What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4847223?

The tribunal order states: Kelly Sikma-Young must pay Lime Real Estate Limited as Agent for Penelope

How much money was awarded in case 4847223?

Carpet, Blinds And Curtains: $13,344.66 awarded to landlord; Decontamination: $8,189.55 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing: $5,448.14 awarded to landlord; Painting: $10,382.13 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4847223?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4847223?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10693461-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4847223?

The tribunal order states: Kelly Sikma-Young must pay Lime Real Estate Limited as Agent for Penelope

How much money was awarded in case 4847223?

Carpet, Blinds And Curtains: $13,344.66 awarded to landlord; Decontamination: $8,189.55 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing: $5,448.14 awarded to landlord; Painting: $10,382.13 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4847223?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4847223?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10693461-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

12 Broadway Avenue, Waikuku Beach 7473 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4847223 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4847223 — net $36,784.92 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Meth testing	$5,448.14	Meth testing
Decontamination	$8,189.55	Decontamination
Carpet, blinds and curtains	$13,344.66	Carpet, blinds and curtains
Painting	$10,382.13	Painting
Exemplary damages (unlawful use	$1,200.00	Exemplary damages (unlawful use
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$36,784.92
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$36,784.92

Order

Kelly Sikma-Young must pay Lime Real Estate Limited as Agent for Penelope Ritchie $36,784.92 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 (3372743-007) to Lime Real Estate Limited as Agent for Penelope Ritchie immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Azzopardi of Lime Real Estate represented the landlords. The tenant attended by telephone.
The landlord claims compensation, exemplary damages, payment of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
This order should be read with the Tribunal’s order made on 10 June 2024. Background
The Tribunal terminated this tenancy and gave possession of the premises to the landlord on 17 June 2024 by an order made on 10 June. The Tribunal found that the premises had been seriously damaged by methamphetamine (meth) contamination during the tenancy.
The landlord’s claims for compensation arising from the contamination were adjourned and directions made for additional evidence to be provided.
The adjourned hearing took place on 12 August and the Tribunal required additional evidence from the landlords. That evidence has now been provided.
At the last hearing the landlord’s insurance entitlements were unclear and so time was allowed for that to be resolved. The final position is that the landlords’ insurers will pay them the maximum cover under the policy being $30,000 less $1,000 excess.
I asked Ms Azzopardi whether the landlords were claiming the costs associated with the contamination in full or the net amount after deduction of the insurance payment. Her response was that the landlord did not want to be out of pocket at the end of this. She referred to other costs that have not been claimed such as loss of furniture that was in the premises and which has been disposed of due to the contamination.
Damage to premises caused by meth contamination in most, if not all, cases is intentional damage. It would be very unusual for such damage to be caused accidently. Where damage is caused intentionally, the Tribunal must ignore the effect of the landlord’s insurance cover, and there are no other limits on how much compensation the Tribunal can award up to its jurisdictional limit of $100,000.
The landlord can choose to give credit for insurance payments. In this case I take the landlords’ position to be that they do not wish to do so. My sense is that the landlords may take those payments into consideration when they come to recovering the money due to them from the tenant, but that will be up to them.
The tenant admitted that a guest of hers used meth in the premises, but she said that she was not aware, at the time, that he was doing so. Given the level of meth found in the premises, and the extent of meth use that would be needed to cause such a high level of contamination, I cannot accept that. I find that it is likely that she was aware of the meth use and she permitted it. In any case the tenant is responsible for the actions of her guests and so her state of knowledge is irrelevant. Law
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.
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.
The Tribunal must consider betterment and depreciation where appropriate. 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, the Tribunal will consider the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00.
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. Compensation for Meth Contamination
One of the key issues in this case is the extent to which the premises require decontamination given that the Tribunal works to the 15μg/100cm² level from the Gluckman report not the 1.5μg/100cm² level in the relevant New Zealand Standards. In this case, there were some areas of the premises where the level well exceeded 15, others where it was around 15 and others where it was well below 15.
The landlords have provided a statement from the decontamination company suggesting that where there is contamination of premises above the 15 level, the Gluckman Report, and the Standards, read together, require the entire premises to be decontaminated to a level below 1.5.
I take that to be a submission, not evidence. I also note that the Standards have no force of law. Nor do I regard them as evidence. That doesn’t mean that I disregard them. But the Gluckman Report is the primary source of scientific guidance for my consideration of this issue.
Having re-read the Report and the Standards I don’t accept the submission that the entire premises must be decontaminated to a level below 1.5 where some areas of the premises are contaminated at a level below and in some cases well below 15. The Gluckman Report does not say so expressly, and, in my view, that cannot be implied from the report whether read together with the Standards or not.
Take a situation where one room of a premises is contaminated at a level above 15 and the rest of the premises is contaminated at a level below 15 but above
5. After decontamination of the heavily contaminated room, the room is below 15 and the rest of the premises are below 15. The Gluckman report says that there is a very low risk of harm to human health from that contamination. Why then should additional decontamination be needed and why should the tenant have to pay for that considerable cost?
There are contaminants everywhere in the environment including dwellings. That is a reality of modern life. The key question must be what are the risks to human health from the contaminants? If the risk is very low, we don’t need to be too concerned about them.
One argument that the landlords appear to rely on is that they may find it difficult to rent or sell the premises unless the level of contamination is reduced to below 1.5. That is due to the Standards and public perception of the risk from meth contamination. I understand that argument, and it has some force. It is like the arguments made in leaky homes cases for compensation for loss of value due to the stigma of having had a leaky home, even where the building has been properly repaired and leaky home features removed.
In my view the Tribunal should be guided by the science on this. If there is no reason to believe, based on the science, that there is any appreciable risk to human health from the residual contamination, there is no reason for anyone to be concerned about it. Whilst that may not be the case for everyone, it is reasonable to assume that most people will behave rationally. After all, no one is arguing for the levels to be reduced to zero. We are talking about a safe level and that should be determined by the science, not by supposed sentiment.
It follows that I do not accept the stigma argument. If the levels can be reduced to below 15, that is sufficient.
My approach is to award the reasonable cost of decontaminating those areas of the premises where the level of contamination exceeded 15. I accept that the decontamination of areas where the level was significantly above 15 needs to be thorough, and there would be no material difference between that needed to bring the level below 15 and that needed to bring it below 1.5.
Areas where the levels were only slightly above 15 would need a more modest level of decontamination. That is likely to mean that any painting needed due to the decontamination process would be less or possibly not required at all.
I find that the cost of the decontamination incurred by the landlords is reasonable, assuming that all areas were significantly above the level of 15. Therefore, I need to assess, as best I can, what proportion of that cost should be awarded based on the approach I have set out above.
This is a three-bedroom house with one lounge and one dining area, kitchen, ensuite bathroom, another bathroom, hall, stairs and laundry.
The areas where the levels exceeded 15 are the lounge, entry, stairs, bedroom two, ensuite and bedroom 3. Levels in the lounge, entry, bedroom two, ensuite and bedroom three were significantly more than 15.
The lounge and dining areas are open plan and so I treat them as one area.
Judging by the floor plan, I estimate that 70% of the premises were significantly over the 15 level. A further 10% were marginally contaminated. I will, therefore, award 75% of the cost of decontamination being $8,189.45 ($10,919.26 x 75%).
After considering the additional photographic evidence, and the written statement from the landlord’s painter, I accept that after cleaning those areas, they needed to be painted due to the damage to the walls from the cleaning. I have therefore awarded 75% of the painting cost as well, being $10,382.13 ($13,842.84 x 75%).
The landlords intend replacing the carpet and the blinds and curtains in the premises. The carpet has already been lifted and disposed of.
It is reasonable to replace the carpet, blinds and curtains in the contaminated areas. I first deduct 10% for betterment because they varied between two and five years old by the end of the tenancy.
Due to the difficulty of decontaminating carpet, I will award 80% of the remaining value of the furnishings. The combined cost or replacing the furnishings is $18,534.25. I therefore award $13,344.66 ($18,534.25 x 90% x 80%). Testing
It was reasonable for the landlord to have the premises tested, retested, and tested again after the decontamination process. I have therefore awarded the cost of the tests in full. Exemplary Damages
As I have said, I can’t accept that the tenant was unaware that meth was being used in the premises. By permitting it to be used, she has committed an unlawful act.
There should an award of exemplary damages in this case. The contamination was substantial and so the methamphetamine use must have been substantial as well. It has caused considerable damage to the premises, expense for the landlords (some of which has not been claimed) and it has no doubt caused the landlords a great deal of upset and distress.
An award of $1,800 must be reserved for the most serious cases. This case is towards the upper end of the scale and so I have awarded $1,200. Filing Fee
The landlords have been substantially successful, and so I have awarded them the filing fee. Result
The bond will be paid to the landlords and the tenant must pay the landlords the remaining liability.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4847223 — net $36,784.92 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Meth testing	$5,448.14	Meth testing
Decontamination	$8,189.55	Decontamination
Carpet, blinds and curtains	$13,344.66	Carpet, blinds and curtains
Painting	$10,382.13	Painting
Exemplary damages (unlawful use	$1,200.00	Exemplary damages (unlawful use
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$36,784.92
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$36,784.92

Order

Kelly Sikma-Young must pay Lime Real Estate Limited as Agent for Penelope Ritchie $36,784.92 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 (3372743-007) to Lime Real Estate Limited as Agent for Penelope Ritchie immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Azzopardi of Lime Real Estate represented the landlords. The tenant attended by telephone.
The landlord claims compensation, exemplary damages, payment of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
This order should be read with the Tribunal’s order made on 10 June 2024. Background
The Tribunal terminated this tenancy and gave possession of the premises to the landlord on 17 June 2024 by an order made on 10 June. The Tribunal found that the premises had been seriously damaged by methamphetamine (meth) contamination during the tenancy.
The landlord’s claims for compensation arising from the contamination were adjourned and directions made for additional evidence to be provided.
The adjourned hearing took place on 12 August and the Tribunal required additional evidence from the landlords. That evidence has now been provided.
At the last hearing the landlord’s insurance entitlements were unclear and so time was allowed for that to be resolved. The final position is that the landlords’ insurers will pay them the maximum cover under the policy being $30,000 less $1,000 excess.
I asked Ms Azzopardi whether the landlords were claiming the costs associated with the contamination in full or the net amount after deduction of the insurance payment. Her response was that the landlord did not want to be out of pocket at the end of this. She referred to other costs that have not been claimed such as loss of furniture that was in the premises and which has been disposed of due to the contamination.
Damage to premises caused by meth contamination in most, if not all, cases is intentional damage. It would be very unusual for such damage to be caused accidently. Where damage is caused intentionally, the Tribunal must ignore the effect of the landlord’s insurance cover, and there are no other limits on how much compensation the Tribunal can award up to its jurisdictional limit of $100,000.
The landlord can choose to give credit for insurance payments. In this case I take the landlords’ position to be that they do not wish to do so. My sense is that the landlords may take those payments into consideration when they come to recovering the money due to them from the tenant, but that will be up to them.
The tenant admitted that a guest of hers used meth in the premises, but she said that she was not aware, at the time, that he was doing so. Given the level of meth found in the premises, and the extent of meth use that would be needed to cause such a high level of contamination, I cannot accept that. I find that it is likely that she was aware of the meth use and she permitted it. In any case the tenant is responsible for the actions of her guests and so her state of knowledge is irrelevant. Law
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.
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.
The Tribunal must consider betterment and depreciation where appropriate. 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, the Tribunal will consider the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00.
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. Compensation for Meth Contamination
One of the key issues in this case is the extent to which the premises require decontamination given that the Tribunal works to the 15μg/100cm² level from the Gluckman report not the 1.5μg/100cm² level in the relevant New Zealand Standards. In this case, there were some areas of the premises where the level well exceeded 15, others where it was around 15 and others where it was well below 15.
The landlords have provided a statement from the decontamination company suggesting that where there is contamination of premises above the 15 level, the Gluckman Report, and the Standards, read together, require the entire premises to be decontaminated to a level below 1.5.
I take that to be a submission, not evidence. I also note that the Standards have no force of law. Nor do I regard them as evidence. That doesn’t mean that I disregard them. But the Gluckman Report is the primary source of scientific guidance for my consideration of this issue.
Having re-read the Report and the Standards I don’t accept the submission that the entire premises must be decontaminated to a level below 1.5 where some areas of the premises are contaminated at a level below and in some cases well below 15. The Gluckman Report does not say so expressly, and, in my view, that cannot be implied from the report whether read together with the Standards or not.
Take a situation where one room of a premises is contaminated at a level above 15 and the rest of the premises is contaminated at a level below 15 but above
5. After decontamination of the heavily contaminated room, the room is below 15 and the rest of the premises are below 15. The Gluckman report says that there is a very low risk of harm to human health from that contamination. Why then should additional decontamination be needed and why should the tenant have to pay for that considerable cost?
There are contaminants everywhere in the environment including dwellings. That is a reality of modern life. The key question must be what are the risks to human health from the contaminants? If the risk is very low, we don’t need to be too concerned about them.
One argument that the landlords appear to rely on is that they may find it difficult to rent or sell the premises unless the level of contamination is reduced to below 1.5. That is due to the Standards and public perception of the risk from meth contamination. I understand that argument, and it has some force. It is like the arguments made in leaky homes cases for compensation for loss of value due to the stigma of having had a leaky home, even where the building has been properly repaired and leaky home features removed.
In my view the Tribunal should be guided by the science on this. If there is no reason to believe, based on the science, that there is any appreciable risk to human health from the residual contamination, there is no reason for anyone to be concerned about it. Whilst that may not be the case for everyone, it is reasonable to assume that most people will behave rationally. After all, no one is arguing for the levels to be reduced to zero. We are talking about a safe level and that should be determined by the science, not by supposed sentiment.
It follows that I do not accept the stigma argument. If the levels can be reduced to below 15, that is sufficient.
My approach is to award the reasonable cost of decontaminating those areas of the premises where the level of contamination exceeded 15. I accept that the decontamination of areas where the level was significantly above 15 needs to be thorough, and there would be no material difference between that needed to bring the level below 15 and that needed to bring it below 1.5.
Areas where the levels were only slightly above 15 would need a more modest level of decontamination. That is likely to mean that any painting needed due to the decontamination process would be less or possibly not required at all.
I find that the cost of the decontamination incurred by the landlords is reasonable, assuming that all areas were significantly above the level of 15. Therefore, I need to assess, as best I can, what proportion of that cost should be awarded based on the approach I have set out above.
This is a three-bedroom house with one lounge and one dining area, kitchen, ensuite bathroom, another bathroom, hall, stairs and laundry.
The areas where the levels exceeded 15 are the lounge, entry, stairs, bedroom two, ensuite and bedroom 3. Levels in the lounge, entry, bedroom two, ensuite and bedroom three were significantly more than 15.
The lounge and dining areas are open plan and so I treat them as one area.
Judging by the floor plan, I estimate that 70% of the premises were significantly over the 15 level. A further 10% were marginally contaminated. I will, therefore, award 75% of the cost of decontamination being $8,189.45 ($10,919.26 x 75%).
After considering the additional photographic evidence, and the written statement from the landlord’s painter, I accept that after cleaning those areas, they needed to be painted due to the damage to the walls from the cleaning. I have therefore awarded 75% of the painting cost as well, being $10,382.13 ($13,842.84 x 75%).
The landlords intend replacing the carpet and the blinds and curtains in the premises. The carpet has already been lifted and disposed of.
It is reasonable to replace the carpet, blinds and curtains in the contaminated areas. I first deduct 10% for betterment because they varied between two and five years old by the end of the tenancy.
Due to the difficulty of decontaminating carpet, I will award 80% of the remaining value of the furnishings. The combined cost or replacing the furnishings is $18,534.25. I therefore award $13,344.66 ($18,534.25 x 90% x 80%). Testing
It was reasonable for the landlord to have the premises tested, retested, and tested again after the decontamination process. I have therefore awarded the cost of the tests in full. Exemplary Damages
As I have said, I can’t accept that the tenant was unaware that meth was being used in the premises. By permitting it to be used, she has committed an unlawful act.
There should an award of exemplary damages in this case. The contamination was substantial and so the methamphetamine use must have been substantial as well. It has caused considerable damage to the premises, expense for the landlords (some of which has not been claimed) and it has no doubt caused the landlords a great deal of upset and distress.
An award of $1,800 must be reserved for the most serious cases. This case is towards the upper end of the scale and so I have awarded $1,200. Filing Fee
The landlords have been substantially successful, and so I have awarded them the filing fee. Result
The bond will be paid to the landlords and the tenant must pay the landlords the remaining liability.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4847223 — Exemplary damages at 12 Broadway Avenue, Waikuku Beach 7473

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4847223 — Exemplary damages at 12 Broadway Avenue, Waikuku Beach 7473

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