What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4806078?

The tribunal order states: Sophie Wheeler must pay Joanne Iona Coatsworth, Ryan William Coatsworth,

How much money was awarded in case 4806078?

Cleaning: $220.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $328.83 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $146.90 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $246.20 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $164.95 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,350.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,477.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4806078?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4806078?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10650625-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4806078?

The tribunal order states: Sophie Wheeler must pay Joanne Iona Coatsworth, Ryan William Coatsworth,

How much money was awarded in case 4806078?

Cleaning: $220.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $328.83 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $146.90 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $246.20 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $164.95 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,350.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,477.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4806078?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4806078?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10650625-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

15 Highland Road, Brighton, RD 1, Dunedin 9091 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4806078 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4806078 — net $5,204.32 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Electrical fittings replacement &/or repair	$328.83	Electrical fittings replacement &/or repair
Replacement rugs & fire fan	$146.90	Replacement rugs & fire fan
Lock/key replacement	$246.20	Lock/key replacement
Repairs to wall & door latch	$164.95	Repairs to wall & door latch
Carpet Cleaning	$220.00	Carpet Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$350.00	Lawns and Garden work
Replacement tools in garage & firewood	$3,350.00	Replacement tools in garage & firewood
Rubbish removal & storage costs	$1,477.00	Rubbish removal & storage costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,204.32
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,204.32

Order

Sophie Wheeler must pay Joanne Iona Coatsworth, Ryan William Coatsworth, Stephen Allan Coatsworth - as agent for Ryan & Jo Coatsworth and Susannah Elizabeth Keen - as agent for Ryan & Jo Coatsworth $5,204.32 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,100.00 (6489169-006) to Joanne Iona Coatsworth, Ryan William Coatsworth, Stephen Allan Coatsworth - as agent for Ryan & Jo Coatsworth and Susannah Elizabeth Keen - as agent for Ryan & Jo Coatsworth immediately.
The application by Joanne Iona Coatsworth, Ryan William Coatsworth, Stephen Allan Coatsworth, Susannah Elizabeth Keen - as agent for Ryan and Jo Coatsworth for further compensation of $14,179.44 and exemplary damages is dismissed.
The landlord shall immediately arrange the return of the stored possessions to Sophie Wheeler.

Reasons

Both parties attended the case conference and hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, exemplary damages for an unlawful act, a disposal order, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The total claim by the landlord amounts to $20,463.32.
The tenant has cross applied for refund of her $1,100.00 bond and return of possessions, some of which belong to other people.
The tenancy was for a fixed term from 21/1/2023 to 21/1/2024 at $550.00 per week rent.
A case conference was held by telephone on 5/6/2024.

Did the tenant comply with her 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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claimed compensation of $10,656.58 as follows: a. $727.00 rubbish removal costs b. $4,628.45 replacement costs for tools in the garage c. $496.90 replacement costs for household items d. $246.20 for lock change e. $708.03 carpet cleaning f. $3,150.00 for firewood and removal of trees g. $700.00 garden work
In support of the claim the landlord provided extensive submissions, photographs and a videos taken before and after the tenancy began, communications with the tenant and Police reports.
On the other hand, the tenant denied any knowledge of removal of the tools but agreed the carpets needed some cleaning, the fire fan had been removed, and she had not returned all keys.
The tenant also agreed that some firewood had been sold and trees cut down, but not by her.
I am persuaded by the evidence that the tenant did not remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy or return all keys.
In addition, there were a significant number of tools missing at the end of the tenancy, especially from the garage and the firewood supply had been significantly depleted.
In making the award for replacement tools, I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off.
In calculating depreciation, I have considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan, the items ranging in age from 1 to 15 years.
Carpet cleaning, garden work and rubbish removal claims have also been reduced to reflect awards more usually made by the Tribunal for such work and taking into account tasks for which the tenant is not responsible.

Is the tenant responsible for the 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The landlord claimed compensation of $7,644.74 as follows: a. $2,884.00 for replacement of carpet in the master bedroom b. $795.08 for meth testing c. $3,965.66 for repairs
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 four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
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. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord provided a copy of a HillLabs certificate of analysis dated 30/1/2024 and photographs of two “pipes” to support the claim for the costs of meth testing and cleaning.
The testing was a composite of lounge/dining, hall, master bedroom, garage/couch and garage ceiling and noted methamphetamine of “0.10ug/sample” and “Methamphetamine Potential Maximum in a single sample
51ug/sample”.
In response the tenant denied having used methamphetamine in the premises.
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.
Further the report noted that levels of 30ug/100cm2 signified it was likely that manufacturing had taken place.
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 are not injurious to health.
The contamination levels detected in the samples taken on 30 January 2024 were significantly below those considered by the Gluckman report as likely to have any adverse effect.
Decontamination is not required for low level methamphetamine levels below 15ug/100cm2.
I consider the cleaning undertaken was not required to restore the premises to a safe habitable state and the claim for cleaning costs fails.
The claim for methamphetamine testing also fails as this is considered a business cost of renting premises.
However, I am satisfied that damage was caused during the tenancy to a wall, chattels, trees, electrical cable and outlet, tools and a picnic table.
Except for the picnic table, the damage is more than fair wear and tear.
The claim for replacement of the carpet in the master bedroom fails because the landlord did not replace the carpet and therefore did not incur any costs.
Although the landlord suggested that there had been a loss on the price obtained for the sale of the property due to the carpets no evidence was produced to support that contention.
An award has been made for electrical repairs and for the wall, door latch, chattels and tools.

Did the tenant commit an unlawful act?

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.
In the absence of any test results from before the tenancy started it is impossible to prove that there was an increase in methamphetamine levels during the tenancy.
The tenant denied using methamphetamine and did not know if her partner had.
The presence of a methamphetamine pipe in the garden and a broken pipe in a tool box is not enough to prove, on the balance of probabilities, the use of methamphetamine by the tenant.
I find the tenant did not commit an unlawful act and exemplary damages are not available to the landlord.

Were the goods left at the premises by the tenant abandoned?

The landlord has applied for the disposal of goods that the tenant left at the premises at the end of the tenancy.
In addition, the landlord claims storage costs of $2,162.00 to 31/7/2024.
On the other hand, the tenant wants the goods returned and said she did not abandon them.
Section 40(1)(e)(ii) provides that on termination of a tenancy a tenant must remove all their goods from the premises.
Section 62 sets out what happens when on termination of a tenancy a tenant leaves goods on the premises.
Under section 33 a landlord is not entitled to seize or dispose of any tenant’s goods as security for payment of any amount owing as rent or for any other reason arising from the tenancy.
Seizing or disposing of the goods is an unlawful act which can lead to an award of exemplary damages to a maximum of $3,000.00.
The landlord submitted that the goods left locked in the garage on the premises were abandoned and despite numerous attempts the tenant failed to collect the goods or make arrangements to have them delivered to her.
As a result, the landlord had the goods removed and declined to return them to the tenant until all costs were paid.
In response the tenant suggested that the goods were not abandoned but rather by issuing a trespass notice dated 26/1/2024 the landlord had prevented her removing her goods.
The tenant said that some of the goods belonged to other people.
I am persuaded by the evidence of the tenant that the goods were not abandoned but had been left locked in the garage pending transport being arranged.
Unfortunately, the relationship between the parties significantly deteriorated before removal of the goods could be accomplished and the landlord issued a trespass notice four days after the tenancy ended.
While the landlord is entitled to remove and store the goods, I find the tenant is not liable for the costs of storage after 5/6/2024.
The reason for this is that the tenant had attempted to have the goods returned but had effectively been thwarted from doing so by the Trespass notice.
Further, at the case conference the tenant sought to have the goods returned but the landlord declined until the then $1,100.00 account had been paid.
I consider by issuing the Trespass notice and then allowing the storage costs to increase by a further $1,062.00 the landlord failed to mitigate loss pursuant to section 49.
An award has been made for storage costs of $1,100.00 only.
The landlord must immediately arrange for return of the goods to the tenant and the tenant needs to assist in this process. Other issues
The landlord confirmed that despite moving to Australia in January 2023 they were the landlord for the tenancy and did not appoint an agent until 19/10/2023.
A landlord who is out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must ensure they have an agent in New Zealand. See section 16A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 16A(6) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not apply for exemplary damages for the failure by the landlord to appoint an agent.
However, I consider that this breach and the failure of the landlord to treat the renting of the premises as a business contributed significantly to the dispute which arose between the parties.
The order is made against the tenant because the Tenancy Tribunal only has jurisdiction between landlords and tenants.
If there is a dispute between this tenant and a former tenant as to who is responsible for the debt this can be pursued in the Disputes Tribunal.
As Joanne Iona Coatsworth, Ryan William Coatsworth, Stephen Allan Coatsworth - as agent for Ryan & Jo Coatsworth, Susannah Elizabeth Keen - as agent for Ryan & Jo Coatsworth have substantially succeeded with the claim I have awarded the filing fee.
The landlord did not apply for name suppression.
Although the tenant sought name suppression, I consider suppression is not available to her because she was only partly successful in her claim.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4806078 — net $5,204.32 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Electrical fittings replacement &/or repair	$328.83	Electrical fittings replacement &/or repair
Replacement rugs & fire fan	$146.90	Replacement rugs & fire fan
Lock/key replacement	$246.20	Lock/key replacement
Repairs to wall & door latch	$164.95	Repairs to wall & door latch
Carpet Cleaning	$220.00	Carpet Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$350.00	Lawns and Garden work
Replacement tools in garage & firewood	$3,350.00	Replacement tools in garage & firewood
Rubbish removal & storage costs	$1,477.00	Rubbish removal & storage costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,204.32
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,204.32

Order

Sophie Wheeler must pay Joanne Iona Coatsworth, Ryan William Coatsworth, Stephen Allan Coatsworth - as agent for Ryan & Jo Coatsworth and Susannah Elizabeth Keen - as agent for Ryan & Jo Coatsworth $5,204.32 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,100.00 (6489169-006) to Joanne Iona Coatsworth, Ryan William Coatsworth, Stephen Allan Coatsworth - as agent for Ryan & Jo Coatsworth and Susannah Elizabeth Keen - as agent for Ryan & Jo Coatsworth immediately.
The application by Joanne Iona Coatsworth, Ryan William Coatsworth, Stephen Allan Coatsworth, Susannah Elizabeth Keen - as agent for Ryan and Jo Coatsworth for further compensation of $14,179.44 and exemplary damages is dismissed.
The landlord shall immediately arrange the return of the stored possessions to Sophie Wheeler.

Reasons

Both parties attended the case conference and hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, exemplary damages for an unlawful act, a disposal order, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The total claim by the landlord amounts to $20,463.32.
The tenant has cross applied for refund of her $1,100.00 bond and return of possessions, some of which belong to other people.
The tenancy was for a fixed term from 21/1/2023 to 21/1/2024 at $550.00 per week rent.
A case conference was held by telephone on 5/6/2024.

Did the tenant comply with her 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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claimed compensation of $10,656.58 as follows: a. $727.00 rubbish removal costs b. $4,628.45 replacement costs for tools in the garage c. $496.90 replacement costs for household items d. $246.20 for lock change e. $708.03 carpet cleaning f. $3,150.00 for firewood and removal of trees g. $700.00 garden work
In support of the claim the landlord provided extensive submissions, photographs and a videos taken before and after the tenancy began, communications with the tenant and Police reports.
On the other hand, the tenant denied any knowledge of removal of the tools but agreed the carpets needed some cleaning, the fire fan had been removed, and she had not returned all keys.
The tenant also agreed that some firewood had been sold and trees cut down, but not by her.
I am persuaded by the evidence that the tenant did not remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy or return all keys.
In addition, there were a significant number of tools missing at the end of the tenancy, especially from the garage and the firewood supply had been significantly depleted.
In making the award for replacement tools, I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off.
In calculating depreciation, I have considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan, the items ranging in age from 1 to 15 years.
Carpet cleaning, garden work and rubbish removal claims have also been reduced to reflect awards more usually made by the Tribunal for such work and taking into account tasks for which the tenant is not responsible.

Is the tenant responsible for the 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The landlord claimed compensation of $7,644.74 as follows: a. $2,884.00 for replacement of carpet in the master bedroom b. $795.08 for meth testing c. $3,965.66 for repairs
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 four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
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. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord provided a copy of a HillLabs certificate of analysis dated 30/1/2024 and photographs of two “pipes” to support the claim for the costs of meth testing and cleaning.
The testing was a composite of lounge/dining, hall, master bedroom, garage/couch and garage ceiling and noted methamphetamine of “0.10ug/sample” and “Methamphetamine Potential Maximum in a single sample
51ug/sample”.
In response the tenant denied having used methamphetamine in the premises.
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.
Further the report noted that levels of 30ug/100cm2 signified it was likely that manufacturing had taken place.
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 are not injurious to health.
The contamination levels detected in the samples taken on 30 January 2024 were significantly below those considered by the Gluckman report as likely to have any adverse effect.
Decontamination is not required for low level methamphetamine levels below 15ug/100cm2.
I consider the cleaning undertaken was not required to restore the premises to a safe habitable state and the claim for cleaning costs fails.
The claim for methamphetamine testing also fails as this is considered a business cost of renting premises.
However, I am satisfied that damage was caused during the tenancy to a wall, chattels, trees, electrical cable and outlet, tools and a picnic table.
Except for the picnic table, the damage is more than fair wear and tear.
The claim for replacement of the carpet in the master bedroom fails because the landlord did not replace the carpet and therefore did not incur any costs.
Although the landlord suggested that there had been a loss on the price obtained for the sale of the property due to the carpets no evidence was produced to support that contention.
An award has been made for electrical repairs and for the wall, door latch, chattels and tools.

Did the tenant commit an unlawful act?

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.
In the absence of any test results from before the tenancy started it is impossible to prove that there was an increase in methamphetamine levels during the tenancy.
The tenant denied using methamphetamine and did not know if her partner had.
The presence of a methamphetamine pipe in the garden and a broken pipe in a tool box is not enough to prove, on the balance of probabilities, the use of methamphetamine by the tenant.
I find the tenant did not commit an unlawful act and exemplary damages are not available to the landlord.

Were the goods left at the premises by the tenant abandoned?

The landlord has applied for the disposal of goods that the tenant left at the premises at the end of the tenancy.
In addition, the landlord claims storage costs of $2,162.00 to 31/7/2024.
On the other hand, the tenant wants the goods returned and said she did not abandon them.
Section 40(1)(e)(ii) provides that on termination of a tenancy a tenant must remove all their goods from the premises.
Section 62 sets out what happens when on termination of a tenancy a tenant leaves goods on the premises.
Under section 33 a landlord is not entitled to seize or dispose of any tenant’s goods as security for payment of any amount owing as rent or for any other reason arising from the tenancy.
Seizing or disposing of the goods is an unlawful act which can lead to an award of exemplary damages to a maximum of $3,000.00.
The landlord submitted that the goods left locked in the garage on the premises were abandoned and despite numerous attempts the tenant failed to collect the goods or make arrangements to have them delivered to her.
As a result, the landlord had the goods removed and declined to return them to the tenant until all costs were paid.
In response the tenant suggested that the goods were not abandoned but rather by issuing a trespass notice dated 26/1/2024 the landlord had prevented her removing her goods.
The tenant said that some of the goods belonged to other people.
I am persuaded by the evidence of the tenant that the goods were not abandoned but had been left locked in the garage pending transport being arranged.
Unfortunately, the relationship between the parties significantly deteriorated before removal of the goods could be accomplished and the landlord issued a trespass notice four days after the tenancy ended.
While the landlord is entitled to remove and store the goods, I find the tenant is not liable for the costs of storage after 5/6/2024.
The reason for this is that the tenant had attempted to have the goods returned but had effectively been thwarted from doing so by the Trespass notice.
Further, at the case conference the tenant sought to have the goods returned but the landlord declined until the then $1,100.00 account had been paid.
I consider by issuing the Trespass notice and then allowing the storage costs to increase by a further $1,062.00 the landlord failed to mitigate loss pursuant to section 49.
An award has been made for storage costs of $1,100.00 only.
The landlord must immediately arrange for return of the goods to the tenant and the tenant needs to assist in this process. Other issues
The landlord confirmed that despite moving to Australia in January 2023 they were the landlord for the tenancy and did not appoint an agent until 19/10/2023.
A landlord who is out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must ensure they have an agent in New Zealand. See section 16A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 16A(6) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not apply for exemplary damages for the failure by the landlord to appoint an agent.
However, I consider that this breach and the failure of the landlord to treat the renting of the premises as a business contributed significantly to the dispute which arose between the parties.
The order is made against the tenant because the Tenancy Tribunal only has jurisdiction between landlords and tenants.
If there is a dispute between this tenant and a former tenant as to who is responsible for the debt this can be pursued in the Disputes Tribunal.
As Joanne Iona Coatsworth, Ryan William Coatsworth, Stephen Allan Coatsworth - as agent for Ryan & Jo Coatsworth, Susannah Elizabeth Keen - as agent for Ryan & Jo Coatsworth have substantially succeeded with the claim I have awarded the filing fee.
The landlord did not apply for name suppression.
Although the tenant sought name suppression, I consider suppression is not available to her because she was only partly successful in her claim.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4806078 — Property damage at 15 Highland Road, Brighton, RD 1, Dunedin 9091

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4806078 — Property damage at 15 Highland Road, Brighton, RD 1, Dunedin 9091

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenant commit an unlawful act?

Were the goods left at the premises by the tenant abandoned?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenant commit an unlawful act?

Were the goods left at the premises by the tenant abandoned?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions