What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4719173?

The tribunal order states: Monique Noble must pay Pukekohe Property Management Limited T/A

How much money was awarded in case 4719173?

Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing: $5,908.70 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,817.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,326.48 awarded to landlord; Rent: $3,870.44 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Water Charges – October & December 2…: $374.96 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4719173?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4719173?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10268481-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4719173?

The tribunal order states: Monique Noble must pay Pukekohe Property Management Limited T/A

How much money was awarded in case 4719173?

Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing: $5,908.70 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,817.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,326.48 awarded to landlord; Rent: $3,870.44 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Water Charges – October & December 2…: $374.96 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4719173?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4719173?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10268481-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

4 Alaina Place, Tuakau, Tuakau 2121 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4719173 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4719173 — net $15,985.02 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent to 7 September 2023	$3,870.44	Rent to 7 September 2023
Lock/key replacement	$460.00	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal	$207.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs – walls	$1,817.00	Repairs – walls
Meth testing	$5,908.70	Meth testing
Exemplary damages – unlawful use	$1,000.00	Exemplary damages – unlawful use
Repairs - front door	$2,326.48	Repairs - front door
Water charges – October & December 22; July 23	$374.96	Water charges – October & December 22; July 23
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$15,985.02
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$15,985.02

Order

Monique Noble must pay Pukekohe Property Management Limited T/A Quinovic Property Management as Agent for Young Investors Limited $15,985.02 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing today.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, outgoings, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant initially lived at the property with her partner. He was the sole tenant pursuant to a fixed term tenancy from 6 May 2022 to 8 May 2023. The relationship broke down, the partner left, and a new tenancy was put in place. From 2 December 2022 the tenant was the sole tenant pursuant to a periodic tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water?

The tenancy ended on 7 September 2023 pursuant to an order of the Tribunal. The landlord provided rent records and water invoices which prove the amounts owing at the end of the tenancy ($3,870.44 for rent and $374.96 for water).

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.
The tenant did not remove all rubbish. The landlord’s photographs show furniture left outside in the yard ($207.00).
The tenant did not return the keys. The locks and remotes had to be changed to make the property secure ($460.00).

Was there unlawful use of the premises?

A screening assessment was performed on 12 April 2022 when the tenant moved into the premises. Less than 0.08ug/100cm2 of methamphetamine was found in a 10-sample composite.
Another screening assessment was performed on 21 November 2022. The highest reading was 1.37ug/100cm2 in the kitchen. The next highest was
96ug/100cm2 in the hallway.
A final screening assessment was performed on 1 September 2023. This found total contamination of 39.90ug/100cm2 in 10 samples. A detailed assessment was then performed on 12 September 2023. The highest readings were
22ug/100cm2 in the kitchen/dining room, 5.29ug/100cm2 in the hallway,
04ug/100cm2 in one of the bedrooms and 6.07ug/100cm2 in the toilet. None of the readings were at or above 15ug/100cm2.
Section 40(2)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) provides that a tenant must not use, or permit the premises to be used, for an unlawful purpose. The tenancy agreement provided that the tenant was not to possess, use or permit the use of illegal substances in the property.
I find that there was a breach of the tenancy agreement and section 40(2)(b) of the Act. Methamphetamine was used in the property during the tenancy.

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

A tenant who uses or permits the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose commits an “unlawful act” for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00.
It is an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 to manufacture, possess or use any controlled drug, or to knowingly permit any premises to be used for the purpose of consuming controlled drugs (sections 6, 7 and 12). It follows that methamphetamine use or manufacture at residential premises is a breach of section 40(2)(b) and an “unlawful act”.
Exemplary damages may be awarded where the tenant has committed the unlawful act intentionally. The Tribunal also has to be satisfied that 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.
Using methamphetamine is an intentional act. The landlord has incurred significant cost as a result of the tenant’s actions, in the region of $30,000.00 to decontaminate and replace affected furnishings. I am told there is no insurance cover for this loss, so the landlord has no third-party source of funding. The illegal drug use likely continued from April 2022 to the end of the tenancy in September 2023, so it was not an isolated incident. I find that it would be just to award exemplary damages of $1,000.00.

Is the tenant responsible for methamphetamine decontamination and testing?

The landlord claimed decontamination costs of $11,003.15 and testing costs of $5,908.70. The blinds and carpets were replaced due to the methamphetamine contamination ($10,500.28).
In June 2017, Standards New Zealand published standard NZS 8510:2017 (the NZ Standard) for testing and decontamination of methamphetamine- contaminated properties. This adopted a standard of 1.5ug/100cm2 for high use areas, for both manufacture and use. The foreword said that methamphetamine production and use can contaminate properties and expose occupants, particularly young children, to potential health risks. A post-contamination level of 1.5ug/100cm2 or less was considered appropriate to minimize exposure risks, acknowledging “safety factors” already built into a risk assessment by Environmental Science and Research Limited in October 2016.
Professor Gluckman, at that time the government’s chief science advisor, authored a report dated 29 May 2018 which concluded that methamphetamine levels exceeding the NZ Standard level of 1.5ug/100cm2 “...should not be regarded as signaling a health risk”. The report said that exposure to methamphetamine levels below 15ug/100cm2 would be unlikely to give rise to any adverse effects. Remediation to the 1.5ug/100cm2 standard was appropriate for former meth labs and properties with high levels of methamphetamine contamination from excessive use. The report said that manufacture in general results in greater methamphetamine residue levels than smoking alone and concluded that “...levels around or exceeding 30ug/100cm2 are regarded as strongly suggestive of manufacturing activity”.
In Full Circle Real Estate v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 the District Court had to determine whether the level of methamphetamine contamination would present a risk to human health. Where there is a risk to human health from such contamination, the property can be said to be damaged. The District Court said that the Gluckman report constituted the best available knowledge of the risks to human health from methamphetamine contamination. I interpret this case as confirmation that the Gluckman report is to be applied rather than the NZ Standard when determining whether there is damage.
Section 138C of the Act provides for regulations prescribing maximum acceptable levels of contaminants, decontamination processes, and obligations on landlords to decontaminate. To my knowledge, no such regulations have been brought into effect.
I find that, although the property has suffered from methamphetamine contamination, it is not at a level where there is a risk to human health. Therefore, the property cannot be considered damaged pursuant to section 40 of the Act, and the claim for decontamination costs must be dismissed.
I am, however, satisfied that methamphetamine was used at the property. There was no methamphetamine found at the start of the tenancy. The same areas were tested during and following the tenancy. While the contamination levels were below 15ug/100cm2 they are consistent with methamphetamine use. The initial screening cost ($3,136.05) and the cost of post-decontamination testing ($2,772.65) are awarded as losses caused by the breach.

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.
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 4 weeks' rent. The weekly rent was $550.00. The tenancy agreement states an insurance excess of $650.00.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to 4 weeks' rent.
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.
There was damage to the walls in the hallway, garage, and bedroom. The landlord claimed $1,817.00 for repairing the damage and holes for a TV bracket. There are several holes through the plaster shown in the photographs, although the damage covers a small area. I am satisfied that the repair cost is not excessive, and each area of damage entitled the landlord to at least the insurance excess.
There was damage to the front external door which left the door inoperable. It was replaced at a cost of $2,326.48. The photographs show parts of the panelling on the door had been torn off. Damage rendering a door unusable is likely to have been caused intentionally. I award the cost of a replacement front door. Filing fee
The landlord’s application has been partly successful. I award the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4719173 — net $15,985.02 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent to 7 September 2023	$3,870.44	Rent to 7 September 2023
Lock/key replacement	$460.00	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal	$207.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs – walls	$1,817.00	Repairs – walls
Meth testing	$5,908.70	Meth testing
Exemplary damages – unlawful use	$1,000.00	Exemplary damages – unlawful use
Repairs - front door	$2,326.48	Repairs - front door
Water charges – October & December 22; July 23	$374.96	Water charges – October & December 22; July 23
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$15,985.02
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$15,985.02

Order

Monique Noble must pay Pukekohe Property Management Limited T/A Quinovic Property Management as Agent for Young Investors Limited $15,985.02 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing today.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, outgoings, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant initially lived at the property with her partner. He was the sole tenant pursuant to a fixed term tenancy from 6 May 2022 to 8 May 2023. The relationship broke down, the partner left, and a new tenancy was put in place. From 2 December 2022 the tenant was the sole tenant pursuant to a periodic tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water?

The tenancy ended on 7 September 2023 pursuant to an order of the Tribunal. The landlord provided rent records and water invoices which prove the amounts owing at the end of the tenancy ($3,870.44 for rent and $374.96 for water).

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.
The tenant did not remove all rubbish. The landlord’s photographs show furniture left outside in the yard ($207.00).
The tenant did not return the keys. The locks and remotes had to be changed to make the property secure ($460.00).

Was there unlawful use of the premises?

A screening assessment was performed on 12 April 2022 when the tenant moved into the premises. Less than 0.08ug/100cm2 of methamphetamine was found in a 10-sample composite.
Another screening assessment was performed on 21 November 2022. The highest reading was 1.37ug/100cm2 in the kitchen. The next highest was
96ug/100cm2 in the hallway.
A final screening assessment was performed on 1 September 2023. This found total contamination of 39.90ug/100cm2 in 10 samples. A detailed assessment was then performed on 12 September 2023. The highest readings were
22ug/100cm2 in the kitchen/dining room, 5.29ug/100cm2 in the hallway,
04ug/100cm2 in one of the bedrooms and 6.07ug/100cm2 in the toilet. None of the readings were at or above 15ug/100cm2.
Section 40(2)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) provides that a tenant must not use, or permit the premises to be used, for an unlawful purpose. The tenancy agreement provided that the tenant was not to possess, use or permit the use of illegal substances in the property.
I find that there was a breach of the tenancy agreement and section 40(2)(b) of the Act. Methamphetamine was used in the property during the tenancy.

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

A tenant who uses or permits the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose commits an “unlawful act” for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00.
It is an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 to manufacture, possess or use any controlled drug, or to knowingly permit any premises to be used for the purpose of consuming controlled drugs (sections 6, 7 and 12). It follows that methamphetamine use or manufacture at residential premises is a breach of section 40(2)(b) and an “unlawful act”.
Exemplary damages may be awarded where the tenant has committed the unlawful act intentionally. The Tribunal also has to be satisfied that 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.
Using methamphetamine is an intentional act. The landlord has incurred significant cost as a result of the tenant’s actions, in the region of $30,000.00 to decontaminate and replace affected furnishings. I am told there is no insurance cover for this loss, so the landlord has no third-party source of funding. The illegal drug use likely continued from April 2022 to the end of the tenancy in September 2023, so it was not an isolated incident. I find that it would be just to award exemplary damages of $1,000.00.

Is the tenant responsible for methamphetamine decontamination and testing?

The landlord claimed decontamination costs of $11,003.15 and testing costs of $5,908.70. The blinds and carpets were replaced due to the methamphetamine contamination ($10,500.28).
In June 2017, Standards New Zealand published standard NZS 8510:2017 (the NZ Standard) for testing and decontamination of methamphetamine- contaminated properties. This adopted a standard of 1.5ug/100cm2 for high use areas, for both manufacture and use. The foreword said that methamphetamine production and use can contaminate properties and expose occupants, particularly young children, to potential health risks. A post-contamination level of 1.5ug/100cm2 or less was considered appropriate to minimize exposure risks, acknowledging “safety factors” already built into a risk assessment by Environmental Science and Research Limited in October 2016.
Professor Gluckman, at that time the government’s chief science advisor, authored a report dated 29 May 2018 which concluded that methamphetamine levels exceeding the NZ Standard level of 1.5ug/100cm2 “...should not be regarded as signaling a health risk”. The report said that exposure to methamphetamine levels below 15ug/100cm2 would be unlikely to give rise to any adverse effects. Remediation to the 1.5ug/100cm2 standard was appropriate for former meth labs and properties with high levels of methamphetamine contamination from excessive use. The report said that manufacture in general results in greater methamphetamine residue levels than smoking alone and concluded that “...levels around or exceeding 30ug/100cm2 are regarded as strongly suggestive of manufacturing activity”.
In Full Circle Real Estate v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 the District Court had to determine whether the level of methamphetamine contamination would present a risk to human health. Where there is a risk to human health from such contamination, the property can be said to be damaged. The District Court said that the Gluckman report constituted the best available knowledge of the risks to human health from methamphetamine contamination. I interpret this case as confirmation that the Gluckman report is to be applied rather than the NZ Standard when determining whether there is damage.
Section 138C of the Act provides for regulations prescribing maximum acceptable levels of contaminants, decontamination processes, and obligations on landlords to decontaminate. To my knowledge, no such regulations have been brought into effect.
I find that, although the property has suffered from methamphetamine contamination, it is not at a level where there is a risk to human health. Therefore, the property cannot be considered damaged pursuant to section 40 of the Act, and the claim for decontamination costs must be dismissed.
I am, however, satisfied that methamphetamine was used at the property. There was no methamphetamine found at the start of the tenancy. The same areas were tested during and following the tenancy. While the contamination levels were below 15ug/100cm2 they are consistent with methamphetamine use. The initial screening cost ($3,136.05) and the cost of post-decontamination testing ($2,772.65) are awarded as losses caused by the breach.

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.
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 4 weeks' rent. The weekly rent was $550.00. The tenancy agreement states an insurance excess of $650.00.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to 4 weeks' rent.
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.
There was damage to the walls in the hallway, garage, and bedroom. The landlord claimed $1,817.00 for repairing the damage and holes for a TV bracket. There are several holes through the plaster shown in the photographs, although the damage covers a small area. I am satisfied that the repair cost is not excessive, and each area of damage entitled the landlord to at least the insurance excess.
There was damage to the front external door which left the door inoperable. It was replaced at a cost of $2,326.48. The photographs show parts of the panelling on the door had been torn off. Damage rendering a door unusable is likely to have been caused intentionally. I award the cost of a replacement front door. Filing fee
The landlord’s application has been partly successful. I award the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4719173 — Property damage at 4 Alaina Place, Tuakau, Tuakau 2121

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4719173 — Property damage at 4 Alaina Place, Tuakau, Tuakau 2121

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water?

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

Was there unlawful use of the premises?

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

Is the tenant responsible for methamphetamine decontamination and testing?

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water?

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

Was there unlawful use of the premises?

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

Is the tenant responsible for methamphetamine decontamination and testing?

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions