What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5117608 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 5117608?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5117608?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5117608?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11376432-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5117608 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 5117608?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5117608?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5117608?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11376432-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

109 Pohutukawa Drive, Owhata, Rotorua 3010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5117608 — Exemplary damages

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the [Landlord] name and identifying details.
Shaun Eden Lindsay must pay [Landlord] $2,011.91 immediately.

Reasons

The Landlord attended the hearing. The Tenant did not.
The Landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, 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. 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. I approve the Landlord’s costs in engaging a contractor to remove the Tenant’s rubbish from the grounds of the property: $620.00
The Tenant did not return the keys. I approve the Landlord’s costs in changing the locks: $181.55.

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.
A bedroom window was broken during the tenancy and the Landlord claims the Tenant accepted liability for the damage. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I award the reglazing costs, as per the Landlord’s paid invoice: $283.36.

Did the Tenant use the premises for an unlawful purpose?

[The landlord/s] claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by using marijuana and methamphetamine 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.
The Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 of New Zealand categorises methamphetamine and marijuana as controlled substances, outlining offenses and penalties for their unauthorised possession, use, and distribution.
Marijuana was detected by the property manager when visiting the Tenant while he was at the premises.
The premises were tested for methamphetamine at the start of the tenancy and returned clear readings. The premises were tested again, at the end of the tenancy, and returned readings above 15μg/100cm². The highest individual result was 16.1μg/100cm² (Kitchen – Window Frame).
I find the Tenant has 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.
Given the significant methamphetamine contamination found in the premises, coupled with laboratory-identified high usage areas, it is determined that the Tenant was likely aware of methamphetamine use on the property.
Notably, the premises are located on Pohutukawa Drive, a local area known colloquially as 'P Drive' due to its association with methamphetamine use and users. The property manager brought this fact to my attention.
I take judicial notice of the local nickname 'P Drive' for Pohutukawa Drive, reflecting its notoriety related to methamphetamine. This acknowledgment is based on the reputation of the area, supported by reliable, publicly accessible information.
Considering the location on Pohutukawa Drive, the Landlord could reasonably foresee such issues, which suggests a need for more vigilant tenant screening or preventive measures. Balancing this with the Tenant’s clear breach of the law by using or allowing the use of controlled substances on the premises, a moderated exemplary damage award is sensible. An adjusted award that reflects both the Tenant’s intent and the Landlord’s expected awareness of the local context is appropriate. I award $900.00.
Because the Landlord has wholly succeeded with its claim, I reimburse their application filing fee and grant their request for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5117608 — Exemplary damages at 109 Pohutukawa Drive, Owhata, Rotorua 3010

Tenancy Tribunal case 5117608 — Exemplary damages at 109 Pohutukawa Drive, Owhata, Rotorua 3010

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the Tenant use the premises for an unlawful purpose?

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the Tenant use the premises for an unlawful purpose?