What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4965538 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Rimaati Kaipo at [tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and

How much money was awarded in case 4965538?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4965538?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4965538?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10792915-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4965538 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Rimaati Kaipo at [tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and

How much money was awarded in case 4965538?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4965538?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4965538?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10792915-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4965538 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4965538 — net $27.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$27.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$27.00

Order

The tenancy of Rimaati Kaipo at [tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [the landlord], at 11:59pm on Wednesday 4 September 2024.
Rimaati Kaipo must pay [the landlord] $27.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
I am satisfied that the tenant had received proper notice of the hearing time, date and place and chose not to attend. I tried to call the tenant on the mobile number supplied as an address for service and left a voice message about how to attend the hearing if he chose to.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy and possession and reimbursement of the filing fee.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Sections 59B(5) of the RTA confirms that, under subsection (4)(b), the Tribunal may make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied that all or part of the premises have been found to be contaminated with methamphetamine above the maximum inhabitable level, these parts of the premise are not a remote and inconsequential part of the premise, and it would be unreasonable to require the landlord to decontaminate the premise with the tenant still residing in it.
The comprehensive tests carried out by a reputable laboratory, on 2 August 2024, yielded results that show the premise tested positive for methamphetamine at the following levels: a. 8.46μg/100cm2 in the kitchen; b. 14.9μg/100cm2 in the lounge; c. 20.2μg/100cm2 in the bathroom; d. 12.8μg/100cm2 in the bedroom 1; and e. 12.1μg/100cm2 in the toilet.
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/100cm2 for high use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture. It recommended a higher level of 3.8μg/100cm2 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/100cm2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect. It recommended retaining the level of 1.5μg/100cm2 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.
I am satisfied that the test results from the bathroom and living room are at a level where the tenant’s health and wellbeing is at risk from methamphetamine contamination, the premise can be deemed uninhabitable applying the Gluckman recommendation of a maximum test result of 15μg/100cm2 in an area of the premise that is not a remote and inconsequential part of the premise, and it would be unreasonable to require the landlord to decontaminate the premise with the tenant still residing in it. As such, I have terminated the tenancy from 11:59pm tonight. Reimbursement of the filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms the Tribunal must order that the respondent pay the applicant the filing fee paid for the application if he/she/they have been wholly or substantially successful in his/her/their claim.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
The landlord applies for non-publication of its name and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has substantially succeeded in its proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4965538 — net $27.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$27.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$27.00

Order

The tenancy of Rimaati Kaipo at [tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [the landlord], at 11:59pm on Wednesday 4 September 2024.
Rimaati Kaipo must pay [the landlord] $27.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
I am satisfied that the tenant had received proper notice of the hearing time, date and place and chose not to attend. I tried to call the tenant on the mobile number supplied as an address for service and left a voice message about how to attend the hearing if he chose to.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy and possession and reimbursement of the filing fee.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Sections 59B(5) of the RTA confirms that, under subsection (4)(b), the Tribunal may make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied that all or part of the premises have been found to be contaminated with methamphetamine above the maximum inhabitable level, these parts of the premise are not a remote and inconsequential part of the premise, and it would be unreasonable to require the landlord to decontaminate the premise with the tenant still residing in it.
The comprehensive tests carried out by a reputable laboratory, on 2 August 2024, yielded results that show the premise tested positive for methamphetamine at the following levels: a. 8.46μg/100cm2 in the kitchen; b. 14.9μg/100cm2 in the lounge; c. 20.2μg/100cm2 in the bathroom; d. 12.8μg/100cm2 in the bedroom 1; and e. 12.1μg/100cm2 in the toilet.
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/100cm2 for high use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture. It recommended a higher level of 3.8μg/100cm2 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/100cm2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect. It recommended retaining the level of 1.5μg/100cm2 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.
I am satisfied that the test results from the bathroom and living room are at a level where the tenant’s health and wellbeing is at risk from methamphetamine contamination, the premise can be deemed uninhabitable applying the Gluckman recommendation of a maximum test result of 15μg/100cm2 in an area of the premise that is not a remote and inconsequential part of the premise, and it would be unreasonable to require the landlord to decontaminate the premise with the tenant still residing in it. As such, I have terminated the tenancy from 11:59pm tonight. Reimbursement of the filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms the Tribunal must order that the respondent pay the applicant the filing fee paid for the application if he/she/they have been wholly or substantially successful in his/her/their claim.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
The landlord applies for non-publication of its name and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has substantially succeeded in its proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4965538 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4965538 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions