What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5009910?

The tribunal order states: Mark McLaughlin must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $11,715.40

How much money was awarded in case 5009910?

Cleaning: $494.30 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $379.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $5,807.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,119.60 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit – Garage Lease: $225.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $3,450.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5009910?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5009910?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11065137-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5009910?

The tribunal order states: Mark McLaughlin must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $11,715.40

How much money was awarded in case 5009910?

Cleaning: $494.30 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $379.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $5,807.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,119.60 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit – Garage Lease: $225.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $3,450.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5009910?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5009910?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11065137-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 14B, 85 Poulson Street, Addington, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5009910 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5009910 — net $11,715.40 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$494.30		Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$172.50		Lock/key replacement
Cleaning: Needle Removal	$379.50		Cleaning: Needle Removal
Meth testing/Cleaning: Test Costs	$1,119.60		Meth testing/Cleaning: Test Costs
Meth testing/Cleaning: Decontamination Costs	$5,807.50		Meth testing/Cleaning: Decontamination Costs
Repairs: Painting following meth cleaning	$3,450.00		Repairs: Painting following meth cleaning
Exemplary Damages	$750.00		Exemplary Damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Rent credit – garage lease		$225.00	Rent credit – garage lease
Total award	$12,200.40	$225.00
Net award	$11,715.40
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$11,715.40

Order

Mark McLaughlin must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $11,715.40 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Representatives of the landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend.
The tenancy was terminated by Order of the Tribunal. The termination date was 10 July 2024.
The landlord has applied for compensation, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following 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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The tenant did not return the keys.
The landlord provided photographs and evidence of the costs incurred for cleaning, needle removal and lock/key replacement. The amounts ordered are proved.
The teat has a rent credit in respect of a garage it also leased during the tenancy. At the landlord’s request, I have allowed for that credit in Order 1 above.

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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The landlord has claimed costs associated with Methamphetamine testing and decontamination at the premises.
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.
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, as a result 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.
What this means is that the landlord must establish that it is more likely than not that methamphetamine residue of 15μg/100cm 2 has occurred during this tenancy. The landlord provided evidence of methamphetamine testing at the end of the tenancy before this one and during this tenancy.
The testing reports during this tenancy showed increase in methamphetamine levels. The test results from this tenancy are set out in the termination order dated 3 July - [2024] NZTT 4885260.
The test results from before and during this tenancy show that the levels of methamphetamine residue increased on all areas tested during this tenancy. They increased by more than 15μg/100cm 2 in two areas: Kitchen increased by
4μg/100cm 2 (6.6 to 28 μg/100cm 2 ) and hallway/entrance by 26.9μg/100cm 2 (11.1 to 38 μg/100cm 2 ).
I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that the premises have been damaged by methamphetamine use by this tenant or someone at the premises with his permission. The landlord has provided evidence of the costs incurred for testing and decontamination and consequential repairs. The amounts ordered are proved. Exemplary Damages
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The has established that it is more likely than not that the tenant used or allowed methamphetamine at the premises in breach of the Misuse of Drugs Act. I find they have 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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord sought exemplary damages on the basis that the tenant’s methamphetamine use and resulting contamination of the premises has taken this social housing unit out of circulation while remediation is carried out. It is in the public interest to minimise the harm associated with unlawful and antisocial behaviours. I find that an award of exemplary damages is appropriate in this case. I award $750.
As the landlord was the successful party, I also award reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5009910 — net $11,715.40 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$494.30		Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$172.50		Lock/key replacement
Cleaning: Needle Removal	$379.50		Cleaning: Needle Removal
Meth testing/Cleaning: Test Costs	$1,119.60		Meth testing/Cleaning: Test Costs
Meth testing/Cleaning: Decontamination Costs	$5,807.50		Meth testing/Cleaning: Decontamination Costs
Repairs: Painting following meth cleaning	$3,450.00		Repairs: Painting following meth cleaning
Exemplary Damages	$750.00		Exemplary Damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Rent credit – garage lease		$225.00	Rent credit – garage lease
Total award	$12,200.40	$225.00
Net award	$11,715.40
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$11,715.40

Order

Mark McLaughlin must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $11,715.40 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Representatives of the landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend.
The tenancy was terminated by Order of the Tribunal. The termination date was 10 July 2024.
The landlord has applied for compensation, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following 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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The tenant did not return the keys.
The landlord provided photographs and evidence of the costs incurred for cleaning, needle removal and lock/key replacement. The amounts ordered are proved.
The teat has a rent credit in respect of a garage it also leased during the tenancy. At the landlord’s request, I have allowed for that credit in Order 1 above.

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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The landlord has claimed costs associated with Methamphetamine testing and decontamination at the premises.
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.
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, as a result 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.
What this means is that the landlord must establish that it is more likely than not that methamphetamine residue of 15μg/100cm 2 has occurred during this tenancy. The landlord provided evidence of methamphetamine testing at the end of the tenancy before this one and during this tenancy.
The testing reports during this tenancy showed increase in methamphetamine levels. The test results from this tenancy are set out in the termination order dated 3 July - [2024] NZTT 4885260.
The test results from before and during this tenancy show that the levels of methamphetamine residue increased on all areas tested during this tenancy. They increased by more than 15μg/100cm 2 in two areas: Kitchen increased by
4μg/100cm 2 (6.6 to 28 μg/100cm 2 ) and hallway/entrance by 26.9μg/100cm 2 (11.1 to 38 μg/100cm 2 ).
I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that the premises have been damaged by methamphetamine use by this tenant or someone at the premises with his permission. The landlord has provided evidence of the costs incurred for testing and decontamination and consequential repairs. The amounts ordered are proved. Exemplary Damages
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The has established that it is more likely than not that the tenant used or allowed methamphetamine at the premises in breach of the Misuse of Drugs Act. I find they have 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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord sought exemplary damages on the basis that the tenant’s methamphetamine use and resulting contamination of the premises has taken this social housing unit out of circulation while remediation is carried out. It is in the public interest to minimise the harm associated with unlawful and antisocial behaviours. I find that an award of exemplary damages is appropriate in this case. I award $750.
As the landlord was the successful party, I also award reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5009910 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat Unit 14B, 85 Poulson Street, Addington,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5009910 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat Unit 14B, 85 Poulson Street, Addington,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions