What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4810517?

The tribunal order states: Angela Cherie Cassidy must pay Glasshouse Property Management Limited as

How much money was awarded in case 4810517?

Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $217.02 awarded to landlord; Ranch Slider Reglaze: $362.73 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4810517?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4810517?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10438343-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4810517?

The tribunal order states: Angela Cherie Cassidy must pay Glasshouse Property Management Limited as

How much money was awarded in case 4810517?

Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $217.02 awarded to landlord; Ranch Slider Reglaze: $362.73 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4810517?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4810517?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10438343-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

164B Old Farm Road, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4810517 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4810517 — net $2,150.19 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance excess	$750.00	Insurance excess
Repairs: Ranch slider reglaze	$362.73	Repairs: Ranch slider reglaze
Lock/key replacement	$217.02	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damage’s unlawful purpose	$800.00	Exemplary damage’s unlawful purpose
Net award	$2,150.19
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,150.19

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not appear.

The landlord has applied for compensation, exemplary damages, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The landlord withdrew the claim for rent arrears at the hearing.

The tenancy began on 19 June 2023 and was terminated for rent arrears by the Tribunal on 12 February 2024.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant did not return the keys. An invoice was provided, and the amount ordered is proved.

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.

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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: A ranch slider glass panel was broken. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered are proved. Methamphetamine

The landlord claimed that the premises were contaminated by methamphetamine during the tenancy. The landlord had insurance which covered decontamination and has applied for reimbursement of the insurance excess.

The landlord must prove that the tenant caused or permitted the contamination, or that it was caused by someone at the premises with the tenant’s consent. The landlord must also prove that, because of the contamination, the premises have been damaged or are not reasonably clean.

Section 138C Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides for regulations to be made prescribing the maximum acceptable level for contaminants, but as yet no regulations have been made in relation to methamphetamine.

There are currently two sources of guidance on the issue of a safe level of methamphetamine contamination in residential premises. In June 2017 Standards New Zealand published NZS 8510:2017. The standard recommended a maximum contamination level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 for high use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture. It recommended a higher level of 3.8μg/100cm 2 for limited use areas.

In May 2018 Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the then Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor, released a report "Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards”. The report noted that there is a lack of scientific evidence to prove that low-level third-hand methamphetamine exposure poses a health risk to humans. It stated that guidelines should be proportionate to risk and that exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm 2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect. It recommended retaining the level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 where contamination resulted from manufacture, due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the process.

The District Court has held that remediation should be carried out in accordance with the prevailing guidelines at the time (Diamond Real Estate Limited v Allan [2017] NZDC 833, Judge Kellar).

The Tribunal has generally applied the Gluckman recommendation. This approach was approved by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947, where the Court stated (at para [36]): The Tenancy Tribunal was in a difficult position. 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 took a similar approach in Acme Realty Limited v Hogg and others [2021] NZDC 3231, where the Court referred to the Full Circle case and held that, because NZS 8510:2017 has not been adopted into law, the Tribunal was not bound to apply the 1.5μg standard.

More recently, in Barfoot and Thompson Limited v Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited [2021] NZTT Auckland 4276319, both parties presented scientific evidence at a hearing before the Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that there was no new scientific research to change the conclusions reached in the Gluckman Report.

The premises were tested for the presence of methamphetamine on 14 June 2023 prior to the beginning of the tenancy. A result of 1.79 μg/100cm 2 was returned. The landlords have a policy that the premises can be rented, with the tenant’s knowledge, with a low recorded methamphetamine reading.

The premises were retested when the tenancy ended. A composite test on 14 February 2024 revealed methamphetamine present. A detailed test followed, and every area tested at the premises returned positive results. High levels of methamphetamine were found in the toilet of 15.3 μg and bedroom four 15.2 μg. There was also 9.24 μg recorded in the dining room and 13.5 μg in bedroom 3.

I find that the contamination occurred during the tenancy. The levels found were above the 15μg/100cm 2 recommended by the Gluckman report and therefore likely to have an adverse effect. The insurance excess claimed is awarded. Exemplary Damages

Glasshouse Property Management Limited as Agent for Richard and Rebecca Lowe claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by using the premises for an unlawful purpose.

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.

It is an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 for any person to have in their possession or consume any controlled drug and to allow any premises to be used for the commission of an offence under that Act and (ss 7 and 12).

“Methamphetamine” is included as a controlled drug under Schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Act.

The Tenancy Tribunal has previously found, and I agree, that the consumption of methamphetamine on premises amounts to the use of those premises for an unlawful purpose, in breach of section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant used the premises or permit the premises to be used for Methamphetamine consumption. I find they have committed an unlawful act.

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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986,RTA.

This is an intentional act, an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 and a breach of the requirements of the RTA. It is in the public interest that premises are not contaminated by drug use and there is a considerable time and cost to the landlord to reinstate the premises to a rentable condition.

I am satisfied that it is just to award exemplary damages of $800.00 to the landlord for this breach.

Because Glasshouse Property Management Limited as Agent for Richard and Rebecca Lowe has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4810517 — net $2,150.19 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance excess	$750.00	Insurance excess
Repairs: Ranch slider reglaze	$362.73	Repairs: Ranch slider reglaze
Lock/key replacement	$217.02	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damage’s unlawful purpose	$800.00	Exemplary damage’s unlawful purpose
Net award	$2,150.19
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,150.19