What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4927855 about?

The tribunal order states: Monique Sarah-Jayne Willan must pay [The landlord/s] $4,431.50 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4927855?

Cleaning: $4,404.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4927855?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4927855?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10790985-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4927855 about?

The tribunal order states: Monique Sarah-Jayne Willan must pay [The landlord/s] $4,431.50 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4927855?

Cleaning: $4,404.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4927855?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4927855?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10790985-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4927855 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4927855 — net $4,431.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Meth testing/Cleaning	$4,404.50	Meth testing/Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,431.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,431.50

Order

Monique Sarah-Jayne Willan must pay [The landlord/s] $4,431.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionLandlord Meth testing/Cleaning$4,404.50 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$4,431.50 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$4,431.50
The Landlord’s other claims were withdrawn at the hearing.

Reasons

The Landlord attended the hearing.
The tenant did not attend.
The application was made more than two months after the end of the tenancy, so the usual rules around service do not apply. The tenant has been served at the email address for service provided in the tenancy agreement. I am satisfied that is effective service and would likely have brought the application to her attention. See ss91A and 91B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord has claimed for rent arrears, outstanding power bills and methamphetamine testing and cleaning. The claims for rent arrears and power bills were withdrawn at the hearing. Methamphetamine Testing and Decontamination
[The landlord/s] claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by using methamphetamine. The landlord has claimed testing costs of $4,404.50 and decontamination costs of $7,475.00. The landlord provided invoices for the costs claimed.
The landlord provided the following evidence which I accept establishes that the tenant, or someone at the premises with their permission, has used methamphetamine at the premises during the tenancy: a. A pre-tenancy methamphetamine test establishes that the premises tested negative for methamphetamine before the tenancy started on 3 October 2023. b. The landlord had reason to suspect drug use at the premises and arranged for methamphetamine testing to be completed on or about 8 May 2024. c. Discrete testing showed the following levels of methamphetamine at the premises, expressed in micrograms per 100 cubic centimetres (μg/100cm²): Kitchen—2.51; Lounge – 6.98; Bedroom 1--1.98; Bedroom 2 10.40; Bedroom 3 – 3.16; Bathroom--7.04; Hallway---12.10;
The landlord also reported that the tenant had repainted and scrubbed walls before the tenancy ended.
In order to recover decontamination costs, the landlord must prove that the tenant 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, because of the contamination, the premises have been damaged.
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.
None of the test results for this property were above 15μg/100cm 2. As such, the claim for decontamination costs is dismissed.
However, there is no dispute that using or permitting the use of methamphetamine at the premises is a criminal act and a breach of section 40(2)(b) RTA, which provides that a tenant shall not use the premise, or permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful act. I have found that it is more likely than not that the tenant or someone at the premises with their permission, has used methamphetamine at the premises during the tenancy.
While that use did not result in levels that allowed the landlord to recover decontamination costs, it was reasonable for the landlord to have the premises tested. The landlord is awarded the testing the costs of $4,404.50.
As the landlord was partially successful, I have also awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee and grated its request for suppression of its details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4927855 — net $4,431.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Meth testing/Cleaning	$4,404.50	Meth testing/Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,431.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,431.50

Order

Monique Sarah-Jayne Willan must pay [The landlord/s] $4,431.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionLandlord Meth testing/Cleaning$4,404.50 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$4,431.50 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$4,431.50
The Landlord’s other claims were withdrawn at the hearing.

Reasons

The Landlord attended the hearing.
The tenant did not attend.
The application was made more than two months after the end of the tenancy, so the usual rules around service do not apply. The tenant has been served at the email address for service provided in the tenancy agreement. I am satisfied that is effective service and would likely have brought the application to her attention. See ss91A and 91B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord has claimed for rent arrears, outstanding power bills and methamphetamine testing and cleaning. The claims for rent arrears and power bills were withdrawn at the hearing. Methamphetamine Testing and Decontamination
[The landlord/s] claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by using methamphetamine. The landlord has claimed testing costs of $4,404.50 and decontamination costs of $7,475.00. The landlord provided invoices for the costs claimed.
The landlord provided the following evidence which I accept establishes that the tenant, or someone at the premises with their permission, has used methamphetamine at the premises during the tenancy: a. A pre-tenancy methamphetamine test establishes that the premises tested negative for methamphetamine before the tenancy started on 3 October 2023. b. The landlord had reason to suspect drug use at the premises and arranged for methamphetamine testing to be completed on or about 8 May 2024. c. Discrete testing showed the following levels of methamphetamine at the premises, expressed in micrograms per 100 cubic centimetres (μg/100cm²): Kitchen—2.51; Lounge – 6.98; Bedroom 1--1.98; Bedroom 2 10.40; Bedroom 3 – 3.16; Bathroom--7.04; Hallway---12.10;
The landlord also reported that the tenant had repainted and scrubbed walls before the tenancy ended.
In order to recover decontamination costs, the landlord must prove that the tenant 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, because of the contamination, the premises have been damaged.
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.
None of the test results for this property were above 15μg/100cm 2. As such, the claim for decontamination costs is dismissed.
However, there is no dispute that using or permitting the use of methamphetamine at the premises is a criminal act and a breach of section 40(2)(b) RTA, which provides that a tenant shall not use the premise, or permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful act. I have found that it is more likely than not that the tenant or someone at the premises with their permission, has used methamphetamine at the premises during the tenancy.
While that use did not result in levels that allowed the landlord to recover decontamination costs, it was reasonable for the landlord to have the premises tested. The landlord is awarded the testing the costs of $4,404.50.
As the landlord was partially successful, I have also awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee and grated its request for suppression of its details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4927855 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4927855 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions