What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5336141 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression is appropriate in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5336141?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5336141?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5336141?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13132768-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5336141 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression is appropriate in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5336141?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5336141?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5336141?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13132768-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5336141 — Exemplary damages

Order

An application for suppression is appropriate in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant and landlords name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,080.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
All other applications are dismissed.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing.
The history to this case is outlined in the order dated 24 November 2024.
The case was adjourned to 11 February 2025 for both parties to ensure they filed the appropriate evidence in relation to the issues that needed to be determine.
I refer to those as outlined in my previous order; however, they have changed slightly in that the tenants no longer seek any claims against the landlord. They confirm that they oppose the landlord’s application, defending their position that they do not and did not use meth whilst in occupation.
The issues to be determined are: A) Did the tenants cause the damage to the property due to Methamphetamine use at the property? B) Is the tenant liable for the damage to the lino or was it careless use? C) Is the tenant liable for exemplary damages because they allowed the property to be used for an unlawful purpose, that is the meth use?
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. Did the tenants cause the damage to the property due to Methamphetamine use at the property?
The landlord claims that the tenant has used Methamphetamine at the property.
The details or which are set out in the order dated 24 November 2024.
The landlord obtained a pre tenancy meth testing report that showed very low levels of contamination and at the end of this tenancy obtained another report that showed higher readings thus they say is proof of use at the property.
The testing was carried out just over a year apart.
However, the original testing was not carried out on the same places as previously, thus not necessarily like for like.
Further the tenants have supplied excellent evidence in relation to their personal life and work commitments and such evidence does not show the likelihood of this family using or putting their families at risk.
In any event the levels shown are not those that the Gluckman report confirm are at a dangerous level that would require decontamination in that they are not therefore considered to be damage that requires remedy.
Costs for decontamination are only considered reasonable and claimable if the methamphetamine levels are at or above 15 micrograms/100cms2. If the levels are below this, decontamination is not required under the current guidelines and costs will not be awarded.
This is the approach adopted by the District Courts. In the case of Acme Realty Ltd v Hogg,Polotu and Coughlin NZDC 3231 the District Court confirmed that the New Zealand Standard does not override the Gluckman Report and that the Gluckman report threshold of 15miocrograms/100cm2is the appropriate standard.
The cases confirm that the claims for contamination, including exemplary damages for unlawful use are not supported when methamphetamine levels are below that threshold.
The levels in this case are low and well below the standard required for decontamination. Further given the original testing was not completed to the degree that the second test was, I am not satisfied that the testing was accurate.
This claim is therefore dismissed.

Is the tenant liable for the damage to the lino or was it careless use?

The landlord claims that the lino in the kitchen area where the dinning table and chairs were scratched by the use to the table and chairs, claiming the tenants were careless.
The tenants claim that the damage was fair wear and tear. They used a rug from the beginning of the tenancy under the table and chairs. On the evidence this particular area was intended to be used for the dining tables and chairs.
The definition of careless use in the context of the Residential Tenancies Act is not specifically defined but is interpreted according to the general principles of law and case law.
Careless use generally means a failure to take reasonable care to avoid causing damage or loss. It is less than intentional but more than accidental. It occurs when a person does something or fails to do something, that a reasonable person would foresee as likely to cause harm or damage. It is when a party does not exercise the level of care that a reasonable person would in the circumstances.
The fact that the tenants at the outset did all they could to take proper care by putting down a rug under the table and chairs at the outset, that the staged furniture at the viewing had a table and chair in that same position, indicating it was appropriate to put such furniture there I am not satisfied that the tenants were careless.
Therefore, the claim is dismissed. Is the tenant liable for exemplary damages because they allowed the property to be used for an unlawful purpose, that is the meth use?
As outlined above, given the levels are below 15 micrograms/100cm2, this is not considered contamination under the current standards. Therefore, claims for unlawful acts or exemplary damages related to contamination cannot succeed as is also supported by the District Court.
The claim is also dismissed.
Given the sensitive nature of the case and issues and subsequent outcome, I deem it appropriate to suppress all details to protect the tenant and landlord.

Order

An application for suppression is appropriate in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant and landlords name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,080.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
All other applications are dismissed.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing.
The history to this case is outlined in the order dated 24 November 2024.
The case was adjourned to 11 February 2025 for both parties to ensure they filed the appropriate evidence in relation to the issues that needed to be determine.
I refer to those as outlined in my previous order; however, they have changed slightly in that the tenants no longer seek any claims against the landlord. They confirm that they oppose the landlord’s application, defending their position that they do not and did not use meth whilst in occupation.
The issues to be determined are: A) Did the tenants cause the damage to the property due to Methamphetamine use at the property? B) Is the tenant liable for the damage to the lino or was it careless use? C) Is the tenant liable for exemplary damages because they allowed the property to be used for an unlawful purpose, that is the meth use?
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. Did the tenants cause the damage to the property due to Methamphetamine use at the property?
The landlord claims that the tenant has used Methamphetamine at the property.
The details or which are set out in the order dated 24 November 2024.
The landlord obtained a pre tenancy meth testing report that showed very low levels of contamination and at the end of this tenancy obtained another report that showed higher readings thus they say is proof of use at the property.
The testing was carried out just over a year apart.
However, the original testing was not carried out on the same places as previously, thus not necessarily like for like.
Further the tenants have supplied excellent evidence in relation to their personal life and work commitments and such evidence does not show the likelihood of this family using or putting their families at risk.
In any event the levels shown are not those that the Gluckman report confirm are at a dangerous level that would require decontamination in that they are not therefore considered to be damage that requires remedy.
Costs for decontamination are only considered reasonable and claimable if the methamphetamine levels are at or above 15 micrograms/100cms2. If the levels are below this, decontamination is not required under the current guidelines and costs will not be awarded.
This is the approach adopted by the District Courts. In the case of Acme Realty Ltd v Hogg,Polotu and Coughlin NZDC 3231 the District Court confirmed that the New Zealand Standard does not override the Gluckman Report and that the Gluckman report threshold of 15miocrograms/100cm2is the appropriate standard.
The cases confirm that the claims for contamination, including exemplary damages for unlawful use are not supported when methamphetamine levels are below that threshold.
The levels in this case are low and well below the standard required for decontamination. Further given the original testing was not completed to the degree that the second test was, I am not satisfied that the testing was accurate.
This claim is therefore dismissed.

Is the tenant liable for the damage to the lino or was it careless use?

The landlord claims that the lino in the kitchen area where the dinning table and chairs were scratched by the use to the table and chairs, claiming the tenants were careless.
The tenants claim that the damage was fair wear and tear. They used a rug from the beginning of the tenancy under the table and chairs. On the evidence this particular area was intended to be used for the dining tables and chairs.
The definition of careless use in the context of the Residential Tenancies Act is not specifically defined but is interpreted according to the general principles of law and case law.
Careless use generally means a failure to take reasonable care to avoid causing damage or loss. It is less than intentional but more than accidental. It occurs when a person does something or fails to do something, that a reasonable person would foresee as likely to cause harm or damage. It is when a party does not exercise the level of care that a reasonable person would in the circumstances.
The fact that the tenants at the outset did all they could to take proper care by putting down a rug under the table and chairs at the outset, that the staged furniture at the viewing had a table and chair in that same position, indicating it was appropriate to put such furniture there I am not satisfied that the tenants were careless.
Therefore, the claim is dismissed. Is the tenant liable for exemplary damages because they allowed the property to be used for an unlawful purpose, that is the meth use?
As outlined above, given the levels are below 15 micrograms/100cm2, this is not considered contamination under the current standards. Therefore, claims for unlawful acts or exemplary damages related to contamination cannot succeed as is also supported by the District Court.
The claim is also dismissed.
Given the sensitive nature of the case and issues and subsequent outcome, I deem it appropriate to suppress all details to protect the tenant and landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5336141 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5336141 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant liable for the damage to the lino or was it careless use?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant liable for the damage to the lino or was it careless use?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions