What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4914915?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Ricky Williams at 8 Roimata Place, Woolston, Christchurch

How much money was awarded in case 4914915?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Methamphetamine Testing: $2,035.95 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4914915?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4914915?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10646649-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4914915?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Ricky Williams at 8 Roimata Place, Woolston, Christchurch

How much money was awarded in case 4914915?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Methamphetamine Testing: $2,035.95 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4914915?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4914915?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10646649-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

8 Roimata Place, Woolston, Christchurch 8023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4914915 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4914915 — net $2,056.39 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Methamphetamine testing	$2,035.95	Methamphetamine testing
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,056.39
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,056.39

The tenancy of Ricky Williams at 8 Roimata Place, Woolston, Christchurch 8023 is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, from 11.59pm on Sunday 15 September 2024.

Ricky Williams must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $2,056.39 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Otautahi Community Housing Trust’s claim for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Olds and Mr Woodbury attended on behalf of the landlord.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, compensation, exemplary damages, and refund of the filing fee.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate under section 56(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).

Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.

However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate.

The tenant has breached their obligations by using the premises or permitting the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose.

The tenancy began on 6 April 2023.

On 19 February 2024 methamphetamine testing was carried out at the premises.

The initial screening assessment returned a positive result for methamphetamine and a detailed assessment was then commissioned by the landlord.

This assessment showed methamphetamine present in eight of the nine sample areas above 1.5μg/100cm².

The highest reading was 17.1μg/100cm². However, as the landlord had not completed a pre-tenancy assessment, it did not pursue any action through the Tribunal at that stage.

Further testing was undertaken on 4 June 2024. This detailed assessment also included nine sample areas which were identical to the sample areas in the February assessment.

Again, eight of the nine areas showed the presence of methamphetamine above 1.5μg/100cm². The amounts had increased significantly since the February testing three and a half months earlier.

Four areas returned a result over 15μg/100cm² (two locations in the kitchen/living area, one in the entrance and one in the bathroom) with the highest now being 28μg/100cm².

The tenant was aware that the methamphetamine testing was being carried out and was present on at least one occasion.

In 2010, the New Zealand Ministry of Health produced guidelines for the remediation of methamphetamine laboratories which determined that remediation was required if the environmental level of methamphetamine was over 0.5μg/100cm². This became the level at which premises were deemed to require decontamination.

In 2017 the level was increased when Standards New Zealand released Standard NZS 8510:2017 “Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine- contaminated properties”. This Standard confirmed that the level at which habitation of residential premises was considered safe was 1.5μg/100cm². At that time, this Standard set the definitive levels at which properties required decontamination.

In 2018, the then Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, reported that there was little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption (Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards, 29 May 2018). This report concluded that any levels below 15μg/100cm² were unlikely to present adverse effects.

Taken together these factors indicate that methamphetamine levels that exceed the NZS 8510:2017 clean-up standard of 1.5μg/100cm² should not be regarded as signalling a health risk. Indeed, exposure to methamphetamine levels below 15μg/100cm² 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.

The matter was considered by the District Court, in relation to a Tenancy Tribunal order, in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 where Judge Keller stated that; “the Gluckman Report represents the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination in dwellings.”

This decision of the District Court has confirmed that the level to be applied by this Tribunal is that expressed by Professor Gluckman which is that there is no risk when levels of contamination are below 15μg/100cm².

The levels recorded in the June assessment are significantly over this level.

The breach is not capable of remedy because the unlawful activity has already occurred.

The tenant gave evidence that he was unaware of the methamphetamine contamination. He said that he had been away frequently over the testing period and that he had asked “a couple” to look after his property while he was away. He thought that those people must have been responsible for the meth contamination.

No other evidence was provided to support this claim.

The landlord provided evidence of a notebook entry recorded at the time that the results from the June report had been given to the tenant. At this time, according to that entry, the tenant said a family member may have been responsible for the contamination.

Section 41 of the Act says that a tenant is responsible for anything done by any person in the premises with the tenant’s permission if the act would have constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement had it been the act of the tenant.

The tenant did not comment on his earlier suggestion that it was a family member who was responsible but reiterated that it was a “couple” who he had allowed to look after the property in his absence.

He accepted that he had permitted these people to stay at his property.

Given the evidence before me, I find it more likely than not that the tenant (or someone at the property with his permission) used the premises, or permitted the premises to be used, for an unlawful act.

The landlord is a social housing provider. There are long waiting lists for housing and the landlord gave evidence that properties are unavailable for other tenants while they are being decontaminated.

The landlord considers that their other tenants are likely to be concerned at seeing neighbouring properties being decontaminated and it will affect their enjoyment of their homes. It is not a ‘look’ that the landlord wants for their properties or for their other tenants.

They referred to the significant cost of testing and decontaminating properties affected by methamphetamine contamination and said that this money would be better spent upgrading properties for law abiding tenants than decontaminating properties.

The landlord says it has a zero-tolerance policy for meth use and consistently applies it. Tenants are aware of this, and the testing obligations are referred to in the tenancy agreements.

It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.

Otautahi Community Housing Trust agreed to allow the tenant to remain in possession for approximately six weeks from the hearing date to better enable him to find alternative accommodation.

The tenant must continue to pay rent as it falls due until possession is returned to the landlord.

Should the tenant pay compensation?

The landlord provided copies of three invoices for meth testing. The first, for $210.75, was for the screening assessment on 19 February 2024. The second, for $817.56, was for the detailed de-composite testing of these previously provided samples (necessary once the presence of meth was established). The third, for $1,007.64, was for the detailed assessment of the June testing.

The tenant accepted responsibility for the testing costs at the hearing.

The amounts ordered are proved. Exemplary damages

Otautahi Community Housing Trust claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by using the premises or allowing the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose.

A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose under section 40(2)(b) of the Act.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00 under section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A of the Act.

It is unlawful to procure or have in your possession, or consume, or smoke, or otherwise use, any controlled drug (section 7, Misuse of Drugs Act 1975).

Methamphetamine is a controlled drug under Schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.

I find that the tenant, or someone at the premises with the tenant’s permission, committed an unlawful act.

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest under section 109(3) of the Act.

I cannot be sufficiently satisfied, in terms of intention to commit an unlawful act, when there is a possibility that the meth use may be attributable to another person, albeit at the premises with the tenant’s permission.

No exemplary damages are ordered.

As Otautahi Community Housing Trust has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4914915 — net $2,056.39 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Methamphetamine testing	$2,035.95	Methamphetamine testing
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,056.39
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,056.39