What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4438860 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details for

How much money was awarded in case 4438860?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4438860?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4438860?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9168353-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4438860 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details for

How much money was awarded in case 4438860?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4438860?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4438860?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9168353-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4438860 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details for the same

Reasons

as set out in previous orders.

The application is dismissed. Reasons:
Both parties attended the hearing I held in Tauranga on 5 July 2023. I adjourned the hearing part heard so the landlord could provide a meth test report and the tenant could provide concluding submissions.
I have since received the meth test report and the tenant’s submissions which I have considered.
The hearing was limited in scope following a direction by the adjudicator who granted a partial rehearing. The only 2 issues before the Tribunal are whether the tenant is entitled to compensation for the landlord’s failure to disclose a meth testing report conducted at the end of the tenancy, and a reduction of the break lease fee because of that failure.
The tenancy ended on 6 October 2022. The tenant vacated the tenancy on 2 October 2022. The landlord had the premises meth tested on 5 October 2022.
The meth test report shows an average meth indication of 0.06μg/100cm² with a potential maximum in a single sample of 0.53μg/100cm².
The tenant has submitted that her youngest child experienced constant respiratory symptoms while living at the premises which might have been due to meth contamination.
Her concern is understandable. However, the tenant has not established any harm to her child on the balance of probabilities.
The levels shown in the meth test report are so low as to be barely detectable.
When considering methamphetamine contamination, the Tribunal follows the findings of Professor Gluckman, former chief science advisor to Prime Minister Key. His report established that contamination less than 15μg/100cm² is not harmful to health.
The Tribunal’s acceptance of and reliance on Professor Gluckman’s report has been approved on appeal by the District Court in several decisions – see for example Full Circle Real Estate Ltd v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947.
The tenant has not shown any loss or negative consequence because of the barely detectable meth levels shown in the report obtained by the landlord.
The rehearing on the break lease fee was tied to the issue of the findings and non-disclosure of the meth test report. The adjudicator granted the rehearing in case her findings on the break lease fee (which she reduced for the reasons set out in her decision) should be changed to allow for some further reduction since the evidence she heard was that no meth test had been done when it had.
Among other changes to the break lease fee, the adjudicator removed the landlord’s attempt to charge the tenant for the end of tenancy meth test.
I find that the adjudicator’s finding on the reduced break lease fee awarded to the landlord should not be altered by a further reduction because the tenant has not proved any consequence from the barely detectable meth levels set out in the report.
Nor do I find any consequence from the non-disclosure of the report. The report was done at the end of the tenancy. That is prudent before another tenancy starts, since without a report close to the time a tenancy starts, the landlord will not be able to provide contamination by a later tenant.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 contains provisions for the disclosure of meth test reports so that tenants who request disclosure can make an informed decision about taking up the tenancy, or a decision as to whether to remain in a tenancy (or take other actions) if the report shows contamination.
Here, the report was done after the tenant vacated and 1 day before the tenancy ended. And it showed levels of methamphetamine so low as to be almost non-existent.
The landlord probably should have disclosed the report to the tenant since the tenancy had one day to go when the test was done, and the tenant requested it. But its failure to do so does not mean that the tenant should be awarded compensation.
Nothing happened because of the non-disclosure of the report which was obtained as part of prudent management before the new tenancy started. It showed almost no meth contamination. And the landlord’s attempt to include the cost of the test in its break lease charge was set aside.
Compensation is usually awarded to remedy a breach by one party that has caused a loss (usually an actual loss, sometimes an intangible loss) to the other party. The tenant has not proved any loss because of the test not being provided to her as she had vacated the tenancy by the time the test was done.
For these reasons I dismiss the tenant’s application for compensation and a further reduction of the break lease fee.
This means that the adjudicator’s order dated 22 December 2022 (amended slightly by order dated 16 January 2023) remains as written. The order has been satisfied by the refund of the bond to the parties in the stated amounts.
Although unsuccessful, I have continued the name suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details for the same reasons as set out in previous orders.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details for the same

Reasons

as set out in previous orders.

The application is dismissed. Reasons:
Both parties attended the hearing I held in Tauranga on 5 July 2023. I adjourned the hearing part heard so the landlord could provide a meth test report and the tenant could provide concluding submissions.
I have since received the meth test report and the tenant’s submissions which I have considered.
The hearing was limited in scope following a direction by the adjudicator who granted a partial rehearing. The only 2 issues before the Tribunal are whether the tenant is entitled to compensation for the landlord’s failure to disclose a meth testing report conducted at the end of the tenancy, and a reduction of the break lease fee because of that failure.
The tenancy ended on 6 October 2022. The tenant vacated the tenancy on 2 October 2022. The landlord had the premises meth tested on 5 October 2022.
The meth test report shows an average meth indication of 0.06μg/100cm² with a potential maximum in a single sample of 0.53μg/100cm².
The tenant has submitted that her youngest child experienced constant respiratory symptoms while living at the premises which might have been due to meth contamination.
Her concern is understandable. However, the tenant has not established any harm to her child on the balance of probabilities.
The levels shown in the meth test report are so low as to be barely detectable.
When considering methamphetamine contamination, the Tribunal follows the findings of Professor Gluckman, former chief science advisor to Prime Minister Key. His report established that contamination less than 15μg/100cm² is not harmful to health.
The Tribunal’s acceptance of and reliance on Professor Gluckman’s report has been approved on appeal by the District Court in several decisions – see for example Full Circle Real Estate Ltd v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947.
The tenant has not shown any loss or negative consequence because of the barely detectable meth levels shown in the report obtained by the landlord.
The rehearing on the break lease fee was tied to the issue of the findings and non-disclosure of the meth test report. The adjudicator granted the rehearing in case her findings on the break lease fee (which she reduced for the reasons set out in her decision) should be changed to allow for some further reduction since the evidence she heard was that no meth test had been done when it had.
Among other changes to the break lease fee, the adjudicator removed the landlord’s attempt to charge the tenant for the end of tenancy meth test.
I find that the adjudicator’s finding on the reduced break lease fee awarded to the landlord should not be altered by a further reduction because the tenant has not proved any consequence from the barely detectable meth levels set out in the report.
Nor do I find any consequence from the non-disclosure of the report. The report was done at the end of the tenancy. That is prudent before another tenancy starts, since without a report close to the time a tenancy starts, the landlord will not be able to provide contamination by a later tenant.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 contains provisions for the disclosure of meth test reports so that tenants who request disclosure can make an informed decision about taking up the tenancy, or a decision as to whether to remain in a tenancy (or take other actions) if the report shows contamination.
Here, the report was done after the tenant vacated and 1 day before the tenancy ended. And it showed levels of methamphetamine so low as to be almost non-existent.
The landlord probably should have disclosed the report to the tenant since the tenancy had one day to go when the test was done, and the tenant requested it. But its failure to do so does not mean that the tenant should be awarded compensation.
Nothing happened because of the non-disclosure of the report which was obtained as part of prudent management before the new tenancy started. It showed almost no meth contamination. And the landlord’s attempt to include the cost of the test in its break lease charge was set aside.
Compensation is usually awarded to remedy a breach by one party that has caused a loss (usually an actual loss, sometimes an intangible loss) to the other party. The tenant has not proved any loss because of the test not being provided to her as she had vacated the tenancy by the time the test was done.
For these reasons I dismiss the tenant’s application for compensation and a further reduction of the break lease fee.
This means that the adjudicator’s order dated 22 December 2022 (amended slightly by order dated 16 January 2023) remains as written. The order has been satisfied by the refund of the bond to the parties in the stated amounts.
Although unsuccessful, I have continued the name suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details for the same reasons as set out in previous orders.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4438860 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4438860 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Frequently asked questions