What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4719170 about?

The tribunal order states: Jodi Garland and Cherri McTavish must pay [The landlord/s] $2,000.00

How much money was awarded in case 4719170?

Compensation: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4719170?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4719170?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10077488-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4719170 about?

The tribunal order states: Jodi Garland and Cherri McTavish must pay [The landlord/s] $2,000.00

How much money was awarded in case 4719170?

Compensation: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4719170?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4719170?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10077488-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 6, 5C Pantera Way, Hillpark, Auckland 2102 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4719170 — Tenancy dispute

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4719170 — net $2,000.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation for methamphetamine decontamination	$2,000.00	Compensation for methamphetamine decontamination
Net award	$2,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,000.00

The landlord attended the hearing, conducted via teleconference. The tenants could not be contacted at the time of hearing.

This tenancy ended on 21 April 2023. I was satisfied, given the circumstances and efforts made by the landlord to contact the tenants, to dispense with the requirement for service and proceed as if the notice or any other document had been served on the party in accordance with s91B(2)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 Act.

The landlord has applied for compensation of $2000.00 as contribution to the costs of methamphetamine decontamination. The total cost was over $16000.00.

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.

Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(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.

At the end of the tenancy the premises were found to be contaminated with methamphetamine, recording extremely high levels as listed below: Sample A - Kitchen365 μg Sample B - Kitchen234 μg Sample C - Bedroom 156.3 μg Sample D - Lounge108 μg Sample E - Lounge16 μg Sample F - Laundry254 μg Sample G - Laundry101 μg Sample H - Bathroom165 μg Sample I - Bathroom208 μg Sample J - Bedroom 28.28 μg Sample K - Conservatory647 μg Sample L - Conservatory484 μg

It is now a well-accepted position taken by the District Court and the Tenancy Tribunal that the recommendations contained in the Gluckman report that the guidelines should be proportionate to risk and that exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm 2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect is the position to adopted.

It is clear from the testing undertaken within these premises that the levels well exceed this level.

While there was no pre-tenancy testing available, the detailed report provided by the professional contaminant testing company noted there was evidence of meth related activity within the premises and also noted: a) The levels of meth identified in the property are consistent with high levels of meth related activity. b) The presence of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine in several samples along with levels of methamphetamine contamination are reason to suspect attempts at manufacture have been made. The NZ Standard and the Gluckman Meth Report note that where manufacture has occurred or is suspected to have occurred decontamination below 1.5μg/100cm2 should occur in all areas where meth is present.

I conclude that it was more likely than not that contamination took place during the tenancy and that such activity is one that would be liable to a term of imprisonment. As such the tenants are liable to contribute $2000.00 towards the costs of decontamination. 13 March 2024 J Robson

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4719170 — net $2,000.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation for methamphetamine decontamination	$2,000.00	Compensation for methamphetamine decontamination
Net award	$2,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,000.00

Order

Jodi Garland and Cherri McTavish must pay [The landlord/s] $2,000.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, conducted via teleconference. The tenants could not be contacted at the time of hearing.
This tenancy ended on 21 April 2023. I was satisfied, given the circumstances and efforts made by the landlord to contact the tenants, to dispense with the requirement for service and proceed as if the notice or any other document had been served on the party in accordance with s91B(2)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 Act.
The landlord has applied for compensation of $2000.00 as contribution to the costs of methamphetamine decontamination. The total cost was over $16000.00.

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.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(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.
At the end of the tenancy the premises were found to be contaminated with methamphetamine, recording extremely high levels as listed below: Sample A - Kitchen365 μg Sample B - Kitchen234 μg Sample C - Bedroom 156.3 μg Sample D - Lounge108 μg Sample E - Lounge16 μg Sample F - Laundry254 μg Sample G - Laundry101 μg Sample H - Bathroom165 μg Sample I - Bathroom208 μg Sample J - Bedroom 28.28 μg Sample K - Conservatory647 μg Sample L - Conservatory484 μg
It is now a well-accepted position taken by the District Court and the Tenancy Tribunal that the recommendations contained in the Gluckman report that the guidelines should be proportionate to risk and that exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm 2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect is the position to adopted.
It is clear from the testing undertaken within these premises that the levels well exceed this level.
While there was no pre-tenancy testing available, the detailed report provided by the professional contaminant testing company noted there was evidence of meth related activity within the premises and also noted: a) The levels of meth identified in the property are consistent with high levels of meth related activity. b) The presence of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine in several samples along with levels of methamphetamine contamination are reason to suspect attempts at manufacture have been made. The NZ Standard and the Gluckman Meth Report note that where manufacture has occurred or is suspected to have occurred decontamination below 1.5μg/100cm2 should occur in all areas where meth is present.
I conclude that it was more likely than not that contamination took place during the tenancy and that such activity is one that would be liable to a term of imprisonment. As such the tenants are liable to contribute $2000.00 towards the costs of decontamination. 13 March 2024 J Robson

Tenancy Tribunal case 4719170 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 6, 5C Pantera Way, Hillpark, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4719170 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 6, 5C Pantera Way, Hillpark, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions