What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4806999?

The tribunal order states: Jessie-Rae Mane is to pay Mid North Real Estate Limited (as agents for Alex

How much money was awarded in case 4806999?

Change Of Locks: $175.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $900.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Methamphetamine Testing Costs: $1,942.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Water Use (Entire Tenancy: $156.80 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4806999?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4806999?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10485181-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4806999?

The tribunal order states: Jessie-Rae Mane is to pay Mid North Real Estate Limited (as agents for Alex

How much money was awarded in case 4806999?

Change Of Locks: $175.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $900.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Methamphetamine Testing Costs: $1,942.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Water Use (Entire Tenancy: $156.80 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4806999?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4806999?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10485181-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Flat 2, 47 Wihongi Street, Kaikohe 0405 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4806999 — Property damage

Reasons

Background

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4806999 — net $4,574.24 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Water use (entire tenancy	$156.80	Water use (entire tenancy
Change of locks	$175.00	Change of locks
Methamphetamine decontamination (insurance excess	$2,500.00	Methamphetamine decontamination (insurance excess
Methamphetamine testing costs	$1,942.00	Methamphetamine testing costs
Exemplary damages: Unlawful activity	$900.00	Unlawful activity
Filing fee	$20.44	30. I will award exemplary damages of $900.00.
Net award	$4,574.24
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,574.24

The tenancy began on 7 July 2023.

On 15 December 2023 the Tenancy Tribunal made an order terminating the tenancy due to methamphetamine use at the premises 1 .

This application seeks water rates, change of locks, and methamphetamine related costs.

The hearing took place in Kaikohe on 20 June 2024. Ms van Engelen and Ms Maraki represented the landlord at the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenant. Water use, change of locks

The claim for water use is based on the water meter reading at the start and end of the tenancy.

The claim is proven.

Three keys were provided to the tenant at the start of the tenancy. Only one was returned. The landlord was entitled to change the locks. The cost is proven. Methamphetamine i.Background

Mid North tested the premises for methamphetamine before the start of this tenancy.

The result was positive at a very low level of 0.32 micrograms per 100cm2 on five-sample composite test.

During the tenancy Mid North received information that caused them to suspect drug activity at the premises.

Mid North carried out further testing in late November.

That testing involved taking 5 samples from various parts of the property for a composite test, and also taking one individual sample from the bedroom.

The result on the 5-sample composite was positive at a level of 26.1 micrograms per 100cm2. The result on the individual sample from the bedroom was positive at a level of 24.2 micrograms per 100cm2.

Further detailed (individual) testing was carried out after the tenancy ended.

The test results were positive on all 10 samples taken, with contamination at levels ranging from 1.72 to 18.7 micrograms per 100cm2. The highest levels of contamination were in the bedroom. 1 Mid North Real Estate Ltd v Mane [2023] NZTT 4758519

There is currently no level specified in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 as the ‘trigger’ for de-contamination.

The Tenancy Tribunal has adopted the recommendation of the Gluckman report 2 , which concluded that de-contamination is recommended if contamination is present at levels of 15 micrograms per 100cm2 or above 3 .

Part of the premises was contaminated at level above 15 micrograms. De- contamination was justified in this instance.

The landlord has insurance for methamphetamine de-contamination with an excess of $2,500.00. That is the amount claimed against the tenant by the landlord.

I am satisfied that the cost of necessary de-contamination was not less than $2,500.00.

Tenants are liable for damage to the premises that is caused by themselves or by anyone who is at the premises with their consent 4 . Contamination constitutes damage to the premises. The tenant is liable for the de- contamination cost.

The tenant is also liable for the testing costs. The level of contamination on the composite test meant that detailed testing was necessary to ascertain whether any part of the premises was contaminated above 15 micrograms. The cost of the detailed testing is proven.

It is an unlawful act for the tenant to use the premises, or to permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful activity 5 . The Tenancy Tribunal can award exemplary damages of up to $1,800.00 for that unlawful act.

Methamphetamine use is unlawful.

It is not possible to know whether Ms Mane is personally responsible for the methamphetamine contamination. However, if it was not Ms Mane personally, then it was someone who was at the premises with her consent. Mid North had previously brought an application to terminate the tenancy on the grounds that Ms Mane was not living at the property. Ms Mane contested that application, and stated that she was living there. If Ms Mane lived there, anyone who was at the premises long enough to cause methamphetamine contamination must have been present with her consent.

There are grounds for an award of exemplary damages. 2 Full Circle Real Estate Ltd v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 3 If the contamination is due to methamphetamine use. If there is evidence of methamphetamine manufacture, the Gluckman report recommends de-contamination if contamination is present at levels of 1,5 micgrograms per 100cm or 4 Section 49B(2) RTA 5 Section 40(2)(b) RTA

In considering an award of exemplary damages the Tribunal must have regard to: 6 i.The intention of the person who committed the unlawful act; and ii.The effect of the unlawful act; and iii.The interests of the person against whom the act was committed; and iv.The public interest.

The Tribunal’s usual approach to exemplary damages is to award one third of the maximum unless there are aggravating or mitigating factors in play 7 .

In this instance it is an aggravating factor that the unlawful activity caused damage to the premises, and a cost and delay for the landlord.

I will award exemplary damages of $900.00. Filing fee, bond

The landlord has been successful in this application, and I will also award the landlord the filing fee of $20.44.

The bond will be released to the landlord.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4806999 — net $4,574.24 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Water use (entire tenancy	$156.80	Water use (entire tenancy
Change of locks	$175.00	Change of locks
Methamphetamine decontamination (insurance excess	$2,500.00	Methamphetamine decontamination (insurance excess
Methamphetamine testing costs	$1,942.00	Methamphetamine testing costs
Exemplary damages: Unlawful activity	$900.00	Unlawful activity
Filing fee	$20.44	30. I will award exemplary damages of $900.00.
Net award	$4,574.24
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,574.24

Order

Jessie-Rae Mane is to pay Mid North Real Estate Limited (as agents for Alex and Ben De Roode) $4,574.24 immediately, calculated per the table below:

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 7 July 2023.
On 15 December 2023 the Tenancy Tribunal made an order terminating the tenancy due to methamphetamine use at the premises 1 .
This application seeks water rates, change of locks, and methamphetamine related costs.
The hearing took place in Kaikohe on 20 June 2024. Ms van Engelen and Ms Maraki represented the landlord at the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenant. Water use, change of locks
The claim for water use is based on the water meter reading at the start and end of the tenancy.
The claim is proven.
Three keys were provided to the tenant at the start of the tenancy. Only one was returned. The landlord was entitled to change the locks. The cost is proven. Methamphetamine i.Background
Mid North tested the premises for methamphetamine before the start of this tenancy.
The result was positive at a very low level of 0.32 micrograms per 100cm2 on five-sample composite test.
During the tenancy Mid North received information that caused them to suspect drug activity at the premises.
Mid North carried out further testing in late November.
That testing involved taking 5 samples from various parts of the property for a composite test, and also taking one individual sample from the bedroom.
The result on the 5-sample composite was positive at a level of 26.1 micrograms per 100cm2. The result on the individual sample from the bedroom was positive at a level of 24.2 micrograms per 100cm2.
Further detailed (individual) testing was carried out after the tenancy ended.
The test results were positive on all 10 samples taken, with contamination at levels ranging from 1.72 to 18.7 micrograms per 100cm2. The highest levels of contamination were in the bedroom. 1 Mid North Real Estate Ltd v Mane [2023] NZTT 4758519
There is currently no level specified in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 as the ‘trigger’ for de-contamination.
The Tenancy Tribunal has adopted the recommendation of the Gluckman report 2 , which concluded that de-contamination is recommended if contamination is present at levels of 15 micrograms per 100cm2 or above 3 .
Part of the premises was contaminated at level above 15 micrograms. De- contamination was justified in this instance.
The landlord has insurance for methamphetamine de-contamination with an excess of $2,500.00. That is the amount claimed against the tenant by the landlord.
I am satisfied that the cost of necessary de-contamination was not less than $2,500.00.
Tenants are liable for damage to the premises that is caused by themselves or by anyone who is at the premises with their consent 4 . Contamination constitutes damage to the premises. The tenant is liable for the de- contamination cost.
The tenant is also liable for the testing costs. The level of contamination on the composite test meant that detailed testing was necessary to ascertain whether any part of the premises was contaminated above 15 micrograms. The cost of the detailed testing is proven.
It is an unlawful act for the tenant to use the premises, or to permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful activity 5 . The Tenancy Tribunal can award exemplary damages of up to $1,800.00 for that unlawful act.
Methamphetamine use is unlawful.
It is not possible to know whether Ms Mane is personally responsible for the methamphetamine contamination. However, if it was not Ms Mane personally, then it was someone who was at the premises with her consent. Mid North had previously brought an application to terminate the tenancy on the grounds that Ms Mane was not living at the property. Ms Mane contested that application, and stated that she was living there. If Ms Mane lived there, anyone who was at the premises long enough to cause methamphetamine contamination must have been present with her consent.
There are grounds for an award of exemplary damages. 2 Full Circle Real Estate Ltd v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 3 If the contamination is due to methamphetamine use. If there is evidence of methamphetamine manufacture, the Gluckman report recommends de-contamination if contamination is present at levels of 1,5 micgrograms per 100cm or 4 Section 49B(2) RTA 5 Section 40(2)(b) RTA
In considering an award of exemplary damages the Tribunal must have regard to: 6 i.The intention of the person who committed the unlawful act; and ii.The effect of the unlawful act; and iii.The interests of the person against whom the act was committed; and iv.The public interest.
The Tribunal’s usual approach to exemplary damages is to award one third of the maximum unless there are aggravating or mitigating factors in play 7 .
In this instance it is an aggravating factor that the unlawful activity caused damage to the premises, and a cost and delay for the landlord.
I will award exemplary damages of $900.00. Filing fee, bond
The landlord has been successful in this application, and I will also award the landlord the filing fee of $20.44.
The bond will be released to the landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4806999 — Property damage at Flat 2, 47 Wihongi Street, Kaikohe 0405

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4806999 — Property damage at Flat 2, 47 Wihongi Street, Kaikohe 0405

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions