What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4870910 about?

The tribunal order states: Iain Kelly Dennan must pay [The landlord/s] $1,530.07 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4870910?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $602.20 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $907.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4870910?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4870910?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10634155-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4870910 about?

The tribunal order states: Iain Kelly Dennan must pay [The landlord/s] $1,530.07 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4870910?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $602.20 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $907.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4870910?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4870910?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10634155-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4870910 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4870910 — net $1,530.07 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Flooring repair	$602.20	Flooring repair
Cleaning, rubbish removal, weed treatment	$907.43	Cleaning, rubbish removal, weed treatment
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,530.07
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,530.07

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4870910 — net $1,530.07 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Flooring repair	$602.20	Flooring repair
Cleaning, rubbish removal, weed treatment	$907.43	Cleaning, rubbish removal, weed treatment
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,530.07
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,530.07

Order

Iain Kelly Dennan must pay [The landlord/s] $1,530.07 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Flooring repair$602.20 Cleaning, rubbish removal, weed treatment$907.43 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$1,530.07 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,530.07

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord at the end of the tenancy.
Only the landlord appeared at the hearing today. I note that the tenant contacted the Tribunal in May, updated his contact details with us, and the hearing notice was sent to him at that updated email address. I have no reason to believe that the tenant has not been notified of this hearing, so I will proceed to consider the claim in his absence.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced on 20 September 2022. The sole tenant is Iain Kelly Dennan.
The landlord reports that the premises had been methamphetamine tested prior to the tenancy commencing (and it was a new dwelling) and there was no methamphetamine contamination.
During the tenancy, the landlord had a methamphetamine screening test undertaken, which returned a positive result for methamphetamine contamination.
Specific testing was then undertaken in 9 locations throughout the tenancy. The highest level of contamination was assessed at 14.2 μg/100 cm 2 . The next highest level is then 10.1 μg/100 cm 2 .
Following discussion between the landlord and tenant, the tenant surrendered the premises to the landlord. The landlord then set about having the premises methamphetamine remediated. The landlord now seeks those costs to be paid by the tenant.
It is also the case that the landlord has incurred other costs such as cleaning and rubbish removal, including costs to repair the vinyl flooring, I will discuss those further below.

METHAMPHETAMINE CONTAMINATION

The landlord has claimed remediation costs for methamphetamine contamination including testing costs of $3,391.35 and commercial methamphetamine remediation costs of $9,335.99. The landlord seeks these costs from the tenant.
In 2010 the New Zealand Ministry of Health produced guidelines for the remediation of clandestine methamphetamine laboratories, and determined that remediation was required if the environmental level of methamphetamine was 0.5 μg/100 cm 2 . While that related to laboratories, it is the case that the
5 level became the de facto level at which premises were considered to require decontamination in New Zealand.
In 2017 the level was increased when Standards New Zealand released Standard NZS 8510:2017 “Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine- contaminated properties”. At that time, this standard set the definitive levels at which properties which had methamphetamine contamination, required remediation. The Standard confirmed that: After seeking expert advice on exposure risk from Environmental Science and Research Ltd (ESR) and the Ministry of Health, and reviewing a large number of public comments on a draft of this standard, the committee has decided to set the maximum acceptable level of methamphetamine in an affected property at 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 after decontamination. While this level is greater than the Ministry of Health 2010 guideline value of 0.5 μg/100 cm 2 for properties used as clandestine laboratories, there are a number of reasons why the committee decided to adopt the single value of 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 in this standard.
In short, this standard confirmed that the level at which habitation of residential premises was considered safe, was a level of 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 . The expectation on landlords arising from this Standard, was to remediate premises contaminated with methamphetamine, to a level of less than 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 .
In more recent times, the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman determined that there was little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption (Report entitled ‘Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards’, 29 May 2018). The report concluded that any levels below 15 μg/100 cm 2 were unlikely to present adverse effects: Taken together, these factors indicate that methamphetamine levels that exceed the NZS 8510:2017 clean-up standard of 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 should not be regarded as signalling a health risk. Indeed, exposure to methamphetamine levels below 15 μg/100 cm 2 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.
In the District Court judgment of Diamond Real Estate Limited v Allan [2017] NZDC 833, Judge Kellar considered a case in which remediation was undertaken in reliance on the 2010 Ministry of Health level of 0.5 μg/100 cm 2 . It is the case that following the remediation work the Standard NZS 8510:2017 was released, which as noted above increased the acceptable level to 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 . Judge Kellar records that when the premises were tested, the highest level recorded was in the toilet at 1.4 μg/100 cm 2 that “exceeded the Ministry of Health guidelines at the time.” The Court confirmed that any consideration as to whether the premises had been damaged, must be based on the prevailing guidelines at that time: ...It appears to be the case that at the time the methamphetamine testing and decontamination was carried out the premises were not safe to occupy in terms of the then prevailing Ministry of Health guidelines. If the landlord had no choice but to test for methamphetamine and decontaminate the premises and if the premises were not ‘safe’ in terms of the prevailing Ministry of Health guidelines at the time of testing then the premises may be said to have been damaged during the term of the tenancy.
At this time there remains a current New Zealand Standard of 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 , and also a current opinion from the Chief Science Advisor that there is no evidence of risk below 15 μg/100 cm 2
The fact of the competing levels was considered by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947. Judge Kellar needed to determine which level should be applied. The Court discussed the conflict between the New Zealand Standard and Chief Science Advisors report, and confirmed: 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.
I also note the more recent District Court decision of Eren Limited v Martin and Kukuruzsnak [2021] NZDC 15210, from Judge de Ridder. In that case the Court accepted that the tenants had contaminated the premises with Methamphetamine with the maximum level found to be 9.9 μg/100 cm 2 . The Court noted that the level applied by insurers and the testing industry was 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 . The Court noted that the approach that has been taken by the Tenancy Tribunal was to apply the level as set in the Gluckman report, also noting the above mentioned Full Circle decision, with the Judge concluding: In this case there is no other evidence to counter the conclusions of the Gluckmant Report. Thus it cannot be said that the Tribunal was wrong in the approach it adopted in dismissing the claim for compensation for these matters.
A third District Court decision of relevance is Acme Realty Limited v Hogg, Polotu and Coughlin [2021] NZDC 3231. Judge Harrison noted that “At issue is a short legal point, namely whether New Zealand Standard 8510:2017 has the force for law” and concluded it did not. The appeal arose from a decision of the Tenancy Tribunal which applied the Gluckman report level of 15 μg/100 cm 2 . The Court concluded that: ...for the reasons I have given that standard has not been passed into the law of this country and consequently the Adjudicator was not bound by the level it prescribes in reaching her conclusion.
In my assessment, these decisions of the Court have confirmed that the level to be applied is the level expressed by the Chief Science Advisor, which is that there is no risk when levels of contamination are below 15 μg/100 cm 2
As I explained to the landlord today, because the assessed level of contamination is below 15 μg/100 cm 2 the Tribunal cannot make any orders for remediation costs.
I conclude this matter by noting that in fairness to the landlord, the landlord appears to have relied on the report provided by ‘AllClear’ which undertook the testing, the report providing the following recommendation: Due to the presence of methamphetamine levels detected above the NZS8510:2017 decontamination level of 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 .(high-use area), the Property should be decontaminated by experienced professionals.
While it is correct that the level was above the NZS level where decontamination is recommended, the recommendation does not refer to the approach taken by the Tribunal and Courts which set a much higher level at which decontamination would be necessary.

FLOOR DAMAGE

The landlord has applied for compensation for damage to vinyl flooring, which has been stretched in one particular location.
With any compensation claim, to receive an order the party must incur a loss. In short, the compensation is intended as best money can do, to compensate for the actual loss incurred.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must first prove the damage 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
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.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional when a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
In this case I do not consider the damage shown would be fair wear and tear. Therefore the onus shifts to the tenant to prove it was not careless or intentional damage, and he has not done so. The damage is therefore the liability of the tenant to repair. The landlord’s claim is ordered in full, the invoiced amount for the repair being $602.20.

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

The landlord has claimed costs for cleaning, rubbish removal, carpet cleaning and weed spraying. The invoice for this work being $970.43.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (s45(1)(a)), and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided/returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
When I consider the photographs provided by the landlord, I find the tenant has not returned the premises reasonably clean and tidy. There is cleaning required inside the dwelling, I accept there were significant carpet stains, rubbish left by the tenant and weeds in the garden. This claim is established and ordered in full.

BOND

The landlord has claimed for release of the bond. Following the hearing I contacted the Bond Centre to confirm the bond situation. The Bond Centre advised there is no bond held for these premises, in that the bond that was held, to the sum of $1,012.00, was released to the landlord on 4 August 2023.

FILING FEE

The applicant has been mostly successful in their claim before the Tribunal. I find it is reasonable therefore to award the filing fee paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal, which is $20.44.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the landlord applies for name suppression, so name suppression is ordered for the landlord only.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4870910 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4870910 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

METHAMPHETAMINE CONTAMINATION

FLOOR DAMAGE

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

BOND

FILING FEE

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

METHAMPHETAMINE CONTAMINATION

FLOOR DAMAGE

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

BOND

FILING FEE

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions