John Bassett / Things.
Tenants of the Pleasant Point property, which was discovered with high levels of meth pollution, have won an appeal against the tenancy tribunal’s decision. (File photo)
Two tenants who were fined more than $ 29,000 after their South Canterbury rental property was found to have “incredibly high” methamphetamine contamination have won an appeal against the tenancy tribunal’s decision.
Anthony James Brooking and Dani Hodges appeal against the March 13, 2021 ruling Who found that he was responsible for methamphetamine contamination during his tenancy in Pleasant Point property., And ordered him to pay the landlord 29 29,397.
The couple also filed a claim for refund of damages and rental expenses “subject to exposure by methamphetamine contamination”.
In a safe ruling issued this week, Judge Cameron stated that “through Ms. Hodges’ counsel, the appellants asserted that there was no dispute that methamphetamine contamination was not tested on the premises prior to the commencement of tenancy. And that the tribunal had accepted that methamphetamine contamination could have occurred before the tenancy.
* The tenant refused to pay the rent that Meth had lost.
* Tenants pay for ‘incredibly high’ levels of meth pollution.
* Compensation for the meth-contaminated house was rejected due to lack of evidence.
* Tenants ordered meth testing after contamination.
In the ruling, Cameron noted that the tenancy tribunal had “strongly emphasized” the evidence of a witness who testified by telephone.
The witness said she could see Brookings and Hodges’ rental property from her workplace and see various activities such as “gang members and other unwanted people” and “on one occasion, there was suspicious activity.” ۔ “Police visited the compound on more than one occasion, including an armed criminal squad callout.”
“It is accepted that after the police visit, the police confirmed that nothing of interest was found and no drugs were found on the property,” Judge Cameron said.
He said the evidence of the witnesses contradicted another witness who could see the property and was able to see it under the driveway.
“I think the evidence provided … was insufficient to prove to tenants that they were responsible for methamphetamine contamination.”
Judge Cameron said the landlord had a “responsibility to provide evidence that it is more likely that the tenant was responsible for the contamination, and the evidence is less than that”.
“It is accepted that high levels of methamphetamine contamination have been found on the premises since the tenancy ended, but there is no evidence as to when this happened.”
“The problem with the landlord’s claim is that no methamphetamine test was performed at the beginning of the tenancy, nor is there any real evidence of what happened during such tenancy.”
Judge Cameron allowed the appeal and overturned the tenancy tribunal’s decision.
He noted that the landlord is entitled to a $ 1360 bond.
“Although he did not pursue claims such as exterior cleaning of the property, toilet repairs and tribunal proceedings, I am satisfied that the items were more than adequate clothing and tears, and that the cost of such items was very high. The bond amount would have been higher, “said Judge Cameron.
The cross-claim was also “completely rejected” by the appellants because there was “insufficient evidence” to establish a balance of possibilities that the premises were contaminated with methamphetamine if the appellants were allowed.