What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4898140?

The tribunal order states: Letitia Whitehouse must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $15,912.55

How much money was awarded in case 4898140?

Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Methamphetamine Test Reports: $1,309.07 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4809164 D…: $683.30 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $12,699.74 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4898140?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4898140?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10569521-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4898140?

The tribunal order states: Letitia Whitehouse must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $15,912.55

How much money was awarded in case 4898140?

Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Methamphetamine Test Reports: $1,309.07 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4809164 D…: $683.30 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $12,699.74 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4898140?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4898140?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10569521-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 183 Strickland Street, Addington, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 4898140 — Exemplary damages

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4898140 — net $15,912.55 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4809164 dated 25/03/2024	$683.30	Previous order application 4809164 dated 25/03/2024
Remove contaminated wall linings, cabinetry, soft furnishings, carpets and drapes; and rubbish removal	$12,699.74	Remove contaminated wall linings, cabinetry, soft furnishings, carpets and drapes; and rubbish removal
Methamphetamine test reports	$1,309.07	Methamphetamine test reports
Exemplary damages for unlawful use of premises	$1,200.00	Exemplary damages for unlawful use of premises
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$15,912.55
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$15,912.55

Mr Waters, Mr Trusttrum and Ms Newton represented the landlord. The tenant did not attend the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation for the removal of contaminated wall linings, soft furnishings, carpet, drapes, and cabinetry; rubbish removal; and the filing fee.

The landlord applied to amend the application to include a claim for exemplary damages for the unlawful use of the premises by the tenant which I accepted. Previous order

The Tribunal made an order for rent arrears and the refund of the bond on 25 March 2024 – [2024] NZTT 4809164. I have incorporated that order into this order.

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 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

This unit was an open plan unit with only the bathroom being a separate room.

The premises were contaminated with methamphetamine. Two of the readings were 69μg/100cm² (the bathroom) and 81μg/100cm² (the open plan area).

The levels well exceed the threshold for methamphetamine contamination the Tribunal works to, 15/μg/100cm² for use and 1.5μg/100cm² for manufacture.

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 tenant is liable for the removal cost of the contaminated wall linings, soft furnishings, carpet, drapes, and the cabinetry, together with the cost of the methamphetamine testing reports.

The tenant is also liable for the cost of rubbish removal. Exemplary damages

A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) RTA.

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 RTA.

Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.

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) RTA.

Using methamphetamine to a degree that results in such significant contamination is clearly an intentional act. The landlord’s photos produced in evidence show considerable drug paraphernalia consistent with high usage and/or multiple users.

The effect of the unlawful act on the landlord has been significant. The unit has had to be decommissioned because of the cost of reinstating it. That means that a social housing premise has been removed from supply at a time when there is great demand for social housing. That is against the interests of the landlord and is against the public interest.

For these reasons I have made a high award of exemplary damages in this case because of the effects of the tenant’s actions. Result

The tenant must pay the landlord $15,912.55 comprising compensation for removing the contaminated material and chattels from the unit, rubbish removal, exemplary damages, and the Tribunal filing fee. This amount includes the balance awarded to the landlord after the deduction of the bond as set out in the previous order.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4898140 — net $15,912.55 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4809164 dated 25/03/2024	$683.30	Previous order application 4809164 dated 25/03/2024
Remove contaminated wall linings, cabinetry, soft furnishings, carpets and drapes; and rubbish removal	$12,699.74	Remove contaminated wall linings, cabinetry, soft furnishings, carpets and drapes; and rubbish removal
Methamphetamine test reports	$1,309.07	Methamphetamine test reports
Exemplary damages for unlawful use of premises	$1,200.00	Exemplary damages for unlawful use of premises
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$15,912.55
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$15,912.55

Order

Letitia Whitehouse must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $15,912.55 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Mr Waters, Mr Trusttrum and Ms Newton represented the landlord. The tenant did not attend the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation for the removal of contaminated wall linings, soft furnishings, carpet, drapes, and cabinetry; rubbish removal; and the filing fee.
The landlord applied to amend the application to include a claim for exemplary damages for the unlawful use of the premises by the tenant which I accepted. Previous order
The Tribunal made an order for rent arrears and the refund of the bond on 25 March 2024 – [2024] NZTT 4809164. I have incorporated that order into this order.

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 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
This unit was an open plan unit with only the bathroom being a separate room.
The premises were contaminated with methamphetamine. Two of the readings were 69μg/100cm² (the bathroom) and 81μg/100cm² (the open plan area).
The levels well exceed the threshold for methamphetamine contamination the Tribunal works to, 15/μg/100cm² for use and 1.5μg/100cm² for manufacture.
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 tenant is liable for the removal cost of the contaminated wall linings, soft furnishings, carpet, drapes, and the cabinetry, together with the cost of the methamphetamine testing reports.
The tenant is also liable for the cost of rubbish removal. Exemplary damages
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) RTA.
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 RTA.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
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) RTA.
Using methamphetamine to a degree that results in such significant contamination is clearly an intentional act. The landlord’s photos produced in evidence show considerable drug paraphernalia consistent with high usage and/or multiple users.
The effect of the unlawful act on the landlord has been significant. The unit has had to be decommissioned because of the cost of reinstating it. That means that a social housing premise has been removed from supply at a time when there is great demand for social housing. That is against the interests of the landlord and is against the public interest.
For these reasons I have made a high award of exemplary damages in this case because of the effects of the tenant’s actions. Result
The tenant must pay the landlord $15,912.55 comprising compensation for removing the contaminated material and chattels from the unit, rubbish removal, exemplary damages, and the Tribunal filing fee. This amount includes the balance awarded to the landlord after the deduction of the bond as set out in the previous order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4898140 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 2, 183 Strickland Street, Addington, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4898140 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 2, 183 Strickland Street, Addington, Christchurch

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