What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4908558 about?

The tribunal order states: Jade Heremaia must pay [The landlord/s] $6,734.84 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4908558?

Cleaning: $253.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $128.76 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Labour: $2,300.00 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing - Composite: $228.85 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing – Detailed: $920.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $54.02 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,987.14 awarded to landlord; Cost Of Dulux Paint: $269.12 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $334.27 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $519.20 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Curtains: $377.20 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $142.84 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4908558?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4908558?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10902941-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4908558 about?

The tribunal order states: Jade Heremaia must pay [The landlord/s] $6,734.84 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4908558?

Cleaning: $253.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $128.76 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Labour: $2,300.00 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing - Composite: $228.85 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing – Detailed: $920.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $54.02 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,987.14 awarded to landlord; Cost Of Dulux Paint: $269.12 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $334.27 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $519.20 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Curtains: $377.20 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $142.84 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4908558?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4908558?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10902941-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4908558 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4908558 — net $6,734.84 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 10 July 2024	$3,987.14	Rent arrears to 10 July 2024
Carpet Cleaning	$253.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning: Cleaning products purchased by landlord	$128.76	Cleaning: Cleaning products purchased by landlord
Lock/key replacement	$54.02	Lock/key replacement
Meth testing - composite	$228.85	Meth testing - composite
Meth testing – detailed	$920.00	Meth testing – detailed
Repairs: Hob replacement	$519.20	Repairs: Hob replacement
Repairs: Cost of materials to repair walls	$334.27	Repairs: Cost of materials to repair walls
Repairs: Cost of Dulux paint	$269.12	Repairs: Cost of Dulux paint
Replace furnishings: Curtains	$377.20	Replace furnishings: Curtains
Labour	$2,300.00	Labour
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Water rates to 10 July 2024	$142.84	Water rates to 10 July 2024
Net award	$6,734.84
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,734.84

Order

Jade Heremaia must pay [The landlord/s] $6,734.84 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing in person. The tenant did not attend.
Despite this being a face-to-face hearing the tenant was telephoned on the phone number provided but the phone call went unanswered. I am satisfied the tenant was properly served with notice of the hearing. The hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, a disposal of goods order, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood.
The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
The more serious the claims made the greater the evidential burden on the applicant will be. Rent arrears.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on commenced on 22 December 2022 and ended on 10 July 2024.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $3,987.14 and I make this order. Water rates

How much is owed for water rates?

The property has several premises all subject to one Council water rates invoice and meter. The property has separate meters for individual premises.
The landlord provided a Council invoice and handwritten statement as to the tenant’s liability for water rates and confirmed it was true and accurate.
The landlord also confirmed he had taken a photo of the meter at the end of the tenancy to confirm the tenant’s water usage.
I have granted the claim for water rates of $142.84. Cleaning and lock replacement

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 and return all keys. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Cleaning
The RTA does not require the premises to be 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. The Tribunal will also consider factors such as the length of the tenancy, and the general condition of the premises (for example, surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particular with paint work).
If the landlord is seeking to recover costs for cleaning and rubbish removal, it is the landlord who must prove that the tenant has breached their obligations under the RTA with how the premises were returned at the end of the tenancy.
If the landlord does not establish a breach to the balance of probability, then their claim will be dismissed. This case
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord’s evidence was that the property was dirty throughout: a. The carpets were dirty. The tenant had a cat in the premises which caused a mess and the smell remains a persistent issue. The tenant also had a dirt bike in the lounge which dirtied the carpet. b. Surfaces and walls were dirty and marked, there appeared to be oil stains on the walls and animal prints. c. The was some rubbish that required removal.
Carpet cleaning and general cleaning was therefore required.
The landlord provided inspection reports from the start and end of the tenancy, photographs, and invoices to support the claim.
I have awarded the claim in respect of carpet cleaning ($253.00) and cleaning products ($128.76) and address the landlord’s claim for labour later in this decision. Lock and key replacement
The tenant did not return the keys.
The claim for lock replacement was supported by an invoice and $54.02 is awarded.
The amount ordered is proved. Damage:

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. Careless damage
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 (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
The insurance excess amount is $1,150.00 and four-weeks rent is $3,040.00. Intentional damage
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) of the 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. Betterment and depreciation
I must take into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The landlord gave evidence that the property was completely renovated in 2022 and the pre-inspection report confirms this. Damage in this case
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. The glass hob was cracked which I consider is likely to have been caused by the careless action of the tenant. The claim was for $649.00. The tenant did not appear to provide any other reasonable explanation, despite being aware of the claim. In taking into account betterment and depreciation I award 80% of the claim – being $519.20. b. The walls had dents and stains that could not be cleaned. I consider this damage to have been caused intentionally and award the full amount for the materials used to repair the wall damage. Correspondence between the landlord and tenant indicate the damage was caused by the tenant’s ex-partner (who was also the previous tenant) and gives the impression the damage was intentional. I order the full amount claimed for materials to repair the walls: i. $334.27 in relation to Mitre 10 invoices. ii. $269.12 for paint. c. I address the claim for labour below. d. The curtains were ripped. The claim was for $471.50 to replace the curtains. In taking into to account betterment and depreciation I award 80% of the claim – being $377.20 e. The outdoor shed had several dents. I address this claim in respect of the claim for labour below.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
Invoices were provided in support of the claims. The amounts ordered are proved. Landlords claim for labour – cleaning and damage
The landlord undertook the cleaning, rubbish removal and repairs himself.
His evidence was that he spent 70 hours of labour and claimed this time at the rate of $65 per hour. There was limited evidence as to how much time was spent on each task. The claim was for $4,550.00.
I raised at the hearing that the Tribunal will generally compensate labour at the rate of $30 per hour. The landlord advised that he is a builder by trade and considers his time should be compensated at a greater rate.
I have considered the landlord’s position and consider $30 per hour for 70 hours is appropriate with the additional amount of $200.00 to reflect the landlord’s skill as a builder. The amount ordered is $2,300.00.
I consider this reasonable and allows for his attendances in: a. cleaning, including oven cleaning, b. rubbish removal, c. removing the dents from the outside shed, d. repairing the holes and dents in the walls and doors, (might this be a higher rate given the skill required? e. installing curtains, f. removing the oil stain on the concrete outside. Methamphetamine testing
The landlord’s insurance excess is $1,150.
The landlord claims $228.85 and $920 for methamphetamine contamination testing costs. 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
5 μg/100 cm 2 . While that related to laboratories, it is the case that the 0.5 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, but 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.
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. Pre-tenancy baseline testing
With any claim before the Tribunal, the onus for establishing the claim sits with the applicant, that is the landlord. It is the landlord that must provide sufficient evidence to prove to the balance of probabilities, that methamphetamine was used in the premises by the tenant, or some person on the tenancy with the tenant’s consent. The balance of probabilities means that what is alleged, is likely to be just over 50% likely to have occurred.
The landlord must establish that it is likely to have occurred during the tenancy. This would need to be by way of pre-tenancy methamphetamine testing being undertaken. This case
The landlord provided the baseline test result dated 23 May 2022 to show that there was no methamphetamine contamination at the start of the tenancy.
The tenant began living in the premises with her partner on 11 June 2022 and commenced a tenancy in her sole name on 22 December 2022. The landlord has established there was methamphetamine contamination at the end of the tenancy.
The levels were below 15 μg/100 cm 2 therefore the Tribunal cannot order remediation costs.
I order the full amount for methamphetamine testing as sought by the landlord. I note that the landlord did not provide the composite meth test in evidence however I have awarded the cost of both tests as there was methamphetamine contamination during the tenancy. Bond
The Bond Centre has paid the landlord the bond, which the landlord claimed for the rent arrears. I deduct this from the total amount ordered. Filing fee
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee. Suppression
The landlord sought suppression and as the application is successful, I have made an order accordingly. Disposal of goods
At the hearing the landlord advised the tenant had uplifted her goods from the premises and an order in relation to the disposal of goods was not required. Accordingly, I dismiss this application.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4908558 — net $6,734.84 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 10 July 2024	$3,987.14	Rent arrears to 10 July 2024
Carpet Cleaning	$253.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning: Cleaning products purchased by landlord	$128.76	Cleaning: Cleaning products purchased by landlord
Lock/key replacement	$54.02	Lock/key replacement
Meth testing - composite	$228.85	Meth testing - composite
Meth testing – detailed	$920.00	Meth testing – detailed
Repairs: Hob replacement	$519.20	Repairs: Hob replacement
Repairs: Cost of materials to repair walls	$334.27	Repairs: Cost of materials to repair walls
Repairs: Cost of Dulux paint	$269.12	Repairs: Cost of Dulux paint
Replace furnishings: Curtains	$377.20	Replace furnishings: Curtains
Labour	$2,300.00	Labour
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Water rates to 10 July 2024	$142.84	Water rates to 10 July 2024
Net award	$6,734.84
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,734.84

Order

Jade Heremaia must pay [The landlord/s] $6,734.84 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing in person. The tenant did not attend.
Despite this being a face-to-face hearing the tenant was telephoned on the phone number provided but the phone call went unanswered. I am satisfied the tenant was properly served with notice of the hearing. The hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, a disposal of goods order, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood.
The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
The more serious the claims made the greater the evidential burden on the applicant will be. Rent arrears.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on commenced on 22 December 2022 and ended on 10 July 2024.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $3,987.14 and I make this order. Water rates

How much is owed for water rates?

The property has several premises all subject to one Council water rates invoice and meter. The property has separate meters for individual premises.
The landlord provided a Council invoice and handwritten statement as to the tenant’s liability for water rates and confirmed it was true and accurate.
The landlord also confirmed he had taken a photo of the meter at the end of the tenancy to confirm the tenant’s water usage.
I have granted the claim for water rates of $142.84. Cleaning and lock replacement

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 and return all keys. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Cleaning
The RTA does not require the premises to be 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. The Tribunal will also consider factors such as the length of the tenancy, and the general condition of the premises (for example, surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particular with paint work).
If the landlord is seeking to recover costs for cleaning and rubbish removal, it is the landlord who must prove that the tenant has breached their obligations under the RTA with how the premises were returned at the end of the tenancy.
If the landlord does not establish a breach to the balance of probability, then their claim will be dismissed. This case
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord’s evidence was that the property was dirty throughout: a. The carpets were dirty. The tenant had a cat in the premises which caused a mess and the smell remains a persistent issue. The tenant also had a dirt bike in the lounge which dirtied the carpet. b. Surfaces and walls were dirty and marked, there appeared to be oil stains on the walls and animal prints. c. The was some rubbish that required removal.
Carpet cleaning and general cleaning was therefore required.
The landlord provided inspection reports from the start and end of the tenancy, photographs, and invoices to support the claim.
I have awarded the claim in respect of carpet cleaning ($253.00) and cleaning products ($128.76) and address the landlord’s claim for labour later in this decision. Lock and key replacement
The tenant did not return the keys.
The claim for lock replacement was supported by an invoice and $54.02 is awarded.
The amount ordered is proved. Damage:

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. Careless damage
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 (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
The insurance excess amount is $1,150.00 and four-weeks rent is $3,040.00. Intentional damage
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) of the 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. Betterment and depreciation
I must take into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The landlord gave evidence that the property was completely renovated in 2022 and the pre-inspection report confirms this. Damage in this case
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. The glass hob was cracked which I consider is likely to have been caused by the careless action of the tenant. The claim was for $649.00. The tenant did not appear to provide any other reasonable explanation, despite being aware of the claim. In taking into account betterment and depreciation I award 80% of the claim – being $519.20. b. The walls had dents and stains that could not be cleaned. I consider this damage to have been caused intentionally and award the full amount for the materials used to repair the wall damage. Correspondence between the landlord and tenant indicate the damage was caused by the tenant’s ex-partner (who was also the previous tenant) and gives the impression the damage was intentional. I order the full amount claimed for materials to repair the walls: i. $334.27 in relation to Mitre 10 invoices. ii. $269.12 for paint. c. I address the claim for labour below. d. The curtains were ripped. The claim was for $471.50 to replace the curtains. In taking into to account betterment and depreciation I award 80% of the claim – being $377.20 e. The outdoor shed had several dents. I address this claim in respect of the claim for labour below.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
Invoices were provided in support of the claims. The amounts ordered are proved. Landlords claim for labour – cleaning and damage
The landlord undertook the cleaning, rubbish removal and repairs himself.
His evidence was that he spent 70 hours of labour and claimed this time at the rate of $65 per hour. There was limited evidence as to how much time was spent on each task. The claim was for $4,550.00.
I raised at the hearing that the Tribunal will generally compensate labour at the rate of $30 per hour. The landlord advised that he is a builder by trade and considers his time should be compensated at a greater rate.
I have considered the landlord’s position and consider $30 per hour for 70 hours is appropriate with the additional amount of $200.00 to reflect the landlord’s skill as a builder. The amount ordered is $2,300.00.
I consider this reasonable and allows for his attendances in: a. cleaning, including oven cleaning, b. rubbish removal, c. removing the dents from the outside shed, d. repairing the holes and dents in the walls and doors, (might this be a higher rate given the skill required? e. installing curtains, f. removing the oil stain on the concrete outside. Methamphetamine testing
The landlord’s insurance excess is $1,150.
The landlord claims $228.85 and $920 for methamphetamine contamination testing costs. 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
5 μg/100 cm 2 . While that related to laboratories, it is the case that the 0.5 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, but 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.
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. Pre-tenancy baseline testing
With any claim before the Tribunal, the onus for establishing the claim sits with the applicant, that is the landlord. It is the landlord that must provide sufficient evidence to prove to the balance of probabilities, that methamphetamine was used in the premises by the tenant, or some person on the tenancy with the tenant’s consent. The balance of probabilities means that what is alleged, is likely to be just over 50% likely to have occurred.
The landlord must establish that it is likely to have occurred during the tenancy. This would need to be by way of pre-tenancy methamphetamine testing being undertaken. This case
The landlord provided the baseline test result dated 23 May 2022 to show that there was no methamphetamine contamination at the start of the tenancy.
The tenant began living in the premises with her partner on 11 June 2022 and commenced a tenancy in her sole name on 22 December 2022. The landlord has established there was methamphetamine contamination at the end of the tenancy.
The levels were below 15 μg/100 cm 2 therefore the Tribunal cannot order remediation costs.
I order the full amount for methamphetamine testing as sought by the landlord. I note that the landlord did not provide the composite meth test in evidence however I have awarded the cost of both tests as there was methamphetamine contamination during the tenancy. Bond
The Bond Centre has paid the landlord the bond, which the landlord claimed for the rent arrears. I deduct this from the total amount ordered. Filing fee
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee. Suppression
The landlord sought suppression and as the application is successful, I have made an order accordingly. Disposal of goods
At the hearing the landlord advised the tenant had uplifted her goods from the premises and an order in relation to the disposal of goods was not required. Accordingly, I dismiss this application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4908558 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4908558 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

How much is owed for water rates?

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

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

How much is owed for water rates?

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

Frequently asked questions