What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4828798?

The tribunal order states: Julie Kell must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $6,054.96 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4828798?

Cleaning: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $5,229.52 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4828798?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4828798?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10233960-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4828798?

The tribunal order states: Julie Kell must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $6,054.96 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4828798?

Cleaning: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $5,229.52 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4828798?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4828798?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10233960-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 4, 27 Glovers Road, Halswell, Christchurch 8025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4828798 — Cleanliness

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4828798 — net $6,054.96 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: walls (vivid marker	$115.00	Cleaning: walls (vivid marker
Oven/stove cleaning	$115.00	Oven/stove cleaning
Cleaning: general	$575.00	Cleaning: general
Meth testing/Cleaning	$5,229.52	Meth testing/Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,054.96
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,054.96

Mr Waters, Mr Trusttum and Ms Newton attended on behalf of the landlord. The tenant did not attend.

The landlord has applied for, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following 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 under section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.

The landlord provided photographs to show the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy and invoices confirming the work required to bring the property to a reasonably clean and tidy standard.

The amounts awarded for oven cleaning, wall cleaning (vivid marker) and general cleaning 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 under sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.

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).

Post-tenancy methamphetamine testing recorded various levels of methamphetamine contamination on the premises. The property was brand new when the tenant moved into it.

In 2010, the New Zealand Ministry of Health produced guidelines for the remediation of methamphetamine laboratories which determined that remediation was required if the environmental level of methamphetamine was over 0.5μg/100cm². This became the level at which premises were deemed 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”. This Standard confirmed that the level at which habitation of residential premises was considered safe was 1.5μg/100cm². At that time, this Standard set the definitive levels at which properties required decontamination.

In 2018, the then Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, reported that there was little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption (Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards, 29 May 2018). This 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.

The matter was considered by the District Court, in relation to a Tenancy Tribunal order, in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 where Judge Keller stated that; “the Gluckman Report represents the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination in dwellings.”

This decision of the District Court has confirmed that the level to be applied by this Tribunal is that expressed by Professor Gluckman which is that there is no risk when levels of contamination are below 15μg/100cm².

In the present case, the highest level recorded was 15.5μg/100cm² in bathroom b. This is above the threshold set by current New Zealand Standards and above the risk level in the Gluckman Report. Objectively, the property did require decontamination.

Therefore, the landlord’s claim for compensation for the costs of the methamphetamine report and decontamination is proved.

As Otautahi Community Housing Trust has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4828798 — net $6,054.96 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: walls (vivid marker	$115.00	Cleaning: walls (vivid marker
Oven/stove cleaning	$115.00	Oven/stove cleaning
Cleaning: general	$575.00	Cleaning: general
Meth testing/Cleaning	$5,229.52	Meth testing/Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,054.96
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,054.96

Order

Julie Kell must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $6,054.96 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Mr Waters, Mr Trusttum and Ms Newton attended on behalf of the landlord. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following 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 under section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord provided photographs to show the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy and invoices confirming the work required to bring the property to a reasonably clean and tidy standard.
The amounts awarded for oven cleaning, wall cleaning (vivid marker) and general cleaning 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 under sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
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).
Post-tenancy methamphetamine testing recorded various levels of methamphetamine contamination on the premises. The property was brand new when the tenant moved into it.
In 2010, the New Zealand Ministry of Health produced guidelines for the remediation of methamphetamine laboratories which determined that remediation was required if the environmental level of methamphetamine was over 0.5μg/100cm². This became the level at which premises were deemed 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”. This Standard confirmed that the level at which habitation of residential premises was considered safe was 1.5μg/100cm². At that time, this Standard set the definitive levels at which properties required decontamination.
In 2018, the then Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, reported that there was little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption (Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards, 29 May 2018). This 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.
The matter was considered by the District Court, in relation to a Tenancy Tribunal order, in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 where Judge Keller stated that; “the Gluckman Report represents the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination in dwellings.”
This decision of the District Court has confirmed that the level to be applied by this Tribunal is that expressed by Professor Gluckman which is that there is no risk when levels of contamination are below 15μg/100cm².
In the present case, the highest level recorded was 15.5μg/100cm² in bathroom b. This is above the threshold set by current New Zealand Standards and above the risk level in the Gluckman Report. Objectively, the property did require decontamination.
Therefore, the landlord’s claim for compensation for the costs of the methamphetamine report and decontamination is proved.
As Otautahi Community Housing Trust has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4828798 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 4, 27 Glovers Road, Halswell, Christchurch 8025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4828798 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 4, 27 Glovers Road, Halswell, Christchurch 8025

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?

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions