What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5080308 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 5080308?

Compensation: $650.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5080308?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5080308?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11363772-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5080308 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 5080308?

Compensation: $650.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5080308?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5080308?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11363772-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5080308 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5080308. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
n is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59pm on Saturday 29 March 2025. 3. The landlord’s application for compensation f	$650.00		n is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59pm on Saturday 29 March 2025. 3. The landlord’s application for compensation f

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5080308. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
n is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59pm on Saturday 29 March 2025. 3. The landlord’s application for compensation f	$650.00		n is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59pm on Saturday 29 March 2025. 3. The landlord’s application for compensation f

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant and landlord’s name and identifying details.
BY CONSENT: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59pm on Saturday 29 March 2025.
The landlord’s application for compensation for $650 for the insurance excess for methamphetamine decontamination clean-up costs is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
[Tenant 1] attended for the tenants. Originally, [Tenant 1] was not a named party. His name was added to the application at the hearing with his consent because a) he is a co-tenant and the landlord also wanted the application bought against him and b) this also had the effect that he also could then appear as a party at the hearing as he wished to do.
The landlord seeks termination of the tenancy due to unlawful use of the premises and recovery of $650 from the bond in relation to methamphetamine decontamination. The landlord says this is the applicable insurance excess. Termination and possession
The parties agreed by consent that the tenancy would terminate and the landlord would take possession at 11.59pm on Saturday 29 March 2025. This is therefore ordered by consent. Insurance excess
The landlord seeks $650 in relation to the insurance excess it says it will have to pay in relation to methamphetamine decontamination.
Decontamination costs can be awarded if the property was damaged by methamphetamine contamination. 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.
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 4 weeks' rent. Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to 4 weeks' rent.
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.
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 (Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541).
The landlord states that prior to this tenancy commencing, the premises were tested for methamphetamine contamination and the test shows no contamination. This test was a composite test. More recently in November 2024, more methamphetamine testing has been undertaken. Composite and de-composite testing has been undertaken. However, no detailed assessment has been done.
The recent de-composite report sets out the following results for methamphetamine: TubeArea concerned (as seen from the samples collected) Level of contamination 1Open plan kitchen, lounge, dining 2.2 μg/ 100cm2 2Hall, bedrooms 1, 2 and 31.55 μg/ 100cm2 3Bathroom, separate toilet, entrance way0.58 μg/ 100cm2 4Sleepout, garage 0.52 μg/ 100cm2
For a landlord to succeed in a claim for costs involved in methamphetamine testing and decontamination there are two main aspects that must be proven. a. First, that the contamination was caused during the tenancy (and thus that the tenants are liable). b. Secondly that the level of methamphetamine detected is likely to constitute a health hazard and therefore would entitle the landlord to claim the cost of decontaminating the premises.
It has been well recognised for years, that methamphetamine contamination presents risks for people living in dwellings, when the level of that contamination, is high. The difficulty has been determining what the tolerable level should be, above which the premises would be considered contaminated.
In 2017 Standards New Zealand released Standard NZS 8510:2017 “Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine-contaminated properties”. In short, this standard confirmed that the level at which habitation of residential premises was considered safe, was a level of 1.5 μg/100 cm2. The expectation on landlords arising from this Standard, was to remediate premises contaminated with methamphetamine, to a level of less than 1.5 μg/100 cm2.
However, in more recent times, the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman determined that there was little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption (Report entitled ‘Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards’, 29 May 2018). The report concluded that any levels below 15 μg/100 cm2 were unlikely to present adverse effects and therefore there should be no need for remediation.
This matter has been considered by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947. Judge Kellar needed to determine which level should be applied. The court discussed the conflict between the New Zealand Standard and Chief Science Advisors report, and confirmed: 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.
In my assessment, this decision of the court has confirmed that the level to be applied is the level expressed by the Chief Science Advisor, which is that there is no risk when levels of contamination are below 15 μg/100 cm2.
Further validating this 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.”
Based on the evidence presented I am not satisfied that it is proven that the level of methamphetamine detected is likely to constitute a health hazard and therefore would entitle the landlord to claim the cost of decontaminating the premises. The levels that have been evidenced are all significantly below the Gluckman standard.
Further, a detailed assessment is required in accordance with the NZ standard 8510:2017 to determine the extent of contamination and to create a scope of remedial work. Detailed assessment testing involves individual sampling. No detailed assessment has been undertaken. The New Zealand Standard does not support composite analysis as being determinative as opposed to individual testing.
I also therefore do not accept that a composite report is sufficient to establish contamination levels. The landlord also provided a de-composite report but even in this report, multiple areas of the home were still combined in a single tests. Tube 1 alone was the only tube that related to a single room (this being the open plan area). However, the evidence before me was not sufficient to satisfy me that this method of testing produces a result which is equivalent to detailed assessment. It seems unlikely given that the email provided by the agent undertaking the testing recommended further testing of discrete areas (tubes 1 and 2) where higher levels were detected.
In any event, as stated above even if it were a sufficient test, the levels do not meet the required threshold for de-contamination in accordance with the Gluckman standard.
Further, and in any event, the landlord had no invoice to evidence loss upon which I could base an award of damages.
Finally, although I do not need to make a finding in relation to whether the contamination occurred during the course of the tenancy, the property manager who attended the hearing could give me no evidence concerning the use of the property between the pre-tenancy testing and the start of the tenancy. This would also have been a hurdle to this part of the landlord’s case.
This claim is therefore dismissed. Suppression and the filing fee
I make no award in relation to the reimbursement of the filing fee. The landlord did not succeed at all in relation to the compensation it has claimed and was successful as a result of an agreed order.
Both parties want name suppression.
Under Section 95A(1) RTA suppression order must be granted if on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings. I can also consider suppression having regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest under section 95A(4) RTA.
I award the tenant suppression of their identifying details. They successfully defeated the landlord’s application for compensation and the remaining part of the application was a negotiated agreement that could have been reached at confidential mediation, but it was expedient to deal with the application at the hearing. The landlord also expressed that they agreed to this being granted to the tenants.
I also award the landlord suppression of their identifying details. They have had some success at the Tribunal as they have successfully negotiated the end of the tenancy. It is in the public interest that parties can reach mutual agreement to resolve their disputes.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5080308 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5080308 — Property damage

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions