What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4817377 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4817377?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4817377?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Cleanliness, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4817377?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10277115-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4817377 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4817377?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4817377?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Cleanliness, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4817377?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10277115-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4817377 — 14-day notice

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy on the grounds that the tenant has committed an unlawful act by either using or permitted the use of methamphetamine at the premises.
Methamphetamine is a Class A illegal drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. It is illegal to use, possess, cultivate or traffic (deal) in illegal drugs. The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 states that a tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose (section 40(2)(b)).
The landlord’s application states that, “a 14 day notice has not been issued for this breach”.
The use of methamphetamine in a premises is a breach capable of remedy. For the Tribunal to consider termination under s56 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 the landlord needed to have given the tenant a 14 day notice requiring the tenant to remedy the breach within a reasonable period, being not less than 14 days. (see s56(1)(b)(i) Residential Tenancies Act 1986).
The landlord did not issue a 14 day notice regarding the use of methamphetamine. Termination of the tenancy cannot be ordered.

Does the tenant have to clean the property because of the methamphetamine?

The landlord has claimed that the premises is contaminated and therefore needs cleaning. The landlord must also prove that, as a result of the contamination, the premises have been damaged or are not reasonably clean.
The landlord provided the result of methamphetamine testing at the premises. The result from [laboratory] dated 16 February 2024 shows methamphetamine levels of 0.02, 1.10, 0.41, 1.11 and 2.1μg/100cm 2 . An earlier test during the tenancy showed no methamphetamine residue was present on the walls.
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/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. 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.
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.
Having considered the methamphetamine levels for the tenant’s premises I must conclude that the premises is not contaminated. The premises is reasonably clean. The claim for the tenant to carry out cleaning is dismissed. Exemplary damages
The landlord has applied for exemplary damages for an unlawful act. The tenant explained that his partner had stopped being a user before the tenancy began but during the tenancy, began using methamphetamine again. He required her to find accommodation elsewhere. For exemplary damages to be ordered there must be an intention to commit an unlawful act. I do not find it proved that the tenant intended to commit an unlawful act. The claim for exemplary damages is dismissed. Name Suppression
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the defence of the claim, the tenant’s request for name suppression is granted. (see Section 95A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986).

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy on the grounds that the tenant has committed an unlawful act by either using or permitted the use of methamphetamine at the premises.
Methamphetamine is a Class A illegal drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. It is illegal to use, possess, cultivate or traffic (deal) in illegal drugs. The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 states that a tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose (section 40(2)(b)).
The landlord’s application states that, “a 14 day notice has not been issued for this breach”.
The use of methamphetamine in a premises is a breach capable of remedy. For the Tribunal to consider termination under s56 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 the landlord needed to have given the tenant a 14 day notice requiring the tenant to remedy the breach within a reasonable period, being not less than 14 days. (see s56(1)(b)(i) Residential Tenancies Act 1986).
The landlord did not issue a 14 day notice regarding the use of methamphetamine. Termination of the tenancy cannot be ordered.

Does the tenant have to clean the property because of the methamphetamine?

The landlord has claimed that the premises is contaminated and therefore needs cleaning. The landlord must also prove that, as a result of the contamination, the premises have been damaged or are not reasonably clean.
The landlord provided the result of methamphetamine testing at the premises. The result from [laboratory] dated 16 February 2024 shows methamphetamine levels of 0.02, 1.10, 0.41, 1.11 and 2.1μg/100cm 2 . An earlier test during the tenancy showed no methamphetamine residue was present on the walls.
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/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. 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.
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.
Having considered the methamphetamine levels for the tenant’s premises I must conclude that the premises is not contaminated. The premises is reasonably clean. The claim for the tenant to carry out cleaning is dismissed. Exemplary damages
The landlord has applied for exemplary damages for an unlawful act. The tenant explained that his partner had stopped being a user before the tenancy began but during the tenancy, began using methamphetamine again. He required her to find accommodation elsewhere. For exemplary damages to be ordered there must be an intention to commit an unlawful act. I do not find it proved that the tenant intended to commit an unlawful act. The claim for exemplary damages is dismissed. Name Suppression
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the defence of the claim, the tenant’s request for name suppression is granted. (see Section 95A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986).

Tenancy Tribunal case 4817377 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4817377 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Does the tenant have to clean the property because of the methamphetamine?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Does the tenant have to clean the property because of the methamphetamine?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions