What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4674689 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4674689?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4674689?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4674689?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9933240-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4674689 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4674689?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4674689?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4674689?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9933240-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

12 Ariel Place, Snells Beach, Snells Beach 0920 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4674689 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4674689. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet replacement	$2,000.00		Carpet replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant] must pay [The landlord/s] $130.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,890.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The applicant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant appeared by teleconference with support and assistance from her son.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlords claim the following compensation: Carpet replacement in dining room $4,219.00 Detailed methamphetamine test $1,241.31 Post decontamination test $287.69 Decontamination costs $9,361.00 Loss of rent $4,020.00
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. Methamphetamine contamination.
A routine pre tenancy methamphetamine test was undertaken of the premises before the tenancy started. Those tests showed no traces of methamphetamine.
The same composite test was carried out at the end of the tendency and traces of methamphetamine were found. The composite test report shows an average result in the kitchen, dining room, living room, hallway, bedroom 1 and ensuite of .74 μg per 100cm 2 with a maximum theoretical contamination level of 4.4 μg per 100cm 2 from any of the individual test sites. The average result from bedrooms 2-3, garage, bathroom, toilet and bedroom 4 was 1.28 μg per 100cm 2 with a theoretical maximum 7.7 μg per 100cm 2 from any individual site.
Acting on advice from their testing company and property manager, the landlords then arranged a detailed test which showed contamination levels across 12 testing sites ranging from .16 μg per 100cm 2 to 3.2 μg per 100cm 2 .
The landlords’ evidence is that they wanted to sell the property and were advised that they needed to decontaminate the property to safely do so. They arranged for decontamination of the premises. The decontamination costs are claimed from the tenant. The landlords also claim exemplary damages for what they say was the unlawful act, committed by the tenant, of smoking methamphetamine in the premises, or allowing it.
The landlords’ evidence is that an insurance claim was made but declined on the basis that the premises were insufficiently contaminated to support a claim.
The Tribunal is required to determine: First, whether the premises were damaged by methamphetamine contamination during the tenancy. Second, if so whether the damage resulting from the contamination is damage the tenants are responsible for; and Third, if it is, what is the appropriate compensation payable to the landlord in respect of that damage.

Were the premises damaged through methamphetamine contamination?

The composite test report provided by [testing company] dated 21 July 2023 in its summary of results states “! PRESENCE DETECTED FURTHER ACTION REQUIRED”
That is based on the results showing contamination levels exceeding the NZS8510:2017 standard, which mandates remediation of premises with contamination levels of 1.5 μg per 100cm 2.
However, te report also notes (apparently contrary to the advice given to the landlords): “Methamphetamine contamination of 15 μg per 100cm 2 or above is considered a property defect that must be disclosed to potential buyers. Selling agents do not have to disclose test results below 15 μg per 100cm 2 unless specifically asked by prospective buyer...”
The report also recommends that before bringing a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal, the landlords consider the Gluckman standard and other Tribunal decisions as well as NZS8510:2017. It is worth noting that there is no suggestion here that the premises were used for methamphetamine manufacture.
Decisions of the Tribunal over a number of years now have outlined the basis for adopting the “Gluckman standard” which advises that in premises which have not been used for manufacture of methamphetamine, “methamphetamine levels that exceed the NZS8510:2017 clean up standard of 1.5 μg per 100cm 2 should not be regarded as signalling a health risk. The exposure to methamphetamine levels below 15 μg per 100cm 2 would be highly unlikely to give rise to any adverse effects.”
I need not traverse those decisions here, but I do note the decision of the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947, where the Court upheld the Tribunal’s use of the Gluckman standard as representing the best state of knowledge of risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination available.
Using that standard, the composite test results show that none of the areas tested could have had a contamination level of above 15 μg per 100cm 2 . It follows that there was no requirement on the landlords to undertake further individual sample testing or to undertake a decontamination, because the levels of contamination did not constitute damage to the premises that required remediation and repair. For that reason, which appears to be the same reason given by the landlords’ insurer, the landlords’ claims for compensation must be declined.

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

The evidence persuades me on balance of at the premises did not contain methamphetamine residues at the start of the tenancy but did contain methamphetamine residues at the end of the tenancy.
Accordingly, the onus is on the tenants to provide evidence showing that she is not responsible for those residues. The evidence does not provide that proof and I find that the tenant is responsible for the methamphetamine residues found at the premises. I find it more likely than not that those residues resulted from the premises being used for the unlawful purpose of smoking methamphetamine.
Section 40(2)(b) provides that it is unlawful act for the tenant to “use the premises, or permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose”.
Where an unlawful act is committed intentionally, exemplary damages may be awarded (s.109).
While I have found that the tenant was legally responsible for the premises’ use for unlawful purposes, I accept her evidence that she did not smoke or bring methamphetamine into the premises and is not aware of how the contamination occurred.
That being so and given my findings about the level of residues found, I do not consider it an intentional breach on the tenant’s part that would justify an award of exemplary damages. Carpet replacement
Photographs and actual samples provided by the landlords show damage to the carpet in the living/ dining area in front of the hallway. That is the location where a ramp was installed to assist the tenant’s late husband who had mobility challenges.
The back of the carpet shows what appear be recent attempts to complete a join where the carpet was removed to install the lift. The damage is on the edge of the carpet near the join. I am satisfied that patching was not possible, and replacement of that carpet was required.
The landlords chose to replace the carpet throughout the house to keep consistency but are only claiming the costs relating to replacement of the carpet ion the dining/ living area.
The landlords’ evidence is that the dining/ living area represents approximately 1/3 of the total carpeted area of the house. I calculate compensation applying that proportion to the total replacement cost and allowing for the depreciated value of the carpet at the time of replacement.
Because [The landlord/s] have succeeded with a claim I reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4674689. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet replacement	$2,000.00		Carpet replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant] must pay [The landlord/s] $130.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,890.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The applicant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant appeared by teleconference with support and assistance from her son.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlords claim the following compensation: Carpet replacement in dining room $4,219.00 Detailed methamphetamine test $1,241.31 Post decontamination test $287.69 Decontamination costs $9,361.00 Loss of rent $4,020.00
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. Methamphetamine contamination.
A routine pre tenancy methamphetamine test was undertaken of the premises before the tenancy started. Those tests showed no traces of methamphetamine.
The same composite test was carried out at the end of the tendency and traces of methamphetamine were found. The composite test report shows an average result in the kitchen, dining room, living room, hallway, bedroom 1 and ensuite of .74 μg per 100cm 2 with a maximum theoretical contamination level of 4.4 μg per 100cm 2 from any of the individual test sites. The average result from bedrooms 2-3, garage, bathroom, toilet and bedroom 4 was 1.28 μg per 100cm 2 with a theoretical maximum 7.7 μg per 100cm 2 from any individual site.
Acting on advice from their testing company and property manager, the landlords then arranged a detailed test which showed contamination levels across 12 testing sites ranging from .16 μg per 100cm 2 to 3.2 μg per 100cm 2 .
The landlords’ evidence is that they wanted to sell the property and were advised that they needed to decontaminate the property to safely do so. They arranged for decontamination of the premises. The decontamination costs are claimed from the tenant. The landlords also claim exemplary damages for what they say was the unlawful act, committed by the tenant, of smoking methamphetamine in the premises, or allowing it.
The landlords’ evidence is that an insurance claim was made but declined on the basis that the premises were insufficiently contaminated to support a claim.
The Tribunal is required to determine: First, whether the premises were damaged by methamphetamine contamination during the tenancy. Second, if so whether the damage resulting from the contamination is damage the tenants are responsible for; and Third, if it is, what is the appropriate compensation payable to the landlord in respect of that damage.

Were the premises damaged through methamphetamine contamination?

The composite test report provided by [testing company] dated 21 July 2023 in its summary of results states “! PRESENCE DETECTED FURTHER ACTION REQUIRED”
That is based on the results showing contamination levels exceeding the NZS8510:2017 standard, which mandates remediation of premises with contamination levels of 1.5 μg per 100cm 2.
However, te report also notes (apparently contrary to the advice given to the landlords): “Methamphetamine contamination of 15 μg per 100cm 2 or above is considered a property defect that must be disclosed to potential buyers. Selling agents do not have to disclose test results below 15 μg per 100cm 2 unless specifically asked by prospective buyer...”
The report also recommends that before bringing a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal, the landlords consider the Gluckman standard and other Tribunal decisions as well as NZS8510:2017. It is worth noting that there is no suggestion here that the premises were used for methamphetamine manufacture.
Decisions of the Tribunal over a number of years now have outlined the basis for adopting the “Gluckman standard” which advises that in premises which have not been used for manufacture of methamphetamine, “methamphetamine levels that exceed the NZS8510:2017 clean up standard of 1.5 μg per 100cm 2 should not be regarded as signalling a health risk. The exposure to methamphetamine levels below 15 μg per 100cm 2 would be highly unlikely to give rise to any adverse effects.”
I need not traverse those decisions here, but I do note the decision of the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947, where the Court upheld the Tribunal’s use of the Gluckman standard as representing the best state of knowledge of risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination available.
Using that standard, the composite test results show that none of the areas tested could have had a contamination level of above 15 μg per 100cm 2 . It follows that there was no requirement on the landlords to undertake further individual sample testing or to undertake a decontamination, because the levels of contamination did not constitute damage to the premises that required remediation and repair. For that reason, which appears to be the same reason given by the landlords’ insurer, the landlords’ claims for compensation must be declined.

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

The evidence persuades me on balance of at the premises did not contain methamphetamine residues at the start of the tenancy but did contain methamphetamine residues at the end of the tenancy.
Accordingly, the onus is on the tenants to provide evidence showing that she is not responsible for those residues. The evidence does not provide that proof and I find that the tenant is responsible for the methamphetamine residues found at the premises. I find it more likely than not that those residues resulted from the premises being used for the unlawful purpose of smoking methamphetamine.
Section 40(2)(b) provides that it is unlawful act for the tenant to “use the premises, or permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose”.
Where an unlawful act is committed intentionally, exemplary damages may be awarded (s.109).
While I have found that the tenant was legally responsible for the premises’ use for unlawful purposes, I accept her evidence that she did not smoke or bring methamphetamine into the premises and is not aware of how the contamination occurred.
That being so and given my findings about the level of residues found, I do not consider it an intentional breach on the tenant’s part that would justify an award of exemplary damages. Carpet replacement
Photographs and actual samples provided by the landlords show damage to the carpet in the living/ dining area in front of the hallway. That is the location where a ramp was installed to assist the tenant’s late husband who had mobility challenges.
The back of the carpet shows what appear be recent attempts to complete a join where the carpet was removed to install the lift. The damage is on the edge of the carpet near the join. I am satisfied that patching was not possible, and replacement of that carpet was required.
The landlords chose to replace the carpet throughout the house to keep consistency but are only claiming the costs relating to replacement of the carpet ion the dining/ living area.
The landlords’ evidence is that the dining/ living area represents approximately 1/3 of the total carpeted area of the house. I calculate compensation applying that proportion to the total replacement cost and allowing for the depreciated value of the carpet at the time of replacement.
Because [The landlord/s] have succeeded with a claim I reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4674689 — Property damage at 12 Ariel Place, Snells Beach, Snells Beach 0920

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4674689 — Property damage at 12 Ariel Place, Snells Beach, Snells Beach 0920

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Were the premises damaged through methamphetamine contamination?

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Were the premises damaged through methamphetamine contamination?

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions