APIA Blog

RSS Feed

Claiming meth testing cost from the tenant

Tuesday, October 13, 2020

IMG SOURCE: UPSLASH

The recent publication of Brooking v Imrie [2020] NZTT Timaru 4216438 gives some insight, albeit sketchy, into what the Tribunal looks for when ordering a tenant to compensate the landlord for meth testing.

 
The facts
  • This is a cross-application case concerning a periodic tenancy from July 2017 to October 2019.
  • The circumstance of the tenant’s exit was somewhat unusual. The tenant vacated on the 7th of October leaving behind an “associate” to clean up the property. The landlord acquiesced to the associate remaining on the property for what looks like four days.
  • During the tenancy, activities on the property gave rise to sufficient concern for the police as to have armed officers entering onto the property on at least one occasion.
  • On testing, the property was found to be significantly contaminated with meth so much so that retesting was required after decontamination to establish the property as suitable for occupation for future tenants.
  • It is unclear from the order whether there was a pre-tenancy baseline test (the adjudication made no mention of it so we assume not) and when the significant level of meth was first detected at the property (we assume this came to light post-termination).
  • The tenant submitted that he had not been involved in any meth-related activities at the premises during the tenancy. It is unclear how the tenant had substantiated his claim for good character in this instance. 
  • During the hearing, the landlord withdrew his claim to be compensated for costs associated with the remediation of methamphetamine contamination.
 
The landlord’s claim

Among other things, the landlord asked to be compensated for fees associated with post-decontamination re-testing ($4,022.70 😱) and made a general reference to exemplary damages.

 
Is the tenant liable?

A damage claim largely plays out in the following fashion:

  1. The landlord proves that damage to the property (that which is more than fair wear and tear) occurred during the tenancy.

The burden of proof shifts to the tenant.

  1. The tenant proves that he had not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit others to cause the damage.

If so proven the tenant is not liable for the damage.

If not, the tenant is liable to the following extent:

Careless damage after 27th August 2019 that is covered by the landlord’s insurance: the tenant is liable to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks’ rent.

Careless damage after 27th August 2019 that is either not insured or not covered by the landlord’s insurance: the tenant is liable up to four weeks’ rent.

Intentional damage caused or permitted by the tenant: the tenant is entirely liable for the damage. 

In this instance, the Adjudicator Talbot considers that “…. it has not been established that the contamination of the premises arose from any intentional act by the tenant.” Without explicitly saying so, the Adjudicator seems to have found the tenant’s assertion of not having been involved in meth-related activities on the premises during the tenancy sufficiently convincing. This is in contrast with the Rent Real Estate Limited v Staub [2020] NZTT Auckland 4214782 where irrespective of a lack of pre-tenancy baseline test, the Adjudicator, in that case, was prepared to conclude that the tenant had intentionally and illegally contaminated the property with meth by relying on the previous occupant’s good standing in the community and the tenant’s social media posts that clearly portray a party-heavy lifestyle.

Oddly, however, Adjudicator Talbot is quite prepared to order the landlord to be compensated for meth testing and retesting simply because armed police officers had attended the property at least once during the tenancy giving the landlord reasonable cause to test. The bar is set high for exemplary damages and set low for compensation - as it should.

 
Take-home for landlords
  • While routine meth testing that takes place in between tenancies is largely expected to be at the landlord’s cost, Brooking suggests that the Tribunal is open for the landlord to scale a fairly low bar when it comes to seeking compensation for testing fees (i.e. as long as a reasonable cause for testing is established).
  • A lack of a pre-tenancy baseline meth test can seriously weaken a landlord's case for compensation and exemplary damages. 
  • Inconsistency around what the Tribunal is prepared to hold the tenant liable for (compensation for meth testing even when no intentional damage has been concluded) fall short at giving landlords and tenants the clarity we all need to navigate tenancy rules vis-à-vis meth contamination. 
 
Overall helpfulness scale (out of 5) 

(Because let's be honest, Tribunal decisions can be a bit of a mess but still, landlords and tenants need all the help we can get!)

⭐️⭐️

 


 

Recent Posts


Tags

legal finance khh will auckland shower dome tenancy services sale and purchase DTI wins CCC covid-19 buyer's agent Must knows minor dwelling HHS business tax market rent property apprentice income housing affordability anti-social behaviour ring-fencing debt enforcement property management Tribunal case study tenancy tribunal tenant termination property cycle watercare buying rules beginner investor extractor fan yield productivity Investment tip Question and answer cash-flow financial advisers act airbnb Holler Level 4 RTAA 2019 heater Case study rental wof bond form rent increase barfoot and thompson robert kiyosaki wealth creation rta principal and interest maintenance p lab trespass property value tenancy issues speculator cgt structure opes partners mortgage development rental market smoke alarm ocr renovation holiday house scotney williams recycling equity Must know auckland council Guest blog sublease Landlording Jeff Bezos Property (Relationships) Act HSWA property rta reform housing bubble CoreLogic ask an expert water bill Standards New Zealand Editor's Choice bond heating subdivision How to management first home buying anz letting fee partners twg report meth election2020 Gluckman market lvr rent arrears inspection buying short-term rental education Investor story investor LIM ird personal growth interest only off the plan rent house prices early termination TCIT government kiwibuild meth contamination advice negotiation property maintenance landlord commerce commission television fixed-term tenancy HHGA trust sale and purchas initio relationship insulation worksafe asbestos cat letting skill shortage interest rates warren buffett clnz trademe positive cash flow Market report re agent RBNZ ventilation return gluckman report election 2017 banking privacy Sponsored post Q&A nzpif bad tenant reserve bank warm up new zealand winz mindset unitary plan building investment strategy insurance equity rtaa2020 damage Kris Pedersen Mortgages and Insurance data security capital gain boarding house parry v inglis

Archive

Introducing Our Partners
Principal Sponsor - Kris Pedersen Mortgages & Insurance logo Gold Sponsor - Barfoot & Thompson logo Gold Sponsor - CoreLogic logo Property Apprentice logo The Insulation Warehouse logo The Renovation Team logo The New Zealand Property Investors' Federation logo
09 360 2376
info@apia.org.nz

The Tenancy Practice Service and TPS Credit Control work closely with the Auckland Property Investors' Association. Our vision of bringing helpful resources, documents and high quality services to Auckland Property Investors and Property Managers is shared by APIA, so its a partnership that works well. 

The Auckland Property Investors' Association is a great organisation for those who want access to advice and information from a range of industry experts and partners. 



Mathieu Holt- Managing Director, The Tenancy Practice Service & TPS Credit Control
Through the Association I found the channels and methods to fund the purchase of property I never dreamed about. Grant Brown

All round it has been one of those things Neil and I felt was really worthwhile belonging to. We have learned so much it has just built our confidence in what we are doing.

Janice Bieleski
I read two articles in the monthly magazine that saved me over $5,000. That is my membership fee for the next 26 years and I am sure I will learn a whole lot more! John Duncan
Fantastic organisation. The networking opportunities are brilliant and provide us with information and opportunities that cannot be obtained anywhere else. We learn something new at every meeting and we've been in this game for nearly 20 years. Pauline and Gyanen Kumar

I find the information obtained from various APIA meetings very useful in guiding my own property investment and rental management.  I also enjoy the networking opportunities with like-minded investors.  I am inspired by other investors’ success and find the more experiences and knowledge that I share with others, the more confident I become.  

Thanks to all APIA event organizers and administrators for your brilliant work. 

Stella Shao

I like talking to people and learning from their experience because it gives me the confidence to invest well. I think it is a knowledge thing. I now know I am doing things the right way.

Stephen Weatherall

My APIA membership has become a total success.

Every time I attend a monthly or regional meeting I come away with so many useful and positive tips that have added value to my property investments and management.

Not only that, the website is a great place for practical advice and useful information. It has now evolved into an important resource for my business.

Talk about value for money! The discounts I have been getting at Bunnings when I present my APIA membership card have more than paid for my annual subscription!

Tim Duffett, Plan A Investments Limited