What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5297746?

The tribunal order states: Karis Smith must pay Debra Lee Cruickshank $4,586.57 immediately calculated

How much money was awarded in case 5297746?

Property Damage: $1,300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,258.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5297746?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5297746?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12294204-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5297746?

The tribunal order states: Karis Smith must pay Debra Lee Cruickshank $4,586.57 immediately calculated

How much money was awarded in case 5297746?

Property Damage: $1,300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,258.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5297746?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5297746?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12294204-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

27 Newcastle Street, Hampden, Hampden 9410 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5297746 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5297746 — net $4,586.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 15/12/2024	$3,258.57	Rent arrears to 15/12/2024
Exemplary damages	$1,300.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,586.57
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,586.57

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5297746 — net $4,586.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 15/12/2024	$3,258.57	Rent arrears to 15/12/2024
Exemplary damages	$1,300.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,586.57
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,586.57

Order

Karis Smith must pay Debra Lee Cruickshank $4,586.57 immediately calculated as per the table below:
The application by the landlord for compensation of $713.63 is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, by telephone.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and exemplary damages.
The tenancy was for a fixed term from 11/1/2024 to 20/1/2025 at $470.00 rent per week.
The tenant vacated on 16/12/2024.
The landlord has made a claim in another jurisdiction against the property manager for significant costs associated with this tenancy.
In the Tribunal the landlord now claims: a. $3,258.57 rent arrears to 15/12/2024, b. $713.63 plumbing costs for cleaning out the septic tank due to chemicals used for methamphetamine decontamination, c. Exemplary damages for using the premises for unlawful purposes and exceeding the number of tenants on the tenancy agreement.

Does the tenant owe rent arrears?

The landlord sought rent arrears of $3,258.57 to 15/12/2024 and provided rent records to support the claim.
The tenant agreed she owed the arrears.
In addition, the tenant confirmed that she had released the bond of $1,880.00 to the property manager.
The rent records reflect that the bond has been used to reduce the arrears.
An award has been made for the arrears claimed. Did the number of persons living in the tenancy exceed the maximum allowable in the tenancy agreement?
Debra Lee Cruickshank claims that the number of people living at the premises exceeded the maximum number allowed in the tenancy agreement.
Where the tenancy agreement specifies the maximum number of persons that may ordinarily reside in the premises during the tenancy, the tenant must ensure that the number is not exceeded. See section 40(3) 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 $1,000.00. See section 40(3A)(e) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenancy agreement specifies that the maximum number of people who may live in the premises during the tenancy was 1 adult and 2 children.
The tenant agreed that daughter also lived in the premises and occasionally the daughter’s boyfriend stayed for different periods of time.
However, the tenant disputed that the boyfriend was a permanent resident or that he paid rent to her.
In addition, the tenant suggested that the property manager was aware her two daughters and grandchild lived with her at the premises.
The tenant did not dispute that there were more people living at the property than allowed for in the tenancy agreement.
I find the tenant has committed an unlawful act.

Did the tenant use the premises for an unlawful purpose?

The landlord submitted that the tenant had used or allowed the premises to be used for smoking and manufacture of methamphetamine.
In support of the claim the landlord provided test results from CPINZ dated 11/1/2025 which identified five areas of methamphetamine contamination with levels above 15ug/100cm2.
These were: a. 23.8ug/100cm2 in the dining room polyurethane timber framing, b. 17.80ug/100cm2 in the lounge polyurethane entry door frame, c. 56.5ug/100cm2 in the office ceiling, d. 22.30ug/100cm2 in the office on the back of the polyurethane door, e. 16.5ug/100cm2 on the polyurethan entry door.
The other 25 samples ranged in levels from 0.29ug/100cm2 to 13.7ug/100cm2.
In addition, the report suggested that the presence of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine in several samples with the level of methamphetamine contamination suggested there had been attempts at manufacture.
The landlord submitted that because no testing for methamphetamine was undertaken before the tenancy began her insurance company required testing of vents which were installed on 24/2/2024.
The results confirmed the presence of methamphetamine in the bathroom ducting of .35ug/100cm2 and the kitchen ducting of .62ug/100cm2, which the insurance accepted as evidence of manufacturing.
The tenant denied that there had been methamphetamine use or manufacture in 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 is a ‘Class A’ drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. Possession use and cultivation of controlled substances and the use of premises for the commission of an offence are unlawful.
The difficulty with the landlord’s claim is the lack of a methamphetamine test at the beginning of the tenancy.
To a degree this is mitigated by the testing of the ducting vents installed 5 weeks after the tenancy began.
The evidence of the company which carried out testing after the end of the tenancy confirms the presence of methamphetamine, in five areas at reasonably high levels.
This is a civil jurisdiction which means when looking at the claims the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Put simply this means the landlord must establish, with evidence, that her claim is more likely than not.
The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain. All evidence presented is considered and weighed to decide what is more likely.
Where there are serious allegations, or important issues at stake, as is the case here, the Tribunal needs a level of supporting evidence benefitting the matters to be decided.
Although I have not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearings the parties can be assured that it has been considered. For the purposes of conciseness only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to.
The onus is on the applicant, in this case the landlord, to provide the necessary evidence to support their claim. If she fails to do so then the application will be dismissed, whether it has merit or not.
I am persuaded by the evidence of the landlord and tests that methamphetamine was used in the premises during the tenancy by either the tenant or someone in the premises with her consent.
I find the tenant has committed an unlawful act.

Is the tenant liable for damage?

The evidence about manufacture of methamphetamine is less persuasive.
Only five areas tested above 15ug/100cm2 and there was no evidence of any paraphernalia used for manufacture.
At best the report only suspected attempts at manufacture.
The New Zealand Standard 8510:2017 Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine-contained properties (“NZS8510”) recommended an acceptable level of methamphetamine contamination in an affected property of
5ug/100cm2 for high use areas. Beyond that level a property was regarded as needing decontamination. If a property needed decontamination, then for the purposes of the Residential Tenancies Act the property is damaged.
On 29 May 2018 the Prime Minister’s then Chief Science Advisor Professor Sir Peter Gluckman released a report “Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposure, risk levels and interpretation of standards” (“the Gluckman Report”). This concluded that, in the case of third hand contact, exposure to methamphetamine levels below 15ug/100cm2 is unlikely to have an adverse effect.
Since the Gluckman Report many decisions by the Tribunal have found that applicants were unable to prove that methamphetamine contamination below 15ug/100cm2 posed a health risk and amounted to damage.
This position is consistent with the comments of the Court of Appeal in Smith v Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited [2019] NZCA 38. At paragraph [16] in reference to the Gluckman Report the Court stated, “We acknowledge that the testing in this case yielded results now considered not to raise any health issues and safety concerns.”
Moreover, the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947, when considering an appeal of the Tribunal which adopted the Gluckman Report stated at paragraph [36] “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 in Acme Realty Ltd v Alexander James Hogg, Tuitui Grace Polotu, Leigh Sharyn Coughlin [2021] NZDC 3231 considered the specific question of whether the New Zealand Standard NZS8510 had any force of law given it was the current New Zealand Standard around methamphetamine levels in residential dwellings. His Honour Judge Harrison confirmed there was no force of law with the New Zealand Standard.
The Gluckman Report and several District Court decisions have confirmed that methamphetamine levels below 15ug/100cm2 are not injurious to health.
Based on the Gluckman report which has been preferred by the Tribunal and higher Courts, I consider that the property was only damaged in the areas above the 15ug/100cm2 level.
Although not required by the majority of the levels to do so the landlord has prudently had extensive cleaning undertaken which has adversely affected the chemicals in the septic tank.
Unfortunate as it may be for the landlord I do not consider the tenant is liable for the effects of cleaning the septic tank.
The claim for compensation of $713.61 fails.

Should compensation and or exemplary damages be awarded?

As I have found the tenant committed unlawful acts by exceeding the maximum number of people allowable in the tenancy agreement, and using or allowing the use of methamphetamine in the premises I must consider the issue of exemplary damages.
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.
Exemplary damages under the Act are different from compensation. The provision of such damages is designed to punish and deter; Attorney-General (Commissioner of Crown Lands) v Little Bo Peep Sheep Company Ltd (HC CIV 2010-412-134).
An award of exemplary damages is made at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved, as in this case, that the other party has committed defined unlawful acts. In making an award I need to consider the four matters set out in section 109(3).
The first of these is the intent of the tenant.
The District Court has said the requirement of intention is not about whether the party was aware they were breaching the Act. Rather, it is about whether they acted intentionally i.e. whether they intended to do whatever it was they did or did not do, (Parton v Fifita TT 1815/00 DC Auckland, 1/5/2001)
By her own admission the tenant agreed there were more people living in the premises, either permanently or for period of time, than allowed under the tenancy agreement.
Although the tenant denied knowing anything about methamphetamine use, considering the levels and extent of contamination throughout the premises, it is not difficult to assume that she was aware of the issue.
The effect of the unlawful drug use in particular has been significant on the landlord.
Having considered the factors set out in section 109(3), particularly the effect on the landlord and the public interest, I consider it would be just to award exemplary damages at the mid-range of the scale for each breach. I have set these at $1,300.00.
As the landlord was partly successful with the application, I have awarded the filing fee.
The landlord did not ask for name suppression.
Suppression is not available to the tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5297746 — Rent arrears at 27 Newcastle Street, Hampden, Hampden 9410

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5297746 — Rent arrears at 27 Newcastle Street, Hampden, Hampden 9410

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the tenant owe rent arrears?

Did the tenant use the premises for an unlawful purpose?

Is the tenant liable for damage?

Should compensation and or exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the tenant owe rent arrears?

Did the tenant use the premises for an unlawful purpose?

Is the tenant liable for damage?

Should compensation and or exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions