What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4745449 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4745449?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Owed To 11/12/2023: $3,070.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4745449?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4745449?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9733521-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4745449 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4745449?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Owed To 11/12/2023: $3,070.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4745449?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4745449?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9733521-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4745449 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4745449 — net $3,090.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent owed to 11/12/2023	$3,070.00	Rent owed to 11/12/2023
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,090.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,090.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names, the tenancy address and any identifying details.
The application for immediate possession of the premises is dismissed.
[The tenant/s] owe [The landlord/s] $3,090.44 (“the debt”).
[The tenant/s] must pay rent and the debt as follows: a. By paying $1250.00 on Tuesday 12 December 2023 being the weekly rent due b. By a payment of $3090.44, on Thursday 14 December 2023 for the debt.
Payments will be allocated in the following order: rent, rent arrears, and the filing fee.
If the tenant fails to pay rent and rent arrears within 2 working days of the due dates: DescriptionLandlord Rent owed to 11/12/2023$3,070.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$3,090.44 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$3,090.44 a. The tenancy at [Tenancy address suppressed] will terminate, and the landlord will have immediate possession of the premises. b. The balance of the debt will be payable immediately.
If the tenant fails to pay the filing fee within 2 working days of the due date, the filing fee will be payable immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The parties advised that the premises is a new 3 level 4-bedroom, 3-bathroom home. The bedroom and living areas are on levels 2 and 3 and the garage and entrance are on the ground level. The landlord and family lived in the home for 2 – 3 months before the tenancy commenced.
This tenancy commenced on 20 May 2022. The tenants entered into an agreement to rent the home from the landlords. Following credit checks on [Tenant 1] the landlords required a joint tenancy and [Tenant 1] and his son [Tenant 2] jointly signed the tenancy agreement. Other family members have also lived in the home.
In October 2022 [Tenant 2] moved out of the premises and sought to have his name removed from the tenancy. The landlord did not agree to releasing [Tenant 2]’s name from the tenancy, so he remains as a party to the contract and jointly liable. [Tenant 1] advises that he accepts responsibility for any money to be paid to the landlord.
There was no methamphetamine test done prior to the tenancy commencing.
In October 2023 the landlord contracted a property manager to manage the property due to his time commitments. The property manager did an initial methamphetamine screening assessment which showed the presence of methamphetamine. The property manager then arranged a further report from Total Home Inspection Services.
The landlord has applied for possession, termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond.
The onus is on the landlord to prove the claims on the balance of probabilities.

Should a possession order be made?

The landlord seeks possession of the premises following a 7-day notice to terminate being issued under section 59A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Section 59A (1) of the RTA states that the section applies if, as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement by a party the premises are destroyed or are so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable. In this case the landlord can give notice of termination of not less than 7 days.
The landlord issued the tenant a notice dated 10 November 2023 to vacate the property in 7 days due to the place being uninhabitable due to the levels of contamination of Methamphetamine.
The tenant has not left the premises. He disputes the methamphetamine levels claimed and that the premises are so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable.
The landlord claimed that the whole premises are uninhabitable due to methamphetamine contamination. He produced a report from Total Home Inspection Services dated 18 November 2023.
The report records levels in 10 samples taken. Five out of the ten samples are taken in the bathrooms. The report appears to record five bathrooms, but the parties advised that the report wrongly records this and there are actually three bathrooms with a total of five samples taken in them. There is one sample taken in each of the four bedrooms and one in the kitchen. There is no record of any samples in the living area, entrance or garage. The report recorded methamphetamine levels in four samples below 1.5μg/100cm2, four samples at levels above 1.5μg/100cm2 but below 15μg/100cm2. Two samples recorded high levels above 15μg/100cm2 being 98μg/100cm2 and 41μg/100cm2 which were in two of the bathrooms. It is not clear from the report which bathrooms are claimed to be contaminated but the tenant advised these two samples were from the master bedroom ensuite and the bathroom on level 2. The main bathroom on level 3 has levels below 15μg/100cm2.
The tenant disputes that the premises are uninhabitable and claims that the testing was done in an unprofessional manner and the sample taking method was faulty. He produced a Meth Testing Kit report dated 16 November 2023 completed by [redacted] which recorded only a composite result.
The tenant advised that next Thursday 14 December 2023 he is arranging for a professional methamphetamine test to be undertaken at the premises.
The tenant further claims that the premises are safe to inhabit as the landlord’s evidence records only two bathrooms above safe levels which do not need to be used as there is a third bathroom available to use along with the rest of the premises.
As methamphetamine damage is not visible the Tribunal is guided by scientific evidence to determine whether there is damage to the premises that is so serious that they are uninhabitable.
In 2017 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, at 1.5 μg/100 cm2. The expectation on landlords arising from this Standard, was to remediate premises contaminated with methamphetamine, to a level of less than 1.5 μg/100 cm2.
However, in May 2018, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, then chief Scientific Advisor to the Prime Minister released a report titled “Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties; Exposures, risk levels” (the Gluckman Report). The report concluded that third-hand exposure to methamphetamine at levels below 15 micrograms per 100cm2 was unlikely to have adverse effect. This more recent evidence is the level that the Tribunal has been adopting.
On the evidence, I am not satisfied that the landlord has proved that the premises are so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable. This is because only two out of three bathrooms have test results above 15μg/100cm2 and the results for the remainder for the house are either below 15μg/100cm2 or have not been tested at all. Therefore, the application for immediate possession is dismissed.
I am not required to determine whether the damage was caused by a breach of the tenancy agreement today as the landlord is not seeking compensation for damage today and the tenant has not filed a claim.
The landlord has advised that he is pursuing an insurance claim to remedy the damage and a contractor may require the premises to be vacant for the decontamination process. The landlord is entitled to issue the required notice under section 51(2)(f) RTA if this is necessary.
The parties may resolve matters between themselves but if not, further claims may be filed by either party and will be determined in due course by the Tribunal.

Should a conditional termination order be made?

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond. The tenant wants to repay the debt to avoid immediate termination.
The landlord has served three rent arrears notices on the tenant as required in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and the application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days of the date of the third notice. See section 55(1)(aa) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The Tribunal may make a conditional order if it is satisfied that the tenant will pay the rent in arrears within a period specified by the Tribunal and it is unlikely the tenant will commit any further breach. See section 55 (1A) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant has explained that he has a construction company and that rent got in to arrears due to the dispute with the landlord but he is able to make a lump sum payment next week to remedy this.
I am satisfied the tenant will pay the debt within the period specified in the order and is unlikely to commit any further relevant breach. I have granted a conditional termination order.
The conditional termination order will lapse if it is fully complied with. If the tenant breaches the order, the possession order may be enforced for 90 days from the first breach. See section 64(4)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Suppression/Filing fee
The Tribunal may on the application of any party or on its own initiative make a suppression order, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. Section 95A (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The applicant seeks suppression of both parties’ details in any publication of this order. Having considered the factors in this case including the sensitive nature of the evidence the Tribunal grants suppression as sought.
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4745449 — net $3,090.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent owed to 11/12/2023	$3,070.00	Rent owed to 11/12/2023
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,090.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,090.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names, the tenancy address and any identifying details.
The application for immediate possession of the premises is dismissed.
[The tenant/s] owe [The landlord/s] $3,090.44 (“the debt”).
[The tenant/s] must pay rent and the debt as follows: a. By paying $1250.00 on Tuesday 12 December 2023 being the weekly rent due b. By a payment of $3090.44, on Thursday 14 December 2023 for the debt.
Payments will be allocated in the following order: rent, rent arrears, and the filing fee.
If the tenant fails to pay rent and rent arrears within 2 working days of the due dates: DescriptionLandlord Rent owed to 11/12/2023$3,070.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$3,090.44 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$3,090.44 a. The tenancy at [Tenancy address suppressed] will terminate, and the landlord will have immediate possession of the premises. b. The balance of the debt will be payable immediately.
If the tenant fails to pay the filing fee within 2 working days of the due date, the filing fee will be payable immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The parties advised that the premises is a new 3 level 4-bedroom, 3-bathroom home. The bedroom and living areas are on levels 2 and 3 and the garage and entrance are on the ground level. The landlord and family lived in the home for 2 – 3 months before the tenancy commenced.
This tenancy commenced on 20 May 2022. The tenants entered into an agreement to rent the home from the landlords. Following credit checks on [Tenant 1] the landlords required a joint tenancy and [Tenant 1] and his son [Tenant 2] jointly signed the tenancy agreement. Other family members have also lived in the home.
In October 2022 [Tenant 2] moved out of the premises and sought to have his name removed from the tenancy. The landlord did not agree to releasing [Tenant 2]’s name from the tenancy, so he remains as a party to the contract and jointly liable. [Tenant 1] advises that he accepts responsibility for any money to be paid to the landlord.
There was no methamphetamine test done prior to the tenancy commencing.
In October 2023 the landlord contracted a property manager to manage the property due to his time commitments. The property manager did an initial methamphetamine screening assessment which showed the presence of methamphetamine. The property manager then arranged a further report from Total Home Inspection Services.
The landlord has applied for possession, termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond.
The onus is on the landlord to prove the claims on the balance of probabilities.

Should a possession order be made?

The landlord seeks possession of the premises following a 7-day notice to terminate being issued under section 59A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Section 59A (1) of the RTA states that the section applies if, as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement by a party the premises are destroyed or are so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable. In this case the landlord can give notice of termination of not less than 7 days.
The landlord issued the tenant a notice dated 10 November 2023 to vacate the property in 7 days due to the place being uninhabitable due to the levels of contamination of Methamphetamine.
The tenant has not left the premises. He disputes the methamphetamine levels claimed and that the premises are so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable.
The landlord claimed that the whole premises are uninhabitable due to methamphetamine contamination. He produced a report from Total Home Inspection Services dated 18 November 2023.
The report records levels in 10 samples taken. Five out of the ten samples are taken in the bathrooms. The report appears to record five bathrooms, but the parties advised that the report wrongly records this and there are actually three bathrooms with a total of five samples taken in them. There is one sample taken in each of the four bedrooms and one in the kitchen. There is no record of any samples in the living area, entrance or garage. The report recorded methamphetamine levels in four samples below 1.5μg/100cm2, four samples at levels above 1.5μg/100cm2 but below 15μg/100cm2. Two samples recorded high levels above 15μg/100cm2 being 98μg/100cm2 and 41μg/100cm2 which were in two of the bathrooms. It is not clear from the report which bathrooms are claimed to be contaminated but the tenant advised these two samples were from the master bedroom ensuite and the bathroom on level 2. The main bathroom on level 3 has levels below 15μg/100cm2.
The tenant disputes that the premises are uninhabitable and claims that the testing was done in an unprofessional manner and the sample taking method was faulty. He produced a Meth Testing Kit report dated 16 November 2023 completed by [redacted] which recorded only a composite result.
The tenant advised that next Thursday 14 December 2023 he is arranging for a professional methamphetamine test to be undertaken at the premises.
The tenant further claims that the premises are safe to inhabit as the landlord’s evidence records only two bathrooms above safe levels which do not need to be used as there is a third bathroom available to use along with the rest of the premises.
As methamphetamine damage is not visible the Tribunal is guided by scientific evidence to determine whether there is damage to the premises that is so serious that they are uninhabitable.
In 2017 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, at 1.5 μg/100 cm2. The expectation on landlords arising from this Standard, was to remediate premises contaminated with methamphetamine, to a level of less than 1.5 μg/100 cm2.
However, in May 2018, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, then chief Scientific Advisor to the Prime Minister released a report titled “Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties; Exposures, risk levels” (the Gluckman Report). The report concluded that third-hand exposure to methamphetamine at levels below 15 micrograms per 100cm2 was unlikely to have adverse effect. This more recent evidence is the level that the Tribunal has been adopting.
On the evidence, I am not satisfied that the landlord has proved that the premises are so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable. This is because only two out of three bathrooms have test results above 15μg/100cm2 and the results for the remainder for the house are either below 15μg/100cm2 or have not been tested at all. Therefore, the application for immediate possession is dismissed.
I am not required to determine whether the damage was caused by a breach of the tenancy agreement today as the landlord is not seeking compensation for damage today and the tenant has not filed a claim.
The landlord has advised that he is pursuing an insurance claim to remedy the damage and a contractor may require the premises to be vacant for the decontamination process. The landlord is entitled to issue the required notice under section 51(2)(f) RTA if this is necessary.
The parties may resolve matters between themselves but if not, further claims may be filed by either party and will be determined in due course by the Tribunal.

Should a conditional termination order be made?

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond. The tenant wants to repay the debt to avoid immediate termination.
The landlord has served three rent arrears notices on the tenant as required in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and the application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days of the date of the third notice. See section 55(1)(aa) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The Tribunal may make a conditional order if it is satisfied that the tenant will pay the rent in arrears within a period specified by the Tribunal and it is unlikely the tenant will commit any further breach. See section 55 (1A) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant has explained that he has a construction company and that rent got in to arrears due to the dispute with the landlord but he is able to make a lump sum payment next week to remedy this.
I am satisfied the tenant will pay the debt within the period specified in the order and is unlikely to commit any further relevant breach. I have granted a conditional termination order.
The conditional termination order will lapse if it is fully complied with. If the tenant breaches the order, the possession order may be enforced for 90 days from the first breach. See section 64(4)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Suppression/Filing fee
The Tribunal may on the application of any party or on its own initiative make a suppression order, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. Section 95A (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The applicant seeks suppression of both parties’ details in any publication of this order. Having considered the factors in this case including the sensitive nature of the evidence the Tribunal grants suppression as sought.
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4745449 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4745449 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should a possession order be made?

Should a conditional termination order be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should a possession order be made?

Should a conditional termination order be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions