How much money was awarded in case 5312461?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Meth Remediation: $5,106.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $172.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5312461?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5312461?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12531122-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5312461?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Meth Remediation: $5,106.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $172.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5312461?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5312461?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12531122-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 2A, 12 Airedale Place, Christchurch Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5312461 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5312461 about?

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

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5312461 — net $5,038.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$172.50	Lock/key replacement
Meth remediation	$5,106.00	Meth remediation
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,038.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,038.50

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

Shane Hall must pay [The landlord/s] $5,038.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $268.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

The applicant states that the tenancy commenced on 17 October 2023 and concluded on 25 September 2024.

They explain that the tenancy ended because they became concerned about methamphetamine use within the property. After raising this concern with the tenant, the applicant arranged for testing, which confirmed contamination above the Gluckman threshold. Following this, the tenant provided 28 days’ notice, and the tenancy was formally concluded on 25 September 2024.

The applicant states that, due to the level of contamination, the property could not be re-tenanted until extensive methamphetamine remediation had been carried out. Supporting test results have been provided: a) Baseline Test (3 July 2023): Composite sampling from the hallway, two bedrooms, living room, kitchen, and bathroom returned an overall level of 3.8 μg/100 cm². b) Subsequent Test (1 August 2024): i)Hallway: 21 μg/100 cm² ii)Bedroom 1: 5.7 μg/100 cm² iii)Living room: 14.8 μg/100 cm² iv)Bedroom 2: 3.8 μg/100 cm² v)Kitchen: 9.5 μg/100 cm² vi)Bathroom: 11.3 μg/100 cm²

The applicant has also submitted an invoice for specialist methamphetamine decontamination in the hallway, in the amount of $5,106.00. They clarify that while the entire property was decontaminated, the invoicing was separated by area, and they seek compensation only for the hallway, which exceeded the Gluckman threshold.

Additionally, the applicant seeks reimbursement of $172.50 for the replacement of a lock that the tenant failed to return. Although the actual invoice for the lock replacement totaled $429.36, the applicant states that their chosen locks are more robust than standard locks and that $172.50 represents a fair and reasonable replacement cost.

Is the tenant Liable for the meth decontamination costs?

The applicable law regarding whether to award remediation and cleaning costs for methamphetamine contamination is set out in Swift v Quinovic Property Management Kapiti-Mana (NZTT Porirua 4291385). In that decision, the Tribunal adopted the Gluckman Report (2018) standard, which sets the remediation threshold at 15 micrograms per 100 cm². This standard recognises that contamination below that level is not harmful.

Landlords and property managers sometimes rely on NZS 8510:2017, which provides for a threshold of 1.5 micrograms per 100 cm². However, the Tribunal has consistently preferred the Gluckman standard.

The landlord bears the burden of proving, on the balance of probabilities, that the contamination occurred during the tenancy and was caused by the tenant or their invitees. In this case, the landlord has provided baseline testing undertaken some months before commencement of the tenancy, as well as further testing conducted in the final month of the tenancy when concerns arose.

I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the elevated readings obtained on 1 August 2024 were caused during the tenancy by the tenant or their invitees. I am further satisfied that remediation of the hallway was necessary to restore the premises to a habitable state. As the landlord seeks compensation only in relation to the hallway contamination, I have confined my consideration accordingly.

The costs claimed are supported by a specialist decontamination invoice, and there is no evidence before me to suggest that these costs are excessive or unreasonable. For these

Reasons

, the claim for hallway decontamination costs is awarded.

Is the tenant liable for the cost of lock replacement?

Section 40(1)(e)(iv) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 requires a tenant, at the end of the tenancy, to return to the landlord all keys and security devices provided. I am satisfied that the tenant failed to do so and was therefore in breach of this obligation.

In these circumstances, it is appropriate to award compensation for the replacement of the lock. The landlord has claimed $172.50, which is less than the actual invoice cost, and I am satisfied that this is a fair and reasonable amount. Filing Fee and Suppression:

Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and granted their request for suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5312461 — net $5,038.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$172.50	Lock/key replacement
Meth remediation	$5,106.00	Meth remediation
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,038.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,038.50

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Shane Hall must pay [The landlord/s] $5,038.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $268.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The applicant states that the tenancy commenced on 17 October 2023 and concluded on 25 September 2024.
They explain that the tenancy ended because they became concerned about methamphetamine use within the property. After raising this concern with the tenant, the applicant arranged for testing, which confirmed contamination above the Gluckman threshold. Following this, the tenant provided 28 days’ notice, and the tenancy was formally concluded on 25 September 2024.
The applicant states that, due to the level of contamination, the property could not be re-tenanted until extensive methamphetamine remediation had been carried out. Supporting test results have been provided: a) Baseline Test (3 July 2023): Composite sampling from the hallway, two bedrooms, living room, kitchen, and bathroom returned an overall level of 3.8 μg/100 cm². b) Subsequent Test (1 August 2024): i)Hallway: 21 μg/100 cm² ii)Bedroom 1: 5.7 μg/100 cm² iii)Living room: 14.8 μg/100 cm² iv)Bedroom 2: 3.8 μg/100 cm² v)Kitchen: 9.5 μg/100 cm² vi)Bathroom: 11.3 μg/100 cm²
The applicant has also submitted an invoice for specialist methamphetamine decontamination in the hallway, in the amount of $5,106.00. They clarify that while the entire property was decontaminated, the invoicing was separated by area, and they seek compensation only for the hallway, which exceeded the Gluckman threshold.
Additionally, the applicant seeks reimbursement of $172.50 for the replacement of a lock that the tenant failed to return. Although the actual invoice for the lock replacement totaled $429.36, the applicant states that their chosen locks are more robust than standard locks and that $172.50 represents a fair and reasonable replacement cost.

Is the tenant Liable for the meth decontamination costs?

The applicable law regarding whether to award remediation and cleaning costs for methamphetamine contamination is set out in Swift v Quinovic Property Management Kapiti-Mana (NZTT Porirua 4291385). In that decision, the Tribunal adopted the Gluckman Report (2018) standard, which sets the remediation threshold at 15 micrograms per 100 cm². This standard recognises that contamination below that level is not harmful.
Landlords and property managers sometimes rely on NZS 8510:2017, which provides for a threshold of 1.5 micrograms per 100 cm². However, the Tribunal has consistently preferred the Gluckman standard.
The landlord bears the burden of proving, on the balance of probabilities, that the contamination occurred during the tenancy and was caused by the tenant or their invitees. In this case, the landlord has provided baseline testing undertaken some months before commencement of the tenancy, as well as further testing conducted in the final month of the tenancy when concerns arose.
I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the elevated readings obtained on 1 August 2024 were caused during the tenancy by the tenant or their invitees. I am further satisfied that remediation of the hallway was necessary to restore the premises to a habitable state. As the landlord seeks compensation only in relation to the hallway contamination, I have confined my consideration accordingly.
The costs claimed are supported by a specialist decontamination invoice, and there is no evidence before me to suggest that these costs are excessive or unreasonable. For these

Reasons

, the claim for hallway decontamination costs is awarded.

Is the tenant liable for the cost of lock replacement?

Section 40(1)(e)(iv) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 requires a tenant, at the end of the tenancy, to return to the landlord all keys and security devices provided. I am satisfied that the tenant failed to do so and was therefore in breach of this obligation.
In these circumstances, it is appropriate to award compensation for the replacement of the lock. The landlord has claimed $172.50, which is less than the actual invoice cost, and I am satisfied that this is a fair and reasonable amount. Filing Fee and Suppression:
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and granted their request for suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5312461 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Flat 2A, 12 Airedale Place, Christchurch Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5312461 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Flat 2A, 12 Airedale Place, Christchurch Central,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Is the tenant Liable for the meth decontamination costs?

Reasons

Is the tenant liable for the cost of lock replacement?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Is the tenant Liable for the meth decontamination costs?

Reasons

Is the tenant liable for the cost of lock replacement?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions