What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5312740?

The tribunal order states: Steve Clark and Amy Herd must pay Harcourts Cooper And Co Ltd As The

How much money was awarded in case 5312740?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5312740?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Exemplary damages, Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5312740?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12898219-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5312740?

The tribunal order states: Steve Clark and Amy Herd must pay Harcourts Cooper And Co Ltd As The

How much money was awarded in case 5312740?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5312740?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Exemplary damages, Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5312740?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12898219-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

77 Kitchener Road, Milford, Auckland 0620 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5312740 — Property damage

Order

Steve Clark and Amy Herd must pay Harcourts Cooper And Co Ltd As The Agent For Franca Waterhouse And John Dawson $7,484.59 immediately calculated as follows: DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears to termination$128.57 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Insurance excess (flood damage)$650.00 Meth testing/cleaning: Insurance excess$650.00 Repairs: Laundry taps$287.50 Television cords & amplifier$312.18 Fibre cord$35.90 Sandbags$60.00 Insurance excess (heat pump)$650.00 Repairs: Dogs' damages$6,350.25 Replace smoke alarms Loss of rental income $132.19
00 Exemplary damages - smoke alarm removal$1,200.00 Exemplary damages - premises used for an unlawful purpose$600.00 Total award$11,084.59 Bond$3,600.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$7,484.59
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,600.00 (3742771-005) to Harcourts Cooper And Co Ltd As The Agent For Franca Waterhouse And John Dawson immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The issues to be determined are: a. Is money owed for rent? b. Were the landlord chattels missing at the end of the tenancy? c. Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises? d. Should the tenants compensate the landlord for loss of rental income? e. Should exemplary damages be ordered?

How much is owed for rent?

There was no dispute that $128.57 was owed at the end of the tenancy. The landlord’s rent records confirmed the amount owing.

Were the landlord chattels missing 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 (RTA).
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: TV cords and amplifier, fibre lead, sandbags, and smoke alarms. The tenants have not returned the items and the landlord has had to pay for replacements. The tenants did not dispute that the items were missing or their replacement. It is reasonable that the tenants reimburse the landlord for these costs.
The amounts ordered for the replacement items have been proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Flooding repairs

During the tenancy there was a flood in the lower floor of the premises, reaching the bedroom, hallway and garage. It affected the carpets, the floor and walls. The tenants failed to inform the landlord that there had been flood damage, despite the landlord letting all their rental tenants know that they were available to assist. Ms Heard said that was because she panicked. The flood occurred on 26 April 2025. At the time the damage was assessed for repair, it was noted that there were possibly four areas of potential mould and fungus growth. The cost of remediation was significant; however, the landlord was insured. Insurance covered the loss, except for the excess of $650.00.
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. The landlord has proved that the damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The tenants are therefore liable to $650.00 to compensate the landlord for the insurance excess. Laundry taps
The laundry taps were damaged during the tenancy. The cost to replace the taps has been ordered because it was tenant damage. Dog damage
The tenants kept several dogs at the premises. Whether the number of dogs the tenants kept there was a breach of the tenancy agreement is largely irrelevant because, whether all the dogs were permitted or not, the tenants are liable for damage done by the dogs. The damage to doors and other woodwork was significant. The carpets were destroyed by urine and tears. The landlord did not have insurance cover for the cost of repairing damage done by the dogs. That became the owner’s loss. The evidence provided by the owner confirms that the repair cost of damage done by the dogs is $6,350.25.
The amount the tenants are to pay should be explained.
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. I am satisfied that the damage done by the tenants’ dogs was intentional damage. That is because the tenants knew the damage was happening but continued to allow the dogs in the house and failed to take any steps to address the situation. The tenants allowed a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. For that reason, the tenants are ordered to compensate the owner for the full repair cost. Heat pump
From the evidence provided I am satisfied that the heat pump was damaged during the tenancy. The tenants did not prove that they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage.
The damage was not fair wear and tear. Initially the insurer declined payment for the replacement heat pump; however, later agreed to cover the loss, less the $650.00 excess. The tenants must compensate the landlord for that $650.00 loss. Methamphetamine testing.
Before the tenancy began the landlord tested for the presence of methamphetamine residue. The test showed there was no methamphetamine residue present in the premises.
The tenancy ended on 29 May 2025. The premises was in an appalling condition when the landlord took possession. The premises had been extensively damaged by flooding, dog scratches to doors and woodwork and carpets that had been torn and stained with urine from the dogs.
The landlord suspected that methamphetamine had been used at the premises during the tenancy. Two weeks after the tenancy ended, they had methamphetamine tests taken on 10 June.
The tests showed that the methamphetamine residue level in a bathroom was
7ug/100cm 2 . All other areas of the house were less than 15.ug/100cm 2 .
In May 2018 the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman issued a report (the Report) entitled ‘Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards’. He determined that there was little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption below 15μg/100cm 2 . There is currently uncertainty about whether there is a serious health risk from exposure to the residue where methamphetamine residue levels are over 15ug/100cm 2 . His report did not state that residue from methamphetamine consumption over 15ug/100cm 2 had been proved to be unsafe.
It appears from the insurer’s report that contractors cleaned methamphetamine residue from almost every room in the premises. The cleaning was carried out in all rooms/areas despite the readings being less than 15ug/100cm 2 .
The insurer covered the cost of cleaning and the methamphetamine testing, less the insurance excess. I am satisfied that this loss was caused by the tenants, and they should compensate the landlord for this loss. I am reinforced by this because although Ms Heard denied that she and her partner and co- tenant consumed drugs at the premises, she did accept that someone who they permitted to reside at the premises and was known to her to be a drug user may well have consumed drugs onsite. Regardless, of who consumed it, it is clear from the results that methamphetamine had been consumed at levels necessitating compensation.

Should the tenants compensate the landlord for loss of rental income?

The landlord has claimed compensation for a loss of rental income for 14 weeks and 5 days amounting to $13,242.86. The period claimed for is 30 May (the tenancy ended on 29 May) to 9 September 2025 (the day of the hearing).
There are difficulties with the landlord’s claim for a loss of rental income. They include: a. For such a claim a landlord must prove an actual loss. The landlord will show that there is a contract in place for future rental income and a new tenant ready to move into the property. The landlord will produce a Tenancy Agreement signed by a new tenant. This enables the Tribunal to determine that there was a source of rental income. The landlord will then show the date when that tenant or some other tenant moved into the property. In the present case the applicant has not provided evidence that there was rental income arranged for the property after this tenancy ended. b. I would be unusual for any rental property to be rented the day after another tenancy ended. The landlord’s claim for rent from 30 May 2025 is unusual. c. In the landlord’s submission includes reference to, “a 73-year-old family member—who was scheduled to move in on 30 May—was forced to stay in an unclean, meth-contaminated, and unheated house. The following issues affected him: No heating ..., No TV reception..., Meth contamination and severe odours from dog urine....., One night of motel accommodation. There is no reference to the relative being contracted to pay rent. No other tenants would be able to rent the property if the relative was living there. d. The landlord has stated in their submission that the property was still vacant on 9 September due to continuing methamphetamine decontamination work. Although there was evidence of methamphetamine residue in most of the house there was only one room that required remediation due to methamphetamine residue. That was the bathroom with a reading of 23.7ug/100cm 2 . All other rooms/areas had readings less than 15.0ug/100cm 2 and were therefore no damage or requirement for remediation. It was the landlord’s choice to extend work on the property to include most areas of the house and therefore extend the time when the property could not be tenanted.
For these reasons there is considerable uncertainty regarding the landlord’s claim for lost rental income. The Tribunal does not have sufficient evidence to make a finding about that claim.

Should exemplary damages be ordered for the removal of smoke alarms?

The tenants removed the smoke alarms. The landlord had to replace smoke alarms at the end of the tenancy.
See section 40(2)(ab) RTA provides that a tenant must not cause or permit any interference with, or render inoperative, any means of escape from fire within the meaning of the Building Act 2004. The definition of “means of escape” includes “all active and passive protection features required to warn people of fire...”, which covers smoke alarms.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $4,000.00. See section 40(3A)(b) and Schedule 1A RTA. The tenants’ removal of smoke alarms was an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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.
Ms Heard claimed that she was unaware of how the smoke alarms came to be removed and perhaps that they were accidentally removed when leaving by friends helping with moving. I am satisfied that the removal of smoke alarms by the tenants had to be intentional. Multiple smoke alarms do not fall off the ceiling. Tenants know they are not the owners of smoke alarms in the premises they are renting and therefore would not make the effort to climb up and remove them from the ceiling when they are leaving. It is more than likely that the alarms had been taken down some time before the tenancy ended.
There is no reason why smoke alarms must be removed unless they are defective. The tenants did not inform the landlord that there was a need to replace alarms. It is reasonable to conclude that the smoke alarms removed by the tenants were not malfunctioning.
The effect of the unlawful act was that the premises became more vulnerable to damage and loss by fire, because the early warning system had been removed. Depending on the length of time the alarms had been removed, the tenants put their lives and the lives of anyone living with them in danger.
It is important for the maintenance of a rental market that owners of property remain confident that their properties are less vulnerable to damage from fire because there is a penalty if tenants remove early warning systems. Senselessly deactivating early warning systems must be discouraged. That is why the maximum penalty is $4,000.00.
I am satisfied that exemplary damages should be ordered for the tenants’ unlawful act.
The amount ordered for exemplary damages is $1,650.00. That is approximately one third of the maximum $4,000.00 provided for in the RTA. The maximum is reserved for recidivist offenders. I am unaware of other situations where these tenants have acted unlawfully regarding removing smoke alarms. Should exemplary damages be ordered for the tenants using the premises for an unlawful purpose?
The applicant claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by permitting the use of methamphetamine in the premises. Methamphetamine is classified as a Class A controlled drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. It is illegal to possess methamphetamine.
The RTA provides that premises are not 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.
The use of methamphetamine in rental premises is an unlawful act.
The methamphetamine testing readings show methamphetamine has been used at the property after the tenancy began. Testing was carried out before the tenancy began and then again about twelve days after the tenancy ended. The tenants stated that a person was living at the property during the tenancy may have used methamphetamine. The tenants denied that they used methamphetamine during the tenancy.
When testing was carried at the start of a tenancy and the result is negative but testing at the end of the tenancy produces a positive result, it can be concluded that the tenants or someone permitted to be at the premises, has committed the unlawful act. The onus shifts to the tenants to prove that they have not committed an unlawful act.
The testing at the end of the tenancy shows that methamphetamine residue in the premises was widespread. It was not limited to one area of the house. It was present in the kitchen, dining room, the upstairs master bedroom, the upstairs bathroom, the stairs and bedroom 2 on the lower floor. This is not what would be expected if one person was using methamphetamine in the tenants’ bathroom as claimed. I am also satisfied that the results are not consistent with the methamphetamine being used by people in the property after the tenants vacated.
The balance of probability is that the methamphetamine residue found in the premises at the end of the tenancy was due to the tenants or other people permitted to be at the premises, using methamphetamine. It is reasonable to conclude from the extent of residue throughout the premises that residents should have been aware of the use of methamphetamine at the premises. The tenants have provided insufficient evidence for a different finding to be made.
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.
The tenants use, or permitting others to use methamphetamine at the premises was intentional. The effect was that a bathroom of the house required cleaning because the level was over 15μg/100cm 2 . This has resulted in a stressful situation for the owner with plans for the property disrupted. It is in the public interest that tenants do not contaminate tenancy premises. The stock of residential tenancy properties depends on the confidence of owners that their properties will not be damaged. The tenants’ breach is sufficient for exemplary damages to be ordered.
The amount ordered for exemplary damages is $600.00. That is approximately one third of the maximum $1800.00 provided for in the RTA. The maximum is reserved for recidivist offenders. There are no other known situations where these tenants have damaged a property with methamphetamine. Exemplary damages for failing to inform the landlord of the flood.
The applicant has claimed exemplary damages for the tenants’ failure to inform the landlord of the damage caused by the flood.
Tenants have a responsibility to inform landlords as soon as possible after the discovery of damage. (see ss.40(1)(d)). However, a breach of that subsection of the RTA is not an unlawful act and therefore the Tribunal cannot order the exemplary damages claimed by the landlord. Filing fee
Because the landlord has been partly successful with the claim the filing fee of $28.00 is ordered to be paid by the tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5312740 — Property damage at 77 Kitchener Road, Milford, Auckland 0620

Tenancy Tribunal case 5312740 — Property damage at 77 Kitchener Road, Milford, Auckland 0620

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Were the landlord chattels missing at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should the tenants compensate the landlord for loss of rental income?

Should exemplary damages be ordered for the removal of smoke alarms?

Property management

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Were the landlord chattels missing at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should the tenants compensate the landlord for loss of rental income?

Should exemplary damages be ordered for the removal of smoke alarms?

Property management