What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4692750?

The tribunal order states: Olivia Pulley must pay Whalan and Partners Limited as agent for The Chia Family

How much money was awarded in case 4692750?

Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4692750?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4692750?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9582344-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4692750?

The tribunal order states: Olivia Pulley must pay Whalan and Partners Limited as agent for The Chia Family

How much money was awarded in case 4692750?

Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4692750?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4692750?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9582344-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

36 Nicolau Avenue, Rolleston 7615 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4692750 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4692750 — net $420.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Exemplary damages for using the premises for an unlawful purpose	$400.00	Exemplary damages for using the premises for an unlawful purpose
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$420.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$420.44

Order

Olivia Pulley must pay Whalan and Partners Limited as agent for The Chia Family Trust $420.44 immediately.
The landlord’s application for compensation for the insurance excess for methamphetamine decontamination is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Curtis attended on behalf of the landlord.
The landlord has applied for compensation, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The bond has since been refunded to the landlord by agreement to cover rent arrears and as a contribution to cleaning costs not included in this application.

Is the tenant responsible for 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 under sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
Post-tenancy methamphetamine testing recorded various levels of methamphetamine contamination on the premises. A pre-tenancy report had shown no trace of methamphetamine.
In 2010, the New Zealand Ministry of Health produced guidelines for the remediation of methamphetamine laboratories which determined that remediation was required if the environmental level of methamphetamine was over 0.5μg/100cm². This became the level at which premises were deemed to require decontamination.
In 2017 the level was increased when Standards New Zealand released Standard NZS 8510:2017 “Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine- contaminated properties”. This Standard confirmed that the level at which habitation of residential premises was considered safe was 1.5μg/100cm². At that time, this Standard set the definitive levels at which properties required decontamination.
In 2018, the then Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, reported that there was little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption (Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards, 29 May 2018). This report concluded that any levels below 15μg/100cm² were unlikely to present adverse effects.
Taken together these factors indicate that methamphetamine levels that exceed the NZS 8510:2017 clean-up standard of 1.5μg/100cm² should not be regarded as signalling a health risk. Indeed, exposure to methamphetamine levels below 15μg/100cm² would be unlikely to give rise to any adverse effects. This level still incorporates a 30-fold safety buffer on a conservative estimate of risk.
The matter was considered by the District Court, in relation to a Tenancy Tribunal order, in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 where Judge Keller stated that; “the Gluckman Report represents the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination in dwellings.”
This decision of the District Court has confirmed that the level to be applied by this Tribunal is that expressed by Professor Gluckman which is that there is no risk when levels of contamination are below 15μg/100cm².
In the present case, the highest level recorded was 13.1μg/100cm² in the master bedroom. This is above the threshold set by current New Zealand Standards but below the risk level in the Gluckman Report. Objectively, the property did not require decontamination.
Therefore, the landlord’s claim for compensation for the insurance excess for methamphetamine decontamination must fail.

Is the tenant liable for exemplary damages?

Under the Act, a tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose (s40(2)(b)). Allowing premises to be used for an unlawful purpose is an unlawful act (s40 (3A)(c)). Unlawful acts can give rise to exemplary damages under section 109(3) and Schedule 1A.
Whalan and Partners Limited as agent for The Chia Family Trust claims that the tenant has used the premises for an unlawful purpose.
It is unlawful to use, possess, cultivate or traffic in illegal drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. The landlord has provided evidence that confirms that the tenant used or permitted the use of methamphetamine on the premises. Methamphetamine is an illegal drug so, therefore, the tenant has used the premises for an unlawful purpose.
I find that the tenant has committed an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00 under section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
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 under section 109(3) of the Act.
The tenant did not deny that she had used or permitted others to use methamphetamine on the premises. Although the landlord did not have to decontaminate the premises given the levels are under the threshold in the Gluckman Report, the contamination has clearly caused distress and inconvenience to the landlord and significant effort has been made to enable the landlord to feel confident that the premises are safe for new tenants.
It is in the interests of the landlord and in the public interest to deter people from using methamphetamine in residential rental properties and to punish them when they choose to do so.
I award exemplary damages of $400.00 for the tenant’s breach in relation to the use of methamphetamine on the premises. Filing fee
As Whalan and Partners Limited as agent for The Chia Family Trust has partly succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4692750 — net $420.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Exemplary damages for using the premises for an unlawful purpose	$400.00	Exemplary damages for using the premises for an unlawful purpose
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$420.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$420.44

Order

Olivia Pulley must pay Whalan and Partners Limited as agent for The Chia Family Trust $420.44 immediately.
The landlord’s application for compensation for the insurance excess for methamphetamine decontamination is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Curtis attended on behalf of the landlord.
The landlord has applied for compensation, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The bond has since been refunded to the landlord by agreement to cover rent arrears and as a contribution to cleaning costs not included in this application.

Is the tenant responsible for 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 under sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
Post-tenancy methamphetamine testing recorded various levels of methamphetamine contamination on the premises. A pre-tenancy report had shown no trace of methamphetamine.
In 2010, the New Zealand Ministry of Health produced guidelines for the remediation of methamphetamine laboratories which determined that remediation was required if the environmental level of methamphetamine was over 0.5μg/100cm². This became the level at which premises were deemed to require decontamination.
In 2017 the level was increased when Standards New Zealand released Standard NZS 8510:2017 “Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine- contaminated properties”. This Standard confirmed that the level at which habitation of residential premises was considered safe was 1.5μg/100cm². At that time, this Standard set the definitive levels at which properties required decontamination.
In 2018, the then Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, reported that there was little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption (Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards, 29 May 2018). This report concluded that any levels below 15μg/100cm² were unlikely to present adverse effects.
Taken together these factors indicate that methamphetamine levels that exceed the NZS 8510:2017 clean-up standard of 1.5μg/100cm² should not be regarded as signalling a health risk. Indeed, exposure to methamphetamine levels below 15μg/100cm² would be unlikely to give rise to any adverse effects. This level still incorporates a 30-fold safety buffer on a conservative estimate of risk.
The matter was considered by the District Court, in relation to a Tenancy Tribunal order, in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 where Judge Keller stated that; “the Gluckman Report represents the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination in dwellings.”
This decision of the District Court has confirmed that the level to be applied by this Tribunal is that expressed by Professor Gluckman which is that there is no risk when levels of contamination are below 15μg/100cm².
In the present case, the highest level recorded was 13.1μg/100cm² in the master bedroom. This is above the threshold set by current New Zealand Standards but below the risk level in the Gluckman Report. Objectively, the property did not require decontamination.
Therefore, the landlord’s claim for compensation for the insurance excess for methamphetamine decontamination must fail.

Is the tenant liable for exemplary damages?

Under the Act, a tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose (s40(2)(b)). Allowing premises to be used for an unlawful purpose is an unlawful act (s40 (3A)(c)). Unlawful acts can give rise to exemplary damages under section 109(3) and Schedule 1A.
Whalan and Partners Limited as agent for The Chia Family Trust claims that the tenant has used the premises for an unlawful purpose.
It is unlawful to use, possess, cultivate or traffic in illegal drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. The landlord has provided evidence that confirms that the tenant used or permitted the use of methamphetamine on the premises. Methamphetamine is an illegal drug so, therefore, the tenant has used the premises for an unlawful purpose.
I find that the tenant has committed an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00 under section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
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 under section 109(3) of the Act.
The tenant did not deny that she had used or permitted others to use methamphetamine on the premises. Although the landlord did not have to decontaminate the premises given the levels are under the threshold in the Gluckman Report, the contamination has clearly caused distress and inconvenience to the landlord and significant effort has been made to enable the landlord to feel confident that the premises are safe for new tenants.
It is in the interests of the landlord and in the public interest to deter people from using methamphetamine in residential rental properties and to punish them when they choose to do so.
I award exemplary damages of $400.00 for the tenant’s breach in relation to the use of methamphetamine on the premises. Filing fee
As Whalan and Partners Limited as agent for The Chia Family Trust has partly succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4692750 — Exemplary damages at 36 Nicolau Avenue, Rolleston 7615

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4692750 — Exemplary damages at 36 Nicolau Avenue, Rolleston 7615

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the premises?

Is the tenant liable for exemplary damages?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the premises?

Is the tenant liable for exemplary damages?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions