What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4825540?

The tribunal order states: Rachel Elizabeth McRae must pay Monarch Realty Limited as agent for C & N

How much money was awarded in case 4825540?

Cleaning: $86.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $270.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $234.29 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $170.00 awarded to landlord; Door Frames ,Painting: $292.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $521.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $378.06 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4825540?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4825540?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10524130-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4825540?

The tribunal order states: Rachel Elizabeth McRae must pay Monarch Realty Limited as agent for C & N

How much money was awarded in case 4825540?

Cleaning: $86.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $270.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $234.29 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $170.00 awarded to landlord; Door Frames ,Painting: $292.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $521.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $378.06 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4825540?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4825540?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10524130-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

21 Waimarie Street, Nawton, Hamilton 3200 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4825540 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

21 Waimarie Street, Nawton, Hamilton 3200 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4825540 — Property damage | 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 4825540 — net $3,272.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$234.29	Rent arrears
Window repairs: and Glass	$378.06	Window repairs: and Glass
Rubbish removal: under house	$521.00	Rubbish removal: under house
Cleaning: window stickers	$86.25	Cleaning: window stickers
Repairs: door frames ,painting	$292.00	Repairs: door frames ,painting
Lawns/Garden work: maintenance while untenanted	$270.25	Lawns/Garden work: maintenance while untenanted
Repairs: Bolt , lawn, rubbish removal	$170.00	Repairs: Bolt , lawn, rubbish removal
Insurance excess	$2,500.00	Insurance excess
Exemplary damages	$800.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,272.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,272.29

Claims and awards for application 4825540 — net $3,272.29 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $234.29
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Window repairs: and Glass

Amount: $378.06
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Window repairs: and Glass

Rubbish removal: under house

Amount: $521.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal: under house

Cleaning: window stickers

Amount: $86.25
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning: window stickers

Repairs: door frames ,painting

Amount: $292.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: door frames ,painting

Dismissed claims

Other Claims — All other claims dismissed

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Exemplary damages Filing Fee Lawns And Garden Work Property damage Rent arrears Rubbish Removal

Order

Rachel Elizabeth McRae must pay Monarch Realty Limited as agent for C & N Jackson $3,272.29 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 (3183202-019) to Monarch Realty Limited as agent for C & N Jackson immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Three property managers appeared for the applicant and the tenant bought her son.
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.
The tenant filed a cross application for compensation and refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant agreed that three windows were broken during the tenancy and the claim for their replacement. .

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 2 January 2024,but there was some debate about the date the tenancy started.
Two tenancy agreements were provided, one with a start date of 17 April 2021 and the second starting on 26 April. Both dates had obviously been amended and both were initialled by the parties at the bottom.
The tenant agreed that she received the keys on 16 April and said that she was told by the then property manager, that if she took the premises in its current state, she could have possession and not have to pay rent until the tenancy began on 26 April.
There was some confusion about the payment of rent two weeks in advance with the tenant believing that she did not have to pay rent until Wednesday 21 April and that she would still be in credit and the tenancy would begin on 26 April.
No rent payment was made on 21 April 2021.
The tenant was unable to produce written evidence that the property manager had agreed to let the tenant have possession of the premises prior to the original start date and not requiring any rental payments to be made.
The landlords believed that the tenancy began on 17 April because the keys were given to the tenant on the 16 April being a day before the tenancy start date as was their procedure. This they said was the earliest that keys are given before a tenancy began.
The landlords provided a copy of an agreement with 17 April as the start date and no correspondence supporting the claim that a previous property manager had allowed possession to the premises prior to a tenancy start date and rent paid.
The property manager said that it was not their procedure to allow access before a start date and rent was paid because also it compromised their insurance and was not authorised by property owners.
Ultimately the tenant took possession of the premises on 17 April, and I find that the tenancy began on that date. Rent arrears are calculated from then to the end of tenancy being 2 January 2024.
The landlord provided rent records 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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. There was a minor amount of cleaning required and the cost awarded for this reflects that it was mostly to remove sheets of privacy stickers on 3 windows.
The tenant agreed that there was rubbish left under the house and in the eaves of the garage and this included car tyres. There was rubbish in the outside room and the claim included dump fees.
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 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) A bolted lock was put on the exterior of the laundry door. The tenant agreed that she did this for safety reasons as the key for the door had gone missing. She did not inform the landlord of this and installed it herself without consent. b) A door frame was damaged by exercise equipment. The tenant agreed that this damaged was caused during the tenancy. c) Paint around a door was removed by tape. The tenant agreed with this but said that the paint was old and flaking before it had come off. d) The lawn at the front door required reseeding. The tenant had re-seeded other areas but had not attended to this.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Some of the awards are not as much as were sought. This is because the evidence provided did not support the amount claimed.

Was the house contaminated by Methamphetamine?

The landlord has applied for compensation for reimbursement of the landlord’s insurance excess which was used to cover the cost of methamphetamine testing and remediation.
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, as a result 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.
The Tribunal has used MOH guidelines in the past to establish what is an unacceptable level of risk when a property has been contaminated by Methamphetamine.
In 2010 Ministry of Health Guidelines for the Remediation of Clandestine Laboratory Sites set the safe level of methamphetamine, post-remediation of a laboratory, at 0.5 μg/100cm².
“NZS8510:2017 - Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine- contaminated properties” was released in July 2017 and NZS8510 set one level,
5 μg/100cm², and did not distinguish between the sources of the residues, whether use or manufacturing occurred. This was followed by the Tribunal, subject to the direction of the Judge Kellar in Diamond Real Estate Ltd v Allan [2017] NZDC 833, at para [9], that the level applied by the Tribunal should be that in effect on the date the testing occurred.
In May 2018, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the then-Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Scientific Advisor, released his report Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards. The report concluded that NZS8510:2017 was unnecessarily cautious.
The Gluckman report recommended a maximum level of 15 μg/100cm² and suggested that, without evidence that manufacturing had occurred, people should not be concerned with conducting methamphetamine testing in their properties at all.
Judge Kellar in considering an appeal from the Tenancy Tribunal, Full Circle Realty Limited v Danielle Piper [2019]NZDC,4947, civ-2018-009-2490,DC Chch, at para [36] held that, in considering what evidence an adjudicator can rely on when deciding contamination claims,”...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 provided a copy of the pre tenancy methamphetamine testing and report conducted by Healthy Homes New Zealand, dated 24 March 2021. A composite swipe test was conducted, and the results reported by Analytica Laboratories were <0.08 and < 0.04μg.
On 8 January 2024, after the tenancy ended, a methamphetamine test was conducted. A positive result was returned from a multi swab test. The results reported by Analytica Laboratories on 9 January were 51.9 μg and 104 μg.
On 12 January by detailed test of individual areas was conducted by Healthy Homes New Zealand. Twenty-seven areas were tested, and the results reported by Analytica Laboratories on 16 January 2024 were that every test area, except two, showed elevated levels of methamphetamine. The results included extremely elevated levels of 98.7 μg,922 μg and 71.6 μg.
The report by Healthy Homes New Zealand recommended decontamination and noted that there was no sign of manufacturing.
The reports from Healthy Homes New Zealand included photographs of the individual test areas of each place tested. It also included a copy of the test result from Analytica Laboratories.
The landlord had insurance to cover damage by contamination with an excess of $2500.00.This insurance was used to cover costs including to decontaminate the premises. The landlords are seeking reimbursement of this excess.
The tenant disputed ever using methamphetamine at the premises. She provided a hair follicle test used for another purpose. This was a five-panel drug test and came back negative for all the drugs tested and this included methamphetamine. The date of the test was 10 October 2022.
The tenant disputed the validity of the pre tenancy methamphetamine test saying it was not right as she has come to know that the premises were a meth house prior to her starting the tenancy. No evidence was provided to support this.
The tenant also said that the garage had not been secure before her tenancy began but she had secured it while she was there. She agreed that there was an area in the garage where they would spend time together and smoke cigarettes but never drugs. The garage returned the highest result for the presence of methamphetamine.
The tenant also said that after the tenancy ended and before the final methamphetamine test, the premises were not secured. A friend of hers found a parcel inside a door on 4 January. It was not established if the door was in the house or attached room to the garage. That friend wrote a letter for the Tribunal but was not present to question.
The landlords disputed these claims saying that the pre-test was valid and there was evidence of extremely high levels of methamphetamine at the premises at the end of the tenancy.
The property manager said that she had spent 3 hours conducting an end of tenancy inspection on 3 January and locked the doors when she left. The property managers said that even if part of the premises were unsecured it would not explain why the whole of the premises was contaminated, and the levels were so high contamination could not have occurred over such a short period of time.
The landlord also raised that the tenant had been given a breach notice to remove drug paraphernalia found at the premises during an inspection. A copy of this notice was provided at the hearing.
There is clear evidence that the premises were contaminated during the tenancy. I do not accept the tenants claim that the pre tenancy report and tests were false. There was nothing provided to support this other than the rumours of previous drug use. It was explained to the tenant that landlords must declare if the premises are contaminated to tenants.
The post tenancy test results were extremely high and positive results were from throughout the property. As explained to the tenant they have a responsibility not only for their behaviour but also for those who are at the premises with their consent and if they permit certain behaviours.
There was no evidence provided to persuade me that the test results were false or that there was a significant opportunity for extremely elevated levels of contamination to occur after the tenancy ended.
I find that this contamination occurred during the tenancy and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The insurance excess is awarded to the landlords.
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 taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Exemplary damages
Monarch Realty Limited as agent for C & N Jackson claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by allowing the use of methamphetamine on premises.
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.
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 (ss 7 and 12).
“Methamphetamine” is included as a controlled drug under Schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Act. The Tenancy Tribunal has previously found, and I agree, 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by allowing the use of methamphetamine on premises. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
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.
The use of methamphetamine is an intentional act and the effect of this is that there is a substantial cost to the landlord to decontaminate the premises and the premises cannot be used until this occurs. It is in the public interest that drugs are not used at premises as not only is it unlawful but extremely high levels present here can be dangerous to people’s health.
I am satisfied that it would be just to award exemplary damages of $800.00 for using the premises or permitting the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. The tenant’s application
The tenant sought refund of the bond and acknowledgement of the work and alterations that she did at the premises.
The tenant said that she cleared an area so that the property would drain better, put in draught stopping measures and locks on windows. She also maintained the lawns and gardens. She believed that she did a lot of work without any gratitude from the landlords.
The landlord said that the tenant never sought their permission before making changes to the premises and although not all the alterations were bad, she was required to get their consent before acting.
No invoices for work or materials were provided or evidence of positive changes to the premises. The tenant said that she was not really seeking anything but wanted recognition of the work she put in trying to be a good tenant.
Due to a lack of evidence the tenants’ claims are dismissed.
Monarch Realty Limited as agent for C & N Jackson has been wholly successful and the filing fee is reimbursed.

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 4825540 — net $3,272.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$234.29	Rent arrears
Window repairs: and Glass	$378.06	Window repairs: and Glass
Rubbish removal: under house	$521.00	Rubbish removal: under house
Cleaning: window stickers	$86.25	Cleaning: window stickers
Repairs: door frames ,painting	$292.00	Repairs: door frames ,painting
Lawns/Garden work: maintenance while untenanted	$270.25	Lawns/Garden work: maintenance while untenanted
Repairs: Bolt , lawn, rubbish removal	$170.00	Repairs: Bolt , lawn, rubbish removal
Insurance excess	$2,500.00	Insurance excess
Exemplary damages	$800.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,272.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,272.29

Claims and awards for application 4825540 — net $3,272.29 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $234.29
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Window repairs: and Glass

Amount: $378.06
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Window repairs: and Glass

Rubbish removal: under house

Amount: $521.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal: under house

Cleaning: window stickers

Amount: $86.25
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning: window stickers

Repairs: door frames ,painting

Amount: $292.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: door frames ,painting

Dismissed claims

Other Claims — All other claims dismissed

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Exemplary damages Filing Fee Lawns And Garden Work Property damage Rent arrears Rubbish Removal

Order

Rachel Elizabeth McRae must pay Monarch Realty Limited as agent for C & N Jackson $3,272.29 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 (3183202-019) to Monarch Realty Limited as agent for C & N Jackson immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Three property managers appeared for the applicant and the tenant bought her son.
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.
The tenant filed a cross application for compensation and refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant agreed that three windows were broken during the tenancy and the claim for their replacement. .

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 2 January 2024,but there was some debate about the date the tenancy started.
Two tenancy agreements were provided, one with a start date of 17 April 2021 and the second starting on 26 April. Both dates had obviously been amended and both were initialled by the parties at the bottom.
The tenant agreed that she received the keys on 16 April and said that she was told by the then property manager, that if she took the premises in its current state, she could have possession and not have to pay rent until the tenancy began on 26 April.
There was some confusion about the payment of rent two weeks in advance with the tenant believing that she did not have to pay rent until Wednesday 21 April and that she would still be in credit and the tenancy would begin on 26 April.
No rent payment was made on 21 April 2021.
The tenant was unable to produce written evidence that the property manager had agreed to let the tenant have possession of the premises prior to the original start date and not requiring any rental payments to be made.
The landlords believed that the tenancy began on 17 April because the keys were given to the tenant on the 16 April being a day before the tenancy start date as was their procedure. This they said was the earliest that keys are given before a tenancy began.
The landlords provided a copy of an agreement with 17 April as the start date and no correspondence supporting the claim that a previous property manager had allowed possession to the premises prior to a tenancy start date and rent paid.
The property manager said that it was not their procedure to allow access before a start date and rent was paid because also it compromised their insurance and was not authorised by property owners.
Ultimately the tenant took possession of the premises on 17 April, and I find that the tenancy began on that date. Rent arrears are calculated from then to the end of tenancy being 2 January 2024.
The landlord provided rent records 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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. There was a minor amount of cleaning required and the cost awarded for this reflects that it was mostly to remove sheets of privacy stickers on 3 windows.
The tenant agreed that there was rubbish left under the house and in the eaves of the garage and this included car tyres. There was rubbish in the outside room and the claim included dump fees.
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 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) A bolted lock was put on the exterior of the laundry door. The tenant agreed that she did this for safety reasons as the key for the door had gone missing. She did not inform the landlord of this and installed it herself without consent. b) A door frame was damaged by exercise equipment. The tenant agreed that this damaged was caused during the tenancy. c) Paint around a door was removed by tape. The tenant agreed with this but said that the paint was old and flaking before it had come off. d) The lawn at the front door required reseeding. The tenant had re-seeded other areas but had not attended to this.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Some of the awards are not as much as were sought. This is because the evidence provided did not support the amount claimed.

Was the house contaminated by Methamphetamine?

The landlord has applied for compensation for reimbursement of the landlord’s insurance excess which was used to cover the cost of methamphetamine testing and remediation.
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, as a result 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.
The Tribunal has used MOH guidelines in the past to establish what is an unacceptable level of risk when a property has been contaminated by Methamphetamine.
In 2010 Ministry of Health Guidelines for the Remediation of Clandestine Laboratory Sites set the safe level of methamphetamine, post-remediation of a laboratory, at 0.5 μg/100cm².
“NZS8510:2017 - Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine- contaminated properties” was released in July 2017 and NZS8510 set one level,
5 μg/100cm², and did not distinguish between the sources of the residues, whether use or manufacturing occurred. This was followed by the Tribunal, subject to the direction of the Judge Kellar in Diamond Real Estate Ltd v Allan [2017] NZDC 833, at para [9], that the level applied by the Tribunal should be that in effect on the date the testing occurred.
In May 2018, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the then-Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Scientific Advisor, released his report Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards. The report concluded that NZS8510:2017 was unnecessarily cautious.
The Gluckman report recommended a maximum level of 15 μg/100cm² and suggested that, without evidence that manufacturing had occurred, people should not be concerned with conducting methamphetamine testing in their properties at all.
Judge Kellar in considering an appeal from the Tenancy Tribunal, Full Circle Realty Limited v Danielle Piper [2019]NZDC,4947, civ-2018-009-2490,DC Chch, at para [36] held that, in considering what evidence an adjudicator can rely on when deciding contamination claims,”...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 provided a copy of the pre tenancy methamphetamine testing and report conducted by Healthy Homes New Zealand, dated 24 March 2021. A composite swipe test was conducted, and the results reported by Analytica Laboratories were <0.08 and < 0.04μg.
On 8 January 2024, after the tenancy ended, a methamphetamine test was conducted. A positive result was returned from a multi swab test. The results reported by Analytica Laboratories on 9 January were 51.9 μg and 104 μg.
On 12 January by detailed test of individual areas was conducted by Healthy Homes New Zealand. Twenty-seven areas were tested, and the results reported by Analytica Laboratories on 16 January 2024 were that every test area, except two, showed elevated levels of methamphetamine. The results included extremely elevated levels of 98.7 μg,922 μg and 71.6 μg.
The report by Healthy Homes New Zealand recommended decontamination and noted that there was no sign of manufacturing.
The reports from Healthy Homes New Zealand included photographs of the individual test areas of each place tested. It also included a copy of the test result from Analytica Laboratories.
The landlord had insurance to cover damage by contamination with an excess of $2500.00.This insurance was used to cover costs including to decontaminate the premises. The landlords are seeking reimbursement of this excess.
The tenant disputed ever using methamphetamine at the premises. She provided a hair follicle test used for another purpose. This was a five-panel drug test and came back negative for all the drugs tested and this included methamphetamine. The date of the test was 10 October 2022.
The tenant disputed the validity of the pre tenancy methamphetamine test saying it was not right as she has come to know that the premises were a meth house prior to her starting the tenancy. No evidence was provided to support this.
The tenant also said that the garage had not been secure before her tenancy began but she had secured it while she was there. She agreed that there was an area in the garage where they would spend time together and smoke cigarettes but never drugs. The garage returned the highest result for the presence of methamphetamine.
The tenant also said that after the tenancy ended and before the final methamphetamine test, the premises were not secured. A friend of hers found a parcel inside a door on 4 January. It was not established if the door was in the house or attached room to the garage. That friend wrote a letter for the Tribunal but was not present to question.
The landlords disputed these claims saying that the pre-test was valid and there was evidence of extremely high levels of methamphetamine at the premises at the end of the tenancy.
The property manager said that she had spent 3 hours conducting an end of tenancy inspection on 3 January and locked the doors when she left. The property managers said that even if part of the premises were unsecured it would not explain why the whole of the premises was contaminated, and the levels were so high contamination could not have occurred over such a short period of time.
The landlord also raised that the tenant had been given a breach notice to remove drug paraphernalia found at the premises during an inspection. A copy of this notice was provided at the hearing.
There is clear evidence that the premises were contaminated during the tenancy. I do not accept the tenants claim that the pre tenancy report and tests were false. There was nothing provided to support this other than the rumours of previous drug use. It was explained to the tenant that landlords must declare if the premises are contaminated to tenants.
The post tenancy test results were extremely high and positive results were from throughout the property. As explained to the tenant they have a responsibility not only for their behaviour but also for those who are at the premises with their consent and if they permit certain behaviours.
There was no evidence provided to persuade me that the test results were false or that there was a significant opportunity for extremely elevated levels of contamination to occur after the tenancy ended.
I find that this contamination occurred during the tenancy and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The insurance excess is awarded to the landlords.
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 taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Exemplary damages
Monarch Realty Limited as agent for C & N Jackson claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by allowing the use of methamphetamine on premises.
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.
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 (ss 7 and 12).
“Methamphetamine” is included as a controlled drug under Schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Act. The Tenancy Tribunal has previously found, and I agree, 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by allowing the use of methamphetamine on premises. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
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.
The use of methamphetamine is an intentional act and the effect of this is that there is a substantial cost to the landlord to decontaminate the premises and the premises cannot be used until this occurs. It is in the public interest that drugs are not used at premises as not only is it unlawful but extremely high levels present here can be dangerous to people’s health.
I am satisfied that it would be just to award exemplary damages of $800.00 for using the premises or permitting the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. The tenant’s application
The tenant sought refund of the bond and acknowledgement of the work and alterations that she did at the premises.
The tenant said that she cleared an area so that the property would drain better, put in draught stopping measures and locks on windows. She also maintained the lawns and gardens. She believed that she did a lot of work without any gratitude from the landlords.
The landlord said that the tenant never sought their permission before making changes to the premises and although not all the alterations were bad, she was required to get their consent before acting.
No invoices for work or materials were provided or evidence of positive changes to the premises. The tenant said that she was not really seeking anything but wanted recognition of the work she put in trying to be a good tenant.
Due to a lack of evidence the tenants’ claims are dismissed.
Monarch Realty Limited as agent for C & N Jackson has been wholly successful and the filing fee is reimbursed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4825540 — Property damage at 21 Waimarie Street, Nawton, Hamilton 3200

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4825540 — Property damage at 21 Waimarie Street, Nawton, Hamilton 3200

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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 house contaminated by Methamphetamine?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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 house contaminated by Methamphetamine?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions