What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4713291 about?

The tribunal order states: By declaration:

How much money was awarded in case 4713291?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4713291?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4713291?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9956315-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4713291 about?

The tribunal order states: By declaration:

How much money was awarded in case 4713291?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4713291?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4713291?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9956315-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4713291 — Cleanliness

Order

By declaration: a. [The former tenant] has not been a tenant since 24 October 2023 and has no liability for this tenancy from that date. b. From 25 October 2023 the parties to the tenancy are Raewyn Jeanette Cole as landlord and [The current tenant/s] as tenants.
The landlord’s applications are dismissed.
[The former tenant]’s application for refund of a bond is dismissed.
The Bond is to be held by the Bond Centre in the names of Raewyn Jeanette Cole as landlord and [The current tenant/s] as tenants.

Reasons

All parties attend hearings on 5 December 2023 and 24 January 2024.
The landlord had applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. In particular, there was an allegation of methamphetamine use by the tenants (or one of them).
[The former tenant] had applied for refund of a bond paid by her. She says that she no longer lives at the property and that [The current tenant/s] also paid a bond.
This tenancy has been poorly managed from the outset. There is confusion around who the tenants are, there are two written, inconsistent, tenancy agreements and lack of clarity around move in dates.
I adjourned the hearing on 5 December for the parties to make submission on who the parties to the tenancy are. I then made a directions Order on 19 December 2023. I was inclined to the view that the parties to the tenancy agreement were Ms Cole as landlord with 3 joint tenants being [The former tenant] and [The current tenant/s] but noted that the evidence provided to date raised further issues.
I have now heard further from all parties at the hearing on 24 January 2024 and make determinations on all issues in both applications. Parties to the Tenancy
[The former tenant] and Ms Cole each provided a timeline for the start of the tenancy and copies of the various tenancy agreements.
The documents show that Ms Cole entered a signed tenancy agreement with [The current tenant/s] dated 31 August 2023. Those parties also completed and signed a bond lodgment form.
However, Ms Cole had not met [The current tenant/s] at that time. She dealt with [The former tenant]. [The former tenant]’s evidence was that she intended to live in a sleepout on the property as a border of [The current tenant/s].
[The former tenant] went to collect the key from Ms Cole on or about 10 September 2023. Ms Cole had not received a bond or rent in advance at that time, so insisted that [The former tenant] also accepted responsibility for the tenancy and sign the agreement as a tenant. [The former tenant] countersigned the 31 August tenancy agreement as a tenant.
Ms Cole then prepared a second tenancy agreement between herself as landlord and [The former tenant] as sole tenant. She said that she did that because [The former tenant] had told her that [The current tenant/s] were not moving in. Ms Cole made no effort to contact [The current tenant/s]. She claimed that she did not know how to contact them even though their details are clearly recorded in the tenancy agreement and bond lodgement form.
[The former tenant] moved into the property on or about 14 September 2023. She did extensive cleaning, along with [The current tenant/s]. [The current tenant/s] moved in on 17 October 2023.
[The former tenant] moved out on or about 24 October 2023. The circumstances around her moving out were not clear to me. What was clear is that there has been a falling out between all parties. It is also apparent from text messages, that Ms Cole was aware of and consented to her leaving the tenancy.
I find that there was a tenancy agreement between Ms Cole and [The current tenant/s] dated 31 August 2023, with a commencement date of 9 September 2023.
That tenancy was amended on 10 September 2023, to add [The former tenant] as a third joint tenant.
It was amended again, on 24 October 2024 to remove [The former tenant] as a joint tenant.
The second tenancy agreement between Ms Cole and [The former tenant] as sole tenant is ineffective as there was already a tenancy in place for these premises.
I find that: a. [The former tenant] has not been a tenant since 24 October 2023 and has no liability for this tenancy from that date. b. From 25 October 2023 the parties to the tenancy are Raewyn Jeanette Cole as landlord and [The current tenant/s] as tenants. Bond Payment
[The former tenant] has applied for refund of a bond payment made on her behalf on 18 September 2023.
Ms Cole received payments of $1,300 (bond) and $650 (rent) for [The former tenant] on 18 September 2023. She also said (para 9 of her statement) that she received payments of $325 and $650 for [The current tenant/s] on 20 September 2023.
The tenants did not make any other payments until 25 October 2023.
Ms Cole provided a rent summary which shows that rent was in arrears during the period in which [The former tenant] was a joint tenant. Rent is now up to date.
In effect, the payments made for [The former tenant] on 18 September 2023 have been applied to rent for the period she occupied the premises and was a joint tenant.
The bond is currently held in the name of all three joint tenants. The Bond is to be held by the Bond Centre in the names of Raewyn Jeanette Cole as landlord and [The current tenant/s] as tenants.
I find that [The former tenant] is not entitled to the Bond held at the Bond Centre. Her application is dismissed. Methamphetamine – Termination & Compensation
Ms Cole asked for termination of the tenancy and compensation because of alleged Methamphetamine use at the premises.
The first issue is whether Ms Cole has proved that it is more likely than not that the tenants have breached their obligations by using methamphetamine at the property. If that is established, I could consider termination of the tenancy.
Ms Cole’s evidence in relation to Methamphetamine use at the premises was a composite test result dated 27 October 2023. That composite result reported a total of 11.3mcg of Methamphetamine from 17 samples taken.
[The current tenant/s] also told her that [The former tenant] may be using Methamphetamine at the property.
Ms Cole did not have any test results from before this tenancy started but said that this was her family home and she could categorically state that there was no contamination before this tenancy started.
The District Court has confirmed that where there is no pre-tenancy test the landlord could not establish that any contamination occurred during the tenancy. See Eren Ltd v Martin and Kukuruzsnayak [2021] NZDC 15210; Brooking and Hodges v Imrie [2021] NZDC 16976.
Ms Cole’s evidence has not established that it is more likely than not that the tenants have used Methamphetamine at the premises during this tenancy. The application for termination is dismissed.
If Ms Cole had proved that Methamphetamine had been used at the premises, during the tenancy, I would have had to consider whether the premises had been “damaged” as a result of that use.
Ms Cole said that decontamination could costs around $30,000 but had no evidence to support that figure. She had no quotes and no proposed scope of work on which a quote could be based.
Ms Cole has provided evidence of a composite test result of 11.3mcg of Methamphetamine from 17 samples. A composite sample records the “potential maximum” methamphetamine from any single sample. This is explained on page 9 of the report Ms Cole provided. Because the swabs are combined, the methamphetamine could come from one of the samples, or could be spread across multiple swabs.
So, 11.3mcg is the maximum reading there could be in any one location.
In May 2018, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the then Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, released a report “Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards.” (“The Gluckman report”)
The Gluckman report noted the lack of data on the effect of living in a house previously used for smoking methamphetamine (“third-hand” exposure). It stated that, where there is no evidence of manufacturing methamphetamine, exposure to levels below 15mcg/100 cm2 would be highly unlikely to give rise to any adverse effects.
In Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 the District Court described the Gluckman report as representing “the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination in dwellings” and endorsed the Tenancy Tribunal’s decision to conclude that there was no damage to premises where methamphetamine levels were below 15mcg/100cm2. That approach has been endorsed in subsequent decisions of the District Court. See Acme Realty Ltd v Alexander James Hogg, Tuitui Grace Polotu, Leigh Sharyn Coughlin [2021] NZDC 3231 and Eren Limited v Martin and Kukuruzsnayak [2021] NZDC 15210
The evidence does not establish that the premises have been “damaged” as a result of Methamphetamine use during the tenancy. The claims for compensation are also dismissed.
As the tenants have been substantially successful, I have granted their request for suppression of their details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4713291 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4713291 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions