What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4847583?

The tribunal order states: Komal Preet and Shubham Gulati to pay Reforma P.M. Limited - As Agent

How much money was awarded in case 4847583?

Property Damage: $900.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4847583?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4847583?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10926210-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4847583?

The tribunal order states: Komal Preet and Shubham Gulati to pay Reforma P.M. Limited - As Agent

How much money was awarded in case 4847583?

Property Damage: $900.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4847583?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4847583?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10926210-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

13 Kereru Rise, Papakura, Papakura 2110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4847583 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4847583 — net $1,470.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Insurance excess for meth contamination	$550.00	Insurance excess for meth contamination
Exemplary damages s49B RTA	$900.00	Exemplary damages s49B RTA
Net award	$1,470.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,470.44

Order

Komal Preet and Shubham Gulati to pay Reforma P.M. Limited - As Agent forEt Leng Sothun Yem $1,470.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background:
This is the second hearing of this matter.
This is a landlord application seeking the insurance excess for methamphetamine (“meth”) decontamination, exemplary damages for unlawful use of the property and reimbursement of the filing fee. (See s40 (3A) of residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The tenancy commenced on 25 June 2022 and terminated on 12 February 2024 after the tenants gave notice.
The following evidence was obtained during the last hearing of this matter on 27 July 2024.
The property was re-tenanted, with new tenants who took over the property on 9 th of March 2024.
The new tenant was a lady called “Megan” and her adult family. On the 10th of March 2024 Megan’s daughter was approached by a stranger who stated that the property used to be a meth house and that the previous occupants cooked meth and sold it from the property.
Megan contacted the landlord who initiated an immediate meth test to be carried out on the property. The landlord called Megan at the hearing, and she told us about the conversation she had with her daughter regarding the claims made by the stranger.
Megan gave this evidence by telephone.
The landlord had an initial meth test carried out on 18th of March 2024 with results that indicated contamination of the property. A further extensive meth test was carried out, which revealed a heavily contaminated property that was deemed uninhabitable. Megan and her family were given 7 days’ notice to vacate the property. They left the property on 28 March 2024
This was 6 weeks and 3 days after the first tenants left and Megan left the property.
The landlord says that the meth contamination has occurred during Komal Preet (Komal) and Shubham (Shubham) Gulati’s tenancy. Komal and Shubham deny any knowledge or involvement in meth using, supply or manufacturing.
It is not disputed that prior to Komal and Shubham’s tenancy that no meth testing had been carried out. Nor is it denied that there was no meth testing done after Komal and Shubham’s tenancy.
The landlord says that they are certain that it was during Komal and Shubham’s tenancy that the contamination took place as prior to their tenancy the owners had lived in the property.
There had been two previous tests for meth carried out in 2019 and 2021. The owners did not consider that as they were living in the property that a meth test was required after they left the property.
The landlord was aware that it is for them to prove that the contamination has taken place during this tenancy to point liability for the insurance excess and exemplary damages at Komal and Shubham.
The landlord points to the installation of a new heat pump during their tenancy that once tested, resulted in evidence that it had be exposed to meth. The landlord stated this is evidence that the meth usage was during this tenancy and not before they moved in as the heat pump was new and contaminated.
Furthermore, that any suggestion that Megan and her family could be the people responsible for the contamination, can be ignored because Megan advised the landlord within days of taking over the tenancy, of the concern of drug usage in the property. Furthermore, that Megan had been a long-term tenant of the property manager and had no history of any issues or meth usage in their former properties.
The tenants previously stated that due to the nature of their employment they are routinely drug tested. They said that there had not been any adverse reading or test results indicating meth usage. Neither tenant had their drug test results available at the first hearing.
I advised the tenants that they do not carry the burden of disproving the claim against them, but that these drug test results may be very helpful for my determination. They were willing to obtain the results and suggested they had some information that would be useful to the Tribunal.
I adjourned the hearing, part heard, to allow the tenants to provide any information that is relevant and useful to the Tribunal.
The landlord acknowledged that they were shocked with the meth test results and were not opposed to an adjournment for the test results and any other information the tenants wish to provide to the Tribunal.
Unfortunately, the tenants were unable to provide any proof of their drug testing results through their previous employers nor offered any new information to the Tribunal.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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 premises were found to have very high levels of contamination due to meth usage, manufacture or selling. The landlord had to carry out a full decontamination of the property. The landlord seeks the insurance excess of $550.00 The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord has provided detailed reports of the level of contamination, insurance claim and excess amount, in addition to the cost of the clean up and replacement of furnishings.
I find that the landlord has been successful in their claim for insurance excess for the meth decontamination.
I award the landlord $550.00 for the insurance excess. Exemplary damages:
Reforma P.M. Limited - As Agent for Et Leng Sothun Yem claims the tenants have used the premises unlawfully, by using, manufacturing, or selling meth from the premises.
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 unlawful to use possess or use controlled drugs, such as meth, under s 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, and on conviction carries a term of imprisonment.
The tenants took over a tenancy that had previously had two meth tests carried out. The owner of the property had resided in the property immediately prior to the tenants moving in. Regardless during this tenancy, the landlord installed a new heat pump. The heat pump was also contaminated at the end of the tenancy. The tenants were unable to dispute this fact.
Megan, the new tenant notified the landlord the day after she moved in about the concerns about meth dealing in the property, thereby it is unlikely that she or her family were responsible for the contamination.
The tenants suggest that someone could have used the property in the two to three weeks after their tenancy ended and Megan’s tenancy began. The landlord said this is not possible as the landlord changed the code on the front door the day of the final exit inspection and had all the keys to the property and no one broke into the property.
I find on the balance of probability the tenants are responsible for the meth contamination.
I find the tenants did use or otherwise deal with meth during their tenancy, or someone else residing at the property with the tenant’s consent, during the tenancy.
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.
There is a great deal of public interest and concern about contaminated properties and the effects of this on unsuspecting new tenants. The landlord and insurance company has incurred considerable financial expense due to the tenants’ deliberate actions. The new tenant, Megan was upset that she had exposed her family to meth contamination in their new home and had to move again with 7 days’ notice. Thereby incurring expense of moving trucks and associated help at the end of a tenancy.
I find that the tenants such pay the landlord exemplary damages of $900.00 for breaching s 40 (3A) (c) RTA. This is 50% of the maximum penalty allowable for exemplary damages for this type of breach of the RTA.
The bond is to be split between the landlord and tenants as set out below: -Landlord is to receive $1470.44. -Tenants are to be refunded the remainder which is $1709.56.
Because Reforma P.M. Limited - As Agent for Et Leng Sothun Yem has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4847583 — net $1,470.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Insurance excess for meth contamination	$550.00	Insurance excess for meth contamination
Exemplary damages s49B RTA	$900.00	Exemplary damages s49B RTA
Net award	$1,470.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,470.44

Order

Komal Preet and Shubham Gulati to pay Reforma P.M. Limited - As Agent forEt Leng Sothun Yem $1,470.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background:
This is the second hearing of this matter.
This is a landlord application seeking the insurance excess for methamphetamine (“meth”) decontamination, exemplary damages for unlawful use of the property and reimbursement of the filing fee. (See s40 (3A) of residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The tenancy commenced on 25 June 2022 and terminated on 12 February 2024 after the tenants gave notice.
The following evidence was obtained during the last hearing of this matter on 27 July 2024.
The property was re-tenanted, with new tenants who took over the property on 9 th of March 2024.
The new tenant was a lady called “Megan” and her adult family. On the 10th of March 2024 Megan’s daughter was approached by a stranger who stated that the property used to be a meth house and that the previous occupants cooked meth and sold it from the property.
Megan contacted the landlord who initiated an immediate meth test to be carried out on the property. The landlord called Megan at the hearing, and she told us about the conversation she had with her daughter regarding the claims made by the stranger.
Megan gave this evidence by telephone.
The landlord had an initial meth test carried out on 18th of March 2024 with results that indicated contamination of the property. A further extensive meth test was carried out, which revealed a heavily contaminated property that was deemed uninhabitable. Megan and her family were given 7 days’ notice to vacate the property. They left the property on 28 March 2024
This was 6 weeks and 3 days after the first tenants left and Megan left the property.
The landlord says that the meth contamination has occurred during Komal Preet (Komal) and Shubham (Shubham) Gulati’s tenancy. Komal and Shubham deny any knowledge or involvement in meth using, supply or manufacturing.
It is not disputed that prior to Komal and Shubham’s tenancy that no meth testing had been carried out. Nor is it denied that there was no meth testing done after Komal and Shubham’s tenancy.
The landlord says that they are certain that it was during Komal and Shubham’s tenancy that the contamination took place as prior to their tenancy the owners had lived in the property.
There had been two previous tests for meth carried out in 2019 and 2021. The owners did not consider that as they were living in the property that a meth test was required after they left the property.
The landlord was aware that it is for them to prove that the contamination has taken place during this tenancy to point liability for the insurance excess and exemplary damages at Komal and Shubham.
The landlord points to the installation of a new heat pump during their tenancy that once tested, resulted in evidence that it had be exposed to meth. The landlord stated this is evidence that the meth usage was during this tenancy and not before they moved in as the heat pump was new and contaminated.
Furthermore, that any suggestion that Megan and her family could be the people responsible for the contamination, can be ignored because Megan advised the landlord within days of taking over the tenancy, of the concern of drug usage in the property. Furthermore, that Megan had been a long-term tenant of the property manager and had no history of any issues or meth usage in their former properties.
The tenants previously stated that due to the nature of their employment they are routinely drug tested. They said that there had not been any adverse reading or test results indicating meth usage. Neither tenant had their drug test results available at the first hearing.
I advised the tenants that they do not carry the burden of disproving the claim against them, but that these drug test results may be very helpful for my determination. They were willing to obtain the results and suggested they had some information that would be useful to the Tribunal.
I adjourned the hearing, part heard, to allow the tenants to provide any information that is relevant and useful to the Tribunal.
The landlord acknowledged that they were shocked with the meth test results and were not opposed to an adjournment for the test results and any other information the tenants wish to provide to the Tribunal.
Unfortunately, the tenants were unable to provide any proof of their drug testing results through their previous employers nor offered any new information to the Tribunal.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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 premises were found to have very high levels of contamination due to meth usage, manufacture or selling. The landlord had to carry out a full decontamination of the property. The landlord seeks the insurance excess of $550.00 The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord has provided detailed reports of the level of contamination, insurance claim and excess amount, in addition to the cost of the clean up and replacement of furnishings.
I find that the landlord has been successful in their claim for insurance excess for the meth decontamination.
I award the landlord $550.00 for the insurance excess. Exemplary damages:
Reforma P.M. Limited - As Agent for Et Leng Sothun Yem claims the tenants have used the premises unlawfully, by using, manufacturing, or selling meth from the premises.
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 unlawful to use possess or use controlled drugs, such as meth, under s 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, and on conviction carries a term of imprisonment.
The tenants took over a tenancy that had previously had two meth tests carried out. The owner of the property had resided in the property immediately prior to the tenants moving in. Regardless during this tenancy, the landlord installed a new heat pump. The heat pump was also contaminated at the end of the tenancy. The tenants were unable to dispute this fact.
Megan, the new tenant notified the landlord the day after she moved in about the concerns about meth dealing in the property, thereby it is unlikely that she or her family were responsible for the contamination.
The tenants suggest that someone could have used the property in the two to three weeks after their tenancy ended and Megan’s tenancy began. The landlord said this is not possible as the landlord changed the code on the front door the day of the final exit inspection and had all the keys to the property and no one broke into the property.
I find on the balance of probability the tenants are responsible for the meth contamination.
I find the tenants did use or otherwise deal with meth during their tenancy, or someone else residing at the property with the tenant’s consent, during the tenancy.
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.
There is a great deal of public interest and concern about contaminated properties and the effects of this on unsuspecting new tenants. The landlord and insurance company has incurred considerable financial expense due to the tenants’ deliberate actions. The new tenant, Megan was upset that she had exposed her family to meth contamination in their new home and had to move again with 7 days’ notice. Thereby incurring expense of moving trucks and associated help at the end of a tenancy.
I find that the tenants such pay the landlord exemplary damages of $900.00 for breaching s 40 (3A) (c) RTA. This is 50% of the maximum penalty allowable for exemplary damages for this type of breach of the RTA.
The bond is to be split between the landlord and tenants as set out below: -Landlord is to receive $1470.44. -Tenants are to be refunded the remainder which is $1709.56.
Because Reforma P.M. Limited - As Agent for Et Leng Sothun Yem has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4847583 — Exemplary damages at 13 Kereru Rise, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4847583 — Exemplary damages at 13 Kereru Rise, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions