What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5085208 about?

The tribunal order states: Jamey Ferguson must pay [The landlord/s] $1,235.63 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5085208?

Cleaning: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $146.63 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $130.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $253.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5085208?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5085208?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11348143-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5085208 about?

The tribunal order states: Jamey Ferguson must pay [The landlord/s] $1,235.63 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5085208?

Cleaning: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $146.63 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $130.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $253.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5085208?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5085208?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11348143-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 4, 34 Fifth Avenue, Enderley, Hamilton 3214 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5085208 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5085208 — net $1,235.63 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$207.00	Carpet Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$130.00	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal: and gardens	$253.00	Rubbish removal: and gardens
Cleaning	$146.63	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages, Unlawful act	$600.00	Exemplary damages, Unlawful act
Net award	$1,235.63
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,235.63

Order

Jamey Ferguson must pay [The landlord/s] $1,235.63 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $128.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not appear, and the hearing continued in their absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation, exemplary damages refund of the bond, 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. Photos were provided of full rubbish bins, weeds in the garden and carpets that required cleaning. The oven, bathroom walls bedroom and a curtain also required further cleaning. The amounts claimed are awarded.
The tenant did not return the keys. One key from the front door was not returned. Photographs of the initial set, and the incomplete returned set were produced.
The amounts ordered are proved. Methamphetamine claim.
The landlord claimed that the tenant used methamphetamine contaminating the premises. The premises were decontaminated, and a claim made under the landlord’s insurance. Reimbursement of the insurance excess is sought.
The tenancy began on 13 May 2022 and screening test was conducted on were tested on 11 April 2022 with recorded levels of contamination <0.08 μg/100 cm 2 . The landlord stated that the premises were empty from April until the tenancy began.
The tenancy ended on 17 October 20224 and a composite screening test was conducted on 23 October 2024 with a result of 8.24 μg/100 cm 2 .
Discrete/individual testing occurred on 31 October 2024 returning a range of individual sample results including 3.99 μg/100 cm 2 ,2.23 μg/100 cm 2 ,2.56 μg/100 cm 2 ,5.32 μg/100 cm 2 and the highest result of 7.15 μg/100 cm 2 .
A report by Healthy Homes New Zealand who interpreted the discrete test results acknowledged that, at page 7, “In June 2018, a report undertaken by the office of the Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor stated a level of 15 μg/100 cm 2 should be adopted as a new level at which decontamination is required (the Gluckman report). The Tenancy Tribunal have also begun ruling a level below 15 μg/100 cm 2 is habitable providing the test occurred after the release of the Gluckman report’.
The report also stated that the best practice guide for methamphetamine testing was NZS8510:2017 and recommended steps to take to comply with this standard and the decontamination process. Discussion
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.
A number of Tenancy Tribunal and District Court decisions have issued decisions adopting the Gluckman report, that methamphetamine levels below 15μg/100cm 2 do not require decontamination.
In two recent decisions, the District Court has confirmed the Tribunal’s approach in adopting the Gluckman recommendations as correct and observed that the NZ standards do not have the force of law.
In Acme Realty Ltd v Alexander James Hogg, Tuitui Grace Polotu, Leigh Sharyn Coughlin [2021] NZDC 3231, Judge Harrison confirmed Judge de Ridder’s approach in the earlier decision of Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947. Both decisions held that the Tribunal was correct to adopt and apply the levels set out in the Gluckman report, with the result that only if levels are above 15μg/100cm 2 is decontamination required to ensure the premises are safe and not injurious to the health of future occupants.
I must apply the reasoning of the District Court and following Tenancy Tribunal orders finding that the maximum contamination level to be applied is that stated by the Gluckman report. Where contamination levels are below 15 μg/100cm² premises do not present a risk and are not considered to require remediation.
Therefore, no damage to the premises has been established and decontamination was not required to restore the premises to a safe habitable state. The claim for reimbursement of the insurance excess for decontamination is dismissed. Unlawful Act
[The landlord/s] claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by using Methamphetamine at the premises.
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.
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 (ss 7 and 12).
“Methamphetamine” is included as a controlled drug under Schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
The Tenancy Tribunal has previously found, and I agree, that the consumption of methamphetamine on premises amounts to the use of those premises for an unlawful purpose, in breach of section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 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 testing of the premises for methamphetamine prior to the tenancy beginning and after the tenancy ended established that methamphetamine was used at the premises.
Evidence was produced that that exactly the same test sites were used before and after the tenancy in bedroom 1, bedroom 2, and the staircase. These areas recorded methamphetamine at levels of 2.23, 5.32 and 3.99 μg/100 cm 2 respectively. I find on this basis that Methamphetamine was used at the premises during the tenancy.
The use of methamphetamine is an intentional unlawful act which affects the health of others and the landlords’ assets. It is important and in the public interest that tenants do not engage in illegal activity. I find it just to award exemplary damages of $600.00 for this breach.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I award name suppression and reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5085208 — net $1,235.63 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$207.00	Carpet Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$130.00	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal: and gardens	$253.00	Rubbish removal: and gardens
Cleaning	$146.63	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages, Unlawful act	$600.00	Exemplary damages, Unlawful act
Net award	$1,235.63
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,235.63

Order

Jamey Ferguson must pay [The landlord/s] $1,235.63 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $128.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not appear, and the hearing continued in their absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation, exemplary damages refund of the bond, 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. Photos were provided of full rubbish bins, weeds in the garden and carpets that required cleaning. The oven, bathroom walls bedroom and a curtain also required further cleaning. The amounts claimed are awarded.
The tenant did not return the keys. One key from the front door was not returned. Photographs of the initial set, and the incomplete returned set were produced.
The amounts ordered are proved. Methamphetamine claim.
The landlord claimed that the tenant used methamphetamine contaminating the premises. The premises were decontaminated, and a claim made under the landlord’s insurance. Reimbursement of the insurance excess is sought.
The tenancy began on 13 May 2022 and screening test was conducted on were tested on 11 April 2022 with recorded levels of contamination <0.08 μg/100 cm 2 . The landlord stated that the premises were empty from April until the tenancy began.
The tenancy ended on 17 October 20224 and a composite screening test was conducted on 23 October 2024 with a result of 8.24 μg/100 cm 2 .
Discrete/individual testing occurred on 31 October 2024 returning a range of individual sample results including 3.99 μg/100 cm 2 ,2.23 μg/100 cm 2 ,2.56 μg/100 cm 2 ,5.32 μg/100 cm 2 and the highest result of 7.15 μg/100 cm 2 .
A report by Healthy Homes New Zealand who interpreted the discrete test results acknowledged that, at page 7, “In June 2018, a report undertaken by the office of the Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor stated a level of 15 μg/100 cm 2 should be adopted as a new level at which decontamination is required (the Gluckman report). The Tenancy Tribunal have also begun ruling a level below 15 μg/100 cm 2 is habitable providing the test occurred after the release of the Gluckman report’.
The report also stated that the best practice guide for methamphetamine testing was NZS8510:2017 and recommended steps to take to comply with this standard and the decontamination process. Discussion
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.
A number of Tenancy Tribunal and District Court decisions have issued decisions adopting the Gluckman report, that methamphetamine levels below 15μg/100cm 2 do not require decontamination.
In two recent decisions, the District Court has confirmed the Tribunal’s approach in adopting the Gluckman recommendations as correct and observed that the NZ standards do not have the force of law.
In Acme Realty Ltd v Alexander James Hogg, Tuitui Grace Polotu, Leigh Sharyn Coughlin [2021] NZDC 3231, Judge Harrison confirmed Judge de Ridder’s approach in the earlier decision of Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947. Both decisions held that the Tribunal was correct to adopt and apply the levels set out in the Gluckman report, with the result that only if levels are above 15μg/100cm 2 is decontamination required to ensure the premises are safe and not injurious to the health of future occupants.
I must apply the reasoning of the District Court and following Tenancy Tribunal orders finding that the maximum contamination level to be applied is that stated by the Gluckman report. Where contamination levels are below 15 μg/100cm² premises do not present a risk and are not considered to require remediation.
Therefore, no damage to the premises has been established and decontamination was not required to restore the premises to a safe habitable state. The claim for reimbursement of the insurance excess for decontamination is dismissed. Unlawful Act
[The landlord/s] claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by using Methamphetamine at the premises.
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.
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 (ss 7 and 12).
“Methamphetamine” is included as a controlled drug under Schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
The Tenancy Tribunal has previously found, and I agree, that the consumption of methamphetamine on premises amounts to the use of those premises for an unlawful purpose, in breach of section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 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 testing of the premises for methamphetamine prior to the tenancy beginning and after the tenancy ended established that methamphetamine was used at the premises.
Evidence was produced that that exactly the same test sites were used before and after the tenancy in bedroom 1, bedroom 2, and the staircase. These areas recorded methamphetamine at levels of 2.23, 5.32 and 3.99 μg/100 cm 2 respectively. I find on this basis that Methamphetamine was used at the premises during the tenancy.
The use of methamphetamine is an intentional unlawful act which affects the health of others and the landlords’ assets. It is important and in the public interest that tenants do not engage in illegal activity. I find it just to award exemplary damages of $600.00 for this breach.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I award name suppression and reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5085208 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 4, 34 Fifth Avenue, Enderley, Hamilton 3214

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5085208 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 4, 34 Fifth Avenue, Enderley, Hamilton 3214

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions