What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4905914?

The tribunal order states: Francois Hoinville and Liam Quinlivan must pay Opes Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 4905914?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; To Bedroom Door: $437.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4905914?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4905914?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10835285-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4905914?

The tribunal order states: Francois Hoinville and Liam Quinlivan must pay Opes Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 4905914?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; To Bedroom Door: $437.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4905914?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4905914?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10835285-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 14, 28 Westgate Drive, Westgate, Auckland 0614 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4905914 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4905914 — net $457.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: to bedroom door	$437.00	Repairs: to bedroom door
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$457.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$457.44

Order

Francois Hoinville and Liam Quinlivan must pay Opes Property Management North Limited Acting Agent For David & Tiffany Whyte $457.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenants did not answer the calls to their telephones.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Are the tenants 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 tenants 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
A door was damaged during the tenancy. I have been provided with a photo of the damage. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage. I have a quote for the cost for repairs which looks reasonable to me, and it seems most likely to me the work will be completed. I am prepared to make an order based on the quote in these circumstances.

Should the tenants pay the insurance excess for methamphetamine contamination?

The landlord has applied for compensation for the insurance excess for methamphetamine testing and remediation. The landlord must prove that the tenants 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.
I was provided with the results from Hill Laboratories of composite sample testing done in November 2023. This was about a month into the tenancy. Discrete samples were tested in May 2024. I was not provided with any of the testing information and there is nothing linking the Hill results with the tenancy premises. For this reason the claim is dismissed.
I note there was a good reason I did not insist on better information from the landlord. This is because the May results show the highest discrete sample was 9.1 μg/100cm 2.
Section 138C RTA 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.
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.
Following Full Circle Real Estate Limited, it seems most likely to me there was insufficient contamination for the Tribunal to order the tenants pay the insurance excess anyway.

Should the tenants pay for replacement keys?

There is a quote for $883 for replacing the electronic lock. This is because keys and swipe cards were not returned at the end of the tenancy. I note that I have a quote rather than an invoice, even though this tenancy ended on 29 April 2024. The quote is valid for 30 days from 8 May 2024. It seems most likely to me that this work will not be carried out, which means there is no loss to the landlord. This claim is dismissed. Other orders
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4905914 — net $457.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: to bedroom door	$437.00	Repairs: to bedroom door
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$457.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$457.44

Order

Francois Hoinville and Liam Quinlivan must pay Opes Property Management North Limited Acting Agent For David & Tiffany Whyte $457.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenants did not answer the calls to their telephones.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Are the tenants 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 tenants 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
A door was damaged during the tenancy. I have been provided with a photo of the damage. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage. I have a quote for the cost for repairs which looks reasonable to me, and it seems most likely to me the work will be completed. I am prepared to make an order based on the quote in these circumstances.

Should the tenants pay the insurance excess for methamphetamine contamination?

The landlord has applied for compensation for the insurance excess for methamphetamine testing and remediation. The landlord must prove that the tenants 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.
I was provided with the results from Hill Laboratories of composite sample testing done in November 2023. This was about a month into the tenancy. Discrete samples were tested in May 2024. I was not provided with any of the testing information and there is nothing linking the Hill results with the tenancy premises. For this reason the claim is dismissed.
I note there was a good reason I did not insist on better information from the landlord. This is because the May results show the highest discrete sample was 9.1 μg/100cm 2.
Section 138C RTA 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.
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.
Following Full Circle Real Estate Limited, it seems most likely to me there was insufficient contamination for the Tribunal to order the tenants pay the insurance excess anyway.

Should the tenants pay for replacement keys?

There is a quote for $883 for replacing the electronic lock. This is because keys and swipe cards were not returned at the end of the tenancy. I note that I have a quote rather than an invoice, even though this tenancy ended on 29 April 2024. The quote is valid for 30 days from 8 May 2024. It seems most likely to me that this work will not be carried out, which means there is no loss to the landlord. This claim is dismissed. Other orders
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4905914 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 14, 28 Westgate Drive, Westgate, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4905914 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 14, 28 Westgate Drive, Westgate, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should the tenants pay the insurance excess for methamphetamine contamination?

Should the tenants pay for replacement keys?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should the tenants pay the insurance excess for methamphetamine contamination?

Should the tenants pay for replacement keys?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions