What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4686829 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] at 20

How much money was awarded in case 4686829?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $12,808.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4686829?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4686829?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9766080-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4686829 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] at 20

How much money was awarded in case 4686829?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $12,808.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4686829?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4686829?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9766080-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

20 Woodside Road, Henderson, Auckland 0614 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4686829 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4686829 — net $9,989.01 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 20 December 2023	$12,808.57	Rent arrears (to 20 December 2023
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$9,989.01
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$9,989.01

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] at 20 Woodside Road, Henderson, Auckland 0614 is terminated, and possession is granted to Gralin Property Management ( Auckland East) Limited Jack Yang, at midnight, Wednesday 20 December 2023.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,840.00 (5221370-007) to Gralin Property Management ( Auckland East) Limited Jack Yang immediately.
[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay Gralin Property Management ( Auckland East) Limited Jack Yang $9,989.01 immediately, being rent arrears to 20 December 2023.
The landlord’s claims for compensation due to damage and exemplary damages are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, compensation and refund of the bond.
Rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. The tenancy is terminated. See section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Compensation and exemplary damages
The landlord has applied for compensation due to damage and for exemplary damages. These claims relate to alleged methamphetamine use and or manufacture at the premises.
The landlord has produced a letter from the NZ Police which states that chemicals and items of equipment used in the manufacture of methamphetamine was located at the premises. Furthermore, the Police advised that scientific analysis of swabs taken from the address detected excessive levels of methamphetamine in the kitchen and garage.
The landlord also produced a letter from Auckland Council, who the Police had also notified. The Council advised the owner to arrange for the property to be comprehensively tested by a certified analysing laboratory to determine the type and extent of contamination present.
The landlord arranged for testing to be carried out at the premises. A report dated 27 July 2023 provides the results from the testing. For the testing carried out in the main house and minor dwelling all of the results were below 15μg/100cm².
The Tribunal has previously found that damage occurs, and decontamination is necessary, when levels of methamphetamine contamination are above 15μg/100cm². (Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper 1 ) This is the level adopted by the “Gluckman Report” dated 29 May 2018. The Gluckman Report concludes that there is no evidence of risk of harm from second or third hand exposure to methamphetamine residue measured at or less than 15μg/100cm² unless there is evidence to suggest that the premises have been used for manufacture. 1 Full Circle Real Estate v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 – CIV2018-009-2490
Neither the Gluckman Report nor the previously used New Zealand Standard 2 , which recommended a level of 1.5μg/100cm², are embedded into law, they both represent guidelines and are not regulatory. The court in the Full Circle case considered whether the Tribunal was wrong to rely on the Gluckman Report instead of the New Zealand Standard and concluded that the Gluckman Report represented the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination. Therefore, the Tribunal continues to adopt a level of 15μg/100cm² as a level that requires remediation for contamination.
The level of contamination in the garage was much higher at 114μg/100cm². Due to this result, it is likely that the garage was used for manufacture of methamphetamine.
But the issue to consider is whether the contamination occurred during this tenancy. The tenant’s evidence is that at the beginning of the tenancy and during the tenancy they had asked the landlord whether testing could be carried out. Those requests were verbal so there is no written record of them. They say that the reason they asked was because of drug paraphernalia found when they moved into the property and due to the condition of the walls. The landlord denies that the tenants asked for testing to be carried out.
There was no pre tenancy methamphetamine testing carried out. The District Court has considered this issue and in Eren Limited v Martin and Kukuruzsnayak 3 stated: “The lack of methamphetamine testing at the start of the tenancy significantly weakens the circumstantial case against the tenants to the point where it is not possible to conclude on the balance of probabilities that it was the tenants who were responsible for the methamphetamine residue located at the premises at the end of their tenancy.
In that case there was also evidence of drug use produced at the hearing.
Due to the absence of pre tenancy methamphetamine testing it is not possible to be sure that the contamination in the garage occurred during this tenancy. Therefore, the landlord’s claims for the costs of decontamination and exemplary damages are dismissed.
I also note that the landlord has filed a claim for insurance to cover the cost of decontamination but has not received advice as to whether the claim has been accepted.
Because Gralin Property Management ( Auckland East) Limited Jack Yang has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. 2 NZS 8510:2017³ (NZS) 3 [2021] NZDC 15210

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4686829 — net $9,989.01 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 20 December 2023	$12,808.57	Rent arrears (to 20 December 2023
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$9,989.01
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$9,989.01

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] at 20 Woodside Road, Henderson, Auckland 0614 is terminated, and possession is granted to Gralin Property Management ( Auckland East) Limited Jack Yang, at midnight, Wednesday 20 December 2023.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,840.00 (5221370-007) to Gralin Property Management ( Auckland East) Limited Jack Yang immediately.
[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay Gralin Property Management ( Auckland East) Limited Jack Yang $9,989.01 immediately, being rent arrears to 20 December 2023.
The landlord’s claims for compensation due to damage and exemplary damages are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, compensation and refund of the bond.
Rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. The tenancy is terminated. See section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Compensation and exemplary damages
The landlord has applied for compensation due to damage and for exemplary damages. These claims relate to alleged methamphetamine use and or manufacture at the premises.
The landlord has produced a letter from the NZ Police which states that chemicals and items of equipment used in the manufacture of methamphetamine was located at the premises. Furthermore, the Police advised that scientific analysis of swabs taken from the address detected excessive levels of methamphetamine in the kitchen and garage.
The landlord also produced a letter from Auckland Council, who the Police had also notified. The Council advised the owner to arrange for the property to be comprehensively tested by a certified analysing laboratory to determine the type and extent of contamination present.
The landlord arranged for testing to be carried out at the premises. A report dated 27 July 2023 provides the results from the testing. For the testing carried out in the main house and minor dwelling all of the results were below 15μg/100cm².
The Tribunal has previously found that damage occurs, and decontamination is necessary, when levels of methamphetamine contamination are above 15μg/100cm². (Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper 1 ) This is the level adopted by the “Gluckman Report” dated 29 May 2018. The Gluckman Report concludes that there is no evidence of risk of harm from second or third hand exposure to methamphetamine residue measured at or less than 15μg/100cm² unless there is evidence to suggest that the premises have been used for manufacture. 1 Full Circle Real Estate v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 – CIV2018-009-2490
Neither the Gluckman Report nor the previously used New Zealand Standard 2 , which recommended a level of 1.5μg/100cm², are embedded into law, they both represent guidelines and are not regulatory. The court in the Full Circle case considered whether the Tribunal was wrong to rely on the Gluckman Report instead of the New Zealand Standard and concluded that the Gluckman Report represented the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination. Therefore, the Tribunal continues to adopt a level of 15μg/100cm² as a level that requires remediation for contamination.
The level of contamination in the garage was much higher at 114μg/100cm². Due to this result, it is likely that the garage was used for manufacture of methamphetamine.
But the issue to consider is whether the contamination occurred during this tenancy. The tenant’s evidence is that at the beginning of the tenancy and during the tenancy they had asked the landlord whether testing could be carried out. Those requests were verbal so there is no written record of them. They say that the reason they asked was because of drug paraphernalia found when they moved into the property and due to the condition of the walls. The landlord denies that the tenants asked for testing to be carried out.
There was no pre tenancy methamphetamine testing carried out. The District Court has considered this issue and in Eren Limited v Martin and Kukuruzsnayak 3 stated: “The lack of methamphetamine testing at the start of the tenancy significantly weakens the circumstantial case against the tenants to the point where it is not possible to conclude on the balance of probabilities that it was the tenants who were responsible for the methamphetamine residue located at the premises at the end of their tenancy.
In that case there was also evidence of drug use produced at the hearing.
Due to the absence of pre tenancy methamphetamine testing it is not possible to be sure that the contamination in the garage occurred during this tenancy. Therefore, the landlord’s claims for the costs of decontamination and exemplary damages are dismissed.
I also note that the landlord has filed a claim for insurance to cover the cost of decontamination but has not received advice as to whether the claim has been accepted.
Because Gralin Property Management ( Auckland East) Limited Jack Yang has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. 2 NZS 8510:2017³ (NZS) 3 [2021] NZDC 15210

Tenancy Tribunal case 4686829 — Rent arrears at 20 Woodside Road, Henderson, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4686829 — Rent arrears at 20 Woodside Road, Henderson, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions