What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4756350 about?

The tribunal order states: Filianga Apolosi must pay the landlord $5,309.51 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4756350?

Cleaning: $3,024.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Methamphetamine Test: $228.85 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,080.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $630.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $355.72 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4756350?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Rent arrears, Exemplary damages, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4756350?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10238702-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4756350 about?

The tribunal order states: Filianga Apolosi must pay the landlord $5,309.51 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4756350?

Cleaning: $3,024.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Methamphetamine Test: $228.85 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,080.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $630.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $355.72 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4756350?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Rent arrears, Exemplary damages, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4756350?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10238702-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4756350 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4756350 — Cleanliness | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4756350 — net $5,309.51 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,080.00	Rent arrears
Water rates: (to 01/01/2024	$355.72	Water rates: (to 01/01/2024
Lock/key replacement	$150.00	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning and repairs	$3,024.50	Cleaning and repairs
Rubbish removal (skip and labour	$630.00	Rubbish removal (skip and labour
Methamphetamine test	$228.85	Methamphetamine test
Insurance excess	$300.00	Insurance excess
Exemplary damages: Use of premises for unlawful purpose	$600.00	Use of premises for unlawful purpose
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,309.51
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,309.51

Claims and awards for application 4756350 — net $5,309.51 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $2,080.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Water rates: (to 01/01/2024

Amount: $355.72
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates: (to 01/01/2024

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $150.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Cleaning and repairs

Amount: $3,024.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning and repairs

Rubbish removal (skip and labour

Amount: $630.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal (skip and labour

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Exemplary damages Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears Rubbish Removal Water Rates

Order

Filianga Apolosi must pay the landlord $5,309.51 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,080.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to the landlord immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
I am satisfied that the tenant had received proper notice of the hearing time, date and place and chose not to attend.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 1 January 2024. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, did not remove all rubbish and left personal property the tenant no longer wanted for the landlord to dispose of.
The tenant did not return the keys and as a result the locks had to be changed.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. damage to 3 hallway walls that required repair and repainting; b. damage to kitchen walls that required repair and repaint after removal of stickers from walls; and c. damage to the master bedroom door and bathroom door.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have considered betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Methamphetamine contamination and associated costs
To make a successful claim for methamphetamine testing and/or remediation costs, the landlord must prove that the tenant caused or permitted the contamination, or that it was caused by someone at the premises with the tenant’s consent. The landlord must also prove that, because of the contamination, the premises have been damaged or are not reasonably clean.
Section 138C Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides for regulations to be made prescribing the maximum acceptable level for contaminants, but as yet no regulations have been made in relation to methamphetamine.
There are currently two sources of guidance on the issue of a safe level of methamphetamine contamination in residential premises. In June 2017 Standards New Zealand published NZS 8510:2017. The standard recommended a maximum contamination level of 1.5μg/100cm2 for high use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture. It recommended a higher level of 3.8μg/100cm2 for limited use areas.
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 report noted that there is a lack of scientific evidence to prove that low-level third-hand methamphetamine exposure poses a health risk to humans. It stated that guidelines should be proportionate to risk and that exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect. It recommended retaining the level of 1.5μg/100cm2 where contamination resulted from manufacture, due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the process.
The District Court has held that remediation should be carried out in accordance with the prevailing guidelines at the time (Diamond Real Estate Limited v Allan [2017] NZDC 833, Judge Kellar).
The Tribunal has generally applied the Gluckman recommendation. This approach was approved by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947, where the Court stated (at para [36]): “The Tenancy Tribunal was in a difficult position. The best state of knowledge of risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination available to the adjudicator was the Gluckman Report. It would have been bold for the adjudicator to have ignored that report in favour of the New Zealand Standard given that the Gluckman report represents the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination in dwellings.”
The District Court took a similar approach in Acme Realty Limited v Hogg and others [2021] NZDC 3231, where the Court referred to the Full Circle case and held that, because NZS 8510:2017 has not been adopted into law, the Tribunal was not bound to apply the 1.5μg standard.
More recently, in Barfoot and Thompson Limited v Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited [2021] NZTT Auckland 4276319, both parties presented scientific evidence at a hearing before the Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that there was no new scientific research to change the conclusions reached in the Gluckman Report.
The landlord’s evidence disclosed that the property manager had received numerous complaints about the tenant’s son and daughter engaging in anti- social behaviour and breaches of the body corporate rules that suggested one or both may be under the influence of an illicit drug such as methamphetamine. As such, methamphetamine testing was carried out as soon as the tenancy ended.
The landlord had undertaken a comprehensive methamphetamine test of the premises, on 14 October 2021, just prior to the tenancy commencing. The test result came back showing that all room in the property had reading of < 0.02μg (micrograms) /100cm2 The landlord’s evidence does not prove contamination in the premises were at a level greater than the 15μg/100cm2 level in the Gluckman report but does show that the contamination level is highly likely to be above the NZS 8510:2017 standard recommended maximum contamination levels of 1.5μg/100cm2 for high use areas (where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture) and 3.8μg/100cm2 for limited use areas.
. The composite tests carried out on 9 January 2024 yielded results of 14.5μg for the upstairs rooms and 15.8μg for the downstairs rooms. The comparison of the entry and exit methamphetamine tests confirmed to the landlord that methamphetamine had been used in the premises during the tenant’s tenancy, either by the tenant or someone at the premises with the tenant’s consent.
Composite tests make it difficult to ascertain whether one or more of the samples tested together are at a level greater than the 15μg/100cm2 level in the Gluckman report. Pg. 28 of the Gluckman report, which looks at composite tests and notes: “Combining multiple samples taken throughout a dwelling into a single composite sample, as permitted in NZS 8510:2017, has limited value and cannot accurately reflect levels of risk, and depending on how the data are integrated can lead to quite misleading interpretation and false impressions of high exposure. This approach of composite analysis is promoted as a cost-effective option for initial screening, but it is in fact costly because it creates a bias towards detecting higher levels, and can falsely impose a requirement for further testing without identifying the areas (nor the actual levels) of potential contamination. Given the low health risk in properties that were not used as meth labs, if they are to be tested, the initial screening should not involve composite field testing that could produce a false positive result – that is, detecting a level of 1.5 μg/100 cm2 (or slightly above) from a composite field sample that adds the readings from all swabs together. Such field composite testing means that every sample can be below the standard, but when combined can raise the overall result, triggering another round of expensive testing”.
The Gluckman report advises against composite testing on the basis that composite testing can result in a false positive “that is, detecting a level of
5ug/100cm 2 (or slightly above) from a composite field sample that adds the readings from all swabs together. Such field composite testing means that every sample can be below the standard, but when combined can raise the overall result, triggering another round of expensive testing.” That is, of course, correct. It would be possible that the 5 discrete swaps taken from the downstairs areas of the rental property would each show readings of
16μg/100cm 2 which when added together as a composite would be
8μg/100cm 2 and the 5 discrete swaps taken from the upstairs areas of the rental property would each show readings of 2.9μg/100cm 2 which when added together as a composite would be 14.5μg/100cm 2 .
The landlord’s evidence does not prove contamination in the premises were at a level greater than the 15μg/100cm2 level in the Gluckman report. Its evidence does prove: a. The contamination is highly likely to be above the NZS 8510:2017 standard recommended maximum contamination levels of 1.5μg/100cm2 for high use areas (where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture) and 3.8μg/100cm2 for limited use areas; and b. The tenant, or someone in the rental premise with the tenant’s permission, has used methamphetamine in the rental premises during the tenancy because: i. All rooms in the rental premise tested <0.02μg/100cm2 in the pre- tenancy comprehensive methamphetamine test; ii. The post tenancy composite tests shows that the rental premises have much higher levels of methamphetamine contamination than the pre-tenancy test results showed; iii. The composite testing results are well above a level that could be deemed to be a false positive.
The landlord has applied for compensation for the cost of the methamphetamine composite testing and the insurance excess that relates to the two composite tests.
It is an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 for any person to have in their possession or consume any controlled drug and to allow any premises to be used for the commission of an offence under that Act and (sections 7 and 12). “Methamphetamine” is included as a controlled drug under Schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
It follows that the consumption of methamphetamine on premises amounts to the use of those premises for an unlawful purpose, in breach of section 40(2)(b) RTA. The tenant was therefore in breach of his obligations under the RTA.
The composite test results support the landlord’s claim for compensation for: a. The $300.00 insurance excess it has paid for its accepted claim to have further testing undertaken and for any resulting decontamination to be undertaken; and b. The composite testing fee of $228.85 testing fee.
I am satisfied that it is appropriate in these circumstances to award the landlord the costs incurred in having the property tested for contamination on 9 January 2024, as it was prudent for the landlord to have the tests done, given the positive proof that methamphetamine was consumed in the property in breach of the tenant’s obligations.
It is also appropriate to award to landlord the $300.00 insurance excess for the insurance claim that has been accepted and has ultimately provided the landlord cover for the costs of comprehensive testing to identify which, if any, rooms needed to be decontaminated, the costs of the remediation work required and re-testing post decontamination. It is of note that insurance does not cover the full costs incurred by the landlord.

Is the tenant liable for exemplary damages?

[The landlord/s] claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by consuming or allowing someone with his consent to consume methamphetamine in the premises.
It is an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 for any person to have in their possession or consume any controlled drug and to allow any premises to be used for the commission of an offence under that Act and (sections 7 and 12). “Methamphetamine” is included as a controlled drug under Schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord has established in evidence that methamphetamine has been used in the rental premises during the tenancy. This is because a pre-tenancy methamphetamine comprehensive test was carried out by the landlord just prior to the tenant’s tenancy commencing and the composite test carried out at the end of the tenant’s tenancy established the presence of methamphetamine in the home at a level that is not a case of a false positive test and that was not present in the pre-tenancy testing.
I find the tenant has committed an unlawful act by consuming and/or allowing others to consume methamphetamine in the premises. I am satisfied that this was an intentionally unlawful act because it is common knowledge that the use of methamphetamine is illegal.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I consider an award of $600.00 exemplary damages justified in these circumstances. I make this finding on the following grounds: a. Methamphetamine was found throughout the house. The levels ranged from 14.5 μg to 15.8μg. The latter level is relatively high. b. The impact on the landlord cannot be understated. They have had to leave the premises vacant for months while they made an insurance claim and had further testing undertaken and ultimately had to have remediation work done to remove the methamphetamine contamination. They have suffered stress and the inconvenience of the remediation work, which has been lengthy and considerable. In addition, they have suffered loss of rent until re-testing after the premises had been decontaminated proved to the Council that the premises were fit for purpose again and no longer represented a health risk to any occupier. Further, it is clearly in the public interests to discourage the use of methamphetamine in rental properties. c. It is in the public interest to penalise tenants that use or allow rental premises to be used for unlawful purposes and acts as a deterrent to other tenants considering using or allowing methamphetamine to be smoked in rental premises. Reimbursement of the filing fee
Because the applicant has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4756350 — net $5,309.51 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,080.00	Rent arrears
Water rates: (to 01/01/2024	$355.72	Water rates: (to 01/01/2024
Lock/key replacement	$150.00	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning and repairs	$3,024.50	Cleaning and repairs
Rubbish removal (skip and labour	$630.00	Rubbish removal (skip and labour
Methamphetamine test	$228.85	Methamphetamine test
Insurance excess	$300.00	Insurance excess
Exemplary damages: Use of premises for unlawful purpose	$600.00	Use of premises for unlawful purpose
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,309.51
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,309.51

Claims and awards for application 4756350 — net $5,309.51 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $2,080.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Water rates: (to 01/01/2024

Amount: $355.72
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates: (to 01/01/2024

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $150.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Cleaning and repairs

Amount: $3,024.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning and repairs

Rubbish removal (skip and labour

Amount: $630.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal (skip and labour

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Exemplary damages Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears Rubbish Removal Water Rates

Order

Filianga Apolosi must pay the landlord $5,309.51 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,080.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to the landlord immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
I am satisfied that the tenant had received proper notice of the hearing time, date and place and chose not to attend.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 1 January 2024. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, did not remove all rubbish and left personal property the tenant no longer wanted for the landlord to dispose of.
The tenant did not return the keys and as a result the locks had to be changed.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. damage to 3 hallway walls that required repair and repainting; b. damage to kitchen walls that required repair and repaint after removal of stickers from walls; and c. damage to the master bedroom door and bathroom door.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have considered betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Methamphetamine contamination and associated costs
To make a successful claim for methamphetamine testing and/or remediation costs, the landlord must prove that the tenant caused or permitted the contamination, or that it was caused by someone at the premises with the tenant’s consent. The landlord must also prove that, because of the contamination, the premises have been damaged or are not reasonably clean.
Section 138C Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides for regulations to be made prescribing the maximum acceptable level for contaminants, but as yet no regulations have been made in relation to methamphetamine.
There are currently two sources of guidance on the issue of a safe level of methamphetamine contamination in residential premises. In June 2017 Standards New Zealand published NZS 8510:2017. The standard recommended a maximum contamination level of 1.5μg/100cm2 for high use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture. It recommended a higher level of 3.8μg/100cm2 for limited use areas.
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 report noted that there is a lack of scientific evidence to prove that low-level third-hand methamphetamine exposure poses a health risk to humans. It stated that guidelines should be proportionate to risk and that exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect. It recommended retaining the level of 1.5μg/100cm2 where contamination resulted from manufacture, due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the process.
The District Court has held that remediation should be carried out in accordance with the prevailing guidelines at the time (Diamond Real Estate Limited v Allan [2017] NZDC 833, Judge Kellar).
The Tribunal has generally applied the Gluckman recommendation. This approach was approved by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947, where the Court stated (at para [36]): “The Tenancy Tribunal was in a difficult position. The best state of knowledge of risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination available to the adjudicator was the Gluckman Report. It would have been bold for the adjudicator to have ignored that report in favour of the New Zealand Standard given that the Gluckman report represents the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination in dwellings.”
The District Court took a similar approach in Acme Realty Limited v Hogg and others [2021] NZDC 3231, where the Court referred to the Full Circle case and held that, because NZS 8510:2017 has not been adopted into law, the Tribunal was not bound to apply the 1.5μg standard.
More recently, in Barfoot and Thompson Limited v Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited [2021] NZTT Auckland 4276319, both parties presented scientific evidence at a hearing before the Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that there was no new scientific research to change the conclusions reached in the Gluckman Report.
The landlord’s evidence disclosed that the property manager had received numerous complaints about the tenant’s son and daughter engaging in anti- social behaviour and breaches of the body corporate rules that suggested one or both may be under the influence of an illicit drug such as methamphetamine. As such, methamphetamine testing was carried out as soon as the tenancy ended.
The landlord had undertaken a comprehensive methamphetamine test of the premises, on 14 October 2021, just prior to the tenancy commencing. The test result came back showing that all room in the property had reading of < 0.02μg (micrograms) /100cm2 The landlord’s evidence does not prove contamination in the premises were at a level greater than the 15μg/100cm2 level in the Gluckman report but does show that the contamination level is highly likely to be above the NZS 8510:2017 standard recommended maximum contamination levels of 1.5μg/100cm2 for high use areas (where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture) and 3.8μg/100cm2 for limited use areas.
. The composite tests carried out on 9 January 2024 yielded results of 14.5μg for the upstairs rooms and 15.8μg for the downstairs rooms. The comparison of the entry and exit methamphetamine tests confirmed to the landlord that methamphetamine had been used in the premises during the tenant’s tenancy, either by the tenant or someone at the premises with the tenant’s consent.
Composite tests make it difficult to ascertain whether one or more of the samples tested together are at a level greater than the 15μg/100cm2 level in the Gluckman report. Pg. 28 of the Gluckman report, which looks at composite tests and notes: “Combining multiple samples taken throughout a dwelling into a single composite sample, as permitted in NZS 8510:2017, has limited value and cannot accurately reflect levels of risk, and depending on how the data are integrated can lead to quite misleading interpretation and false impressions of high exposure. This approach of composite analysis is promoted as a cost-effective option for initial screening, but it is in fact costly because it creates a bias towards detecting higher levels, and can falsely impose a requirement for further testing without identifying the areas (nor the actual levels) of potential contamination. Given the low health risk in properties that were not used as meth labs, if they are to be tested, the initial screening should not involve composite field testing that could produce a false positive result – that is, detecting a level of 1.5 μg/100 cm2 (or slightly above) from a composite field sample that adds the readings from all swabs together. Such field composite testing means that every sample can be below the standard, but when combined can raise the overall result, triggering another round of expensive testing”.
The Gluckman report advises against composite testing on the basis that composite testing can result in a false positive “that is, detecting a level of
5ug/100cm 2 (or slightly above) from a composite field sample that adds the readings from all swabs together. Such field composite testing means that every sample can be below the standard, but when combined can raise the overall result, triggering another round of expensive testing.” That is, of course, correct. It would be possible that the 5 discrete swaps taken from the downstairs areas of the rental property would each show readings of
16μg/100cm 2 which when added together as a composite would be
8μg/100cm 2 and the 5 discrete swaps taken from the upstairs areas of the rental property would each show readings of 2.9μg/100cm 2 which when added together as a composite would be 14.5μg/100cm 2 .
The landlord’s evidence does not prove contamination in the premises were at a level greater than the 15μg/100cm2 level in the Gluckman report. Its evidence does prove: a. The contamination is highly likely to be above the NZS 8510:2017 standard recommended maximum contamination levels of 1.5μg/100cm2 for high use areas (where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture) and 3.8μg/100cm2 for limited use areas; and b. The tenant, or someone in the rental premise with the tenant’s permission, has used methamphetamine in the rental premises during the tenancy because: i. All rooms in the rental premise tested <0.02μg/100cm2 in the pre- tenancy comprehensive methamphetamine test; ii. The post tenancy composite tests shows that the rental premises have much higher levels of methamphetamine contamination than the pre-tenancy test results showed; iii. The composite testing results are well above a level that could be deemed to be a false positive.
The landlord has applied for compensation for the cost of the methamphetamine composite testing and the insurance excess that relates to the two composite tests.
It is an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 for any person to have in their possession or consume any controlled drug and to allow any premises to be used for the commission of an offence under that Act and (sections 7 and 12). “Methamphetamine” is included as a controlled drug under Schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
It follows that the consumption of methamphetamine on premises amounts to the use of those premises for an unlawful purpose, in breach of section 40(2)(b) RTA. The tenant was therefore in breach of his obligations under the RTA.
The composite test results support the landlord’s claim for compensation for: a. The $300.00 insurance excess it has paid for its accepted claim to have further testing undertaken and for any resulting decontamination to be undertaken; and b. The composite testing fee of $228.85 testing fee.
I am satisfied that it is appropriate in these circumstances to award the landlord the costs incurred in having the property tested for contamination on 9 January 2024, as it was prudent for the landlord to have the tests done, given the positive proof that methamphetamine was consumed in the property in breach of the tenant’s obligations.
It is also appropriate to award to landlord the $300.00 insurance excess for the insurance claim that has been accepted and has ultimately provided the landlord cover for the costs of comprehensive testing to identify which, if any, rooms needed to be decontaminated, the costs of the remediation work required and re-testing post decontamination. It is of note that insurance does not cover the full costs incurred by the landlord.

Is the tenant liable for exemplary damages?

[The landlord/s] claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by consuming or allowing someone with his consent to consume methamphetamine in the premises.
It is an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 for any person to have in their possession or consume any controlled drug and to allow any premises to be used for the commission of an offence under that Act and (sections 7 and 12). “Methamphetamine” is included as a controlled drug under Schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord has established in evidence that methamphetamine has been used in the rental premises during the tenancy. This is because a pre-tenancy methamphetamine comprehensive test was carried out by the landlord just prior to the tenant’s tenancy commencing and the composite test carried out at the end of the tenant’s tenancy established the presence of methamphetamine in the home at a level that is not a case of a false positive test and that was not present in the pre-tenancy testing.
I find the tenant has committed an unlawful act by consuming and/or allowing others to consume methamphetamine in the premises. I am satisfied that this was an intentionally unlawful act because it is common knowledge that the use of methamphetamine is illegal.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I consider an award of $600.00 exemplary damages justified in these circumstances. I make this finding on the following grounds: a. Methamphetamine was found throughout the house. The levels ranged from 14.5 μg to 15.8μg. The latter level is relatively high. b. The impact on the landlord cannot be understated. They have had to leave the premises vacant for months while they made an insurance claim and had further testing undertaken and ultimately had to have remediation work done to remove the methamphetamine contamination. They have suffered stress and the inconvenience of the remediation work, which has been lengthy and considerable. In addition, they have suffered loss of rent until re-testing after the premises had been decontaminated proved to the Council that the premises were fit for purpose again and no longer represented a health risk to any occupier. Further, it is clearly in the public interests to discourage the use of methamphetamine in rental properties. c. It is in the public interest to penalise tenants that use or allow rental premises to be used for unlawful purposes and acts as a deterrent to other tenants considering using or allowing methamphetamine to be smoked in rental premises. Reimbursement of the filing fee
Because the applicant has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4756350 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4756350 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Is the tenant liable for exemplary damages?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Is the tenant liable for exemplary damages?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions