What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4641351?

The tribunal order states: Melanie Barrett must pay Todd Realty Limited $1,234.44 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4641351?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $114.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4641351?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4641351?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9688677-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4641351?

The tribunal order states: Melanie Barrett must pay Todd Realty Limited $1,234.44 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4641351?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $114.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4641351?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4641351?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9688677-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

25 Marne Street, Riverton, Riverton 9822 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4641351 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4641351 — net $1,234.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Replace smoke alarms	$114.00	Replace smoke alarms
Meth testing/Cleaning: Insurance Excess	$2,500.00	Meth testing/Cleaning: Insurance Excess
Net award	$1,234.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,234.44

Order

Melanie Barrett must pay Todd Realty Limited $1,234.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,400.00 (3728022-008) to Todd Realty Limited immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenant.
The landlord has applied for compensation for damage, refund of the bond, replacement smoke alarms and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant moved into the property on 20 July 2022. The tenancy concluded on 4 June 2023.
The landlord claims that the tenant has used, or permitted the use of, methamphetamine at the premises and is claiming reimbursement of the insurance excess.
The landlord is not seeking exemplary damages.

What were the methamphetamine test results?

A composite test (where the results of multiple samples are combined) on 9 June 2023 and 13 July 2023 indicated that methamphetamine was present. These results were confirmed by way of Certificate of Analysis from Analytica Laboratories.
The landlord also provided confirmation from Hill Laboratories dated 11 July 2022 of zero methamphetamine at the start of the tenancy.
I accept the in-depth test reports and laboratory results as reliable. What does the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 say about methamphetamine damage to tenancy premises?
A tenant must not use, or permit the use of, the premises for any unlawful purpose; section 40(2)(b) RTA. To do so is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded of up to $1,800.00; s40(3A)(c) RTA
A landlord must prove that premises have been damaged during the tenancy and that the damage is the result of an 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 s49B(8)(a) RTA. The use or possession of methamphetamine is an imprisonable offence; see the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
If the landlord proves this, then a tenant is liable for the costs of “making good the damage” and other reasonably foreseeable losses related to the damage; sections 49A and 49B(1)(b) RTA.
The standard of proof that applies is the civil standard “on the balance of probabilities”. This means that I do not have to be completely certain, but I must be satisfied that what is alleged is “more probable than not”.
The landlord has provided written test results from Hill Laboratories dated 11 July 2022 taken at the start of the tenancy confirming that there were negligible traces of methamphetamine present.
The landlord has provided creditable evidence in the form of written testing results from samples taken on 19 June 2023 confirming that meth residue was detected in 13 out of 13 samples of which 8 individual samples exceeded the levels in NZS8510. 9 Further samples taken on 13 July 2023 confirmed positive methamphetamine results in 7 out of 9 results of which 3 individual samples exceeded the levels in NZS8510.
After considering the evidence, I am satisfied that it is more probable than not that the tenant herself engaged in, or allowed, methamphetamine related activity at the premises during this tenancy. Did the methamphetamine related behaviour during the tenancy cause damage to the premises?
I am satisfied that it is more probable than not that there was methamphetamine use during this tenancy, however the tenant is only liable to pay compensation if that use caused damage to the premises.
The landlord provided evidence from Jae Limited dated 28 June 2023 confirming a Scope of Work for Decontamination of Methamphetamine in respect of this tenancy address. I have also sighted a quote from Carpet Plus dated 9 August 2023 and confirmation of a statement from State Insurance dated 29 August 2023.
I am satisfied that the tenant’s use of methamphetamine at the address has caused significant damage to the premises.
I am satisfied that the methamphetamine use was intentional and that the tenant is legally responsible for it. The test results clearly indicate use throughout the house. I consider that the tenant must have known about it and permitted it.
After taking into account the tenant’s intent (to use, or allow the use of, prohibited drugs inside rented premises), the effect on the landlord (significant inconvenience from testing, making an insurance claim, and taking these proceedings), the interests of the landlord (that their property not be implicated in unlawful activity that may damage it or reduce the ability to rent it out in the future) and the public interest (that tenants be discouraged from using premises for unlawful activity), the damage is intentional and accordingly I allow the landlord’s claim for the insurance excess. Smoke Alarms:
The landlord claims that the tenant removed two smoke alarms which had been installed within the house. The landlord provided evidence from Smoke Alarm Testing Services dated 21 June 2023 confirming replacement of these two units. Having sighted this evidence I am satisfied that the tenant is responsible for payment of the amount as claimed.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Because Todd Realty Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4641351 — net $1,234.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Replace smoke alarms	$114.00	Replace smoke alarms
Meth testing/Cleaning: Insurance Excess	$2,500.00	Meth testing/Cleaning: Insurance Excess
Net award	$1,234.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,234.44

Order

Melanie Barrett must pay Todd Realty Limited $1,234.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,400.00 (3728022-008) to Todd Realty Limited immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenant.
The landlord has applied for compensation for damage, refund of the bond, replacement smoke alarms and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant moved into the property on 20 July 2022. The tenancy concluded on 4 June 2023.
The landlord claims that the tenant has used, or permitted the use of, methamphetamine at the premises and is claiming reimbursement of the insurance excess.
The landlord is not seeking exemplary damages.

What were the methamphetamine test results?

A composite test (where the results of multiple samples are combined) on 9 June 2023 and 13 July 2023 indicated that methamphetamine was present. These results were confirmed by way of Certificate of Analysis from Analytica Laboratories.
The landlord also provided confirmation from Hill Laboratories dated 11 July 2022 of zero methamphetamine at the start of the tenancy.
I accept the in-depth test reports and laboratory results as reliable. What does the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 say about methamphetamine damage to tenancy premises?
A tenant must not use, or permit the use of, the premises for any unlawful purpose; section 40(2)(b) RTA. To do so is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded of up to $1,800.00; s40(3A)(c) RTA
A landlord must prove that premises have been damaged during the tenancy and that the damage is the result of an 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 s49B(8)(a) RTA. The use or possession of methamphetamine is an imprisonable offence; see the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
If the landlord proves this, then a tenant is liable for the costs of “making good the damage” and other reasonably foreseeable losses related to the damage; sections 49A and 49B(1)(b) RTA.
The standard of proof that applies is the civil standard “on the balance of probabilities”. This means that I do not have to be completely certain, but I must be satisfied that what is alleged is “more probable than not”.
The landlord has provided written test results from Hill Laboratories dated 11 July 2022 taken at the start of the tenancy confirming that there were negligible traces of methamphetamine present.
The landlord has provided creditable evidence in the form of written testing results from samples taken on 19 June 2023 confirming that meth residue was detected in 13 out of 13 samples of which 8 individual samples exceeded the levels in NZS8510. 9 Further samples taken on 13 July 2023 confirmed positive methamphetamine results in 7 out of 9 results of which 3 individual samples exceeded the levels in NZS8510.
After considering the evidence, I am satisfied that it is more probable than not that the tenant herself engaged in, or allowed, methamphetamine related activity at the premises during this tenancy. Did the methamphetamine related behaviour during the tenancy cause damage to the premises?
I am satisfied that it is more probable than not that there was methamphetamine use during this tenancy, however the tenant is only liable to pay compensation if that use caused damage to the premises.
The landlord provided evidence from Jae Limited dated 28 June 2023 confirming a Scope of Work for Decontamination of Methamphetamine in respect of this tenancy address. I have also sighted a quote from Carpet Plus dated 9 August 2023 and confirmation of a statement from State Insurance dated 29 August 2023.
I am satisfied that the tenant’s use of methamphetamine at the address has caused significant damage to the premises.
I am satisfied that the methamphetamine use was intentional and that the tenant is legally responsible for it. The test results clearly indicate use throughout the house. I consider that the tenant must have known about it and permitted it.
After taking into account the tenant’s intent (to use, or allow the use of, prohibited drugs inside rented premises), the effect on the landlord (significant inconvenience from testing, making an insurance claim, and taking these proceedings), the interests of the landlord (that their property not be implicated in unlawful activity that may damage it or reduce the ability to rent it out in the future) and the public interest (that tenants be discouraged from using premises for unlawful activity), the damage is intentional and accordingly I allow the landlord’s claim for the insurance excess. Smoke Alarms:
The landlord claims that the tenant removed two smoke alarms which had been installed within the house. The landlord provided evidence from Smoke Alarm Testing Services dated 21 June 2023 confirming replacement of these two units. Having sighted this evidence I am satisfied that the tenant is responsible for payment of the amount as claimed.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Because Todd Realty Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4641351 — Property damage at 25 Marne Street, Riverton, Riverton 9822

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4641351 — Property damage at 25 Marne Street, Riverton, Riverton 9822

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What were the methamphetamine test results?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What were the methamphetamine test results?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions