What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4949636 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4949636?

Cleaning: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Excess For Lounge Carpet: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Methamphetamine Testing Fees All Cle…: $930.96 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $741.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent And Outgoings Credit: $810.04 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Missing oven ra…: $72.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $960.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $40.36 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4949636?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4949636?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11413784-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4949636 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4949636?

Cleaning: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Excess For Lounge Carpet: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Methamphetamine Testing Fees All Cle…: $930.96 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $741.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent And Outgoings Credit: $810.04 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Missing oven ra…: $72.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $960.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $40.36 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4949636?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4949636?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11413784-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4949636 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4949636 — net $2,961.72 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$741.00		Lock/key replacement
Replace furnishings: Missing oven rack	$72.00		Replace furnishings: Missing oven rack
Rubbish removal: and replace clothes line	$960.44		Rubbish removal: and replace clothes line
Cleaning	$450.00		Cleaning
Excess for lounge carpet	$650.00		Excess for lounge carpet
replacement of carpet in Bed 3	$500.00		replacement of carpet in Bed 3
Repairs: Wall damage excess garage	$650.00		Repairs: Wall damage excess garage
Repairs: Wall damage excess rest of house	$650.00		Repairs: Wall damage excess rest of house
Methamphetamine testing fees All Clear	$930.96		Methamphetamine testing fees All Clear
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Window repairs: Window handle in lounge	$40.36		Window repairs: Window handle in lounge
Exemplary damages - unlawful use	$500.00		Exemplary damages - unlawful use
Rent and outgoings credit		$810.04	Rent and outgoings credit
Total award	$6,171.76	$810.04
Net award	$2,961.72
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,961.72

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address .
Rachel James must pay [The landlord/s] $2,961.72 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the in person hearing today. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for compensation for cleaning and damage to the property, that the tenants used methamphetamine during the tenancy, decontamination costs, exemplary damages for unlawful use of the property, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background.
The tenancy began on the 2 April 2021. Shortly before the tenancy began the landlord conducted a meth screening test using a simple positive/ negative test kit. The property manager conducted the test and swabbed an area in the hallway between the garage and the house. The result of that test was negative for methamphetamine.
The house is only five years old. This means that at the beginning of the tenancy the house was only one year old. Only one other tenant had occupied the house before this tenant.
Throughout the tenancy, the property was manged by the same property manger. Credits.
The tenancy ended on 21 June 2024 by agreement. The landlord says that the tenant was in rent credit of $301.70 and had a credit after the final water bill was paid of $508.34. These amounts together with the bond which was paid out by agreement to the landlord have been taken into account in the table order made.

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

Cleaning, rubbish removal and locks.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant made an attempt to clean the property but then left the tenancy half way through completing the cleaning. The tenant left rubbish outside the property which had to be removed and placed house hold rubbish in the recycling bin. The landlord had to get cleaners and rubbish removers in to do the cleaning and the rubbish removal.
The tenant did not return the keys and all of the locks had to be changed.
The amounts ordered are proved. Damage
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.
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.
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) 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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: staining and burns on the carpet in the lounge and the master bedroom, screw holes in walls and paint that is mismatched where the tenant has attempted to fill holes, plaster and paint. The paint is a different colour to the walls, and I am satisfied that the landlord would have had to repair all of those walls. The tenant broke the clothesline, window handles in the lounge and there was a oven rack missing at the end of the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord received insurance cover for the cleaning and carpet repair in the lounge. I have therefore awarded the landlord the excess for the insurance for the carpet in the lounge.
The landlord has also received cover for two events of paint damage one in the garage and the rest for the remainder of the house. I am satisfied that the tenant is liable for the insurance excesses for this damage and award the landlord the two insurance excesses for those areas.
I am also satisfied that the landlord had to replace the carpet due to the cigarette burns and staining in the main bedroom and have awarded the landlord $500 for the replacement carpet in this room.
The landlord had to replace the clothesline, window latches and oven rack and has proven the amounts claimed.
The landlord also claimed the cost of a clothes rack which the landlord says was present at the beginning of the tenancy but was missing at the end. The clothes rack is not listed on the tenancy chattels neither is it shown in the ingoing report. The landlord’s claim for the clothes rack is not proven.
The amounts ordered are proved. Methamphetamine.
Two days after the tenancy ended the landlord had the property tested for methamphetamine. The landlord says she did this because of the peculiar and unusual smell at the property, the burns in the carpet and that when she went to the property she became itchy. The testing was conducted by [meth testing company], at first the testing was a composite test (which is where many areas swabbed are testing in one test). When those composite results indicated methamphetamine was found then discreet testing took place. The results of the discreet testing were: Area Methamphetamine concentration in μg/100cm 2 Entry – Door frame 6.1 Kitchen – extraction fan0.57 Garage – window frame3.3 Bathroom -window frame3.8 Bedroom 1- door1.94 Ensuite – Window frame 8.8 Bedroom 2 – Door 1.08 Bedroom 3 – Door 1.72. Hallway – Door 8.5
A landlord must prove that premises have been damaged during the tenancy and that the damage is the result of an 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 s49B(8)(a) RTA. The use or possession of methamphetamine is an imprisonable offence; see the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
If the landlord proves this, then a tenant is liable for the costs of “making good the damage” and other reasonably foreseeable losses related to the damage; sections 49A and 49B(1)(b) RTA.
The standard of proof that applies is the civil standard “on the balance of probabilities”. This means that I do not have to be completely certain, but I must be satisfied that what is alleged is “more probable than not”. Generally, the more serious the claim, the stronger the evidence that is required (Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55). This is an allegation of criminal behaviour so the evidence must be strong.
In these circumstances, the landlord must prove: - a. That it is more probable than not that the tenant used, or allowed the use of, methamphetamine in the premises during the tenancy, and b. If the answer to the first question is ‘yes’, that it is more probable than not that the methamphetamine use during this tenancy caused ‘damage’ to the premises. Did the tenant or her invitees use methamphetamine at the premises during this tenancy?
The landlord’s evidence is that the property was tested in a location the hallway that should have shown any previous methamphetamine use at the property before this tenancy. That test was negative for methamphetamine which proves that there was no contamination under 1.5 μg/100cm 2 in that area at the beginning of the tenancy.
This can be contrasted with the post tenancy tests which showed methamphetamine contamination of levels over 1.5 μg/100cm 2 in 7 out of the 9 areas tested and a level of 8.5 μg/100cm 2 for the testing of another door in the hallway.
I am therefore satisfied that it is more likely than not the tenant or one of her invitees used methamphetamine in the premises during the tenancy, I say this for the following reasons: a. The pre tenancy testing was negative. b. The end of tenancy testing was completed only two days after the end of the tenancy and shows that methamphetamine was present in levels above
5ug in 7 out of the 9 areas tested. c. The areas that tested positive are throughout the home, in other words not localised to one area. d. The ESR calculator 1 which calculates the amount of methamphetamine use needed to reach a particular level show that 338 uses of methamphetamine would be needed to reach a level of 8.8 in the ensuite bathroom. In calculating this amount, I have been generous with the room size of 15 sq metres. This calculation indicates to me that the methamphetamine contamination occurred over the prolonged period and was regular. e. The existence of burn marks in the carpet. f. The landlord was alerted to the presence of methamphetamine by a peculiar smell at the property. 2 g. The landlord had a skin reaction when she went to the property. Methamphetamine is a known irritant. Was the methamphetamine contamination damage- is the tenant liable for the decontamination costs?
Having determined that the tenant or her invitees used methamphetamine at the property I now turn to whether the contamination is damage?
The Tribunal has previously found that damage occurs, and decontamination is necessary when levels of methamphetamine contamination are above 15μg/100cm 2 . Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4797. 3 This is the level adopted by the authors of what is colloquially known as the Gluckman report dated 29 May 2018 (“the Gluckman Report”). 4 The Gluckman Report concludes that there is no evidence of risk of harm from second or third hand exposure to methamphetamine residue measured at or less than 15μg/100cm 2 unless there is evidence to suggest that the premises have been used for manufacture.
Neither the Gluckman Report nor the previously used New Zealand Standard NZS 8510:2017 5 (NZS) which recommended a level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 are embedded into law, they both represent guidelines and are not regulatory.
In the aforementioned Full Circle Real Estate v Piper his Honour Judge Kellar gave consideration as to whether the Tribunal erred in applying the Gluckman level of 15μg/100cm 2 over the NZS of 1.5μg/100cm 2 and found that; “it would have been bold for the adjudicator to have ignored that report (the Gluckman Report) in favour of the New Zealand Standard given that the Gluckman report 1 esr.cri.nz/methamphetamine-calculator 2 I also note that in previous Tribunal hearings regarding these parties in a mediated order the tenant accepted the curtains needed to be cleaned because of smoke. 3 Full Circle Real Estate v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947- CIV2018-009-2490 4 Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposure, risk levels and interpretation of standards.” 29 May 2018 - Professor Gluckman – Prime Minister’s chief science advisor; (The Gluckman Report). 5 NZS 8510:2017 New Zealand Standard – testing and decontamination of methamphetamine - contaminated properties . represents the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination in dwellings.” 6 Therefore, the Tribunal continues to adopt a level of 15μg/100cm 2 as a level that requires remediation for contamination.
After receiving the report from [meth testing company] the landlord decontaminated the property. The landlord seeks the costs of decontamination. As none of the areas tested showed levels higher than 15μg/100cm 2 then I am not satisfied that there is damage at the property that required remediation. Is the tenant liable for the testing costs and exemplary damages for the unlawful use of the premises?
The landlord has proven that the tenant used, or permitted the use of, the premises for an unlawful purpose (the use of methamphetamine). This is a breach of the RTA and an unlawful act pursuant to s40(3A)(c) RTA.
However, the landlord has not proven that the use of methamphetamine during this tenancy caused the damage to the premises. I award the landlord compensation for the cost of the methamphetamine testing. The tenant used the premises for an unlawful purpose and in-depth testing was required. I award $930.96 for the testing. The invoice was provided by the landlord.
I also award exemplary damages for using the premises for an unlawful purpose. Exemplary damages of up to a maximum of $1,800.00 may be awarded; s40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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. Section 109(3) RTA.
I am satisfied that the methamphetamine use was intentional and that the tenant must have known about it due to the areas, such as her ensuite, where the methamphetamine use was the highest.
After taking into account the tenant’s intent (to use, or allow the use of, prohibited drugs inside rented premises), the effect on the landlord ( that the landlord felt that they had to decontaminate the premises to attract good tenants, that the landlord had to take an insurance claim and these proceedings) the interests of the landlord (that their property not be implicated in unlawful activity that may damage it or reduce the ability to rent it out in the future) and the public interest (that tenants be discouraged from using premises for unlawful activity), I award $500.00 to the landlord. Name suppression and filling fee.
The landlord has been successful in its claim and therefore I award the landlord the filing fee and grant the landlord name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4949636 — net $2,961.72 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$741.00		Lock/key replacement
Replace furnishings: Missing oven rack	$72.00		Replace furnishings: Missing oven rack
Rubbish removal: and replace clothes line	$960.44		Rubbish removal: and replace clothes line
Cleaning	$450.00		Cleaning
Excess for lounge carpet	$650.00		Excess for lounge carpet
replacement of carpet in Bed 3	$500.00		replacement of carpet in Bed 3
Repairs: Wall damage excess garage	$650.00		Repairs: Wall damage excess garage
Repairs: Wall damage excess rest of house	$650.00		Repairs: Wall damage excess rest of house
Methamphetamine testing fees All Clear	$930.96		Methamphetamine testing fees All Clear
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Window repairs: Window handle in lounge	$40.36		Window repairs: Window handle in lounge
Exemplary damages - unlawful use	$500.00		Exemplary damages - unlawful use
Rent and outgoings credit		$810.04	Rent and outgoings credit
Total award	$6,171.76	$810.04
Net award	$2,961.72
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,961.72

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address .
Rachel James must pay [The landlord/s] $2,961.72 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the in person hearing today. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for compensation for cleaning and damage to the property, that the tenants used methamphetamine during the tenancy, decontamination costs, exemplary damages for unlawful use of the property, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background.
The tenancy began on the 2 April 2021. Shortly before the tenancy began the landlord conducted a meth screening test using a simple positive/ negative test kit. The property manager conducted the test and swabbed an area in the hallway between the garage and the house. The result of that test was negative for methamphetamine.
The house is only five years old. This means that at the beginning of the tenancy the house was only one year old. Only one other tenant had occupied the house before this tenant.
Throughout the tenancy, the property was manged by the same property manger. Credits.
The tenancy ended on 21 June 2024 by agreement. The landlord says that the tenant was in rent credit of $301.70 and had a credit after the final water bill was paid of $508.34. These amounts together with the bond which was paid out by agreement to the landlord have been taken into account in the table order made.

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

Cleaning, rubbish removal and locks.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant made an attempt to clean the property but then left the tenancy half way through completing the cleaning. The tenant left rubbish outside the property which had to be removed and placed house hold rubbish in the recycling bin. The landlord had to get cleaners and rubbish removers in to do the cleaning and the rubbish removal.
The tenant did not return the keys and all of the locks had to be changed.
The amounts ordered are proved. Damage
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.
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.
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) 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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: staining and burns on the carpet in the lounge and the master bedroom, screw holes in walls and paint that is mismatched where the tenant has attempted to fill holes, plaster and paint. The paint is a different colour to the walls, and I am satisfied that the landlord would have had to repair all of those walls. The tenant broke the clothesline, window handles in the lounge and there was a oven rack missing at the end of the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord received insurance cover for the cleaning and carpet repair in the lounge. I have therefore awarded the landlord the excess for the insurance for the carpet in the lounge.
The landlord has also received cover for two events of paint damage one in the garage and the rest for the remainder of the house. I am satisfied that the tenant is liable for the insurance excesses for this damage and award the landlord the two insurance excesses for those areas.
I am also satisfied that the landlord had to replace the carpet due to the cigarette burns and staining in the main bedroom and have awarded the landlord $500 for the replacement carpet in this room.
The landlord had to replace the clothesline, window latches and oven rack and has proven the amounts claimed.
The landlord also claimed the cost of a clothes rack which the landlord says was present at the beginning of the tenancy but was missing at the end. The clothes rack is not listed on the tenancy chattels neither is it shown in the ingoing report. The landlord’s claim for the clothes rack is not proven.
The amounts ordered are proved. Methamphetamine.
Two days after the tenancy ended the landlord had the property tested for methamphetamine. The landlord says she did this because of the peculiar and unusual smell at the property, the burns in the carpet and that when she went to the property she became itchy. The testing was conducted by [meth testing company], at first the testing was a composite test (which is where many areas swabbed are testing in one test). When those composite results indicated methamphetamine was found then discreet testing took place. The results of the discreet testing were: Area Methamphetamine concentration in μg/100cm 2 Entry – Door frame 6.1 Kitchen – extraction fan0.57 Garage – window frame3.3 Bathroom -window frame3.8 Bedroom 1- door1.94 Ensuite – Window frame 8.8 Bedroom 2 – Door 1.08 Bedroom 3 – Door 1.72. Hallway – Door 8.5
A landlord must prove that premises have been damaged during the tenancy and that the damage is the result of an 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 s49B(8)(a) RTA. The use or possession of methamphetamine is an imprisonable offence; see the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
If the landlord proves this, then a tenant is liable for the costs of “making good the damage” and other reasonably foreseeable losses related to the damage; sections 49A and 49B(1)(b) RTA.
The standard of proof that applies is the civil standard “on the balance of probabilities”. This means that I do not have to be completely certain, but I must be satisfied that what is alleged is “more probable than not”. Generally, the more serious the claim, the stronger the evidence that is required (Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55). This is an allegation of criminal behaviour so the evidence must be strong.
In these circumstances, the landlord must prove: - a. That it is more probable than not that the tenant used, or allowed the use of, methamphetamine in the premises during the tenancy, and b. If the answer to the first question is ‘yes’, that it is more probable than not that the methamphetamine use during this tenancy caused ‘damage’ to the premises. Did the tenant or her invitees use methamphetamine at the premises during this tenancy?
The landlord’s evidence is that the property was tested in a location the hallway that should have shown any previous methamphetamine use at the property before this tenancy. That test was negative for methamphetamine which proves that there was no contamination under 1.5 μg/100cm 2 in that area at the beginning of the tenancy.
This can be contrasted with the post tenancy tests which showed methamphetamine contamination of levels over 1.5 μg/100cm 2 in 7 out of the 9 areas tested and a level of 8.5 μg/100cm 2 for the testing of another door in the hallway.
I am therefore satisfied that it is more likely than not the tenant or one of her invitees used methamphetamine in the premises during the tenancy, I say this for the following reasons: a. The pre tenancy testing was negative. b. The end of tenancy testing was completed only two days after the end of the tenancy and shows that methamphetamine was present in levels above
5ug in 7 out of the 9 areas tested. c. The areas that tested positive are throughout the home, in other words not localised to one area. d. The ESR calculator 1 which calculates the amount of methamphetamine use needed to reach a particular level show that 338 uses of methamphetamine would be needed to reach a level of 8.8 in the ensuite bathroom. In calculating this amount, I have been generous with the room size of 15 sq metres. This calculation indicates to me that the methamphetamine contamination occurred over the prolonged period and was regular. e. The existence of burn marks in the carpet. f. The landlord was alerted to the presence of methamphetamine by a peculiar smell at the property. 2 g. The landlord had a skin reaction when she went to the property. Methamphetamine is a known irritant. Was the methamphetamine contamination damage- is the tenant liable for the decontamination costs?
Having determined that the tenant or her invitees used methamphetamine at the property I now turn to whether the contamination is damage?
The Tribunal has previously found that damage occurs, and decontamination is necessary when levels of methamphetamine contamination are above 15μg/100cm 2 . Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4797. 3 This is the level adopted by the authors of what is colloquially known as the Gluckman report dated 29 May 2018 (“the Gluckman Report”). 4 The Gluckman Report concludes that there is no evidence of risk of harm from second or third hand exposure to methamphetamine residue measured at or less than 15μg/100cm 2 unless there is evidence to suggest that the premises have been used for manufacture.
Neither the Gluckman Report nor the previously used New Zealand Standard NZS 8510:2017 5 (NZS) which recommended a level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 are embedded into law, they both represent guidelines and are not regulatory.
In the aforementioned Full Circle Real Estate v Piper his Honour Judge Kellar gave consideration as to whether the Tribunal erred in applying the Gluckman level of 15μg/100cm 2 over the NZS of 1.5μg/100cm 2 and found that; “it would have been bold for the adjudicator to have ignored that report (the Gluckman Report) in favour of the New Zealand Standard given that the Gluckman report 1 esr.cri.nz/methamphetamine-calculator 2 I also note that in previous Tribunal hearings regarding these parties in a mediated order the tenant accepted the curtains needed to be cleaned because of smoke. 3 Full Circle Real Estate v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947- CIV2018-009-2490 4 Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposure, risk levels and interpretation of standards.” 29 May 2018 - Professor Gluckman – Prime Minister’s chief science advisor; (The Gluckman Report). 5 NZS 8510:2017 New Zealand Standard – testing and decontamination of methamphetamine - contaminated properties . represents the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination in dwellings.” 6 Therefore, the Tribunal continues to adopt a level of 15μg/100cm 2 as a level that requires remediation for contamination.
After receiving the report from [meth testing company] the landlord decontaminated the property. The landlord seeks the costs of decontamination. As none of the areas tested showed levels higher than 15μg/100cm 2 then I am not satisfied that there is damage at the property that required remediation. Is the tenant liable for the testing costs and exemplary damages for the unlawful use of the premises?
The landlord has proven that the tenant used, or permitted the use of, the premises for an unlawful purpose (the use of methamphetamine). This is a breach of the RTA and an unlawful act pursuant to s40(3A)(c) RTA.
However, the landlord has not proven that the use of methamphetamine during this tenancy caused the damage to the premises. I award the landlord compensation for the cost of the methamphetamine testing. The tenant used the premises for an unlawful purpose and in-depth testing was required. I award $930.96 for the testing. The invoice was provided by the landlord.
I also award exemplary damages for using the premises for an unlawful purpose. Exemplary damages of up to a maximum of $1,800.00 may be awarded; s40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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. Section 109(3) RTA.
I am satisfied that the methamphetamine use was intentional and that the tenant must have known about it due to the areas, such as her ensuite, where the methamphetamine use was the highest.
After taking into account the tenant’s intent (to use, or allow the use of, prohibited drugs inside rented premises), the effect on the landlord ( that the landlord felt that they had to decontaminate the premises to attract good tenants, that the landlord had to take an insurance claim and these proceedings) the interests of the landlord (that their property not be implicated in unlawful activity that may damage it or reduce the ability to rent it out in the future) and the public interest (that tenants be discouraged from using premises for unlawful activity), I award $500.00 to the landlord. Name suppression and filling fee.
The landlord has been successful in its claim and therefore I award the landlord the filing fee and grant the landlord name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4949636 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4949636 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions