Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5068668 — Property damage
Decided 13 Mar 2025 · Published 13 Mar 2025 · Application 5068668
- Property damage
- Exemplary damages
- Cleanliness
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
- De-Ena Veli Meredith to pay [The landlord/s] $3,129.46 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
Reasons
- The landlord attended the hearing today. There was no appearance from the tenant.
- The landlord has applied for compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
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, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit.
- The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. Only a few photographs were provided, but both the landlord’s exit report and the cleaning invoice contained detailed descriptions of the cleaning required. The downstairs basement/storage area was left full of rubbish and low-value belongings. A trailer-load of rubbish was removed. I award the cleaning and rubbish removal costs claimed.
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.
- 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 4 weeks' rent. The insurance excess was $1,000.00 which is less than 4 weeks’ rent.
- 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.
- There was damage to a wall and a TV bracket, and to a downpipe outside. The amounts claimed for repairs are individually less than the insurance excess. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Testing costs and exemplary damages
- A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. Breaching this obligation is an “unlawful act” for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $1,800.00.
- It is unlawful to use premises for the purpose of possessing or using controlled drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
- Methamphetamine testing a few weeks prior to the tenancy did not detect any methamphetamine. Screening tests performed a few days after the tenancy detected methamphetamine levels of 1.88ug/100cm² in the kitchen,
- 92ug/100cm² in the hallway, and 1.77ug/100cm² in the pantry. These levels are above the NZS 8510:2017 decontamination level of 1.5ug/100cm² but below the 15ug/100cm² level identified in the Gluckman Report as being potentially hazardous to human health. The other 5 sampled locations found levels below
- 5ug/100cm².
- I find that the tenant used or permitted the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose, being the use of a controlled drug. The scientific evidence indicates that the levels of contamination are the result of consumption and not manufacture. It is appropriate to award the cost of the discrete sampling and the post-decontamination testing, which would not have been necessary otherwise. The cost of the pre- and post-tenancy screening assessments were not claimed.
- 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.
- The tenant did not attend the hearing, and so their intention and overall culpability for the contamination is harder to gauge. The landlord said that the tenant was provided with the testing reports and denied any knowledge of drug use and did not know how it had happened. The tenant denied that anyone visiting the house had used drugs. The owners were upset to discover methamphetamine contamination in premises they had used as their home. The landlords felt morally obliged to decontaminate the premises prior to sale. There is no evidence that the value of the premises was affected.
- The landlords have been put to additional expense and inconvenience because of the unlawful use of the premises. The contamination was at a relatively low level. While it is unclear whether the tenant knew what was happening, the tenant remains liable for the actions of visitors, including other occupiers of the premises. There is a public interest in deterring tenants from using or permitting the use of controlled drugs in rental properties. After considering all the circumstances, I find it would be just to award exemplary damages of $500.00. Filing fee and suppression
- The landlord’s application has been successful. I award the filing fee.
- The landlord did not request name suppression. I meant to check with the landlord whether suppression was sought.
- I have acted on my own motion to suppress the landlord’s details and the tenancy address, given the subject-matter of the application. If the landlord objects, it may be possible to amend the order before publication if a request is made promptly.