What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4862920 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $435.79 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4862920?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $265.35 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4862920?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4862920?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10451491-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4862920 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $435.79 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4862920?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $265.35 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4862920?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4862920?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10451491-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4862920 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4862920 — net $435.79 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 25 November 2023	$265.35	Rent arrears to 25 November 2023
Meth testing/Cleaning excess	$150.00	Meth testing/Cleaning excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$435.79
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$435.79

[The landlord’s representative] appeared for the landlord. The tenant appeared. Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.

The tenancy commenced on 06 March 2018 and ended on 25 November 2023. On 16 April 2024, the landlord filed a claim for vacated rent arrears of $265.35, and that property was contaminated by methamphetamine. The landlord’s insurance company agreed to cover the costs of decontamination. The landlord seeks the insurance excess of $650.00.

The tenant does not dispute the rent arrears, and the amount claimed is awarded.

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/100cm2 ( “ μg”) for high use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture. It recommended a higher level of 3.8μg 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 was unlikely to have an adverse effect. It recommended retaining the level of 1.5μg 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.

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. Decision

In order to determine that a tenant is liable the Tribunal must be satisfied that the contamination occurred during the tenancy, having either caused or permitted the contamination resulting in damage, or that the contamination resulting in damage was caused by someone at the premises with the tenant’s permission. Similar to claims for damage, this will involve making a before and after comparison.

Pre tenancy testing was conducted on 15 March 2018, just after the commencement of the tenancy. The report produced shows that five sites were sampled and combined in a composite sample. Analysis of the sample produced a result of 0.07μg. The result confirmed that of the five sites sampled, only a small trace of methamphetamine was detected.

On 30 November 2023, end of tenancy testing was completed where once again samples were taken and combined into a composite test. When analysed the composite revealed a reading of 30 μg. On their own two composite tests are insufficient to prove contamination, so on 06 December 2023, further testing completed with eleven discrete sites sampled.

Reports and sample analysis has been produced for each. In this case, the only site that has been tested in all three instances is on top of the heat pump in the living room. Whereas no methamphetamine was detected at the commencement, at the end, the site revealed a reading of 22 μg.

The other sites sampled cannot considered the same or proximate, and no proper comparison can be made. None were over 15 μg. The next highest was bedroom one with a reading of 8.3 μg followed by the laundry with 6.5 μg. The laundry had not previously been sampled. The site sampled in the bedroom was not the same or proximate to that sampled at the commencement.

Based on the evidence I am satisfied that the contamination found on the top of the heat pump in the living room has occurred during the tenancy.

The tenant states that they do not use methamphetamine, are employed, and required to undergo regular drug testing. However, the tenant stated that the spent considerable time away from the property, and that the other occupant held regular social gatherings when they were not present. The tenant stated that any contamination may have occurred without his knowledge. This is not a case where the allegation is that the tenant has necessarily used methamphetamine themselves, or allowed others to do so while they were present. I have explained to the tenant that they are responsible for the actions of those at the property with their permission, which included those who had been invited by the other occupant.

Applying Sir Peter Gluckman’s recommendation, which has been adopted by the Tribunal and Court, with a reading of over 15 μg, the top of the heat pump was the only area that actually required decontamination. On that basis the tenant questions whether they should be held liable for the full excess which applied to the cleaning of the entire property. The invoice produced is not broken down room by room. The excess would appear to apply to the whole house. I accept the tenant’s submission. In this case the Tribunal must estimate how much it would have cost to clean the top of the heat pump, the only site that required decontamination. Therefore, I award the landlord $150.00. Costs

Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression

Both parties seek name suppression.

Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.

The landlord has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.

Section 95A (4) of the Act allows the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, to order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.

While the tenant has not been substantially successful defending the claims, and I have found that contamination on the top of the heat pump has occurred during the tenancy, I accept the tenant’s evidence that they did not use methamphetamine themselves or knowingly permit others to use the drug while at the property. It appears more likely than not that the contamination occurred while the tenant was away from the property, but by someone present with their permission. Upon careful consideration, I am satisfied that this is a sufficient ground to depart from the principle of open justice and for Tribunal to exercise the discretion in section 95A (4) and order suppression of the tenant’s name.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4862920 — net $435.79 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 25 November 2023	$265.35	Rent arrears to 25 November 2023
Meth testing/Cleaning excess	$150.00	Meth testing/Cleaning excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$435.79
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$435.79

[The landlord’s representative] appeared for the landlord. The tenant appeared. Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.

The tenant does not dispute the rent arrears, and the amount claimed is awarded.

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).

Based on the evidence I am satisfied that the contamination found on the top of the heat pump in the living room has occurred during the tenancy.

Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression

Both parties seek name suppression.

The landlord has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4862920 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4862920 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions