What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5087779?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Crystal McIvor at 20 Korimako Lane, Sydenham, Christchurch

How much money was awarded in case 5087779?

Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing: $1,091.22 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5087779?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5087779?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11253038-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5087779?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Crystal McIvor at 20 Korimako Lane, Sydenham, Christchurch

How much money was awarded in case 5087779?

Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing: $1,091.22 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5087779?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5087779?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11253038-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

20 Korimako Lane, Sydenham, Christchurch 8023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5087779 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5087779 — net $1,062.22 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Meth testing	$1,091.22	Meth testing
Exemplary damages	$300.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,062.22
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,062.22

Order

The tenancy of Crystal McIvor at 20 Korimako Lane, Sydenham, Christchurch 8023 is terminated and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 11.59 pm Friday 10 January 2025.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $356.00 (6401853-006) to Otautahi Community Housing Trust immediately.
Crystal McIvor must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $1,062.22 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below: DescriptionLandlord Meth testing$1,091.22 Exemplary damages$300.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$1,418.22 Bond$356.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,062.22

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone. Methamphetamine contamination
The landlord claimed that the property has become contaminated by methamphetamine during this tenancy and provided in evidence: a. A methamphetamine assessment report completed on 26 September 2023 prior to the start of the tenancy which showed a minimal reading of 0.11 μg/100cm2. b. A methamphetamine assessment report completed on 14 November 2024 showing a combined reading of 88 μg/100cm2. c. A methamphetamine assessment report completed on 14 November 2024 showing de-composite readings of: i. 15.1, 8.4 and 15.7 μg/100cm2 in the kitchen/living area. ii. 5.3 μg/100cm2 in the bathroom. iii. 15.2 μg/100cm2 in bedroom A. iv. 32 μg/100cm2 in bedroom B.
The tenant denied knowledge of the contamination or when or how it occurred.
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 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 Court of Appeal in Smith v Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd [2019] NZCA 38, in a footnote to [16], while not having to decide the issue, suggested that the level espoused in the Gluckman Report is the correct one when considering whether the testing yielded any health and safety concerns. “There is no evidence that the levels of methamphetamine contamination typically resulting from third-hand exposure to methamphetamine smoking residues (as opposed to methamphetamine manufacture) on household surfaces can elicit an adverse health effect. Peter Gluckman Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards (Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, 29 May 2018). Consequently, in the future, the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill (No 2) 2017 (258-2) will require the Minister to be satisfied that a contaminant may be harmful to the health of persons before making regulations under the Act (cl 138C).” Decision
On the evidence before the Tribunal and on the balance of probabilities the landlord has proven that the premises have been contaminated to levels higher than 15μg/100cm2 during the tenancy by the tenant or her guests for whose actions she is liable.
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 (see sections 7 and 12 of that act).
“Methamphetamine” is included as a controlled drug under Schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
It follows 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) RTA.
The tenant has breached her obligations under section 40(2)(b) RTA in that she has used or permitted the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose, the consumption of methamphetamine.
The breach is one that is not capable of remedy.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the breach is serious as are the consequences for the landlord which now faces the significant costs of remediation and the loss of income while these are completed. Unlawful use
As noted above, the landlord has established that the premises were used for an unlawful purpose being the consumption of methamphetamine.
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 tenant has 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 consumption of methamphetamine is an intentional act. The effect on the landlord is significant because of the remedial work required, the loss of income and the loss of a unit to provide social housing which is its objective. There is a public interest in deterring tenants from committing unlawful acts in tenanted properties.
In this case, it is appropriate that the tenant pay the landlord $300.00 in exemplary damages.
Because Otautahi Community Housing Trust has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5087779 — net $1,062.22 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Meth testing	$1,091.22	Meth testing
Exemplary damages	$300.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,062.22
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,062.22

Order

The tenancy of Crystal McIvor at 20 Korimako Lane, Sydenham, Christchurch 8023 is terminated and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 11.59 pm Friday 10 January 2025.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $356.00 (6401853-006) to Otautahi Community Housing Trust immediately.
Crystal McIvor must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $1,062.22 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below: DescriptionLandlord Meth testing$1,091.22 Exemplary damages$300.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$1,418.22 Bond$356.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,062.22

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone. Methamphetamine contamination
The landlord claimed that the property has become contaminated by methamphetamine during this tenancy and provided in evidence: a. A methamphetamine assessment report completed on 26 September 2023 prior to the start of the tenancy which showed a minimal reading of 0.11 μg/100cm2. b. A methamphetamine assessment report completed on 14 November 2024 showing a combined reading of 88 μg/100cm2. c. A methamphetamine assessment report completed on 14 November 2024 showing de-composite readings of: i. 15.1, 8.4 and 15.7 μg/100cm2 in the kitchen/living area. ii. 5.3 μg/100cm2 in the bathroom. iii. 15.2 μg/100cm2 in bedroom A. iv. 32 μg/100cm2 in bedroom B.
The tenant denied knowledge of the contamination or when or how it occurred.
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 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 Court of Appeal in Smith v Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd [2019] NZCA 38, in a footnote to [16], while not having to decide the issue, suggested that the level espoused in the Gluckman Report is the correct one when considering whether the testing yielded any health and safety concerns. “There is no evidence that the levels of methamphetamine contamination typically resulting from third-hand exposure to methamphetamine smoking residues (as opposed to methamphetamine manufacture) on household surfaces can elicit an adverse health effect. Peter Gluckman Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards (Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, 29 May 2018). Consequently, in the future, the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill (No 2) 2017 (258-2) will require the Minister to be satisfied that a contaminant may be harmful to the health of persons before making regulations under the Act (cl 138C).” Decision
On the evidence before the Tribunal and on the balance of probabilities the landlord has proven that the premises have been contaminated to levels higher than 15μg/100cm2 during the tenancy by the tenant or her guests for whose actions she is liable.
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 (see sections 7 and 12 of that act).
“Methamphetamine” is included as a controlled drug under Schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
It follows 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) RTA.
The tenant has breached her obligations under section 40(2)(b) RTA in that she has used or permitted the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose, the consumption of methamphetamine.
The breach is one that is not capable of remedy.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the breach is serious as are the consequences for the landlord which now faces the significant costs of remediation and the loss of income while these are completed. Unlawful use
As noted above, the landlord has established that the premises were used for an unlawful purpose being the consumption of methamphetamine.
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 tenant has 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 consumption of methamphetamine is an intentional act. The effect on the landlord is significant because of the remedial work required, the loss of income and the loss of a unit to provide social housing which is its objective. There is a public interest in deterring tenants from committing unlawful acts in tenanted properties.
In this case, it is appropriate that the tenant pay the landlord $300.00 in exemplary damages.
Because Otautahi Community Housing Trust has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5087779 — Exemplary damages at 20 Korimako Lane, Sydenham, Christchurch 8023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5087779 — Exemplary damages at 20 Korimako Lane, Sydenham, Christchurch 8023

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions