What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5312640 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5312640?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5312640?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5312640?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12464722-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5312640 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5312640?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5312640?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5312640?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12464722-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 14 Mudie Street, Alicetown, Lower Hutt 5010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5312640 — Cleanliness

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.
The landlord must pay the tenant $28 being the filing fee on the application.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing with the tenant appearing in person and the landlord attending by teleconference. An interpreter was also present to assist the landlord.
The tenant has filed an application seeking refund of the bond following termination of the tenancy by the landlord on 7 days’ notice.
The landlord confirmed that he terminated the tenancy by giving the tenant 7 days’ notice on the grounds that the premises were contaminated by methamphetamine to the extent that they were uninhabitable. The landlord has filed a cross application seeking compensation from the tenant for the methamphetamine testing costs and compensation for remediating the premises because he claims that she is responsible for the contamination. Burden of proof
Any party bringing a claim to the Tribunal has the burden of proving their claim. The Tenancy Tribunal applies a civil standard of proof, determining matters on the balance of probabilities. In other words, each applicant must prove that it is more likely than not that their alleged version of events took place. Further, the evidence should be reasonable with no probable defects such as inconsistency or improbability. The evidence should be supported by other acceptable evidence. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents such as emails, texts, and photographs are an important part of discharging the burden. I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. Certain types of evidence carry more weight, which must be taken into account when weighing all evidence.
Where an allegation is made in the course of the Tribunal proceedings that amounts to a crime, the burden of proof is not the criminal standard. However, the Tribunal must have regard to the seriousness of the allegations in applying the civil standard of proof. The Supreme Court confirmed in Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee 1 that: [102] The civil standard has been flexibly applied in civil proceedings no matter how serious the conduct that is alleged. In New Zealand it has been emphasised that no intermediate standard of proof exists, between the criminal and civil standards, for application in certain types of civil case. Balance of probabilities still simply means more probable than not. Allowing the civil standard to be applied flexibly has not meant that the degree of probability required to meet this standard changes in serious cases. Rather, the civil standard is flexibly applied because it accommodates serious allegations through the natural tendency to require stronger evidence before being satisfied to the balance of probabilities standard.

Is the tenant responsible for methamphetamine contamination at 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
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. See section 49B(1) RTA. 1 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, [2009] 1 NZLR 1 Methamphetamine damage claim
The landlord claims that the tenant is responsible for damage caused by methamphetamine use or manufacture at the premises during the tenancy. The landlord claims the costs of testing, decontamination, and loss of rent.
In June 2017, New Zealand Standard 8510:2017 was published regarding testing and decontamination of methamphetamine (meth) contaminated properties. It adopted a maximum acceptable level of meth contamination in an affected property of 1.5μg/100cm² for high use areas, for both manufacture and use 2 . Beyond that level, a property was regarded as needing decontamination. If a property needs decontamination, then for the purposes of the RTA, the property is damaged.
On 29 May 2018, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the then Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, released a report 3 (the Gluckman report) which concluded that, in the case of third-hand contact, exposure to meth at levels below 15μg/100cm² was unlikely to have an adverse effect and remediation to the 1.5 μg/100cm² standard was only appropriate if there was reason to suspect manufacturing activity.
In Full Circle Real Estate v Piper 4 , the District Court considered an appeal from a decision of the Tribunal which adopted the Gluckman report and stated at paragraph [36] “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”.
Accordingly, the Tribunal has treated Full Circle Real Estate as confirmation that the Gluckman report is to be applied rather than the NZ standard.
It is now well settled that to recover the costs of remediating premises contaminated by meth, the landlord must prove; a. That the premises have been contaminated beyond the “safe level” of 15μg/100cm² promulgated by the Gluckman report such that the premises are damaged; and b. The damage occurred during the tenancy.
In this case, the landlord did not test the premises for methamphetamine prior to the tenancy starting. If there is no testing of the premises before, or at the start 2 See New Zealand Standard 8510:2017 Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine- contaminated properties. 3 Professor Sir Peter Gluckman , Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposure, risk levels and interpretation of standards 29 May 2018 4 Full Circle Real Estate v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 of the tenancy, as is the case here, the immediate hurdle is proving that the contamination at the end of the tenancy was caused by the tenant. In the absence of a baseline test, it is much harder for a landlord to establish that the contamination occurred during the tenancy.
The Tribunal held in Brooking and Hodges v Imrie 5 that the absence of pre-let testing was not determinative because there was enough circumstantial evidence to support a finding that contamination more than likely occurred during the tenancy. In that case, there was a wealth of circumstantial evidence which pointed to the tenants likely manufacturing and supplying methamphetamine during the tenancy. Evidence included eye-witness accounts of windows at the premises being covered with film and security cameras being installed; strong chemical odours emitting from the premises; frequent visitors to the premises for short periods including patched gang members who were seen carrying packages from the premises; and Police and Armed Offenders were called to the premises on several occasions. The Adjudicator found that the strength of the circumstantial evidence combined with extremely high levels of methamphetamine detected at the premises at the end of the tenancy enabled the Tribunal to conclude that the methamphetamine contamination likely occurred during the tenancy, despite there being no-pre-let testing of the premises for methamphetamine.
In contrast, the District Court in Eren Limited v Martin and Kukuruzsnayak 6 held that the absence of pre-let testing was determinative of being unable to prove that contamination occurred during that tenancy with the court noting: [11] The lack of methamphetamine testing at the start of the tenancy significantly weakens the circumstantial case against the tenants to the point where it is not possible to conclude on the balance of probabilities that it was the tenants who were responsible for the methamphetamine residue located at the premises at the end of the tenancy.”
To assess whether the lack of a pre-let test weakens the landlord’s claim in this case, it is necessary to consider all the evidence submitted including the testing results. Landlord case
The premises are part of a unit title development managed by a body corporate with approximately 10 units in the complex. The landlord rented the premises himself from 2007 and then purchased them in 2014. He continued to live there until the premises were rented to the tenant in May 2024. He says that the premises could not have been contaminated by meth before this tenancy. 5 Brooking and Hodges v Imrie [2021] NZTT4216438, 4217074 6 Eren Limited v Martin and Kukuruzsnayak [2021] NZDC 15210
The landlord started receiving complaints from the body corporate committee chair and neighbours about the tenant and her visitors. The complaints were summarised as follows: noise, loud arguments with the occupants swearing loudly at each other, fights and banging at the premises especially late at night; the tenant’s visitors working on cars in the driveway and leaving a mess; visitors cars blocking neighbours’ parking spaces; endless streams of visitors coming and going from the premises who look scary, unfriendly and act aggressively with each other; visitors urinating on the rear carpark; visitors leaving cigarettes on the ground outside; visitors dominating the use of the outdoor space which made the neighbours feel uneasy and intimidated; drone flying and setting off fireworks. The complainants also believed that a male partner was living at the property.
An inspection was carried out by a friend on behalf of the landlord on 13 September 2024. His inspection report noted that the tenant needed to fix a broken window; ventilate by opening curtains and blinds and keep on top of cleaning. The report also noted that the locks had been changed and the door lock area appeared damaged.
On 3 December 2024, the landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant requiring her to repair the broken window; provide the landlord with a key to the property following the lock change; ensure her partner moves out as the tenancy agreement only permitted her and her son to occupy it; remove all the vehicles parked unlawfully; and not disturb other residents. The notice also advised of the landlord’s intention to test the property for the presence of drugs and carry out a routine inspection.
The neighbours had also become suspicious of drug use and manufacture because of the frequency of visitors, the tenant keeping her curtains shut all the time, and a security camera erected on the downpipe outside the unit.
The landlord instructed a contractor to carry out discrete drug testing at the premises. The tenant agreed to this and was present for the test. A technician collected individual samples from the premises on 6 December 2024 which were analysed by Meth Solutions. The discrete testing of 7 individual samples showed the presence of high levels of methamphetamine in 6 of the samples as follows, expressed in micrograms per 100 square centimetres (μg/100cm²): SampleAreaLevel/ μg/100cm² AKitchen88.9 BLounge47.2 CLounge heat pump128 DSeparate toilet17.4 ELaundry12.7 FBathroom50.3 GBedroom 140.8
The testing results show high levels of methamphetamine which are well in excess of the “safe level” of 15μg/100cm². The Gluckman report also noted that levels of 30μg/100cm² or more are considered by forensic experts to signify that manufacture is likely to have taken place.
I asked the landlord whether he reported the matter to Police. He says that he did but Police advised him that there was not enough evidence to pursue the tenant for any drug related offences.
On 11 December 2024, the landlord gave the tenant a 7-day notice terminating the tenancy on the basis that the premises were contaminated by meth and uninhabitable. She was required to vacate by 19 December 2024. Tenant case
The tenant absolutely denies using or manufacturing methamphetamine at the property; having any association with drug use or supply; or allowing anyone to use or manufacture methamphetamine at the premises. She gave the following evidence in response.
She has a lot of family and friends visiting the premises. They do not visit to purchase or use meth.
She changed the locks because there was a problem with the lock not working.
She installed a security camera because she was concerned about people breaking into cars.
The neighbours were nosey and always complaining about her and her young son. She felt that they were harassing her.
She agreed to the meth testing as she had nothing to hide and she was upset that the house was contaminated and that she had to move out so quickly.
She believes the house was rented to her already contaminated. Assessment of the evidence and findings
After carefully considering all the available evidence, I find that in the absence of pre-let methamphetamine testing of these premises it is not possible to conclude on the balance of probabilities that it was the tenant who was responsible for the methamphetamine residue located at the premises at the end of the tenancy. Furthermore, to make such a finding based on other circumstantial evidence presented by the landlord would be unsafe. In particular: a. The various neighbours/complainants were not called as witnesses and could not be questioned. Therefore, their allegations and observations are hearsay evidence which cannot be safely relied upon; b. The suggestion that the premises were contaminated by meth before the tenancy started, while not proven, strengthens the argument that pre-let testing is important; c. There are no reports to Police of any suspicious activity at the premises or of any concerns raised by neighbours to Police about the tenants which would suggest the possibility of drug use or manufacture at the premises. When the landlord contacted Police, they advised him that there was not enough evidence to act; d. There was no evidence of drug paraphernalia or other evidence of drug use or manufacture at the property; e. The tenant argues that she is aware of cases where methamphetamine levels do not diminish over time, so that it is possible premises remain contaminated from historical use or manufacture of methamphetamine. While no specific expert evidence was produced by either party in support of, or against, this proposition, it is a possibility that I cannot dismiss.
For the reasons detailed above, I consider that the absence of a pre-let meth test, prior to or at the start of this tenancy, substantially weakens the circumstantial case against the tenant to the point where it is simply not possible to safely conclude on the balance of probabilities that the tenant was responsible for the meth residue detected at the premises at the end of the tenancy. Therefore, the landlords’ claims for compensation (for testing, decontamination costs and loss of rent) must be dismissed. Claim for changing locks
The landlord also sought the costs of changing the locks after the tenancy ended. However, the landlord confirmed that the tenant returned the keys to him at the end of the tenancy. Therefore, there is no basis for changing the locks and the claim must be dismissed.
It follows that the bond must be refunded in full to the tenant. Suppression and filing fee
As the tenant has wholly succeeded in this matter she is entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenant did not seek suppression of her name and identifying details. However, because she has succeeded in defending the landlords’ claims and given that the claims relate to criminal activity I consider it appropriate to suppress her name and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5312640 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 2, 14 Mudie Street, Alicetown, Lower Hutt 5010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5312640 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 2, 14 Mudie Street, Alicetown, Lower Hutt 5010

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for methamphetamine contamination at the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for methamphetamine contamination at the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions