What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5098091?

The tribunal order states: Brianna Jane Wootton must pay Vision Property Management Limited As Agent

How much money was awarded in case 5098091?

Cleaning: $691.74 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $313.38 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $416.51 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $462.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,477.14 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,820.12 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Cabinets & Bathroom Door: $909.65 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $6,500.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $434.70 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5098091?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5098091?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11495367-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5098091?

The tribunal order states: Brianna Jane Wootton must pay Vision Property Management Limited As Agent

How much money was awarded in case 5098091?

Cleaning: $691.74 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $313.38 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $416.51 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $462.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,477.14 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,820.12 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Cabinets & Bathroom Door: $909.65 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $6,500.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $434.70 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5098091?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5098091?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11495367-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 162 Bordesley Street, Phillipstown, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 5098091 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Unit/Flat 1, 162 Bordesley Street, Phillipstown, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 5098091 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5098091 — net $21,302.68 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 15 December 2024	$5,477.14	Rent arrears (to 15 December 2024
Rubbish removal: and Garden Work	$434.70	Rubbish removal: and Garden Work
Lock/key replacement	$416.51	Lock/key replacement
Carpet Cleaning	$691.74	Carpet Cleaning
Meth testing/Cleaning: Insurance Excess	$2,500.00	Meth testing/Cleaning: Insurance Excess
Electrical fittings replacement/repair: 2 Light Fittings	$313.38	Electrical fittings replacement/repair: 2 Light Fittings
Repairs: Kitchen Cabinets & Bathroom Door	$909.65	Repairs: Kitchen Cabinets & Bathroom Door
Window repairs	$462.44	Window repairs
Repairs: Carpet Replacement	$2,820.12	Repairs: Carpet Replacement
Repairs: Painting & Wall Repairs	$6,500.00	Repairs: Painting & Wall Repairs
Exemplary Damages - Using Premises for Unlawful Purpose	$750.00	Exemplary Damages - Using Premises for Unlawful Purpose
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$21,302.68
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$21,302.68

Claims and awards for application 5098091 — net $21,302.68 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears (to 15 December 2024

Amount: $5,477.14
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears (to 15 December 2024

Rubbish removal: and Garden Work

Amount: $434.70
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal: and Garden Work

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $416.51
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $691.74
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Meth testing/Cleaning: Insurance Excess

Amount: $2,500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Meth testing/Cleaning: Insurance Excess

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Property damage Exemplary damages Filing Fee Cleanliness Rent arrears Lawns And Garden Work

Order

Brianna Jane Wootton must pay Vision Property Management Limited As Agent For David Ward And Mark Lodder - Ginger Pension Ltd $21,302.68 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears (to 15 December 2024)$5,477.14 Rubbish removal: and Garden Work$434.70 Lock/key replacement$416.51 Carpet Cleaning$691.74 Meth testing/Cleaning: Insurance Excess$2,500.00 Electrical fittings replacement/repair: 2 Light Fittings$313.38 Repairs: Kitchen Cabinets & Bathroom Door$909.65 Window repairs$462.44 Repairs: Carpet Replacement$2,820.12 Repairs: Painting & Wall Repairs$6,500.00 Exemplary Damages - Using Premises for Unlawful Purpose $750.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$21,302.68 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$21,302.68

Reasons

Representatives of the landlord attended the hearing.
The tenant did not attend. The Tribunal file shows that the tenant was served with the Notice of Hearing, Application and associated documents at the email address for service she provided in the tenancy agreement.
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?

The tenancy was for a fixed term to 15 December 2024.
In early October 2024, the landlord contacted the tenant regarding rent arrears. The tenant replied by text advising that she would “be out of this house by Monday.” She claimed that WINZ had advised her that she no longer needed to pay rent at the premises. She said the key would be left on the bench on Monday morning. She told the landlord not to contact her again.
The landlord went to the property the following Monday. One key was on the bench and the tenant had left.
The landlord accepted that the tenant had vacated the property and took possession. A tenant is liable for rent until the end of a fixed term, or until a new tenant is found. For the reasons set out below, these premises could not be re-let before 15 December 2024.
I find that the tenant is liable for rent to the end of the fixed term. The landlord provided a rent summary which showed that rent owing to 15 December 2024 is $5,477.14.
The landlord’s application also claimed exemplary damages for abandonment of the premises. It did not pursue that claim at the hearing.
A tenancy is abandoned where the tenant leaves the premises without reasonable excuse and fails to notify the landlord, not intending to return or to meet their obligations. See s61 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In this instance the tenant did advise the landlord that she was leaving, and the landlord took possession. This aspect of the landlord’s claim is dismissed.

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. 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, carpet was heavily stained in some rooms, lawns and gardens were overgrown. The tenant did not return all the keys.
The landlord provided in-going and out-coming photographs and copies of receipts for the costs incurred. 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 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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: two light fittings were broken, a glass ranch slider was cracked, kitchen cabinets and a bathroom door were damaged, carpet in the hall and two rooms had to be replaced and there was extensive wall damage throughout the premises. The landlord provided extensive in-going and out-going photographs to establish its claims. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord provided receipts, invoices and evidence of communication with its insurer to establish its loss. The amounts ordered are proved. I have awarded the amounts claimed 1 except in relation to painting.
The total painting/wall damage claims were $8,482.35 over eight areas and were a combination of actual costs and excesses. The actual repairs cost was $15,614.99. The in-going inspection report records the condition of the walls at that time. I conclude that they were in average condition. Having regard to the condition at the start and end of the tenancy, I award $6,500 for wall damage and painting. Methamphetamine Contamination
The landlord seeks compensation by way of reimbursement of an insurance excess of $2,500 for methamphetamine contamination. Other costs were included in the landlord’s application but, at the hearing the landlord confirmed that it is only seeking reimbursement of the excess.
The landlord must satisfy me that it is more likely than not that the premises were damaged by methamphetamine during the tenancy.
The landlord has provided laboratory test results which I accept reliably prove that:- a. The premises tested positive for methamphetamine on 6 December 2022 (the week before this tenancy started) and that a composite test from 7 samples gave a reading of 0.09 mcg over sample areas of 100cm 2. The report states that the theoretical maximum level for any one sample is 0.62 mcg. The report confirms that the levels are below NZS8510:2017 and no further action is required. b. The premises were tested again on 10 October 2024 (when the landlord took possession) and a composite result returned a possible maximum reading of 29.2 mcg/100cm 2. c. Discrete testing of individual samples was done on 18 October 2024 and returned results for methamphetamine residue as follows (expressed as mcg/100cm 2 ): • Kitchen/Lounge – sample 1 4.99 • Kitchen/Lounge – sample 2 1.3 • Kitchen/Lounge – sample 30.50 • Kitchen/Lounge – sample 423.2 1 The total carpet claim is the cost of one excess ($1,200 for the lounge/dining room) plus the replacement cost of a bedroom ($954.38) and hallway ($665.74) which were below excess. • Laundry 13.4 • Hallway – sample 120.4 • Hallway – sample 21.26 • Bathroom3.43 • Toilet 5.35 • Bedroom 1 10.1 • Bedroom 2 – sample 10.56 • Bedroom 2 – sample 29.06 • Bedroom 3 – sample 11.05 • Bedroom 3 -sample 213.2 • Field Blank sample <0.02
I have reviewed the locations of the samples throughout the test reports. Photographs were provided in the reports. The locations of the high readings in 2024 are consistent with the composite sample sites in 2022.
I am satisfied that the substantial increase in the composite test results from the start to the end of this tenancy proves that methamphetamine was used at the premises during the tenancy. 2
I must now consider whether there has been damage as result of the Methamphetamine use.
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 Gluckman report”)
The Gluckman report noted the lack of data on the effect of living in a house previously used for smoking methamphetamine (“third-hand” exposure). It stated that, where there is no evidence of manufacturing methamphetamine, exposure to levels below 15mcg/100 cm2 would be highly unlikely to give rise to any adverse effects.
In Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 the District Court described the Gluckman report as representing “the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination in dwellings” 2 In a text to the landlord, the tenant claimed that the premises were methamphetamine contaminated before her tenancy, and the landlord should have advised her of that. The landlord advised the Tribunal that the premises had been contaminated and cleaned “two or three tenancies ago” and that all testing since then had returned levels below 1.5mcg/100cm 2. The landlord’s evidence is consistent with the test results from the start of this tenancy. and endorsed the Tenancy Tribunal’s decision to conclude that there was no damage to premises where methamphetamine levels were below 15mcg/100cm2. That approach has been endorsed in subsequent decisions of the District Court. See Acme Realty Ltd v Alexander James Hogg, Tuitui Grace Polotu, Leigh Sharyn Coughlin [2021] NZDC 3231 and Eren Limited v Martin and Kukuruzsnayak [2021] NZDC 15210
The 18 October 2024 test results show readings above 15mcg/100cm 2 in two areas. Those results establish that here was “damage” caused by methamphetamine use. I award the insurance excess claimed by the landlord.
The landlord also claims exemplary damages for methamphetamine use at the premises. 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. 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.
Methamphetamine use is unlawful. It is also intentional.
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.
It is in the public interest to discourage methamphetamine use and to recognise the effect of contamination on the owner of the premises. I award $750.00.
As the landlord was the successful party, I also award reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5098091 — net $21,302.68 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 15 December 2024	$5,477.14	Rent arrears (to 15 December 2024
Rubbish removal: and Garden Work	$434.70	Rubbish removal: and Garden Work
Lock/key replacement	$416.51	Lock/key replacement
Carpet Cleaning	$691.74	Carpet Cleaning
Meth testing/Cleaning: Insurance Excess	$2,500.00	Meth testing/Cleaning: Insurance Excess
Electrical fittings replacement/repair: 2 Light Fittings	$313.38	Electrical fittings replacement/repair: 2 Light Fittings
Repairs: Kitchen Cabinets & Bathroom Door	$909.65	Repairs: Kitchen Cabinets & Bathroom Door
Window repairs	$462.44	Window repairs
Repairs: Carpet Replacement	$2,820.12	Repairs: Carpet Replacement
Repairs: Painting & Wall Repairs	$6,500.00	Repairs: Painting & Wall Repairs
Exemplary Damages - Using Premises for Unlawful Purpose	$750.00	Exemplary Damages - Using Premises for Unlawful Purpose
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$21,302.68
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$21,302.68

Claims and awards for application 5098091 — net $21,302.68 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears (to 15 December 2024

Amount: $5,477.14
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears (to 15 December 2024

Rubbish removal: and Garden Work

Amount: $434.70
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal: and Garden Work

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $416.51
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $691.74
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Meth testing/Cleaning: Insurance Excess

Amount: $2,500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Meth testing/Cleaning: Insurance Excess

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Property damage Exemplary damages Filing Fee Cleanliness Rent arrears Lawns And Garden Work

Order

Brianna Jane Wootton must pay Vision Property Management Limited As Agent For David Ward And Mark Lodder - Ginger Pension Ltd $21,302.68 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears (to 15 December 2024)$5,477.14 Rubbish removal: and Garden Work$434.70 Lock/key replacement$416.51 Carpet Cleaning$691.74 Meth testing/Cleaning: Insurance Excess$2,500.00 Electrical fittings replacement/repair: 2 Light Fittings$313.38 Repairs: Kitchen Cabinets & Bathroom Door$909.65 Window repairs$462.44 Repairs: Carpet Replacement$2,820.12 Repairs: Painting & Wall Repairs$6,500.00 Exemplary Damages - Using Premises for Unlawful Purpose $750.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$21,302.68 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$21,302.68

Reasons

Representatives of the landlord attended the hearing.
The tenant did not attend. The Tribunal file shows that the tenant was served with the Notice of Hearing, Application and associated documents at the email address for service she provided in the tenancy agreement.
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?

The tenancy was for a fixed term to 15 December 2024.
In early October 2024, the landlord contacted the tenant regarding rent arrears. The tenant replied by text advising that she would “be out of this house by Monday.” She claimed that WINZ had advised her that she no longer needed to pay rent at the premises. She said the key would be left on the bench on Monday morning. She told the landlord not to contact her again.
The landlord went to the property the following Monday. One key was on the bench and the tenant had left.
The landlord accepted that the tenant had vacated the property and took possession. A tenant is liable for rent until the end of a fixed term, or until a new tenant is found. For the reasons set out below, these premises could not be re-let before 15 December 2024.
I find that the tenant is liable for rent to the end of the fixed term. The landlord provided a rent summary which showed that rent owing to 15 December 2024 is $5,477.14.
The landlord’s application also claimed exemplary damages for abandonment of the premises. It did not pursue that claim at the hearing.
A tenancy is abandoned where the tenant leaves the premises without reasonable excuse and fails to notify the landlord, not intending to return or to meet their obligations. See s61 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In this instance the tenant did advise the landlord that she was leaving, and the landlord took possession. This aspect of the landlord’s claim is dismissed.

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. 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, carpet was heavily stained in some rooms, lawns and gardens were overgrown. The tenant did not return all the keys.
The landlord provided in-going and out-coming photographs and copies of receipts for the costs incurred. 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 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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: two light fittings were broken, a glass ranch slider was cracked, kitchen cabinets and a bathroom door were damaged, carpet in the hall and two rooms had to be replaced and there was extensive wall damage throughout the premises. The landlord provided extensive in-going and out-going photographs to establish its claims. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord provided receipts, invoices and evidence of communication with its insurer to establish its loss. The amounts ordered are proved. I have awarded the amounts claimed 1 except in relation to painting.
The total painting/wall damage claims were $8,482.35 over eight areas and were a combination of actual costs and excesses. The actual repairs cost was $15,614.99. The in-going inspection report records the condition of the walls at that time. I conclude that they were in average condition. Having regard to the condition at the start and end of the tenancy, I award $6,500 for wall damage and painting. Methamphetamine Contamination
The landlord seeks compensation by way of reimbursement of an insurance excess of $2,500 for methamphetamine contamination. Other costs were included in the landlord’s application but, at the hearing the landlord confirmed that it is only seeking reimbursement of the excess.
The landlord must satisfy me that it is more likely than not that the premises were damaged by methamphetamine during the tenancy.
The landlord has provided laboratory test results which I accept reliably prove that:- a. The premises tested positive for methamphetamine on 6 December 2022 (the week before this tenancy started) and that a composite test from 7 samples gave a reading of 0.09 mcg over sample areas of 100cm 2. The report states that the theoretical maximum level for any one sample is 0.62 mcg. The report confirms that the levels are below NZS8510:2017 and no further action is required. b. The premises were tested again on 10 October 2024 (when the landlord took possession) and a composite result returned a possible maximum reading of 29.2 mcg/100cm 2. c. Discrete testing of individual samples was done on 18 October 2024 and returned results for methamphetamine residue as follows (expressed as mcg/100cm 2 ): • Kitchen/Lounge – sample 1 4.99 • Kitchen/Lounge – sample 2 1.3 • Kitchen/Lounge – sample 30.50 • Kitchen/Lounge – sample 423.2 1 The total carpet claim is the cost of one excess ($1,200 for the lounge/dining room) plus the replacement cost of a bedroom ($954.38) and hallway ($665.74) which were below excess. • Laundry 13.4 • Hallway – sample 120.4 • Hallway – sample 21.26 • Bathroom3.43 • Toilet 5.35 • Bedroom 1 10.1 • Bedroom 2 – sample 10.56 • Bedroom 2 – sample 29.06 • Bedroom 3 – sample 11.05 • Bedroom 3 -sample 213.2 • Field Blank sample <0.02
I have reviewed the locations of the samples throughout the test reports. Photographs were provided in the reports. The locations of the high readings in 2024 are consistent with the composite sample sites in 2022.
I am satisfied that the substantial increase in the composite test results from the start to the end of this tenancy proves that methamphetamine was used at the premises during the tenancy. 2
I must now consider whether there has been damage as result of the Methamphetamine use.
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 Gluckman report”)
The Gluckman report noted the lack of data on the effect of living in a house previously used for smoking methamphetamine (“third-hand” exposure). It stated that, where there is no evidence of manufacturing methamphetamine, exposure to levels below 15mcg/100 cm2 would be highly unlikely to give rise to any adverse effects.
In Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 the District Court described the Gluckman report as representing “the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination in dwellings” 2 In a text to the landlord, the tenant claimed that the premises were methamphetamine contaminated before her tenancy, and the landlord should have advised her of that. The landlord advised the Tribunal that the premises had been contaminated and cleaned “two or three tenancies ago” and that all testing since then had returned levels below 1.5mcg/100cm 2. The landlord’s evidence is consistent with the test results from the start of this tenancy. and endorsed the Tenancy Tribunal’s decision to conclude that there was no damage to premises where methamphetamine levels were below 15mcg/100cm2. That approach has been endorsed in subsequent decisions of the District Court. See Acme Realty Ltd v Alexander James Hogg, Tuitui Grace Polotu, Leigh Sharyn Coughlin [2021] NZDC 3231 and Eren Limited v Martin and Kukuruzsnayak [2021] NZDC 15210
The 18 October 2024 test results show readings above 15mcg/100cm 2 in two areas. Those results establish that here was “damage” caused by methamphetamine use. I award the insurance excess claimed by the landlord.
The landlord also claims exemplary damages for methamphetamine use at the premises. 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. 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.
Methamphetamine use is unlawful. It is also intentional.
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.
It is in the public interest to discourage methamphetamine use and to recognise the effect of contamination on the owner of the premises. I award $750.00.
As the landlord was the successful party, I also award reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5098091 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1, 162 Bordesley Street, Phillipstown, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5098091 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1, 162 Bordesley Street, Phillipstown, Christchurch

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions