not (from the Tenancy Tribunal’s perspective) necessitate de-contamination.
The tenant is liable for the detailed testing cost. The amount of contamination found on the end of tenancy composite test meant that detailed testing was necessary to determine whether there was contamination at a level above 15 micrograms. This was only necessary because the tenant breached their duty to not use the premises for an unlawful purpose. 3
It is an unlawful act for the tenant to use the premises, or to permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful activity. The Tenancy Tribunal can award exemplary damages of up to $1,800.00 for that unlawful act.
The test results prove that there was methamphetamine use at the premises during the tenancy. Methamphetamine use is unlawful.
There is a slightly unusual aspect of the claim in that the premises were sub-let. The unlawful activity was carried out by [The tenant/s] sub-tenants and there is no evidence to suggest that [The tenant/s] were aware of the unlawful activity. Exemplary damages are intended to punish and deter certain types of breaches, and it is unusual to award exemplary damages against persons or organisations who are not personally responsible for the breach.
However, I accept that both parties entered into the agreement on the understanding that [The tenant/s] would be responsible to the landlord for the actions of its sub-tenants.
On that basis, I will award exemplary damages for the proven breach.
In considering an award of exemplary damages the Tribunal must have regard to: 4 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 5 .
There are no significant aggravating or mitigating factors in this instance. I will award exemplary damages of $600.00. 3 Section 40(2)(b) RTA 4 Section 109 RTA 5 Wellington Property Management Ltd v Hardie [2022] NZTT 4399281 4374781 Tenant application Bond top up payments
[The tenant/s] was asked to pay, and did pay, an amount to top up the bond when the landlord increased the rent during the tenancy. 6
The landlord did not forward these top up bond payments to the Bond Centre. The landlord treated the payments as rent. It seems that this was because the payments were made at the same time as the rent was paid, and it was not clear that the top up payments were bond rather than rent.
At the hearing [The tenant’s representative] clarified that [The tenant/s] is not seeking exemplary damages in respect of this issue. [The tenant’s representative] only wanted to ensure that all of the payments were received and credited.
[The landlord’s representative] undertook to investigate this and confirm with [The tenant’s representative]. Insurance excess for methamphetamine
Landlords must include an insurance statement in the tenancy agreement. The insurance statement must set out: 7 For each insurance policy that is relevant to the tenant’s liability for destruction or damage to the premises, the amount of each excess that is relevant (if any) to that liability
There was an insurance statement in this tenancy agreement. The statement noted the landlord’s insurance policy number and stated that there was an excess of $550.00.
That is the excess that applies for damage to the property, but there is a different excess, $2,500.00 for methamphetamine de-contamination.
I accept [The tenant’s representative]’s argument that the insurance statement should set out all of the excesses that are relevant to the tenant’s liability, and therefore the statement should have also set out the methamphetamine de- contamination excess.
Failure to include an insurance statement that contains all of the information required by law is an unlawful act, and exemplary damages of up to $750.00 can apply.
I will not make an award of exemplary damages in this instance for the following reasons: 6 Section 18(2) RTA 7 Section 13A(2)(b) RTA a. The breach is relatively minor and technical. b. The breach was not intentional. c. The Tenancy Tribunal cannot award exemplary damages if the application is made more than 12 months after the commission of the unlawful act. 8 Filing fee, name suppression, bond
Both parties were partially successful in their applications. Both are entitled to be awarded the amount of the filing fee. Because the net effect of this is zero, I have not recorded this in the table of costs above.
Both parties sought name suppression. Name suppression is granted to both parties on the grounds that they were successful in the proceedings in different respects. 9
The bond will be released to the landlord.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4994168 — net $668.27 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 29 April 2024	$757.14	Rent arrears to 29 April 2024
Meth testing	$827.54	Meth testing
Replace remote	$63.59	Replace remote
Exemplary damages - premises used for an unlawful purpose (methamphetamine	$600.00	Exemplary damages - premises used for an unlawful purpose (methamphetamine
Net award	$668.27
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$668.27

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord names and identifying details. 2. 3.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 21 May 2020.
[The tenant/s] is a social housing provider. [The tenant/s] sub-let the premises to its clients, with the landlord’s consent.
The tenancy ended on 29 April 2024.
The landlord’s application seeks rent arrears, change of locks, methamphetamine related costs, and exemplary damages.
The tenant’s application disputes parts of the landlord’s claim and raises issues relating to bond top-up payments during the tenancy, and failure to disclose the methamphetamine insurance excess in the tenancy agreement.
The hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 20 November 2024. Both parties attended the hearing. [The landlord’s representative] represented the landlord. [The tenant’s representative] represented the tenant. Landlord application Rent arrears
The landlord’s rent record shows rent arrears of $757.14.
The original intended end date of the tenancy was extended by agreement.
The tenant surrendered possession and returned the keys to the landlord on 29 April 2024.
The tenant is liable for rent to that date.
The amount of arrears is proven. Change of locks and replacement of remote control
The claim seeks $342.00 for change of locks and replacement of a remote control.
The tenant returned the keys, but not the remote, on 29 April.
[The landlord’s representative] explained that the landlord changed the locks before that date due to concerns that the sub-tenant may have made copies of the key.
The tenant’s only legal duty in respect of keys is to return to the landlord all of the keys that were provided to them at the beginning of the tenancy. [The tenant/s] met that duty. There is no basis to hold [The tenant/s] liable for the change of locks.
The garage door remote was not returned to the landlord. Per the invoice from [Locksmiths], the cost of replacing the remote was $63.59. [The tenant/s] is liable for this cost. Methamphetamine
The premises were tested for methamphetamine shortly before the start of this tenancy. No methamphetamine was present at that time.
The premises were tested again at the end of the tenancy.
The initial composite test was positive at composite level of 4.8 micrograms per 100cm2 on a nine-sample test.
Further testing showed individual levels of contamination ranging from 0.09 micrograms (dining room wall sample) to 10.5 micrograms (lounge door sample).
The owner has insurance for methamphetamine contamination. De- contamination was carried out by the landlord’s insurer. The owner paid the policy excess of $2,500.
The landlord claims the amount of the insurance excess for de-contamination, plus testing costs, and exemplary damages.
Methamphetamine contamination, at levels that necessitate de-contamination, 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 adopted the recommendations of the Gluckman report, which concluded that de-contamination is required if contamination is present at levels of 15 micrograms per 100cm2 or above 1 . This approach was approved by the District Court 2 , and has been applied in many hundreds of Tenancy Tribunal decisions since late 2018.
In this instance there is no evidence that any part of the premises was contaminated at a level above 15 micrograms.
Therefore, the tenant is not liable for any of the de-contamination costs.
The claim for testing costs includes the end of tenancy composite test, the detailed test, and the post de-contamination test.
The tenant is not liable for the end of tenancy composite test. This is a test that the landlord routinely carries out between tenancies. 1 If the contamination is due to methamphetamine use. If there is evidence of methamphetamine manufacture, the Gluckman report recommends de-contamination if contamination is present at levels of 1,5 micgrograms per 100cm. There is no evidence of methamphetamine manufacture in this instance. 2 Full Circle Real Estate Ltd v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947
The tenant is not liable for the post de-contamination test. For the reasons set out above, the level of contamination in these premises did not (from the Tenancy Tribunal’s perspective) necessitate de-contamination.
The tenant is liable for the detailed testing cost. The amount of contamination found on the end of tenancy composite test meant that detailed testing was necessary to determine whether there was contamination at a level above 15 micrograms. This was only necessary because the tenant breached their duty to not use the premises for an unlawful purpose. 3
It is an unlawful act for the tenant to use the premises, or to permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful activity. The Tenancy Tribunal can award exemplary damages of up to $1,800.00 for that unlawful act.
The test results prove that there was methamphetamine use at the premises during the tenancy. Methamphetamine use is unlawful.
There is a slightly unusual aspect of the claim in that the premises were sub-let. The unlawful activity was carried out by [The tenant/s] sub-tenants and there is no evidence to suggest that [The tenant/s] were aware of the unlawful activity. Exemplary damages are intended to punish and deter certain types of breaches, and it is unusual to award exemplary damages against persons or organisations who are not personally responsible for the breach.
However, I accept that both parties entered into the agreement on the understanding that [The tenant/s] would be responsible to the landlord for the actions of its sub-tenants.
On that basis, I will award exemplary damages for the proven breach.
In considering an award of exemplary damages the Tribunal must have regard to: 4 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 5 .
There are no significant aggravating or mitigating factors in this instance. I will award exemplary damages of $600.00. 3 Section 40(2)(b) RTA 4 Section 109 RTA 5 Wellington Property Management Ltd v Hardie [2022] NZTT 4399281 4374781 Tenant application Bond top up payments
[The tenant/s] was asked to pay, and did pay, an amount to top up the bond when the landlord increased the rent during the tenancy. 6
The landlord did not forward these top up bond payments to the Bond Centre. The landlord treated the payments as rent. It seems that this was because the payments were made at the same time as the rent was paid, and it was not clear that the top up payments were bond rather than rent.
At the hearing [The tenant’s representative] clarified that [The tenant/s] is not seeking exemplary damages in respect of this issue. [The tenant’s representative] only wanted to ensure that all of the payments were received and credited.
[The landlord’s representative] undertook to investigate this and confirm with [The tenant’s representative]. Insurance excess for methamphetamine
Landlords must include an insurance statement in the tenancy agreement. The insurance statement must set out: 7 For each insurance policy that is relevant to the tenant’s liability for destruction or damage to the premises, the amount of each excess that is relevant (if any) to that liability
There was an insurance statement in this tenancy agreement. The statement noted the landlord’s insurance policy number and stated that there was an excess of $550.00.
That is the excess that applies for damage to the property, but there is a different excess, $2,500.00 for methamphetamine de-contamination.
I accept [The tenant’s representative]’s argument that the insurance statement should set out all of the excesses that are relevant to the tenant’s liability, and therefore the statement should have also set out the methamphetamine de- contamination excess.
Failure to include an insurance statement that contains all of the information required by law is an unlawful act, and exemplary damages of up to $750.00 can apply.
I will not make an award of exemplary damages in this instance for the following reasons: 6 Section 18(2) RTA 7 Section 13A(2)(b) RTA a. The breach is relatively minor and technical. b. The breach was not intentional. c. The Tenancy Tribunal cannot award exemplary damages if the application is made more than 12 months after the commission of the unlawful act. 8 Filing fee, name suppression, bond
Both parties were partially successful in their applications. Both are entitled to be awarded the amount of the filing fee. Because the net effect of this is zero, I have not recorded this in the table of costs above.
Both parties sought name suppression. Name suppression is granted to both parties on the grounds that they were successful in the proceedings in different respects. 9
The bond will be released to the landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4994168 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4994168 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions