What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5060849?

The tribunal order states: Michael George Cameron must pay Summit Property Management Limited - As

How much money was awarded in case 5060849?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $4,140.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $402.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5060849?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5060849?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11611118-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5060849?

The tribunal order states: Michael George Cameron must pay Summit Property Management Limited - As

How much money was awarded in case 5060849?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $4,140.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $402.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5060849?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5060849?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11611118-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

19 Webb Street, Woodbourne, Blenheim 7206 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5060849 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5060849 — net $3,349.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Meth testing/Cleaning: testing	$402.50	Meth testing/Cleaning: testing
Meth testing/Cleaning: 80% share of remediation costs	$4,140.00	Meth testing/Cleaning: 80% share of remediation costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,349.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,349.50

Order

Michael George Cameron must pay Summit Property Management Limited - As Agent For New Zealand Defence Force $3,349.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,220.00 (5552209-004) to Summit Property Management Limited - As Agent For New Zealand Defence Force immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant joined by preapproved teleconference.
The landlord has applied for compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord withdrew, post hearing, the $10,000 claim for internal repairs and replacement. This was due to the age of the furnishing or chattels being such that the landlord decided the loss, after depreciation and betterment considerations, would be negligible or nil.
This was a long tenancy from 3 August 2018 to 30 September 2024.
The claims follow the post-tenancy discovery of methamphetamine contamination.

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. Methamphetamine
The New Zealand Standard 8510:2017 Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine-contaminated properties (“NZS8510:2017”) provides industry guidance on good practice methods in the testing and clean-up of methamphetamine contamination in houses. NZS8510:2017 was released on 29 June 2017. The standard adopts a single level of 1.5μg/100cm² (1.5 micrograms of methamphetamine per 100 square centimetres of surface sampled) that ‘high use areas’ of affected properties should be decontaminated to, regardless of whether the properties were involved in the production or use of methamphetamine. Consider high use areas as those areas that can be easily accessed by the occupants.
On 29 May 2018, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman (the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor at that time) determined that there was little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption (See ‘Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards’, 29 May 2018.
His report concluded that in the absence of other evidence of manufacture, any levels below 15μg/100cm² are highly unlikely to present adverse effects therefore there should be no need for remediation. Where there is evidence of manufacture the NZS8510:2017 standard is appropriate (noting there is no suggestion of manufacturing during this tenancy).
In 2019 there was a judgement in the District Court which dismissed an appeal after the Tribunal adopted the Gluckman Report to determine whether the tenant had caused damage to the premises or permitted any other person to do so (Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947).
Finally, I consider further validating are the 2019 comments of the Court of Appeal in Smith v Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited [2019] NZCA 38 where, in paragraph [16], with reference to the Gluckman Report, the decision stated: “We acknowledge that the testing in this case yielded results now considered not to raise any health and safety concerns.”

Was there a need to decontaminate/clean?

The premises was tested for methamphetamine 18 May 2018, prior to the tenancy commencing. No methamphetamine was detected at that time. The gap between the test and this tenancy commencing was 4-5 weeks and the tenant understandably questions whether methamphetamine might have been introduced during this period. The landlord advised the premises was secured and the key with it during this period.
The tenancy ended.
A composite test on 10 October 2024 reported a theoretical maximum contamination of 58μg based on the samples taken. This is above the level considered safe in the Gluckman Report, and by this Tribunal. The landlord conducted a comprehensive test on or around 29 October 2024. This found contamination in bedroom 1, lounge and bedroom 2. Of those rooms, only bedroom 2, at 33μg/100cm² was above the 15μg baseline adopted by this Tribunal. The tenant was informed and wanted to arrange his own testing as he was struggling to comprehend such a result. His test was conducted on 25 October 2024 and the results provided on 30 October 2024. The result reflected the earlier finding but assessed the lounge contamination as 29.9μg (the prior test recorded 12.3μg). The costs of the comprehensive test ($402.50), heat pump replacement ($3,000.00) and the deep clean ($5,175.00) were sought as compensation orders.
Section 40(1)(e) (iii) of the RTA requires the tenant to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. Section 41 assigns the tenant the responsibility for the actions of others.
I find the landlord has been able to prove some of the costs incurred should be assigned to the tenant.
In this instance, I have assessed the contaminated areas of tenant liability at 80%, based on the estimated square metreage for the bedroom and lounge versus the total area decontaminated, I award $4,140.00 of the cost incurred by the landlord. I also award the testing cost of $402.50.
The claim for the heat pump replacement of an estimated $3,000.00 is declined. The remediation strategy was for a clean and retest of the heat pump. This was not done. It appears accepted the heat pump was old and a replacement of it a more prudent option rather than further investment in the old one. Given that, I leave the replacement cost with the landlord.

Were the premises used unlawfully?

The landlord claimed the tenant had used the premises unlawfully, by using an unlawful drug, namely methamphetamine or allowed someone else to use methamphetamine on the premises. See the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
If the tenant had used in the premises, or permitted to be used, methamphetamine in the premises during the tenancy. That would be in breach of s 40(2)(b), RTA as it is unlawful to use premises, or allow them to be used, for the purpose of consuming methamphetamine which is a class A controlled drug (s 3A, 7(1)(a) and Schedule 1 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975). Section 40(3A)(c) of the Act provides that failure to comply with this is an unlawful act.
Schedule 1A of the Act provides that the maximum award of exemplary damages for such an act is $1,800.
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.
I do not consider this act has been performed or permitted by the tenant. The requirement of intention is about whether a party intended to do what they did or did not do (Parton v Fifita TT 1815/00, DC Auckland 1/5/2001).
From the evidence presented I consider it more likely than not the tenant was unaware of the methamphetamine use and subsequent contamination as later discovered. From the submissions, it was more likely a legacy of a guest staying for an extended period. I make in this determination a consideration of the actions of the tenant subsequent to the test results being reported. His work involved time away from the premises. He incurred a cost of testing himself to reassure himself the landlord results were accurate. He provided his test results and they have increased his liability due to the higher lounge reading in his report. I believe he has acted in a manner consistent with someone surprised by the results. He engaged genuinely in the hearing.
I dismiss the claim for exemplary damages. Filing fee
Because Summit Property Management Limited - As Agent For New Zealand Defence Force has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5060849 — net $3,349.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Meth testing/Cleaning: testing	$402.50	Meth testing/Cleaning: testing
Meth testing/Cleaning: 80% share of remediation costs	$4,140.00	Meth testing/Cleaning: 80% share of remediation costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,349.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,349.50

Order

Michael George Cameron must pay Summit Property Management Limited - As Agent For New Zealand Defence Force $3,349.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,220.00 (5552209-004) to Summit Property Management Limited - As Agent For New Zealand Defence Force immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant joined by preapproved teleconference.
The landlord has applied for compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord withdrew, post hearing, the $10,000 claim for internal repairs and replacement. This was due to the age of the furnishing or chattels being such that the landlord decided the loss, after depreciation and betterment considerations, would be negligible or nil.
This was a long tenancy from 3 August 2018 to 30 September 2024.
The claims follow the post-tenancy discovery of methamphetamine contamination.

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. Methamphetamine
The New Zealand Standard 8510:2017 Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine-contaminated properties (“NZS8510:2017”) provides industry guidance on good practice methods in the testing and clean-up of methamphetamine contamination in houses. NZS8510:2017 was released on 29 June 2017. The standard adopts a single level of 1.5μg/100cm² (1.5 micrograms of methamphetamine per 100 square centimetres of surface sampled) that ‘high use areas’ of affected properties should be decontaminated to, regardless of whether the properties were involved in the production or use of methamphetamine. Consider high use areas as those areas that can be easily accessed by the occupants.
On 29 May 2018, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman (the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor at that time) determined that there was little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption (See ‘Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards’, 29 May 2018.
His report concluded that in the absence of other evidence of manufacture, any levels below 15μg/100cm² are highly unlikely to present adverse effects therefore there should be no need for remediation. Where there is evidence of manufacture the NZS8510:2017 standard is appropriate (noting there is no suggestion of manufacturing during this tenancy).
In 2019 there was a judgement in the District Court which dismissed an appeal after the Tribunal adopted the Gluckman Report to determine whether the tenant had caused damage to the premises or permitted any other person to do so (Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947).
Finally, I consider further validating are the 2019 comments of the Court of Appeal in Smith v Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited [2019] NZCA 38 where, in paragraph [16], with reference to the Gluckman Report, the decision stated: “We acknowledge that the testing in this case yielded results now considered not to raise any health and safety concerns.”

Was there a need to decontaminate/clean?

The premises was tested for methamphetamine 18 May 2018, prior to the tenancy commencing. No methamphetamine was detected at that time. The gap between the test and this tenancy commencing was 4-5 weeks and the tenant understandably questions whether methamphetamine might have been introduced during this period. The landlord advised the premises was secured and the key with it during this period.
The tenancy ended.
A composite test on 10 October 2024 reported a theoretical maximum contamination of 58μg based on the samples taken. This is above the level considered safe in the Gluckman Report, and by this Tribunal. The landlord conducted a comprehensive test on or around 29 October 2024. This found contamination in bedroom 1, lounge and bedroom 2. Of those rooms, only bedroom 2, at 33μg/100cm² was above the 15μg baseline adopted by this Tribunal. The tenant was informed and wanted to arrange his own testing as he was struggling to comprehend such a result. His test was conducted on 25 October 2024 and the results provided on 30 October 2024. The result reflected the earlier finding but assessed the lounge contamination as 29.9μg (the prior test recorded 12.3μg). The costs of the comprehensive test ($402.50), heat pump replacement ($3,000.00) and the deep clean ($5,175.00) were sought as compensation orders.
Section 40(1)(e) (iii) of the RTA requires the tenant to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. Section 41 assigns the tenant the responsibility for the actions of others.
I find the landlord has been able to prove some of the costs incurred should be assigned to the tenant.
In this instance, I have assessed the contaminated areas of tenant liability at 80%, based on the estimated square metreage for the bedroom and lounge versus the total area decontaminated, I award $4,140.00 of the cost incurred by the landlord. I also award the testing cost of $402.50.
The claim for the heat pump replacement of an estimated $3,000.00 is declined. The remediation strategy was for a clean and retest of the heat pump. This was not done. It appears accepted the heat pump was old and a replacement of it a more prudent option rather than further investment in the old one. Given that, I leave the replacement cost with the landlord.

Were the premises used unlawfully?

The landlord claimed the tenant had used the premises unlawfully, by using an unlawful drug, namely methamphetamine or allowed someone else to use methamphetamine on the premises. See the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
If the tenant had used in the premises, or permitted to be used, methamphetamine in the premises during the tenancy. That would be in breach of s 40(2)(b), RTA as it is unlawful to use premises, or allow them to be used, for the purpose of consuming methamphetamine which is a class A controlled drug (s 3A, 7(1)(a) and Schedule 1 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975). Section 40(3A)(c) of the Act provides that failure to comply with this is an unlawful act.
Schedule 1A of the Act provides that the maximum award of exemplary damages for such an act is $1,800.
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.
I do not consider this act has been performed or permitted by the tenant. The requirement of intention is about whether a party intended to do what they did or did not do (Parton v Fifita TT 1815/00, DC Auckland 1/5/2001).
From the evidence presented I consider it more likely than not the tenant was unaware of the methamphetamine use and subsequent contamination as later discovered. From the submissions, it was more likely a legacy of a guest staying for an extended period. I make in this determination a consideration of the actions of the tenant subsequent to the test results being reported. His work involved time away from the premises. He incurred a cost of testing himself to reassure himself the landlord results were accurate. He provided his test results and they have increased his liability due to the higher lounge reading in his report. I believe he has acted in a manner consistent with someone surprised by the results. He engaged genuinely in the hearing.
I dismiss the claim for exemplary damages. Filing fee
Because Summit Property Management Limited - As Agent For New Zealand Defence Force has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5060849 — Cleanliness at 19 Webb Street, Woodbourne, Blenheim 7206

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5060849 — Cleanliness at 19 Webb Street, Woodbourne, Blenheim 7206

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Was there a need to decontaminate/clean?

Were the premises used unlawfully?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Was there a need to decontaminate/clean?

Were the premises used unlawfully?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions