What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4779883?

The tribunal order states: Sarah Mau Uluakiahoia must pay The Rent House Limited As Agent For Mehul

How much money was awarded in case 4779883?

Cleaning: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $290.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $61.20 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $317.74 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $475.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4779883?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4779883?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10263224-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4779883?

The tribunal order states: Sarah Mau Uluakiahoia must pay The Rent House Limited As Agent For Mehul

How much money was awarded in case 4779883?

Cleaning: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $290.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $61.20 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $317.74 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $475.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4779883?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4779883?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10263224-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

34B Neilson Street, Onehunga, Auckland 1061 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4779883 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4779883 — net $1,614.38 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Window repairs	$290.00	Window repairs
Replacement of garage door remote	$61.20	Replacement of garage door remote
Lock/key replacement	$317.74	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal	$475.00	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$450.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,614.38
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,614.38

Order

Sarah Mau Uluakiahoia must pay The Rent House Limited As Agent For Mehul Mistry $1,614.38 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy on 15 November 2023.

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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The tenant did not return the keys and garage remote.
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.
The windows were damaged during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Was the premises contaminated with methamphetamine during the tenancy?

The landlord claims that the property was handed back by the tenant contaminated with methamphetamine residue and seeks methamphetamine testing and cleaning costs.
No baseline methamphetamine testing was undertaken prior to the start of the tenancy. For this reason alone, the landlord’s claim must fail.
Methamphetamine contamination may have occurred or could have also occurred prior to this tenancy to or near the levels indicated by the methamphetamine tests conducted at the end of the tenancy in November 2023.
The District Court in Eren Limited v Louise Martin [2021] NZDC 15210 and Brooking and Hodges v Imrie [2021] NZDC 16976 emphasised the significance of pre tenancy testing, and that its absence would be a determinative factor.
In Eren, Judge de Ridder also considered a dispute over who caused the contamination. In that case, the Tribunal had declined the claim for the contamination remediation costs, on various grounds, including that the landlord had not established that the tenant contaminated the premises in the first instance. The appeal to the District Court was by the landlord. In that case, the landlord reports finding evidence of drug use in rubbish left by the tenants, and also that the neighbours had reported the tenants using drugs at the premises. The District Court confirmed that was circumstantial evidence that could be considered by the Tribunal. However, the Court found that the circumstantial evidence was not sufficient to get over the problem of no pre-tenancy methamphetamine testing, with his Honour stating: However, the significant problem for this claim is that there is no evidence of any methamphetamine testing carried out at the start of this tenancy. If there had been such testing and it revealed no methamphetamine, then clearly the methamphetamine residue that was found at the end of this tenancy could only have occurred during the tenancy and could only have occurred by either the tenant’s using methamphetamine or permitting others to use methamphetamine inside the house. 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 Brooking, Judge Cameron considered a case where the Tenancy Tribunal accepted that contamination was caused by the tenants, in circumstances where there was no pre-tenancy testing performed, however this decision was then overturned on appeal to the District Court with the District Court overturning the Tribunal’s earlier decision on the basis that “the difficulty with the landlords claim is that there was no methamphetamine test conducted at the beginning of the tenancy”.
For those above reasons, the landlord cannot prove that it is more likely than not that the methamphetamine contamination complaint occurred or only occurred during the period of this tenancy.
Be that as it may, individual methamphetamine testing results recorded
2μg/100cm2 to the entry door, 3.9μg/100cm2 to the bedroom door,
1μg/100cm2 to the bedroom wardrobe door, 4.9μg/100cm2 to the bedroom 2 door and 7.7μg/100cm2 to bedroom 2 wardrobe door frame on the premises.
The material issue is whether the premises required methamphetamine remediation and cleaning based on those test results.
In 2010 the New Zealand Ministry of Health produced guidelines for the remediation of clandestine methamphetamine laboratories, and determined that remediation was required if the environmental level of methamphetamine was
5μg/100cm2. While that related to laboratories, it is the case that the 0.5 level became the de facto level at which premises were considered to require decontamination.
In 2017 the level was increased when 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. The Standard confirmed that: After seeking expert advice on exposure risk from Environmental Science and Research Ltd (ESR) and the Ministry of Health, and reviewing a large number of public comments on a draft of this standard, the committee has decided to set the maximum acceptable level of methamphetamine in an affected property at
5μg/100cm2 after decontamination. While this level is greater than the Ministry of Health 2010 guideline value of 0.5μg/100cm2 for properties used as clandestine laboratories, there are a number of reasons why the committee decided to adopt the single value of 1.5μg/100cm2 in this standard.
In short, this standard confirmed that the level at which habitation of residential premises was considered safe, was a level of 1.5μg/100cm2. The expectation on landlords arising from this Standard, was to remediate premises contaminated with methamphetamine, to a level of less than 1.5μg/100cm2.
In more recent times, the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman determined that there was little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption (Report entitled ‘Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards’, 29 May 2018). The report concluded that any levels below 15μg/100cm2 were unlikely to present adverse effects:
Taken together, these factors indicate that methamphetamine levels that exceed the NZS 8510:2017 clean-up standard of 1.5μg/100cm2 should not be regarded as signalling a health risk. Indeed, exposure to methamphetamine levels below 15μg/100cm2 would be unlikely to give rise to any adverse effects. This level still incorporates a 30-fold safety buffer on a conservative estimate of risk.
In the District Court judgment of Diamond Real Estate Limited v Allan [2017] NZDC 833, Judge Kellar considered a case in which remediation was undertaken in reliance on the 2010 Ministry of Health level of 0.5μg/100cm2. It is the case that following the remediation work the Standard NZS 8510:2017 was released, which as noted above increased the acceptable level to
5μg/100cm2. Judge Kellar records that when the premises were tested, the highest level recorded was in the toilet at 1.4μg/100cm2 that “exceeded the Ministry of Health guidelines at the time.” The Court confirmed that any consideration as to whether the premises had been damaged, but be based on the prevailing guidelines at that time:
It appears to be the case that at the time the methamphetamine testing and decontamination was carried out the premises were not safe to occupy in terms of the then prevailing Ministry of Health guidelines.
If the landlord had no choice but to test for methamphetamine and decontaminate the premises and if the premises were not ‘safe’ in terms of the prevailing Ministry of Health guidelines at the time of testing then the premises may be said to have been damaged during the term of the tenancy.
At this time there remains a current New Zealand Standard of 1.5μg/100cm2, and also a current opinion from the Chief Science Advisor that there is no evidence of risk below 15μg/100cm2.
This matter has been considered recently by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947. Judge Kellar needed to determine which level should be applied. The Court discussed the conflict between the New Zealand Standard and Chief Science Advisors report, and confirmed: 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.
In my assessment, this decision of the Court has confirmed that the level to be applied is the level expressed by the Chief Science Advisor, which is that there is no risk when levels of contamination are below 15μg/100cm2.
Here, the recorded levels of contamination are below the risk level expressed by the Chief Science Advisor of 15μg/100cm2; objectively, the property did not require cleaning, remediation or further testing at all.
There is therefore no basis for the landlord to seek methamphetamine testing, decontamination and cleaning costs, and damages in the form of lost rent against the tenant.
The premises have not been returned to the landlord in an unacceptable state of cleanliness in terms of methamphetamine presence.
There is no cogent evidence before me to indicate that the premises are not ‘safe’ in terms of the prevailing Ministry of Health guidelines at the time of testing.
There is also no evidence to indicate the premises have been ‘damaged’ or otherwise contaminated by methamphetamine that occurred during this tenancy.
That being the case, the landlord’s claim for methamphetamine testing and decontamination costs, and damages must fail.
Finally, because The Rent House Limited As Agent For Mehul Mistry has partly succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4779883 — net $1,614.38 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Window repairs	$290.00	Window repairs
Replacement of garage door remote	$61.20	Replacement of garage door remote
Lock/key replacement	$317.74	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal	$475.00	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$450.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,614.38
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,614.38

Order

Sarah Mau Uluakiahoia must pay The Rent House Limited As Agent For Mehul Mistry $1,614.38 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy on 15 November 2023.

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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The tenant did not return the keys and garage remote.
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.
The windows were damaged during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Was the premises contaminated with methamphetamine during the tenancy?

The landlord claims that the property was handed back by the tenant contaminated with methamphetamine residue and seeks methamphetamine testing and cleaning costs.
No baseline methamphetamine testing was undertaken prior to the start of the tenancy. For this reason alone, the landlord’s claim must fail.
Methamphetamine contamination may have occurred or could have also occurred prior to this tenancy to or near the levels indicated by the methamphetamine tests conducted at the end of the tenancy in November 2023.
The District Court in Eren Limited v Louise Martin [2021] NZDC 15210 and Brooking and Hodges v Imrie [2021] NZDC 16976 emphasised the significance of pre tenancy testing, and that its absence would be a determinative factor.
In Eren, Judge de Ridder also considered a dispute over who caused the contamination. In that case, the Tribunal had declined the claim for the contamination remediation costs, on various grounds, including that the landlord had not established that the tenant contaminated the premises in the first instance. The appeal to the District Court was by the landlord. In that case, the landlord reports finding evidence of drug use in rubbish left by the tenants, and also that the neighbours had reported the tenants using drugs at the premises. The District Court confirmed that was circumstantial evidence that could be considered by the Tribunal. However, the Court found that the circumstantial evidence was not sufficient to get over the problem of no pre-tenancy methamphetamine testing, with his Honour stating: However, the significant problem for this claim is that there is no evidence of any methamphetamine testing carried out at the start of this tenancy. If there had been such testing and it revealed no methamphetamine, then clearly the methamphetamine residue that was found at the end of this tenancy could only have occurred during the tenancy and could only have occurred by either the tenant’s using methamphetamine or permitting others to use methamphetamine inside the house. 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 Brooking, Judge Cameron considered a case where the Tenancy Tribunal accepted that contamination was caused by the tenants, in circumstances where there was no pre-tenancy testing performed, however this decision was then overturned on appeal to the District Court with the District Court overturning the Tribunal’s earlier decision on the basis that “the difficulty with the landlords claim is that there was no methamphetamine test conducted at the beginning of the tenancy”.
For those above reasons, the landlord cannot prove that it is more likely than not that the methamphetamine contamination complaint occurred or only occurred during the period of this tenancy.
Be that as it may, individual methamphetamine testing results recorded
2μg/100cm2 to the entry door, 3.9μg/100cm2 to the bedroom door,
1μg/100cm2 to the bedroom wardrobe door, 4.9μg/100cm2 to the bedroom 2 door and 7.7μg/100cm2 to bedroom 2 wardrobe door frame on the premises.
The material issue is whether the premises required methamphetamine remediation and cleaning based on those test results.
In 2010 the New Zealand Ministry of Health produced guidelines for the remediation of clandestine methamphetamine laboratories, and determined that remediation was required if the environmental level of methamphetamine was
5μg/100cm2. While that related to laboratories, it is the case that the 0.5 level became the de facto level at which premises were considered to require decontamination.
In 2017 the level was increased when 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. The Standard confirmed that: After seeking expert advice on exposure risk from Environmental Science and Research Ltd (ESR) and the Ministry of Health, and reviewing a large number of public comments on a draft of this standard, the committee has decided to set the maximum acceptable level of methamphetamine in an affected property at
5μg/100cm2 after decontamination. While this level is greater than the Ministry of Health 2010 guideline value of 0.5μg/100cm2 for properties used as clandestine laboratories, there are a number of reasons why the committee decided to adopt the single value of 1.5μg/100cm2 in this standard.
In short, this standard confirmed that the level at which habitation of residential premises was considered safe, was a level of 1.5μg/100cm2. The expectation on landlords arising from this Standard, was to remediate premises contaminated with methamphetamine, to a level of less than 1.5μg/100cm2.
In more recent times, the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman determined that there was little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption (Report entitled ‘Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards’, 29 May 2018). The report concluded that any levels below 15μg/100cm2 were unlikely to present adverse effects:
Taken together, these factors indicate that methamphetamine levels that exceed the NZS 8510:2017 clean-up standard of 1.5μg/100cm2 should not be regarded as signalling a health risk. Indeed, exposure to methamphetamine levels below 15μg/100cm2 would be unlikely to give rise to any adverse effects. This level still incorporates a 30-fold safety buffer on a conservative estimate of risk.
In the District Court judgment of Diamond Real Estate Limited v Allan [2017] NZDC 833, Judge Kellar considered a case in which remediation was undertaken in reliance on the 2010 Ministry of Health level of 0.5μg/100cm2. It is the case that following the remediation work the Standard NZS 8510:2017 was released, which as noted above increased the acceptable level to
5μg/100cm2. Judge Kellar records that when the premises were tested, the highest level recorded was in the toilet at 1.4μg/100cm2 that “exceeded the Ministry of Health guidelines at the time.” The Court confirmed that any consideration as to whether the premises had been damaged, but be based on the prevailing guidelines at that time:
It appears to be the case that at the time the methamphetamine testing and decontamination was carried out the premises were not safe to occupy in terms of the then prevailing Ministry of Health guidelines.
If the landlord had no choice but to test for methamphetamine and decontaminate the premises and if the premises were not ‘safe’ in terms of the prevailing Ministry of Health guidelines at the time of testing then the premises may be said to have been damaged during the term of the tenancy.
At this time there remains a current New Zealand Standard of 1.5μg/100cm2, and also a current opinion from the Chief Science Advisor that there is no evidence of risk below 15μg/100cm2.
This matter has been considered recently by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947. Judge Kellar needed to determine which level should be applied. The Court discussed the conflict between the New Zealand Standard and Chief Science Advisors report, and confirmed: 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.
In my assessment, this decision of the Court has confirmed that the level to be applied is the level expressed by the Chief Science Advisor, which is that there is no risk when levels of contamination are below 15μg/100cm2.
Here, the recorded levels of contamination are below the risk level expressed by the Chief Science Advisor of 15μg/100cm2; objectively, the property did not require cleaning, remediation or further testing at all.
There is therefore no basis for the landlord to seek methamphetamine testing, decontamination and cleaning costs, and damages in the form of lost rent against the tenant.
The premises have not been returned to the landlord in an unacceptable state of cleanliness in terms of methamphetamine presence.
There is no cogent evidence before me to indicate that the premises are not ‘safe’ in terms of the prevailing Ministry of Health guidelines at the time of testing.
There is also no evidence to indicate the premises have been ‘damaged’ or otherwise contaminated by methamphetamine that occurred during this tenancy.
That being the case, the landlord’s claim for methamphetamine testing and decontamination costs, and damages must fail.
Finally, because The Rent House Limited As Agent For Mehul Mistry has partly succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4779883 — Property damage at 34B Neilson Street, Onehunga, Auckland 1061

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4779883 — Property damage at 34B Neilson Street, Onehunga, Auckland 1061

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Was the premises contaminated with methamphetamine during the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Was the premises contaminated with methamphetamine during the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions