What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4910815 about?

The tribunal order states: Kiri Shona Stewart must pay Paragon Property Management Limited $7,255.96

How much money was awarded in case 4910815?

Bailiff’S Fee: $205.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Final Water Charges: $158.19 awarded to landlord; Meth Detailed Assessment: $2,452.95 awarded to landlord; Meth Post-Decontamination Report: $411.93 awarded to landlord; Meth Screening Test: $389.85 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $483.60 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $634.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4910815?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4910815?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10869353-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4910815 about?

The tribunal order states: Kiri Shona Stewart must pay Paragon Property Management Limited $7,255.96

How much money was awarded in case 4910815?

Bailiff’S Fee: $205.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Final Water Charges: $158.19 awarded to landlord; Meth Detailed Assessment: $2,452.95 awarded to landlord; Meth Post-Decontamination Report: $411.93 awarded to landlord; Meth Screening Test: $389.85 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $483.60 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $634.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4910815?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4910815?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10869353-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4910815 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4910815 — net $7,255.96 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Bailiff’s fee	$205.00	Bailiff’s fee
Window repairs x2	$483.60	Window repairs x2
Lock/key replacement	$634.00	Lock/key replacement
Final water charges	$158.19	Final water charges
Meth screening test	$389.85	Meth screening test
Meth detailed assessment	$2,452.95	Meth detailed assessment
Meth post-decontamination report	$411.93	Meth post-decontamination report
Meth decontamination (insurance excess	$2,500.00	Meth decontamination (insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,255.96
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,255.96

The landlord attended the hearing today.

The landlord has applied for outgoings, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The bond has already been applied towards rent arrears.

How much is owed for water?

The tenancy ended on 25 May 2024 when the tenant was evicted. The landlord provided a water invoice for the period to 21 May 2024 which proves the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit.

The tenant did not return the keys. The locks had to be changed to make the premises secure.

The tenant did not leave the premises and had to be evicted by the bailiff. I award the bailiff’s fee.

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.

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 4 weeks' rent. The rent was $510.00. The standard insurance excess was $550.00.

Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to 4 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.

Several windows were damaged during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

Is the tenant liable for methamphetamine testing and decontamination?

A screening assessment was performed on 6 June 2024. High levels were reported, so a detailed assessment was performed. This returned very high levels in the kitchen (55ug/100cm) dining room (31.6ug) garage (22.0ug) hallway (69.3ug) and bedroom 2 (17.3ug).

The premises were decontaminated at insurers’ cost, less the excess of $2,500.00 paid by the landlord.

Section 40(2)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) provides that a tenant must not use, or permit the premises to be used, for an unlawful purpose. It is an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 to manufacture, possess or use any controlled drug, or to knowingly permit any premises to be used for the purpose of consuming controlled drugs (sections 6, 7 and 12). It follows that methamphetamine use or manufacture at residential premises is a breach of section 40(2)(b).

There was no pre-tenancy methamphetamine test. However, the landlord said the previous occupant for many years previously had been an elderly lady. Some drug-related paraphernalia was identified at the final inspection on 2 May 2024. On the balance of probabilities, there was methamphetamine use at the property during the tenancy and therefore the tenant used the premises for an unlawful purpose. As a result of this breach, the landlord had to incur methamphetamine testing costs, which are awarded.

In June 2017, Standards New Zealand published standard NZS 8510:2017 (the NZ Standard) for testing and decontamination of methamphetamine- contaminated properties. This adopted a standard of 1.5ug/100cm2 for high use areas, for both manufacture and use.

Professor Gluckman, at that time the government’s chief science advisor, authored a report dated 29 May 2018 which concluded that methamphetamine levels exceeding the NZ Standard level of 1.5ug/100cm2 “...should not be regarded as signaling a health risk”. The report said that exposure to methamphetamine levels below 15ug/100cm2 would be unlikely to give rise to any adverse effects. Remediation to the 1.5ug/100cm2 standard was appropriate for former meth labs and properties with high levels of methamphetamine contamination from excessive use.

The report said that manufacture in general results in greater methamphetamine residue levels than smoking alone and concluded that “...levels around or exceeding 30ug/100cm2 are regarded as strongly suggestive of manufacturing activity”.

In Full Circle Real Estate v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 the District Court had to determine whether the level of methamphetamine contamination would present a risk to human health. Where there is a risk to human health from such contamination, the property can be said to be damaged. The District Court said that the Gluckman report constituted the best available knowledge of the risks to human health from methamphetamine contamination. I interpret this case as confirmation that the Gluckman report is to be applied rather than the NZ Standard when determining whether there is damage.

The levels of methamphetamine found at the premises are suggestive of methamphetamine manufacture and are at levels considered injurious to health. On this basis, the premises can be considered “damaged”. I therefore find the tenant liable for the decontamination costs claimed. Filing fee and suppression

The landlord’s application has succeeded. I award the filing fee.

The landlord requested suppression of some identifying details. This is granted.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4910815 — net $7,255.96 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Bailiff’s fee	$205.00	Bailiff’s fee
Window repairs x2	$483.60	Window repairs x2
Lock/key replacement	$634.00	Lock/key replacement
Final water charges	$158.19	Final water charges
Meth screening test	$389.85	Meth screening test
Meth detailed assessment	$2,452.95	Meth detailed assessment
Meth post-decontamination report	$411.93	Meth post-decontamination report
Meth decontamination (insurance excess	$2,500.00	Meth decontamination (insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,255.96
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,255.96

Order

Kiri Shona Stewart must pay Paragon Property Management Limited $7,255.96 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing today.
The landlord has applied for outgoings, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The bond has already been applied towards rent arrears.

How much is owed for water?

The tenancy ended on 25 May 2024 when the tenant was evicted. The landlord provided a water invoice for the period to 21 May 2024 which proves the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit.
The tenant did not return the keys. The locks had to be changed to make the premises secure.
The tenant did not leave the premises and had to be evicted by the bailiff. I award the bailiff’s fee.

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.
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 4 weeks' rent. The rent was $510.00. The standard insurance excess was $550.00.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to 4 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.
Several windows were damaged during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

Is the tenant liable for methamphetamine testing and decontamination?

A screening assessment was performed on 6 June 2024. High levels were reported, so a detailed assessment was performed. This returned very high levels in the kitchen (55ug/100cm) dining room (31.6ug) garage (22.0ug) hallway (69.3ug) and bedroom 2 (17.3ug).
The premises were decontaminated at insurers’ cost, less the excess of $2,500.00 paid by the landlord.
Section 40(2)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) provides that a tenant must not use, or permit the premises to be used, for an unlawful purpose. It is an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 to manufacture, possess or use any controlled drug, or to knowingly permit any premises to be used for the purpose of consuming controlled drugs (sections 6, 7 and 12). It follows that methamphetamine use or manufacture at residential premises is a breach of section 40(2)(b).
There was no pre-tenancy methamphetamine test. However, the landlord said the previous occupant for many years previously had been an elderly lady. Some drug-related paraphernalia was identified at the final inspection on 2 May 2024. On the balance of probabilities, there was methamphetamine use at the property during the tenancy and therefore the tenant used the premises for an unlawful purpose. As a result of this breach, the landlord had to incur methamphetamine testing costs, which are awarded.
In June 2017, Standards New Zealand published standard NZS 8510:2017 (the NZ Standard) for testing and decontamination of methamphetamine- contaminated properties. This adopted a standard of 1.5ug/100cm2 for high use areas, for both manufacture and use.
Professor Gluckman, at that time the government’s chief science advisor, authored a report dated 29 May 2018 which concluded that methamphetamine levels exceeding the NZ Standard level of 1.5ug/100cm2 “...should not be regarded as signaling a health risk”. The report said that exposure to methamphetamine levels below 15ug/100cm2 would be unlikely to give rise to any adverse effects. Remediation to the 1.5ug/100cm2 standard was appropriate for former meth labs and properties with high levels of methamphetamine contamination from excessive use.
The report said that manufacture in general results in greater methamphetamine residue levels than smoking alone and concluded that “...levels around or exceeding 30ug/100cm2 are regarded as strongly suggestive of manufacturing activity”.
In Full Circle Real Estate v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 the District Court had to determine whether the level of methamphetamine contamination would present a risk to human health. Where there is a risk to human health from such contamination, the property can be said to be damaged. The District Court said that the Gluckman report constituted the best available knowledge of the risks to human health from methamphetamine contamination. I interpret this case as confirmation that the Gluckman report is to be applied rather than the NZ Standard when determining whether there is damage.
The levels of methamphetamine found at the premises are suggestive of methamphetamine manufacture and are at levels considered injurious to health. On this basis, the premises can be considered “damaged”. I therefore find the tenant liable for the decontamination costs claimed. Filing fee and suppression
The landlord’s application has succeeded. I award the filing fee.
The landlord requested suppression of some identifying details. This is granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4910815 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4910815 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Is the tenant liable for methamphetamine testing and decontamination?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Is the tenant liable for methamphetamine testing and decontamination?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions