What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5014248 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 5014248?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $840.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $7,334.29 awarded to landlord; 5 Windows And The Sliding Door: $1,699.91 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,202.54 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5014248?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5014248?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11410570-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5014248 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 5014248?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $840.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $7,334.29 awarded to landlord; 5 Windows And The Sliding Door: $1,699.91 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,202.54 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5014248?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5014248?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11410570-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5014248 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5014248 — net $11,103.74 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 28/10/24	$7,334.29	Rent arrears to 28/10/24
Repairs: 5 windows and the sliding door	$1,699.91	Repairs: 5 windows and the sliding door
Rubbish removal	$1,202.54	Rubbish removal
Lawns and garden work and green rubbish removal	$840.00	Lawns and garden work and green rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$11,103.74
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$11,103.74

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.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 28 October 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at 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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.

The tenant did not leave the premises, including the lawns and gardens, reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.

The amounts ordered are proved.

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.

Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.

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: a. 5 broken windows; and b. Damaged sliding door and glass.

The landlord has proven this damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered are proved.

I have considered betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Did the tenant use the premise for unlawful purposes, and can the landlord claim the cost of testing for methamphetamine?

The landlord claims the tenant has used the premise for an unlawful purpose, by using methamphetamine in the premise or allowing a person in the premises with the tenant’s permission to use methamphetamine inside the premise.

The landlord sought $2,070.00 for the composite and comprehensive discrete methamphetamine testing costs in because of the tenant’s unlawful use of the premise.

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.

It is an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 for any person to have in their possession or consume any controlled drug and to allow any premises to be used for the commission of an offence under that Act and (sections 7 and 12). “Methamphetamine” is included as a controlled drug under Schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Act. Therefore, using or allowing the premise to be used for the consumption or manufacture of methamphetamine would be considered an unlawful purpose.

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 landlord has not sought exemplary damages.

To make a successful claim for methamphetamine testing and/or remediation 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 or are not reasonably clean.

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.

The landlord could not produce a pre-tenancy methamphetamine comprehensive or composite test to prove the premise was free from methamphetamine contamination at the start of the tenancy.

The landlord produced the results of a composite test dated 14 November 2024 that showed a result of 3.8μg and a comprehensive test, that was carried out by the landlord 52 days after the tenancy ended, being 19 December 2024. This test showed six test results above 1.5μg per 100cm2 and nine samples of between 0.02μg and 1.20 μg per 100cm2. The highest test result was in bedroom 1 at 10.8 μg per 100cm2. These results are all well below the Gluckman level and as such, the landlord is not required to undertake any decontamination processes.

I am not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has provided sufficient evidence to support its claims for compensation for the methamphetamine testing it carried out in November and December 2024. I dismiss the landlord’s claims accordingly as it cannot prove conclusively that the premise was free from methamphetamine contamination at the start of the tenancy. Reimbursement of the filing fee

Because [the applicant] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed 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.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5014248 — net $11,103.74 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 28/10/24	$7,334.29	Rent arrears to 28/10/24
Repairs: 5 windows and the sliding door	$1,699.91	Repairs: 5 windows and the sliding door
Rubbish removal	$1,202.54	Rubbish removal
Lawns and garden work and green rubbish removal	$840.00	Lawns and garden work and green rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$11,103.74
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$11,103.74

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.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 28 October 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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

The tenant did not leave the premises, including the lawns and gardens, reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. 5 broken windows; and b. Damaged sliding door and glass.

The landlord has proven this damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered are proved.

The landlord sought $2,070.00 for the composite and comprehensive discrete methamphetamine testing costs in because of the tenant’s unlawful use of the premise.

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.

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 landlord could not produce a pre-tenancy methamphetamine comprehensive or composite test to prove the premise was free from methamphetamine contamination at the start of the tenancy.

Because [the applicant] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression

The landlord applies for non-publication of its name and identifying details.

Non-publication is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5014248 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5014248 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Frequently asked questions