How much money was awarded in case 5115128?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5115128?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5115128?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11316451-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5115128?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5115128?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5115128?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11316451-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5115128 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5115128 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.

By consent, the parties agree that the tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated and possession is granted to the Landlord at

00am on 20 January 2025.

The application by the Landlord is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone and video.

The Landlord applied for termination, compensation, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee.

The Tenant applied to have the notice to terminate issued by the Landlord revoked.

The parties came to an agreement at the hearing regarding the termination of the tenancy.

The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. Landlord application for compensation

The Landlord sought costs for insurance excess in relation to having the property decontaminated as they discovered there was use of methamphetamine at the property following a routine property inspection. The property was tested for methamphetamine on 2 December 2024 which produced a reading of 16.9ug.

The Landlord conducted a second test on 9 December 2024 which showed a composite reading with the highest level at 15.1 μg, indicating that the property needed decontamination.

The Tenant denied any use of methamphetamine at the property. She was shocked by the results, especially in her son's room, where the highest reading was found. She emphasized that neither her or her children, aged 13, 15, and 17, had ever used drugs. As an early childhood teacher, she was upset by the situation. The Tenant submitted her brother, who had been staying with them temporarily would never bring drugs on the property and he was never in the house alone. The law

The landlord must prove that the tenant caused or permitted methamphetamine contamination in the property and that the contamination resulted in damage or left the premises unreasonably unclean. Currently, two sources guide the safe level of methamphetamine contamination in residential properties.

The first is the NZS 8510:2017 standard, which recommends a maximum contamination level of 1.5 μg/100cm² for high-use areas (resulting from both consumption and manufacture) and 3.8 μg/100cm² for limited-use areas. The second is the Gluckman Report (2018), which acknowledges the lack of scientific evidence regarding the health risks of low-level methamphetamine exposure but suggests that contamination levels below 15 μg/100cm² are unlikely to cause adverse effects. It also advises retaining the 1.5 μg/100cm² limit for areas affected by methamphetamine manufacture due to the risks posed by harmful chemicals used in the process.

In line with these guidelines, the District Court has ruled that remediation should align with the prevailing guidelines, such as those set out in the Gluckman Report and not necessarily the New Zealand Standard (NZS 8510:2017), which has not been legally adopted.

The Tenancy Tribunal has consistently followed the Gluckman Report's recommendations, with the District Court approving this approach in previous cases.

In Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947, 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

In this case, the landlord tested the property for methamphetamine in December 2024, but no testing was conducted before the tenants moved in. This issue was highlighted in the Brooking and Hodges v Imrie case (2021), where the lack of a pre-tenancy inspection report was crucial in determining whether the tenants caused the contamination. Without this report, there was insufficient evidence to prove that the contamination occurred during the tenancy.

In considering the evidence, because the landlord failed to provide a pre- tenancy inspection report there was insufficient evidence to prove that the Tenant caused the contamination of methamphetamine.

As a result, the claim for compensation is dismissed. Exemplary damages

The Landlord has applied for exemplary damages for the Tenant consuming illegal substances on the property. There was insufficient evidence to prove the Tenant consumed methamphetamine at the property.

The Landlord submitted there was marijuana use at the property which was reported by the neighbours and was noted during one property inspection. There were no photographs of marijuana or paraphernalia at the property and no evidence from the neighbours who made reports of this. There was a previous 14-day notice to remedy which noted marijuana use.

The Tenant denied all use of illegal substances on the property.

In considering the evidence, I find there is insufficient evidence to prove there was use of illegal substances on the property. Because of the lack of proof of drugs or paraphernalia at the property or evidence from witnesses, I am not satisfied that it is more likely than not that marijuana was consumed at the property.

The claim for exemplary damages is dismissed.

As the Tenant has been wholly successful in their response, name suppression is granted to the Tenant.

As the Landlord has not been successful, the Landlord shall pay their own filing fee.