What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5036128 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 5036128?

Bailiff Costs: $258.00 awarded to landlord; Electricity Charges To End Of Tenanc…: $70.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $132.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $516.85 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $282.70 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,585.00 awarded to landlord; Architrave: $6.85 awarded to landlord; Curtain Tracks: $61.00 awarded to landlord; Door: $59.75 awarded to landlord; Flooring: $3,225.00 awarded to landlord; Walls: $1,871.99 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5036128?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5036128?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11303533-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5036128 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 5036128?

Bailiff Costs: $258.00 awarded to landlord; Electricity Charges To End Of Tenanc…: $70.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $132.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $516.85 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $282.70 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,585.00 awarded to landlord; Architrave: $6.85 awarded to landlord; Curtain Tracks: $61.00 awarded to landlord; Door: $59.75 awarded to landlord; Flooring: $3,225.00 awarded to landlord; Walls: $1,871.99 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5036128?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5036128?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11303533-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5036128 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5036128 — net $12,696.39 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$4,585.00	Rent arrears
Repairs: Walls	$1,871.99	Repairs: Walls
Repairs: Door	$59.75	Repairs: Door
Repairs: Flooring	$3,225.00	Repairs: Flooring
Exemplary damages - failing to quit premises	$500.00	Exemplary damages - failing to quit premises
Exemplary damages - using premises for an unlawful purpose	$600.00	Exemplary damages - using premises for an unlawful purpose
Exemplary damages - failing to reinstate premises	$500.00	Exemplary damages - failing to reinstate premises
Window repairs	$516.85	Window repairs
Repairs: Architrave	$6.85	Repairs: Architrave
Bailiff costs	$258.00	Bailiff costs
Lock/key replacement	$282.70	Lock/key replacement
Electricity charges to end of tenancy	$70.00	Electricity charges to end of tenancy
Lawns and Garden work: and rubbish removal	$132.25	Lawns and Garden work: and rubbish removal
Repairs: Curtain tracks	$61.00	Repairs: Curtain tracks
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$12,696.39
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$12,696.39

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Cindy Maria Taueki must pay [The landlord/s] $12,696.39 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the remote hearing.
The tenant did not attend the hearing by Teams video link. Telephone calls were made to the tenant on the number provided at the allocated hearing time. All calls went to voicemail. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given. I am satisfied that notice was given.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and electricity?

The tenancy was to have ended on 14 August 2024 when a court bailiff attended to evict the tenant. The tenant managed to subsequently re-enter the premises and possession was only fully regained by the landlord on 16 September 2024. The landlord provided rent records and electricity invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $4,585.00 for rent. I have dismissed one claim for electricity charges by the landlord as it relates to a full period after 16 September 2024. The other invoice partly falls within the tenanted period and I have calculated the tenant’s share of those costs at $70.00.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord provided photos of the premises and the exterior and an invoice in support of the claims. I consider the claim for $132.25 for lawn mowing and rubbish removal to be reasonable.
The tenant did not return the keys. The landlord provided an invoice for the lock replacement of $282.70.
A court bailiff was engaged to enforce the eviction. The bailiff’s charges were $258.00.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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. The landlord was insured. The policy carried an excess of $650.00 on each any every claim.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy.
The landlord provided evidence of a nil test for methamphetamine contamination conducted prior to the tenancy. The post tenancy results ranged for 0.02 to 13.0 micrograms per 100cm2.
The landlord has applied for compensation for the cost methamphetamine testing and remediation.
The landlord must prove that the tenant caused or permitted the contamination, or that it was caused by someone at the premises with the tenant’s consent. The landlord must also prove that, as a result of the contamination, the premises have been damaged or are not reasonably clean.
Section 138C Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides for regulations to be made prescribing the maximum acceptable level for contaminants, but as yet no regulations have been made in relation to methamphetamine.
There are currently two sources of guidance on the issue of a safe level of methamphetamine contamination in residential premises. In June 2017 Standards New Zealand published NZS 8510:2017. The standard recommended a maximum contamination level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 for high use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture. It recommended a higher level of 3.8μg/100cm 2 for limited use areas.
In May 2018 Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the then Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor, released a report "Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards”. The report noted that there is a lack of scientific evidence to prove that low-level third-hand methamphetamine exposure poses a health risk to humans. It stated that guidelines should be proportionate to risk and that exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm 2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect. It recommended retaining the level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 where contamination resulted from manufacture, due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the process.
The District Court has held that remediation should be carried out in accordance with the prevailing guidelines at the time (Diamond Real Estate Limited v Allan [2017] NZDC 833, Judge Kellar).
The Tribunal has generally applied the Gluckman recommendation. This approach was approved by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947, where the Court stated (at para [36]): The Tenancy Tribunal was in a difficult position. The best state of knowledge of risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination available to the adjudicator was the Gluckman Report. It would have been bold for the adjudicator to have ignored that report in favour of the New Zealand Standard given that the Gluckman report represents the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination in dwellings.
The District Court took a similar approach in Acme Realty Limited v Hogg and others [2021] NZDC 3231, where the Court referred to the Full Circle case and held that, because NZS 8510:2017 has not been adopted into law, the Tribunal was not bound to apply the 1.5μg standard.
More recently, in Barfoot and Thompson Limited v Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited [2021] NZTT Auckland 4276319, both parties presented scientific evidence at a hearing before the Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that there was no new scientific research to change the conclusions reached in the Gluckman Report.
The testing conducted has not shown contamination exceeding 15 micrograms per 100cm2 and accordingly the claim for cleaning is dismissed.
The walls have been damaged during the tenancy. Photos show holes and graffiti. Invoices for $1,871.99 were provided. The premises were newly renovated at the commencement of the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The door had been damaged. The repair cost was below the excess sum. The landlord has provided an invoice for $59.75 for a replacement. The damage was more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The floor in the bathroom and kitchen was damaged during the tenancy. The landlord provided photos of the damage an invoice for $3,225.00 for repairs. The damage was not covered by the landlord’s insurance as a result of the number of separate incidents of damage. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The tenant has broken the glass in the front door to gain entry to the premises. The landlord provided photos and invoices for glass repairs totalling $516.85 and $6.85 for the door architrave repair. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability.
Curtain tracks were torn down. Repair costs were $61.00. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The amounts ordered are proven. [The landlord/s] claims the tenant did not vacate the premises on 14 August 2024, the date the tenancy ended.
A tenant must vacate the premises on the termination of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(e)(i) of the 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 40(3A)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant re-entered the premises after having been served with the eviction order and remained present until 16 September 2024 when the landlord was able to regain possession. The landlord was warned by Police over trying to gain possession due to the tenants actions. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
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.
The tenant has acted deliberately. This landlord and landlord’s generally are entitled to have orders complied with. The tenant is ordered to pay exemplary damages of $500.00. [The landlord/s] claims the tenant has failed to return the premises to a condition that was substantially the same as the condition prior to a minor change being made by the tenant.
On or before the expiry of a tenancy the tenant must return the premises to a condition that is substantially the same as the condition the premises were in prior to the minor change being made. See 42B(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00 See section 42B(6) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant failed to obtain approval from the landlord prior to installing 4 security cameras on the outside of the premises. They were not subsequently removed. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
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.
The tenant has acted deliberately. The landlord was entitled to have the premises returned in original condition. The tenant is ordered to pay exemplary damages of $500.00. [The landlord/s] claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by using or allowing the premises to be used for the consumption of methamphetamine. The possession and consumption of methamphetamine is a breach of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied as a result of the drug testing carried out both before and after the end of the tenancy that the tenant or her guests have consumed methamphetamine at the premises.
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.
The tenant or her guests have consumed methamphetamine at the premises. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
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.
The tenant has acted intentionally. This has resulted in substantial losses to the landlord. The tenant is ordered to pay exemplary damages of $600.00.
As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.
The landlord applied for name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful in this hearing and suppression of the landlord name and details is suppressed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5036128 — net $12,696.39 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$4,585.00	Rent arrears
Repairs: Walls	$1,871.99	Repairs: Walls
Repairs: Door	$59.75	Repairs: Door
Repairs: Flooring	$3,225.00	Repairs: Flooring
Exemplary damages - failing to quit premises	$500.00	Exemplary damages - failing to quit premises
Exemplary damages - using premises for an unlawful purpose	$600.00	Exemplary damages - using premises for an unlawful purpose
Exemplary damages - failing to reinstate premises	$500.00	Exemplary damages - failing to reinstate premises
Window repairs	$516.85	Window repairs
Repairs: Architrave	$6.85	Repairs: Architrave
Bailiff costs	$258.00	Bailiff costs
Lock/key replacement	$282.70	Lock/key replacement
Electricity charges to end of tenancy	$70.00	Electricity charges to end of tenancy
Lawns and Garden work: and rubbish removal	$132.25	Lawns and Garden work: and rubbish removal
Repairs: Curtain tracks	$61.00	Repairs: Curtain tracks
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$12,696.39
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$12,696.39

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Cindy Maria Taueki must pay [The landlord/s] $12,696.39 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the remote hearing.
The tenant did not attend the hearing by Teams video link. Telephone calls were made to the tenant on the number provided at the allocated hearing time. All calls went to voicemail. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given. I am satisfied that notice was given.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and electricity?

The tenancy was to have ended on 14 August 2024 when a court bailiff attended to evict the tenant. The tenant managed to subsequently re-enter the premises and possession was only fully regained by the landlord on 16 September 2024. The landlord provided rent records and electricity invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $4,585.00 for rent. I have dismissed one claim for electricity charges by the landlord as it relates to a full period after 16 September 2024. The other invoice partly falls within the tenanted period and I have calculated the tenant’s share of those costs at $70.00.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord provided photos of the premises and the exterior and an invoice in support of the claims. I consider the claim for $132.25 for lawn mowing and rubbish removal to be reasonable.
The tenant did not return the keys. The landlord provided an invoice for the lock replacement of $282.70.
A court bailiff was engaged to enforce the eviction. The bailiff’s charges were $258.00.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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. The landlord was insured. The policy carried an excess of $650.00 on each any every claim.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy.
The landlord provided evidence of a nil test for methamphetamine contamination conducted prior to the tenancy. The post tenancy results ranged for 0.02 to 13.0 micrograms per 100cm2.
The landlord has applied for compensation for the cost methamphetamine testing and remediation.
The landlord must prove that the tenant caused or permitted the contamination, or that it was caused by someone at the premises with the tenant’s consent. The landlord must also prove that, as a result of the contamination, the premises have been damaged or are not reasonably clean.
Section 138C Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides for regulations to be made prescribing the maximum acceptable level for contaminants, but as yet no regulations have been made in relation to methamphetamine.
There are currently two sources of guidance on the issue of a safe level of methamphetamine contamination in residential premises. In June 2017 Standards New Zealand published NZS 8510:2017. The standard recommended a maximum contamination level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 for high use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture. It recommended a higher level of 3.8μg/100cm 2 for limited use areas.
In May 2018 Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the then Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor, released a report "Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards”. The report noted that there is a lack of scientific evidence to prove that low-level third-hand methamphetamine exposure poses a health risk to humans. It stated that guidelines should be proportionate to risk and that exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm 2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect. It recommended retaining the level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 where contamination resulted from manufacture, due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the process.
The District Court has held that remediation should be carried out in accordance with the prevailing guidelines at the time (Diamond Real Estate Limited v Allan [2017] NZDC 833, Judge Kellar).
The Tribunal has generally applied the Gluckman recommendation. This approach was approved by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947, where the Court stated (at para [36]): The Tenancy Tribunal was in a difficult position. The best state of knowledge of risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination available to the adjudicator was the Gluckman Report. It would have been bold for the adjudicator to have ignored that report in favour of the New Zealand Standard given that the Gluckman report represents the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination in dwellings.
The District Court took a similar approach in Acme Realty Limited v Hogg and others [2021] NZDC 3231, where the Court referred to the Full Circle case and held that, because NZS 8510:2017 has not been adopted into law, the Tribunal was not bound to apply the 1.5μg standard.
More recently, in Barfoot and Thompson Limited v Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited [2021] NZTT Auckland 4276319, both parties presented scientific evidence at a hearing before the Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that there was no new scientific research to change the conclusions reached in the Gluckman Report.
The testing conducted has not shown contamination exceeding 15 micrograms per 100cm2 and accordingly the claim for cleaning is dismissed.
The walls have been damaged during the tenancy. Photos show holes and graffiti. Invoices for $1,871.99 were provided. The premises were newly renovated at the commencement of the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The door had been damaged. The repair cost was below the excess sum. The landlord has provided an invoice for $59.75 for a replacement. The damage was more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The floor in the bathroom and kitchen was damaged during the tenancy. The landlord provided photos of the damage an invoice for $3,225.00 for repairs. The damage was not covered by the landlord’s insurance as a result of the number of separate incidents of damage. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The tenant has broken the glass in the front door to gain entry to the premises. The landlord provided photos and invoices for glass repairs totalling $516.85 and $6.85 for the door architrave repair. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability.
Curtain tracks were torn down. Repair costs were $61.00. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The amounts ordered are proven. [The landlord/s] claims the tenant did not vacate the premises on 14 August 2024, the date the tenancy ended.
A tenant must vacate the premises on the termination of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(e)(i) of the 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 40(3A)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant re-entered the premises after having been served with the eviction order and remained present until 16 September 2024 when the landlord was able to regain possession. The landlord was warned by Police over trying to gain possession due to the tenants actions. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
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.
The tenant has acted deliberately. This landlord and landlord’s generally are entitled to have orders complied with. The tenant is ordered to pay exemplary damages of $500.00. [The landlord/s] claims the tenant has failed to return the premises to a condition that was substantially the same as the condition prior to a minor change being made by the tenant.
On or before the expiry of a tenancy the tenant must return the premises to a condition that is substantially the same as the condition the premises were in prior to the minor change being made. See 42B(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00 See section 42B(6) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant failed to obtain approval from the landlord prior to installing 4 security cameras on the outside of the premises. They were not subsequently removed. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
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.
The tenant has acted deliberately. The landlord was entitled to have the premises returned in original condition. The tenant is ordered to pay exemplary damages of $500.00. [The landlord/s] claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by using or allowing the premises to be used for the consumption of methamphetamine. The possession and consumption of methamphetamine is a breach of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied as a result of the drug testing carried out both before and after the end of the tenancy that the tenant or her guests have consumed methamphetamine at the premises.
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.
The tenant or her guests have consumed methamphetamine at the premises. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
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.
The tenant has acted intentionally. This has resulted in substantial losses to the landlord. The tenant is ordered to pay exemplary damages of $600.00.
As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.
The landlord applied for name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful in this hearing and suppression of the landlord name and details is suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5036128 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5036128 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and electricity?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and electricity?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions