How much money was awarded in case 5113229?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5113229?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5113229?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11449520-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5113229?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5113229?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5113229?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11449520-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 15, 10 Batchelor Street, Newlands, Wellington Tenancy Tribunal Case 5113229 — Cleanliness

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5113229?

The tribunal order states: Te Toi Mahana is granted immediate possession of the premises at Unit 15, 10

Order

Te Toi Mahana is granted immediate possession of the premises at Unit 15, 10 Batchelor Street, Newlands, Wellington 6037, (Batchelor Street Flats) .

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing at Wellington District Court.

Did the landlord have grounds for termination of the tenancy?

The landlord has applied for possession of the premises following the termination of the tenancy by 90 day notice to the tenant on 10 September 2024. By that notice the tenancy ended on 16 December 2024. The tenant has remained in possession. The application for possession is made under section 64(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The tenant disputes that the landlord had grounds for termination of the tenancy and disputes the application for possession.
The applicant made an application to the Tribunal for possession on 18 December 2024, 2 days after termination. The requirements of section 64(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 are satisfied. Section 64(1) requires that an application for possession is within 90 days of the date of termination.
In the Notice of Termination to the tenant the landlord referred to section 51(2)(f) RTA to be the reason for termination. This section provides that the landlord may terminate a tenancy with 90 days notice if - “extensive alterations, refurbishment, repairs, or redevelopment of the premises are to be carried out by the landlord or owner, and— (i) it would not be reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation while the work is undertaken; and (ii) the work is to begin, or material steps towards it are to be taken, within 90 days after the termination date.”
The need to have the tenant vacate the premises for repair was based on methamphetamine contamination. Te Toi Mahana had arranged for an accredited methamphetamine inspection company, ‘Drug Free’, to carry out methamphetamine testing at the tenancy premises on 19 August 2024. This was the second test carried out at the property. The results of the test were as follows: • Kitchen 104μg/100cm² • Lounge 270μg/100cm² • Lounge 310μg/100cm² • Hallway 350μg/100cm² • Bathroom 71μg/100cm²
Te Toi Mahana requested the tenant to terminate the tenancy because the levels far exceeded 1.5μg/100cm² (NZ Standard NZS 8501:2017) and 15μg/100cm² set out in the 2018 report by Sir Peter Gluckman and would require extensive cleaning.
Andrew Campbell disputes that the landlord had grounds to terminate the tenancy. He states that the grounds for termination are flawed in several respects. These include: a. the methamphetamine testing results are unreliable and he wants an adjournment to arrange further testing b. there was no methamphetamine testing at the start of the tenancy, c. there is no regulation that has been passed by Parliament setting a maximum inhabitable level for methamphetamine, d. that he was not given adequate notice regarding testing, e. that he was at work and did not see if the sample testing procedure was correctly carried out. a. Are the results reliable?
At the hearing today Andrew stated that the tests could not be relied on however he did not provide evidence in support of his allegation of manipulation of the results. The person who carried out the testing was present as a witness and opportunity was given to explore whether the results could be faulty. I am satisfied that the Tribunal can rely on the results. The adjournment request.
Andrew requested time to have another test be carried out. I declined that request. Andrew has had since August 2024 to have the premises retested. He has not done so. He said he did not see the need for further testing because a previous Tribunal decision, [2024} NZTT 4897186, dated 20 June 2024, in which he was the respondent, stated that there was no prescribed level of contamination determining when premises become uninhabitable. However that decision makes very clear that the Tribunal views contamination to be above 15μg/100cm². Paragraphs 7 through 12 are copied below.
“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. It recommended retaining the level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 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.”
I am satisfied that it was made clear to Andrew in that decision that the Tribunal and the District Court accept that levels over 15μg/100cm² renders a premises contaminated. In [2024] NZTT 4897186 the Tribunal declined to terminate Andrew’s tenancy because the applicant’s termination notice stated that the level of contamination was above a prescribed level. Currently there is no prescribed level. The Tribunal determined that the applicant’s ground for termination was incorrect in that case. b. No methamphetamine testing at the start of the tenancy.
Andrew stated that the results could reflect the condition of the premises at the start of his tenancy in 2016. I accept that where testing has not taken place at the start of the tenancy there can be significant doubt about when the contamination occurred. However where there is more than one test during a tenancy and the results show a change in the contamination levels, this is proof that methamphetamine has been used during the tenancy. A comparison between the methamphetamine test carried out on 2 May 2024 and the test carried out on 19 August 2024 shows the level of methamphetamine contamination has changed significantly in just three months of Andrew’s tenancy. 2 May 2024 19 August 2024 Kitchen 77μg/100cm²104μg/100cm² Lounge 192μg/100cm²270μg/100cm² Lounge 10.4μg/100cm²310μg/100cm² Hallway 3.6μg/100cm²350μg/100cm² Bathroom 81μg//100cm² 71μg/100cm²
I am satisfied that the testing on two different occasions during the tenancy proves that there has been use and possibly manufacture at the premises. c. No methamphetamine regulations set by Parliament.
I have addressed this issue in the information set out above. Until there is a prescribed level for contamination established by Regulation, the Tribunal relies on the best evidence about contamination. That is the level of 15μg/100cm² set out in the 2018 report by Sir Peter Gluckman. Andrew has misunderstood the relevance of regulations prescribing contamination levels in the current environment. d. That he was given insufficient notice regarding the testing.
I am satisfied that Andrew was emailed at the email address that is the same as is used for service of this application. There is also a copy on file of the Notice to Enter that was put in his letterbox. The landlord has proved that notice was served. Andrew has not proved that a valid notice was not given by the landlord. e. That he did not see if the sample testing procedure was correctly carried out.
Andrew was not present when the contractor carried out the testing. The RTA permits the landlord to enter and carry out testing without the tenant present. See s.48(2)(ba) RTA. Summary
I am satisfied that the landlord has proved that the premises is uninhabitable. The landlord had grounds for termination under section 51(2)(f). The landlord could also have terminated the tenancy under section 59A. That section applies if, as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement by a party, the premises are destroyed or are so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable.
The landlord required termination to carry out repairs to the premises resulting from the contamination. The repairs cannot be carried out with the tenant being present. The tenant is in breach of the RTA by failing to vacate the premises on 16 December 2024. Possession is granted to the landlord. The seriousness of the contamination warrants immediate possession. These readings are the highest I have seen in any methamphetamine case I have dealt with.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5113229 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 15, 10 Batchelor Street, Newlands, Wellington

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5113229 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 15, 10 Batchelor Street, Newlands, Wellington

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord have grounds for termination of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord have grounds for termination of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions