What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5141348?

The tribunal order states: Kenneth Marks must pay Gillian And Andrew Gibson As Trustees For The Gibson

How much money was awarded in case 5141348?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,920.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $506.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $68.40 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5141348?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5141348?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11977112-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5141348?

The tribunal order states: Kenneth Marks must pay Gillian And Andrew Gibson As Trustees For The Gibson

How much money was awarded in case 5141348?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,920.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $506.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $68.40 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5141348?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5141348?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11977112-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 4, 240 Hurstmere Road, Takapuna, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5141348 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5141348 — net $3,001.40 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,920.00	Rent arrears
Water rates	$68.40	Water rates
Rubbish removal (skip bin	$506.00	Rubbish removal (skip bin
Meth testing/Cleaning: Insurance excess	$2,500.00	Meth testing/Cleaning: Insurance excess
Exemplary Damages	$500.00	Exemplary Damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,001.40
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,001.40

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5141348 — net $3,001.40 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,920.00	Rent arrears
Water rates	$68.40	Water rates
Rubbish removal (skip bin	$506.00	Rubbish removal (skip bin
Meth testing/Cleaning: Insurance excess	$2,500.00	Meth testing/Cleaning: Insurance excess
Exemplary Damages	$500.00	Exemplary Damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,001.40
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,001.40

Order

Kenneth Marks must pay Gillian And Andrew Gibson As Trustees For The Gibson Family Trust $3,001.40 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,520.00 (3563506-007) to Gillian And Andrew Gibson As Trustees For The Gibson Family Trust immediately.
Kenneth Marks has used, or permitted the use of, the premises for an unlawful purpose.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenant. An attempt was made to contact the tenant on the telephone number provided with the application. The attempt was unsuccessful. The hearing continued in the tenant’s absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has also applied for exemplary damages alleging that the tenant has used, or permitted the use of, methamphetamine at the premises.
This decision may not refer to all of the evidence provided but I have read and considered it all.
The tenancy ended on 18 November 2024 by mutual agreement between the parties. The landlord’s application was filed on 21 January 2025.
The landlord last heard from the tenant by text message on 20 December 2024. He has heard nothing further this year. The last email from the tenant was received on 17 December 2024.
The landlord contacted the tenant’s parents in December 2024. The parents responded stating that they were overseas and that they would respond on their return. The landlord heard nothing further.
The landlord confirms that he has exhausted all options in respect locating the tenant. I also had the registrar call the tenant during the hearing on the telephone number provided with the application. The telephone number was invalid.
Accordingly, I dispense with the requirement for service and proceed as if the notice had been served on the tenant in accordance with this Act - see s91B(2) (c) Legal principles
Before I address the specific claims, I will summarise some general legal principles that apply.
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence. Background
The tenant moved into the premises on or about 2 December 2023. A tenancy agreement was signed by the parties on 29 November 2023. The tenancy ended by mutual agreement on 18 November 2024.
The landlord first became aware in October 2024 that something unusual was taking place at the address following reports from neighbours. The landlord says that the tenant was arrested by the police approximately two weeks prior to moving out. The premises tested positive for methamphetamine on 15 January 2025 pursuant to a comprehensive assessment by MethTec Limited.
A formal criminal complaint was also filed with the New Zealand Police on 20 January 2025.
A full and comprehensive decontamination process started on 12 February 2025 and was carried out by Extreme Cleaning Solutions (ECS).

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 18 November 2024. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Having sighted the landlord’s evidence filed in support I am satisfied that the tenant is responsible for this debt. The landlord confirmed during the hearing that no payments have been received from the tenant since the filing of the application.
The claims for rent and water arrears are proven.

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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
As a direct result of contamination, the landlord had to dispose of a significant number of household items.
The landlord claims the cost of a skip bin, stating that everything had to be removed from the premises and disposed of. This included all kitchen and bathroom items, beds and mattresses, a coffee table and wall unit, a large number of tools, a BBQ, a car bonnet and car parts.
The amount claimed is $506.00. A payment receipt dated 13 February 2025 was provided confirming this amount.
The amount ordered is proved.

What were the methamphetamine test results?

Detailed testing took place on 15 January 2025 indicating that methamphetamine was present.
The results were as follows: RoomSample CodeResult Garage 1GAR1A-Garage 10.07μg Garage 1GAR1B-Garage 10.04μg Hallway 1HAL1A-Hallway 129.30μg Hallway 1HAL1B-Hallway 12.52μg Bathroom 1BTM1A-Bathroom 116.70μg Laundry 1LDY1A-Laundry 124.60μg Bedroom 1BDR1A-Bedroom 111.90μg Bedroom 1BDR1B-Bedroom 186.50μg Bedroom 2BDR2A-Bedroom 299.80μg Bedroom 2BDR2B-Bedroom 2311.00μg Kitchen 1KTN1A-Kitchen 124.00μg Kitchen 1KTN1B-Kitchen 128.20μg Dining Room 1DNR1A-Dining Room 111.90μg Lounge 1LNG1A-Lounge 120.00μg Lounge 1LNG1B-Lounge 15.91μg Conservatory 1CON1A-Conservatory 10.22μg Conservatory 1CON1B-Conservatory 17.53μg
I accept the in-depth test report and laboratory results as reliable. What does the Residential Tenancies Act say about methamphetamine damage to tenancy premises?
A tenant must not use, or permit the use of, the premises for any unlawful purpose; section 40(2)(b) RTA. To do so is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded of up to $1,800.00; s40(3A)(c) RTA.
A landlord must prove that premises have been damaged during the tenancy and that the damage is the result of an 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; see s49B(8)(a) RTA. The use or possession of methamphetamine is an imprisonable offence; see the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
If the landlord proves this, then a tenant is liable for the costs of “making good the damage” and other reasonably foreseeable losses related to the damage; sections 49A and 49B(1)(b) RTA.
The standard of proof that applies is the civil standard “on the balance of probabilities”. This means that I do not have to be completely certain, but I must be satisfied that what is alleged is “more probable than not”.
Generally, the more serious the claim, the stronger the evidence that is required (Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55). This is an allegation of criminal behaviour so the evidence must be strong.
In these circumstances, the landlord must prove: a. That it is more probable than not that the tenant used, or allowed the use of, methamphetamine in the premises during the tenancy, and b. If the answer to the first question is ‘yes’, that it is more probable than not that the methamphetamine use during this tenancy caused ‘damage’ to the premises. Is it more probable than not that the tenant used, or allowed the use of methamphetamine in the premises during the tenancy?
The landlord claims that it is more probable than not that the tenant used, or allowed the use of, methamphetamine at the premises during this tenancy.
The evidence from testing report is comprehensive and reliable.
The tenant has not disproved the claims made by the landlord.
After considering the evidence, I am satisfied that it is more probable than not that the tenant has engaged in, or allowed, methamphetamine related activity at the premises during this tenancy. Did the methamphetamine related behaviour during the tenancy cause damage to the premises?
I am entirely satisfied that it is more probable than not that there was methamphetamine use during this tenancy, however the tenant is only liable to pay compensation if that use caused damage to the premises.
There is ongoing uncertainty about what level of methamphetamine residue should be considered to be “damage” to residential tenancy premises in New Zealand. There is no standard set in law as yet and the two most accepted sources of guidance are quite different in their recommendations.
A New Zealand Standards committee (approved and appointed under the Standards and Accreditation Act 2015) adopted a “maximum acceptable level” of methamphetamine of 1.5mcg/100cm2 for ‘high use areas’ (easily accessed and regularly used). NZS 8510:2017 applies from 29 June 2017. The Standard is based on consideration of a 2016 report by ESR (Institute of Environmental Science and Research Ltd) and does not distinguish between suspected meth labs (where manufacture has taken place) and premises where the drug has been used but not manufactured.
Then, 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 Gluckman Report makes a distinction between the risks of exposure to chemical residues in premises where methamphetamine has been previously manufactured as opposed to where it has been smoked. It concludes that, where there is no evidence of the manufacture of methamphetamine, exposure to residue levels on household surfaces of below 15mcg/100 cm2 “would be highly unlikely to give rise to any adverse effects” and that this level still incorporates a 30-fold safety buffer on a conservative estimate of risk.18
Where there is evidence suggesting possible manufacture of methamphetamine, both NZS 8510:2017 and the Gluckman report recommend remediation to the
5mcg level. The Gluckman report notes that methamphetamine levels over 30mcg/100cm2 are considered by forensic experts to signify that manufacture is likely to have taken place.
The Tribunal has most often applied the Gluckman recommendations in recent years. The District Court has consistently confirmed that it is open to the Tribunal to take this approach because of the lack of legislative regulation at present. See Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 and Acme Realty Ltd v Alexander James Hogg, Tuitui Grace Polotu, Leigh Sharyn Coughlin [2021] NZDC 3231.
To be consistent with the predominance of other Tribunal cases, and the support for these from the District Court, I accept that:- a. methamphetamine residue of below 15mcg/100cm2 does not cause damage to residential tenancy premises unless there is evidence of manufacture, b. in premises, or parts of premises, where residue is higher than 15mcg/100cm2, this is considered damage and decontamination of those areas is appropriate, c. residue levels of higher than 30mcg/100cm2 indicate a high level of use and may indicate manufacture. Decontamination of premises to the lower level of below 1.5mcg is justified.
In summary, the in-depth test report clearly establishes residue levels of – a. Above 15mcg and 30mcg: hallway (29mcg), the bathroom (16.7mcg), the laundry (24.6mcg), bedroom 1 (86.5mcg), bedroom 2 (99.8mcg), bedroom 2 (311mcg), kitchen 1 (24mcg), kitchen 1 (28.2mcg).
Applying the Gluckman report recommendations, the methamphetamine level of above 30mcg throughout the premises suggests that manufacture may have been attempted or taken place in the premises.
I accept the landlord’s claim. I accept that the in-depth test results from 15 January 2025 clearly show that the tenancy premises were damaged by methamphetamine residue and may have been used for manufacturing activity. It was prudent and appropriate for the landlord to decontaminate the premises to the lower 1.5mcg level. The landlord’s insurer Westpac (IAG) has accepted his claim for some or all of the costs of this work. Compensation and exemplary damages claims
The landlord has proven that the tenant used, or permitted the use of, the premises for an unlawful purpose (the use of methamphetamine). This is a breach of the RTA and an unlawful act pursuant to s40(3A)(c) RTA.
The landlord has proven that the use of methamphetamine during this tenancy caused the damage to the premises.
I award the landlord compensation for the insurance excess. The tenant used the premises for an unlawful purpose and in-depth testing and cleaning was required. I award $2,500.00. An email from the landlord’s insurance broker dated 21 February 2025 was filed in support of this claim confirming the excess.
I also award exemplary damages for using the premises for an unlawful purpose. Exemplary damages of up to a maximum of $1,800.00 may be awarded; s40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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. Section 109(3) RTA.
I am satisfied that the methamphetamine use was intentional and that the tenant is legally responsible for it. Numerous areas of the premises tested positive for methamphetamine residue. This indicates use throughout the house. I consider the tenant must have known about it and permitted it.
After taking into account the tenant’s intent (to use, or allow the use of, prohibited drugs inside rented premises), the effect on the landlord (significant inconvenience from testing, making an insurance claim, and taking these proceedings), the interests of the landlord (that their property not be implicated in unlawful activity that may damage it or reduce the ability to rent it out in the future) and the public interest (that tenants be discouraged from using premises for unlawful activity), I award exemplary damages of $500.00.
Because Gillian And Andrew Gibson As Trustees For The Gibson Family Trust has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5141348 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Flat 4, 240 Hurstmere Road, Takapuna, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5141348 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Flat 4, 240 Hurstmere Road, Takapuna, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

What were the methamphetamine test results?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

What were the methamphetamine test results?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions