Key Takeaways:
- A tenant was found liable for damages to a rental property, including repairs and meth decontamination costs totaling $73,782.20.
- The tenant had claimed that third parties had caused the damage, but the Tenancy Tribunal found that he had implicitly given permission for them to be on the premises.
- The tenant had failed to take steps to secure the premises, report the damage to the landlord, or prevent the trespassers from entering the property.
- The property was found to be contaminated with methamphetamine, with evidence suggesting that it had been used for manufacture.
- The tenant was ordered to pay for the damages, including repairs, replacement of appliances, and meth decontamination.
Introduction to the Case
The Tenancy Tribunal recently made a decision in a case involving a tenant who was found liable for damages to a rental property. The tenant had claimed that third parties had caused the damage, but the tribunal found that he had implicitly given permission for them to be on the premises. The tenant had been renting a small one-bedroom unit in Tauranga, and had reported that he had been experiencing problems with people entering the property and causing damage when he was not there.
The Tenant’s Claims
The tenant had claimed that he had reported the damage to the police and had provided them with opportunities to investigate, but he had not mentioned this in his emails to the landlord until June 24. He had also failed to mention that his keys had been stolen, which had allowed the third parties to enter the property. The tenant had made no mention of the third parties in his emails to the landlord between February and July, despite claiming that they had been causing damage to the property.
The Tribunal’s Decision
The Tenancy Tribunal adjudicator, Mike Edison, found that the tenant had implicitly given permission for the third parties to be on the premises by not taking steps to remove them or prevent access. Edison stated that the tenant was liable for their actions under the Residential Tenancies Act, regardless of whether he was present when the damage occurred. The tribunal also found that the tenant had failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the damage, including serving a trespass notice, requesting the landlord to change the locks, or insisting that the police attend the property.
The Extent of the Damage
The property was found to be extensively damaged, with repairs estimated to cost $47,524. The damage included broken doors, damaged walls, and destroyed appliances. The property was also found to be contaminated with methamphetamine, with evidence suggesting that it had been used for manufacture. The level of contamination was found to be extremely high, with a total of 280 ug/100cm sq of methamphetamine present in the samples taken.
The Tenant’s Liability
The tenant was found to be liable for the damages, including the cost of repairs, replacement of appliances, and meth decontamination. The total amount the tenant was ordered to pay was $73,782.20. The only item the tenant was not liable for was the replacement of the hot water cylinder, as it was unclear whether it had been damaged by the tenant or had simply reached the end of its life.
Conclusion
The case highlights the importance of tenants taking responsibility for their actions and ensuring that they take reasonable steps to prevent damage to rental properties. The tenant’s failure to report the damage to the landlord, prevent the trespassers from entering the property, and take steps to secure the premises ultimately led to him being found liable for the damages. The case also highlights the serious consequences of allowing a property to be used for the manufacture of illegal substances, and the importance of landlords and tenants taking steps to prevent this from occurring.