Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5193252 — Tenancy dispute at 20 Korimako Lane, Sydenham, Christchurch 8023
Decided 16 May 2025 · Published 16 May 2025 · Application 5193252
- Cleanliness
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
- Crystal McIvor must pay [the landlord] $6,688.16 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
- This order `incorporates the Tribunal’s order made on [redacted] under application [redacted].
Reasons
- Only the landlord’s representative attended the hearing.
- This order follows the Tribunal’s order made on [redacted] and that order has been incorporated in this order for enforcement purposes.
- The previous order found that the premises were contaminated by methamphetamine residue during the tenancy and that the tenant was liable for the consequences. The level of contamination was, in places, above the 15μ/100cm² level above which the Tribunal accepts that there may be a risk to human health.
- The landlord has now applied for compensation for the cost of replacing carpet and curtains in the premises and for the cost of cleaning to decontaminate the premises.
- The landlord is entitled to be compensated for the reasonable costs of dealing with the contamination and there was some discussion about what the reasonable costs are.
- I accept that the carpet and curtains in the premises had to be replaced because they cannot be adequately decontaminated by cleaning.
- The cost of replacing them was reasonable and the landlord reasonably accepted that the cost of replacing the curtains should be reduced by 50% to account for betterment.
- The landlord proposed the same for the cost of the carpet but not for the cost of installing it. I find that the same reduction should apply to the installation cost because there is no logical reason to treat that differently. The cost of replacing the carpet necessarily includes the installation cost and it is that total cost that has been brought forward. Therefore, betterment should apply to the total cost. I have made an order on that basis.
- There was also a discussion about the cleaning costs. I raised two issues. The first is that not all the areas of the premises were contaminated above the 15 level, and some were only slightly above. The second is that the cleaning was done to reduce the level to below 1.5 which is well below the level at which the Tribunal considers there to be any significant risk to human health. Taken together, the cost that the landlord has incurred seems excessive.
- Without expert evidence on the point, it is impossible to be remotely precise about what the reasonable cost of cleaning should be. I accept that the situation puts the landlord in a difficult position because the specialist cleaners insist on cleaning to a degree that reduces the level of contamination below 1.5. But, in my view, I cannot ignore the dichotomy between the level adopted by the Tribunal and the level adopted by the cleaners.
- I have therefore reduced the cleaning cost from the $5,401.32 claimed, to $4,000. It is certainly not scientific, but I believe that it strikes a fair balance between recognising that the landlord must ensure that the premises are adequately cleaned, and the fact that cleaning to a level below 15 should be less expensive than cleaning to a level below 1.5.
- I have offset the rent credit on the rent ledger against the tenant’s liability for compensation.
- The landlord has been successful and so I have awarded the filing fee and granted the landlord’s request for name suppression.