What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5345801 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] is to pay $345.00 from the bond for the agreed amount of the

How much money was awarded in case 5345801?

1. Justine Watts Is To Pay: $345.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5345801?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5345801?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12799735-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5345801 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] is to pay $345.00 from the bond for the agreed amount of the

How much money was awarded in case 5345801?

1. Justine Watts Is To Pay: $345.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5345801?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5345801?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12799735-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

51 Norwood Street, Newfield, Invercargill 9812 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5345801 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5345801. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
1. Justine Watts is to pay	$345.00		1. Justine Watts is to pay
Bond	$1,560.00

Order

[The tenant/s] is to pay $345.00 from the bond for the agreed amount of the damage caused by her pet.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,560.00 (5079780-002) immediately apportioned as follows: Smart Move Residential Limited: $345.00 [The tenant/s]: $1,215.00
The application field by Ms Watts is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing in person, Ms Watt had a nonspeaking support person present and the applicant was represented by two members of the Company, Ms Love and Ms Robinson.
By way of background, the tenant entered into a fixed term tenancy that commenced on 3 July 2020 and was to end on 2 June 2021. However, the tenancy became periodic and ended with the tenant giving notice on the 11 August 2024.
There were no issues in the tenancy that spanned some four years, two months. The parties left on good terms.
However, the landlord claims for methamphetamine testing and decontamination costs. This included replacement carpet, electrical work, curtains, loss of rent, and testing and post contamination testing. There is also a claim for costs associated with damage from a pet that had been agreed upon.
The tenant bought a claim against the landlord for $30,000 for defamation, hurt and distress given the allegations of drug use.
In support of the claim from the landlord the base level test was completed before the start of the tenancy that showed a very low reading of 0.2 ug/100sqcm. At the conclusion of the tenancy levels were higher and the highest was the reading in the kitchen, more particularly the extractor fan of
36ug/100sqcm. A subsequent test in that area of the kitchen was completed showing a reading of 1.70ug/100sqcm.
The hallway in the original test showed a result of 1.49ug/100sqcm and again further testing was taken from the ceiling vent with a result in a reading of
44ug/100sqcm.
Ms Love stated that the tenant admitted that there was a lady that stayed there in her absence, and she knew who bought the drug into the house. The tenant strongly opposed this, stating that a lady stayed with her for a few days but did not use drugs.
There was no other evidence of drug use at the property over the course of the four year tenancy.
The tenant raised the concern in relation to the levels being well under the level of 15 as she understood was the test.
The Tribunal is guided by the findings of the Gluckman Report (Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards, 2018), which concluded that there is no evidence of adverse health effects from methamphetamine residues below 15 micrograms per 100cm². The Tribunal has consistently adopted this threshold in recent decisions (see Eren Limited v Martin and Kukuruzsnayak NZDC 15210 and Talk Property Ltd v Jason Pierre Thomas NZTT 4306118).
In the case of Eren Limited v Martin and Kukuruzsnayak NZDC 15210: The District Court confirmed that costs for cleaning or decontamination are not recoverable unless the meth level exceeds 15 micrograms per 100cm², following the Gluckman Report. This case noted that while the firms involved in decontamination work applied the NZS8510:2017 standard of 1.5 the Gluckman report of May 2018 recommended that exposure to Methamphetamine levels below 15 ug/100cmcm would be highly unlikely to give risk to any adverse effects. Only where there is was evidence of manufacture should the lower level be applied. It was noted that this was upheld in the case of Full Circle Real Estate Ltd v Piper (2019) NZDC 4947.
Further, in Talk Property Ltd v Jason Pierre Thomas NZTT 4306118: The Tribunal declined to award cleaning costs for meth levels below the 15 micrograms per 100cm² threshold.
The test results in this case are well below the 15 micrograms per 100cm² threshold. Therefore, the premises are not considered contaminated for the purposes of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and there is no requirement for remediation or cleaning at this level.
When there is no other evidence of drug use and the tenants of some four years firmly deny such use, the only evidence of use is the testing I cannot award costs for methamphetamine levels less than 15 micrograms per 100cm². This is the clear and consistent position of the Tribunal, based on the Gluckman Report.
Ms Love stated that the tenant is required to clean the property to a ‘reasonable standard’, to get the levels below the reasonable NZS standards before she could re let the property, so she carried out the clean. Given the levels that have been adopted I do not see why the property needed to be ‘decontaminated’ before reletting, given that the levels have been deemed to have no health risk to the tenant. The tenant gave evidence that she was not given permission to carry out her own testing at the property and of course there was no opportunity for her to clean when she realised the testing and retesting of areas showed higher readings.
The NZS 8510:2017 is the official New Zealand standard for testing and cleaning methamphetamine-contaminated properties, setting a recommended maximum level of 1.5 micrograms per 100cm², though the Tribunal now generally applies the Gluckman Report’s higher threshold of determining a property in need of decontamination at the higher level of 15 micrograms per 100cm². This is supported by case law. Also noted is that the landlord’s insurance would not meet such costs because of the lower level of readings.
As a result, the landlord’s claim for cleaning costs is dismissed. As is the claim for the repeated testing, given that this was not required as the levels were not high enough to warrant the decontamination therefore the repeated testing was not required.
The Tenant claims for emotional harm as a result of the allegations. This does not fall in the Jurisdiction of the Tribunal and I dismiss the claim.
Both parties advised that they did not seek suppression of any of the details of the hearing and therefore I have not done so. .

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5345801. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
1. Justine Watts is to pay	$345.00		1. Justine Watts is to pay
Bond	$1,560.00

Order

[The tenant/s] is to pay $345.00 from the bond for the agreed amount of the damage caused by her pet.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,560.00 (5079780-002) immediately apportioned as follows: Smart Move Residential Limited: $345.00 [The tenant/s]: $1,215.00
The application field by Ms Watts is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing in person, Ms Watt had a nonspeaking support person present and the applicant was represented by two members of the Company, Ms Love and Ms Robinson.
By way of background, the tenant entered into a fixed term tenancy that commenced on 3 July 2020 and was to end on 2 June 2021. However, the tenancy became periodic and ended with the tenant giving notice on the 11 August 2024.
There were no issues in the tenancy that spanned some four years, two months. The parties left on good terms.
However, the landlord claims for methamphetamine testing and decontamination costs. This included replacement carpet, electrical work, curtains, loss of rent, and testing and post contamination testing. There is also a claim for costs associated with damage from a pet that had been agreed upon.
The tenant bought a claim against the landlord for $30,000 for defamation, hurt and distress given the allegations of drug use.
In support of the claim from the landlord the base level test was completed before the start of the tenancy that showed a very low reading of 0.2 ug/100sqcm. At the conclusion of the tenancy levels were higher and the highest was the reading in the kitchen, more particularly the extractor fan of
36ug/100sqcm. A subsequent test in that area of the kitchen was completed showing a reading of 1.70ug/100sqcm.
The hallway in the original test showed a result of 1.49ug/100sqcm and again further testing was taken from the ceiling vent with a result in a reading of
44ug/100sqcm.
Ms Love stated that the tenant admitted that there was a lady that stayed there in her absence, and she knew who bought the drug into the house. The tenant strongly opposed this, stating that a lady stayed with her for a few days but did not use drugs.
There was no other evidence of drug use at the property over the course of the four year tenancy.
The tenant raised the concern in relation to the levels being well under the level of 15 as she understood was the test.
The Tribunal is guided by the findings of the Gluckman Report (Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards, 2018), which concluded that there is no evidence of adverse health effects from methamphetamine residues below 15 micrograms per 100cm². The Tribunal has consistently adopted this threshold in recent decisions (see Eren Limited v Martin and Kukuruzsnayak NZDC 15210 and Talk Property Ltd v Jason Pierre Thomas NZTT 4306118).
In the case of Eren Limited v Martin and Kukuruzsnayak NZDC 15210: The District Court confirmed that costs for cleaning or decontamination are not recoverable unless the meth level exceeds 15 micrograms per 100cm², following the Gluckman Report. This case noted that while the firms involved in decontamination work applied the NZS8510:2017 standard of 1.5 the Gluckman report of May 2018 recommended that exposure to Methamphetamine levels below 15 ug/100cmcm would be highly unlikely to give risk to any adverse effects. Only where there is was evidence of manufacture should the lower level be applied. It was noted that this was upheld in the case of Full Circle Real Estate Ltd v Piper (2019) NZDC 4947.
Further, in Talk Property Ltd v Jason Pierre Thomas NZTT 4306118: The Tribunal declined to award cleaning costs for meth levels below the 15 micrograms per 100cm² threshold.
The test results in this case are well below the 15 micrograms per 100cm² threshold. Therefore, the premises are not considered contaminated for the purposes of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and there is no requirement for remediation or cleaning at this level.
When there is no other evidence of drug use and the tenants of some four years firmly deny such use, the only evidence of use is the testing I cannot award costs for methamphetamine levels less than 15 micrograms per 100cm². This is the clear and consistent position of the Tribunal, based on the Gluckman Report.
Ms Love stated that the tenant is required to clean the property to a ‘reasonable standard’, to get the levels below the reasonable NZS standards before she could re let the property, so she carried out the clean. Given the levels that have been adopted I do not see why the property needed to be ‘decontaminated’ before reletting, given that the levels have been deemed to have no health risk to the tenant. The tenant gave evidence that she was not given permission to carry out her own testing at the property and of course there was no opportunity for her to clean when she realised the testing and retesting of areas showed higher readings.
The NZS 8510:2017 is the official New Zealand standard for testing and cleaning methamphetamine-contaminated properties, setting a recommended maximum level of 1.5 micrograms per 100cm², though the Tribunal now generally applies the Gluckman Report’s higher threshold of determining a property in need of decontamination at the higher level of 15 micrograms per 100cm². This is supported by case law. Also noted is that the landlord’s insurance would not meet such costs because of the lower level of readings.
As a result, the landlord’s claim for cleaning costs is dismissed. As is the claim for the repeated testing, given that this was not required as the levels were not high enough to warrant the decontamination therefore the repeated testing was not required.
The Tenant claims for emotional harm as a result of the allegations. This does not fall in the Jurisdiction of the Tribunal and I dismiss the claim.
Both parties advised that they did not seek suppression of any of the details of the hearing and therefore I have not done so. .

Tenancy Tribunal case 5345801 — Cleanliness at 51 Norwood Street, Newfield, Invercargill 9812

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5345801 — Cleanliness at 51 Norwood Street, Newfield, Invercargill 9812

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions