What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4793400 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4793400?

Cleaning: $2,015.95 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $11,109.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,827.35 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4793400?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4793400?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10378512-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4793400 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4793400?

Cleaning: $2,015.95 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $11,109.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,827.35 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4793400?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4793400?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10378512-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

36A Langstone Street, Welcome Bay, Tauranga 3112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4793400 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4793400 — net $14,552.74 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Meth testing/Cleaning	$2,015.95	Meth testing/Cleaning
Meth testing/Cleaning	$11,109.00	Meth testing/Cleaning
Meth testing/Cleaning	$1,827.35	Meth testing/Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$14,552.74
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$14,552.74

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited $14,552.74 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $420.00 (3015511-014) to Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, but the tenant did not appear. The hearing continued in their absence.
The landlord sought compensation for the methamphetamine testing and decontamination, refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy and refund of the filing fee.
The tenancy began on 25 August 2017.The practice of the landlord is that prior to a tenancy beginning a property manager tests the premises using 1 swab over 5 surfaces and this process is repeated until all the areas are tested.
This composite swab is sent to be analysed and if it returns with positive methamphetamine or other contaminant result, a comprehensive test is ordered. This is a room-by-room individual testing of individual areas.
The premises were tested by this method on 17 August 2017 and a Hills Laboratories report dated 22 August 2017 recorded no areas of contamination greater than 0.04μg/100cm 2.
The tenancy ended on 28 November 2023 and the premises were tested by the property managers with the multiple swab procedure. The results of this baseline test revealed the presence of Methamphetamine.
A comprehensive test was ordered and completed by CPINZ, Contaminated Property Investigations NZ Limited, on 7 December 2023 which recorded 37.5 μg/100cm 2 in bedroom 2. Other areas included readings of 14.2 μg/100cm 2 in the lounge,13.2 μg/100cm 2 and 11.9 μg/100cm 2 in the laundry and 12.5 μg/100cm 2 in the kitchen.
Other than the one high reading, the report from CPINZ stated that the technician conducting the test recorded no evidence of meth related activity, spillage, corrosion of metal or drains.
The landlord said that based on this result they engaged Specialised Cleaning Solutions to decontaminate the whole premises and sought reimbursement of this cost.
The landlord sought compensation for the 2 comprehensive methamphetamine tests and full decontamination.
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/100cm 2 for high use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture. It recommended a higher level of 3.8μg/100cm 2 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/100cm 2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect. It recommended retaining the level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 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. The District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper approved this approach [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. There was no evidence or claim that the premises had been used for manufacturing.
Based on the decisions of the District Court and following Tenancy Tribunal orders I find that the maximum contamination level to be applied is that stated by the Gluckman report. Where contamination levels are below 15 μg/100cm² premises do not present a risk and are not considered to require remediation, therefore no damage to the premises has been established.
The question here is did contamination result from manufacture or suspicion of it?
The interim detailed assessment report from CPINZ dated 6 December 2023 did not record any external or internal evidence of meth related activity, however the reports interpretation of the results stated on page 7; 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 a number of the 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.
On this basis the full amount claimed for decontamination of the whole premises is to be awarded. The post tenancy comprehensive meth testing cost and post decontamination comprehensive meth testing cost is also awarded as these tests would not have to have been conducted and costs incurred if the premises had not been contaminated during the tenancy.
Because Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4793400 — net $14,552.74 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Meth testing/Cleaning	$2,015.95	Meth testing/Cleaning
Meth testing/Cleaning	$11,109.00	Meth testing/Cleaning
Meth testing/Cleaning	$1,827.35	Meth testing/Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$14,552.74
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$14,552.74

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited $14,552.74 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $420.00 (3015511-014) to Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, but the tenant did not appear. The hearing continued in their absence.
The landlord sought compensation for the methamphetamine testing and decontamination, refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy and refund of the filing fee.
The tenancy began on 25 August 2017.The practice of the landlord is that prior to a tenancy beginning a property manager tests the premises using 1 swab over 5 surfaces and this process is repeated until all the areas are tested.
This composite swab is sent to be analysed and if it returns with positive methamphetamine or other contaminant result, a comprehensive test is ordered. This is a room-by-room individual testing of individual areas.
The premises were tested by this method on 17 August 2017 and a Hills Laboratories report dated 22 August 2017 recorded no areas of contamination greater than 0.04μg/100cm 2.
The tenancy ended on 28 November 2023 and the premises were tested by the property managers with the multiple swab procedure. The results of this baseline test revealed the presence of Methamphetamine.
A comprehensive test was ordered and completed by CPINZ, Contaminated Property Investigations NZ Limited, on 7 December 2023 which recorded 37.5 μg/100cm 2 in bedroom 2. Other areas included readings of 14.2 μg/100cm 2 in the lounge,13.2 μg/100cm 2 and 11.9 μg/100cm 2 in the laundry and 12.5 μg/100cm 2 in the kitchen.
Other than the one high reading, the report from CPINZ stated that the technician conducting the test recorded no evidence of meth related activity, spillage, corrosion of metal or drains.
The landlord said that based on this result they engaged Specialised Cleaning Solutions to decontaminate the whole premises and sought reimbursement of this cost.
The landlord sought compensation for the 2 comprehensive methamphetamine tests and full decontamination.
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/100cm 2 for high use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture. It recommended a higher level of 3.8μg/100cm 2 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/100cm 2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect. It recommended retaining the level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 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. The District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper approved this approach [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. There was no evidence or claim that the premises had been used for manufacturing.
Based on the decisions of the District Court and following Tenancy Tribunal orders I find that the maximum contamination level to be applied is that stated by the Gluckman report. Where contamination levels are below 15 μg/100cm² premises do not present a risk and are not considered to require remediation, therefore no damage to the premises has been established.
The question here is did contamination result from manufacture or suspicion of it?
The interim detailed assessment report from CPINZ dated 6 December 2023 did not record any external or internal evidence of meth related activity, however the reports interpretation of the results stated on page 7; 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 a number of the 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.
On this basis the full amount claimed for decontamination of the whole premises is to be awarded. The post tenancy comprehensive meth testing cost and post decontamination comprehensive meth testing cost is also awarded as these tests would not have to have been conducted and costs incurred if the premises had not been contaminated during the tenancy.
Because Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4793400 — Cleanliness at 36A Langstone Street, Welcome Bay, Tauranga 3112

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4793400 — Cleanliness at 36A Langstone Street, Welcome Bay, Tauranga 3112

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions