How much money was awarded in case 5171151?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $195.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $952.86 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $77.66 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5171151?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5171151?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11605398-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5171151?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $195.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $952.86 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $77.66 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5171151?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5171151?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11605398-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5171151 — Rent arrears

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5171151 about?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5171151 — net $1,502.52 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 2 December 2024	$952.86	Rent arrears to 2 December 2024
Lock/key replacement	$195.00	Lock/key replacement
Water rates	$77.66	Water rates
Wall damage (insurance excess	$250.00	Wall damage (insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,502.52
Bond	$1,502.52
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,502.52

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

Petrina Jane Taiapa and Robert Mcgifford Rahui to pay [the landlord] $1,502.52 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.

The landlord’s claims relating to methamphetamine contamination are dismissed.

The Bond Centre is to pay $1,502.52 from the bond of $2,003.00 (6511192- 001) to [the landlord] immediately.

The balance of the bond of $500.48 is to remain at the Bond Centre.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by telephone. Only the landlord attended. Calls to the tenants at the time of the hearing went straight to voicemail.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, payment of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Rent

The tenancy ended on 2 December 2024. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices that prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy as ordered. The Tenant’s Other Obligations

The tenant must not carelessly or intentionally damage the premises.

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission.

Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent).

Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent).

Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any 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.

Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. Letter Box

The tenant lost the key to the letter box during the tenancy and so the landlord had to replace the lock and key. The tenant accepted liability for the cost and so I have awarded it in the sum of $195. Wall Damage

A wall was damaged during the tenancy and the tenant has not disproved liability for it. The landlord produced an invoice to repair the damage which exceeded the landlord’s $250 insurance excess at the time. The landlord did not claim that the damage was intentional and so I have awarded the insurance excess. Methamphetamine Contamination

The landlord presented evidence that proved that there was no methamphetamine (meth) contamination of the premises at the start of the tenancy.

A routine test carried out at the end of the tenancy showed that meth residue was present in the premises at a maximum level of 2.2 μg per 100²cm. Following a comprehensive test, the maximum level found was 1.08.

The landlord then had the premises cleaned by a specialist meth decontamination contractor.

The landlord claims $620.66 for the comprehensive test and $1,759.50 for the specialist cleaning.

Section 138C Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides for regulations to be made prescribing the maximum acceptable level for contaminants, but no regulations have yet 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/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.

The landlord argued that because the use of meth is a criminal offence and therefore contrary to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (which prohibits using the premises for an unlawful purpose), and due to the landlord’s obligation to disclose the contamination and the effect that could have on reletting the premises, it was reasonable for it to decontaminate the premises and the costs claimed should therefore be awarded.

The issue here is not whether there has been a breach of the Act because the tenants have used meth or allowed it to be used in the premises. That has been proved. It is whether it was reasonable for the landlord to proceed with the second test and then the decontamination cleaning.

Because the scientific evidence available to the Tribunal is that levels of meth in premises below 15μg/100²cm from using meth is unlikely to have an adverse effect on human health, it is difficult to see why it is reasonable to undertake additional cleaning to deal with the contamination. Meth residue from smoking (at least below the 15 level) is not visible and has no unpleasant odour and so unless there is a health reason for additional cleaning, there is no obvious reason to undertake it.

The argument that there may be a stigma attached to even low levels of meth residue would need some evidence to support it and there was none in this case. Given that low levels of contamination pose no appreciable health risk, it is difficult to see why there should be any stigma attached to it.

For these reasons I find that the costs of the second test and the cleaning were not reasonably incurred. The first test showed the maximum level to be well below 15 and so there was nothing to be gained by the second test.

The landlord’s meth related claims must therefore be dismissed. Filing Fee

The landlord has had substantial success and so I have awarded the filing fee. Suppression

I have granted the landlord’s request for name suppression because it has had substantial success and because the public interest in publication is low compared with the landlord’s privacy interests.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5171151 — net $1,502.52 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 2 December 2024	$952.86	Rent arrears to 2 December 2024
Lock/key replacement	$195.00	Lock/key replacement
Water rates	$77.66	Water rates
Wall damage (insurance excess	$250.00	Wall damage (insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,502.52
Bond	$1,502.52
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,502.52