What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4649711 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4649711?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4649711?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4649711?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9996133-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4649711 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4649711?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4649711?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4649711?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9996133-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

1 K Road, Waiuku, Waiuku 2123 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4649711 — Cleanliness

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy ended on 17 July 2023.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations 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.
The landlord contends that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy, and contaminated with methamphetamine. Methamphetamine levels from composite testing undertaken on 18 July 2023 shows a theoretical maximum reading of 0.17μg/100cm2 on the premises.
From that result, the landlord submitted that methamphetamine was present and it justifies their claim against the tenant for methamphetamine cleaning costs of $690.00 incurred.
Methamphetamine testing was undertaken prior to the start of the tenancy and throughout the tenancy; prior to the July 2023 testing, the premises recorded nil or negligible methamphetamine presence.
In her response, the tenant denies ever using methamphetamine at all. She assumed however that the minute amounts of methamphetamine residue present may be from her ex-partner being there. The tenant says that she was not aware that the man she was involved with at the beginning of 2023 may be using methamphetamine. Their relationship was brief and ended up with protection orders being taken against him. The tenant says that this could explain why small traces of methamphetamine were found in the premises. The tenant however never saw him smoke methamphetamine in or on the property or saw him using it.
Issue is whether the premises required remediation and cleaning based on the methamphetamine test results.
In 2010 the New Zealand Ministry of Health produced guidelines for the remediation of clandestine methamphetamine laboratories, and determined that remediation was required if the environmental level of methamphetamine was
5μg/100cm2. While that related to laboratories, it is the case that the 0.5 level became the de facto level at which premises were considered to require decontamination.
In 2017 the level was increased when Standards New Zealand released Standard NZS 8510:2017 “Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine- contaminated properties”. At that time, this standard set the definitive levels at which properties which had methamphetamine contamination, required remediation. The Standard confirmed that: After seeking expert advice on exposure risk from Environmental Science and Research Ltd (ESR) and the Ministry of Health, and reviewing a large number of public comments on a draft of this standard, the committee has decided to set the maximum acceptable level of methamphetamine in an affected property at
5μg/100cm2 after decontamination. While this level is greater than the Ministry of Health 2010 guideline value of 0.5μg/100cm2 for properties used as clandestine laboratories, there are a number of reasons why the committee decided to adopt the single value of 1.5μg/100cm2 in this standard.
In short, this standard confirmed that the level at which habitation of residential premises was considered safe, was a level of 1.5μg/100cm2. The expectation on landlords arising from this Standard, was to remediate premises contaminated with methamphetamine, to a level of less than 1.5μg/100cm2.
In more recent times, the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman determined that there was little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption (Report entitled ‘Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards’, 29 May 2018). The report concluded that any levels below 15μg/100cm2 were unlikely to present adverse effects:
Taken together, these factors indicate that methamphetamine levels that exceed the NZS 8510:2017 clean-up standard of 1.5μg/100cm2 should not be regarded as signalling a health risk. Indeed, exposure to methamphetamine levels below 15μg/100cm2 would be unlikely to give rise to any adverse effects. This level still incorporates a 30-fold safety buffer on a conservative estimate of risk.
In the District Court judgment of Diamond Real Estate Limited v Allan [2017] NZDC 833, Judge Kellar considered a case in which remediation was undertaken in reliance on the 2010 Ministry of Health level of 0.5μg/100cm2. It is the case that following the remediation work the Standard NZS 8510:2017 was released, which as noted above increased the acceptable level to
5μg/100cm2. Judge Kellar records that when the premises were tested, the highest level recorded was in the toilet at 1.4μg/100cm2 that “exceeded the Ministry of Health guidelines at the time.” The Court confirmed that any consideration as to whether the premises had been damaged, but be based on the prevailing guidelines at that time:
It appears to be the case that at the time the methamphetamine testing and decontamination was carried out the premises were not safe to occupy in terms of the then prevailing Ministry of Health guidelines.
If the landlord had no choice but to test for methamphetamine and decontaminate the premises and if the premises were not ‘safe’ in terms of the prevailing Ministry of Health guidelines at the time of testing then the premises may be said to have been damaged during the term of the tenancy.
At this time there remains a current New Zealand Standard of 1.5μg/100cm2, and also a current opinion from the Chief Science Advisor that there is no evidence of risk below 15μg/100cm2.
This matter has been considered recently by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947. Judge Kellar needed to determine which level should be applied. The Court discussed the conflict between the New Zealand Standard and Chief Science Advisors report, and confirmed: The Tenancy Tribunal was in a difficult position. The best state of knowledge of risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination available to the adjudicator was the Gluckman Report. It would have been bold for the adjudicator to have ignored that report in favour of the New Zealand Standard given that the Gluckman report represents the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination in dwellings.
In my assessment, this decision of the Court has confirmed that the level to be applied is the level expressed by the Chief Science Advisor, which is that there is no risk when levels of contamination are below 15μg/100cm2.
Here, the theoretical maximum level of methamphetamine contamination of
17μg/100cm2 on the composite test is well below the thresholds set by New Zealand Standard in 2010 of 0.5μg/100cm2 and current New Zealand Standard of 1.5μg/100cm2 in 2017, and the risk level expressed by the Chief Science Advisor of 15μg/100cm2.
Objectively, the property did not require methamphetamine cleaning or remediation at all.
There is therefore no basis for the landlord to seek methamphetamine cleaning costs against the tenant.
The premises have not been returned to the landlord in an unacceptable state of cleanliness in terms of methamphetamine presence.
There is no cogent evidence before me to indicate that the premises are not ‘safe’ in terms of the prevailing Ministry of Health guidelines at the time of testing.
I dismiss the landlord’s claim for $690.00 accordingly.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
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.
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.
The gate was damaged during the tenancy.
While the damage is more than fair wear and tear, the tenant has disproved liability for the damage.
The tenant reported the damage to the landlord during a property inspection in April 2023.
I accept the tenant’s evidence that she was told by a courier delivery person who delivered online shopping items to her in March 2023 that he has nicked/damaged the gate with his vehicle.
The landlord’s evidence from one of the local courier companies operating in the area is insufficient to dispel the tenant’s evidence. There is only evidence from NZ Post that on 20 March 2023, none of their contractors have any freight for 1 K Road, Waiuku. There are other courier companies operating in the area. The landlord had not produced evidence from all the courier companies operating in the area to contradict the tenant’s evidence that third party courier delivery personnel have done the damage.
In the upshot, I am satisfied on balance the tenant was being truthful that other people had damaged the gate. She is not responsible for actions of other people not on the property with her permission.
I consider that the tenant had been truthful when she attributed the presence of meth on the premises to her ex-partner’s meth use while the tenant was in a relationship with him. I consider the tenant truthful in her testimony that a courier delivery person had damaged the gate.
For those reasons, I also dismiss the landlord’s claim for uninsured losses of $1,000.00 on the gate repairs.
The tenant is wholly successful in the claim; there will be an order for suppression of her name and the guarantor’s name accordingly.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4649711 — Cleanliness at 1 K Road, Waiuku, Waiuku 2123

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4649711 — Cleanliness at 1 K Road, Waiuku, Waiuku 2123

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions