What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4897380 about?

The tribunal order states: Madison-blue Fraser and Malena Fraser to pay [The landlord/s] $1,175.30 from

How much money was awarded in case 4897380?

Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $92.00 awarded to landlord; Rent: $562.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4897380?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4897380?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10858815-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4897380 about?

The tribunal order states: Madison-blue Fraser and Malena Fraser to pay [The landlord/s] $1,175.30 from

How much money was awarded in case 4897380?

Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $92.00 awarded to landlord; Rent: $562.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4897380?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4897380?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10858815-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

25 Alexander Avenue, Torbay, Auckland 0630 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4897380 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4897380 — net $1,175.30 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent to 30 April 2024	$562.86	Rent to 30 April 2024
Lawns and Garden work	$92.00	Lawns and Garden work
Cleaning: includes oven and carpets	$500.00	Cleaning: includes oven and carpets
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,175.30
Bond	$2,520.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,175.30

Order

Madison-blue Fraser and Malena Fraser to pay [The landlord/s] $1,175.30 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,520.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,175.30 Madison-blue Fraser and Malena Fraser: $1,344.70
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 30 April 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenants 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 (RTA).
The landlord provided me with photos taken at the end of the tenancy. The tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. I have allowed an amount that seems reasonable to me based on the photos provided. I note that tenants are not responsible for cleaning walls and ceilings.

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. See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
There was damage to the carpet and a window during the tenancy. The landlord has made a claim for two insurance excesses. The insurance assessor considered that the damage was accidental. Tenants are not responsible for accidental damage so this claim is dismissed.

Should the tenants pay for the cost of testing and remediation?

The landlord has applied for compensation for the cost methamphetamine testing and remediation. The landlord must prove that the tenant caused or permitted 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.
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.
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 in this matter had testing for methamphetamine carried out at the start and end of the tenancy. The test at the end was a composite test. This is where the tester collects 10 discrete samples from 10 different places around the premises and all the samples are combined at the laboratory for one test. The result from a composite test is a “theoretical maximum” and assumes that all the methamphetamine indicated was collected from one discrete sample. The theoretical maximum was 17.8 μg.
A theoretical maximum cannot be relied on to prove there is methamphetamine
in the house above the Gluckman Report recommended levels for safety. I note that the tester used by the landlord at the end of the tenancy recommended that the landlord follow up with discrete testing. Discrete testing shows the exact amount of methamphetamine in each sample, and this information means the Tribunal can make orders if there are levels above 15 μg.
The landlord said he was sure discrete testing had been carried out, but I was no provided with the results of any discrete testing. The landlord has not proved the need for decontamination or testing and this claim is dismissed.

Can the landlord claim for lost rent?

At the hearing the landlord asked for lost rent. This was not part of the original claim. This is not allowed because the tenants were not served with the claim. I note that I would not allow a claim for lost rent for the amount of clean up proved. Other orders
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord’s application for suppression is allowed because the landlord is the most successful party.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4897380 — net $1,175.30 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent to 30 April 2024	$562.86	Rent to 30 April 2024
Lawns and Garden work	$92.00	Lawns and Garden work
Cleaning: includes oven and carpets	$500.00	Cleaning: includes oven and carpets
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,175.30
Bond	$2,520.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,175.30

Order

Madison-blue Fraser and Malena Fraser to pay [The landlord/s] $1,175.30 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,520.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,175.30 Madison-blue Fraser and Malena Fraser: $1,344.70
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 30 April 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenants 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 (RTA).
The landlord provided me with photos taken at the end of the tenancy. The tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. I have allowed an amount that seems reasonable to me based on the photos provided. I note that tenants are not responsible for cleaning walls and ceilings.

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. See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
There was damage to the carpet and a window during the tenancy. The landlord has made a claim for two insurance excesses. The insurance assessor considered that the damage was accidental. Tenants are not responsible for accidental damage so this claim is dismissed.

Should the tenants pay for the cost of testing and remediation?

The landlord has applied for compensation for the cost methamphetamine testing and remediation. The landlord must prove that the tenant caused or permitted 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.
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.
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 in this matter had testing for methamphetamine carried out at the start and end of the tenancy. The test at the end was a composite test. This is where the tester collects 10 discrete samples from 10 different places around the premises and all the samples are combined at the laboratory for one test. The result from a composite test is a “theoretical maximum” and assumes that all the methamphetamine indicated was collected from one discrete sample. The theoretical maximum was 17.8 μg.
A theoretical maximum cannot be relied on to prove there is methamphetamine
in the house above the Gluckman Report recommended levels for safety. I note that the tester used by the landlord at the end of the tenancy recommended that the landlord follow up with discrete testing. Discrete testing shows the exact amount of methamphetamine in each sample, and this information means the Tribunal can make orders if there are levels above 15 μg.
The landlord said he was sure discrete testing had been carried out, but I was no provided with the results of any discrete testing. The landlord has not proved the need for decontamination or testing and this claim is dismissed.

Can the landlord claim for lost rent?

At the hearing the landlord asked for lost rent. This was not part of the original claim. This is not allowed because the tenants were not served with the claim. I note that I would not allow a claim for lost rent for the amount of clean up proved. Other orders
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord’s application for suppression is allowed because the landlord is the most successful party.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4897380 — Cleanliness at 25 Alexander Avenue, Torbay, Auckland 0630

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4897380 — Cleanliness at 25 Alexander Avenue, Torbay, Auckland 0630

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should the tenants pay for the cost of testing and remediation?

Can the landlord claim for lost rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should the tenants pay for the cost of testing and remediation?

Can the landlord claim for lost rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions