What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5022870?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5022870?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5022870?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5022870?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11270512-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5022870?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5022870?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5022870?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5022870?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11270512-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

1A Trotting Terrace, Fairview Heights, Auckland 0632 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5022870 — Property damage

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by remote teleconference. There was no attendance by the tenants.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The landlord seeks reimbursement of the insurance excess in respect of an insurance claim for methamphetamine contamination.
Before I consider the specific claim, I begin by noting that as with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. In this case, it is for the parties to establish their respective claims on “the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord claims that the tenants caused methamphetamine damage during the course of the tenancy. No pre tenancy testing was carried out by the landlord. Evidence in the form of a heat pump installation receipt confirming that the heat pump was brand new as at 31 January 2024 was filed with the application. The landlord suggests that because methamphetamine was found on the new heat pump this indicates that the tenant is responsible for this damage.
The tenancy started on 28 January 2024. A small trace of methamphetamine were detected and confirmed on the heat pump by All Clear Limited as a result of their testing on 27 June 2024. Their report was released on 23 July 2024. Traces of methamphetamine were also located on the kitchen door, the living room wall, a bedroom door, a bathroom window frame and the garage door. All readings were less than 15ug.
The landlord claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by using or allowing persons at the property with their permission to consume methamphetamine.
Section 40(2)(b) of the Act states that the tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose.
Tenants are responsible for the acts or omissions of others at the property with their permission that may result in breach of the terms of the agreement or provisions the Act.
I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenant has conducted the activity as claimed by the landlord.
After hearing from the landlord and considering the other evidence produced, I cannot be satisfied to the required standard that, more likely than not, the tenant has used or allowed others to use the property for an unlawful purpose.
The significant problem for the landlord’s claim is that there is no evidence of any methamphetamine testing carried out at the start of this tenancy. If there had been such testing and it revealed no methamphetamine then clearly the methamphetamine residue that was found at the end of this tenancy could only have occurred during the tenancy and could only have occurred by either the tenant using methamphetamine or permitting others to use methamphetamine inside the house.
The lack of methamphetamine testing at the start of the tenancy significantly weakens the circumstantial case against the tenant to the point where it is not possible to conclude on the balance of probabilities that it was the tenant who was responsible for the methamphetamine residue located at the premises during their tenancy.
There was no pre tenancy testing for the presence of methamphetamine. There is insufficient evidence to be satisfied that any contamination discovered occurred during the tenancy.
The level of contamination detected on the heat pump was small, and the Tribunal cannot discount the possibility there may have been an inadvertent transfer of contaminant occurring during the installation process.
Accordingly, the landlord’s application is dismissed.
Because the landlord’s application has been unsuccessful I do not reimburse the filing fee.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by remote teleconference. There was no attendance by the tenants.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The landlord seeks reimbursement of the insurance excess in respect of an insurance claim for methamphetamine contamination.
Before I consider the specific claim, I begin by noting that as with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. In this case, it is for the parties to establish their respective claims on “the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord claims that the tenants caused methamphetamine damage during the course of the tenancy. No pre tenancy testing was carried out by the landlord. Evidence in the form of a heat pump installation receipt confirming that the heat pump was brand new as at 31 January 2024 was filed with the application. The landlord suggests that because methamphetamine was found on the new heat pump this indicates that the tenant is responsible for this damage.
The tenancy started on 28 January 2024. A small trace of methamphetamine were detected and confirmed on the heat pump by All Clear Limited as a result of their testing on 27 June 2024. Their report was released on 23 July 2024. Traces of methamphetamine were also located on the kitchen door, the living room wall, a bedroom door, a bathroom window frame and the garage door. All readings were less than 15ug.
The landlord claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by using or allowing persons at the property with their permission to consume methamphetamine.
Section 40(2)(b) of the Act states that the tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose.
Tenants are responsible for the acts or omissions of others at the property with their permission that may result in breach of the terms of the agreement or provisions the Act.
I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenant has conducted the activity as claimed by the landlord.
After hearing from the landlord and considering the other evidence produced, I cannot be satisfied to the required standard that, more likely than not, the tenant has used or allowed others to use the property for an unlawful purpose.
The significant problem for the landlord’s claim is that there is no evidence of any methamphetamine testing carried out at the start of this tenancy. If there had been such testing and it revealed no methamphetamine then clearly the methamphetamine residue that was found at the end of this tenancy could only have occurred during the tenancy and could only have occurred by either the tenant using methamphetamine or permitting others to use methamphetamine inside the house.
The lack of methamphetamine testing at the start of the tenancy significantly weakens the circumstantial case against the tenant to the point where it is not possible to conclude on the balance of probabilities that it was the tenant who was responsible for the methamphetamine residue located at the premises during their tenancy.
There was no pre tenancy testing for the presence of methamphetamine. There is insufficient evidence to be satisfied that any contamination discovered occurred during the tenancy.
The level of contamination detected on the heat pump was small, and the Tribunal cannot discount the possibility there may have been an inadvertent transfer of contaminant occurring during the installation process.
Accordingly, the landlord’s application is dismissed.
Because the landlord’s application has been unsuccessful I do not reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5022870 — Property damage at 1A Trotting Terrace, Fairview Heights, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5022870 — Property damage at 1A Trotting Terrace, Fairview Heights, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions