What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4446660?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4446660?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4446660?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4446660?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9180055-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4446660?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4446660?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4446660?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4446660?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9180055-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

150A Great South Road, Drury, Drury 2113 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4446660 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4446660 — net $160.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance excess	$2,500.00	Insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$160.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$160.44

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Jasmine Rose Downes must pay Barfoot & Thompson Property Limited as Agent for James Christopher Janssen Petherick $160.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,360.00 (6312401-009) to Barfoot & Thompson Property Limited as Agent for James Christopher Janssen Petherick immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 11 July 2023. Background
The parties signed a residential tenancy agreement for a fixed term from 13 April 2021 to 14 April 2022.
On 15 September 2022 the tenant gave notice of withdrawal from the tenancy pursuant to section 56B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The landlord filed an application with the Tribunal on 21 November 2022, for costs relating to methamphetamine decontamination and outgoings.
The tenant applied to the Tribunal on 1 March 2023, claiming exemplary damages.
A pre-tenancy screening test on 17 February 2021 found no traces of methamphetamine at the property. At the hearing, the landlord advised that pre- tenancy screening took place as a matter of course.
A detailed assessment was performed on 6 October 2022. This found methamphetamine residues above 1.5ug/100cm2 in 10 out of 30 samples (the precise location of the samples is unclear, as the detailed assessment report was not provided). The highest reading was 9.95ug/100cm2 and the next highest were samples with readings at 5.04 ug/100cm2 and 4.95ug/100cm2.
At the hearing, the tenant suggested the highest reading was probably from the master bedroom. Relevant law
In June 2017, Standards New Zealand published standard NZS 8510:2017 (the NZ Standard) for testing and decontamination of methamphetamine- contaminated properties. This adopted a standard of 1.5ug/100cm2 for high use areas, for both manufacture and use. The foreword said that methamphetamine production and use can contaminate properties and expose occupants, particularly young children, to potential health risks. A post-contamination level of 1.5ug/100cm2 or less was considered appropriate to minimize exposure risks, acknowledging “safety factors” already built into a risk assessment by Environmental Science and Research Limited in October 2016.
Professor Gluckman, at that time the government’s chief science advisor, authored a report dated 29 May 2018 which concluded that methamphetamine levels exceeding the NZ Standard level of 1.5ug/100cm2 “...should not be regarded as signaling a health risk”. The report said that exposure to methamphetamine levels below 15ug/100cm2 would be unlikely to give rise to any adverse effects. Remediation to the 1.5ug/100cm2 standard was appropriate for former meth labs and properties with high levels of methamphetamine contamination from excessive use. The report said that manufacture in general results in greater methamphetamine residue levels than smoking alone and concluded that “...levels around or exceeding 30ug/100cm2 are regarded as strongly suggestive of manufacturing activity”.
In Full Circle Real Estate v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 the District Court had to determine whether the level of methamphetamine contamination would present a risk to human health. Where there is a risk to human health from such contamination, the property can be said to be damaged. The District Court said that the Gluckman report constituted the best available knowledge of the risks to human health from methamphetamine contamination. I interpret this case as confirmation that the Gluckman report is to be applied rather than the NZ Standard when determining whether there is damage.
Section 40(2)(b) of the Act requires that the tenant must not use the premises, or permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose. It is an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 to manufacture or use any controlled drug, or to knowingly permit any premises to be used for the purpose of consuming controlled drugs (sections 6, 7 and 12). It follows that methamphetamine use or manufacture at residential premises is a breach of section 40(2)(b) and is an “unlawful act” for which exemplary damages of up to $1,800.00 may be awarded. Landlord’s Application Methamphetamine-related issues
The landlord’s insurer paid the cost of the screening test, the detailed assessment testing, the cost of decontamination, replacement carpets, and the cost of replacing ducting and filters, subject to an excess of $2,500.00. The replacement blinds were not covered by the insurance ($2,512.75).
At the hearing, the Tribunal directed the landlord to confirm whether the detailed assessment testing ($2,772.65) and post-decontamination testing costs ($1,864.65) were also paid by insurers. Following the hearing, the landlord confirmed that its claim was limited to the insurance excess and the cost of replacement blinds, plus exemplary damages. I understood this to mean that all the remediation and testing costs, apart from the blinds, were covered by the insurance.
The tenant accepts that methamphetamine was used during the tenancy by her partner. Whilst in the relationship she was subjected to domestic abuse. She tells me, and I accept, that she could not prevent her partner from using drugs in the premises for fear of serious assault.
While the premises have been used for an unlawful purpose, the tenant did not use the premises for that purpose, and I accept she was not in a position to prevent her partner from doing so. As such, she did not “permit” the unlawful use. I consider it would not be just to award exemplary damages.
While there was methamphetamine contamination during the tenancy, it did not reach the levels, identified in the Gluckman Report, at which the property could be considered unsafe for human habitation. There is no evidence suggesting methamphetamine was manufactured on site. It follows that remediation costs, including the cost of replacement blinds, cannot be recovered because the premises were not damaged.
There were also testing costs. In my view, the initial screening cost cannot be recovered because such testing would have occurred whether or not the tenant breached section 40(2)(b) of the Act. Indeed, it was not included in the claim summary.
The cost of the detailed assessment following the screening test, however, is a cost flowing from the use of the premises for an unlawful purpose. After receiving the screening test results, which showed a maximum theoretical methamphetamine contamination of 10ug/100cm2, it was reasonable for the landlord to perform a detailed assessment to check the actual extent of contamination. Applying the Gluckman Report, the results of the detailed assessment indicated that no further testing was necessary. I therefore award the costs of the first detailed assessment ($2,772.65) but not the cost of further testing after decontamination ($1,864.15). The landlord claimed the insurance excess, and I award that amount ($2,500.00). Outgoings
The landlord claimed $167.60 for the final water charges. The tenant accepted that this amount is owed for water. Tenant’s Application
The tenant claimed exemplary damages for breach of section 56E of the Act. This provides that a landlord must not disclose the whole or part of a notice of withdrawal under section 56B(1) or any of the accompanying qualifying evidence, except, inter alia, with the consent of the tenant.
This provision is now supplemented by the Residential Tenancies (Termination for Physical Assault by Tenant and Withdrawal Following Family Violence) Regulations 2022. Regulation 11 provides that the landlord or the landlord’s agent may disclose to the owner, the landlord, or the landlord’s agent a withdrawal notice or any of the accompanying qualifying evidence, where “necessary or desirable” for reasons related to the tenancy.
The withdrawal notice was acknowledged by an employee of the landlord’s agent (Barfoot & Thompson) by email on 16 September 2022. At the end of a string of emails with the same employee, the tenant was informed that this employee was leaving Barfoot and her colleagues would deal with remaining matters, including testing and cleaning. These colleagues were copied to the email.
The tenant complained that her details and circumstances were being shared. I can understand the concern. However, I am not satisfied that section 56E has been breached. It does not appear that the withdrawal notice was disclosed by email to the other Barfoot employees. The email of 16 September 2022 only attached information acknowledging the end of the tenancy. Even if the other colleagues did receive a copy of the withdrawal notice or were able to find it on their employer’s file, in my view there was no breach of section 56E. It was necessary or desirable for Barfoot employees to be able to see the information, as part of their administrative completion of the tenancy. Filing fee and name suppression
The landlord has succeeded in recovering the insurance excess. I exercise my discretion to award the landlord the filing fee.
In their respective applications, both parties indicated they did not seek suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4446660 — net $160.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance excess	$2,500.00	Insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$160.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$160.44

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Jasmine Rose Downes must pay Barfoot & Thompson Property Limited as Agent for James Christopher Janssen Petherick $160.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,360.00 (6312401-009) to Barfoot & Thompson Property Limited as Agent for James Christopher Janssen Petherick immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 11 July 2023. Background
The parties signed a residential tenancy agreement for a fixed term from 13 April 2021 to 14 April 2022.
On 15 September 2022 the tenant gave notice of withdrawal from the tenancy pursuant to section 56B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The landlord filed an application with the Tribunal on 21 November 2022, for costs relating to methamphetamine decontamination and outgoings.
The tenant applied to the Tribunal on 1 March 2023, claiming exemplary damages.
A pre-tenancy screening test on 17 February 2021 found no traces of methamphetamine at the property. At the hearing, the landlord advised that pre- tenancy screening took place as a matter of course.
A detailed assessment was performed on 6 October 2022. This found methamphetamine residues above 1.5ug/100cm2 in 10 out of 30 samples (the precise location of the samples is unclear, as the detailed assessment report was not provided). The highest reading was 9.95ug/100cm2 and the next highest were samples with readings at 5.04 ug/100cm2 and 4.95ug/100cm2.
At the hearing, the tenant suggested the highest reading was probably from the master bedroom. Relevant law
In June 2017, Standards New Zealand published standard NZS 8510:2017 (the NZ Standard) for testing and decontamination of methamphetamine- contaminated properties. This adopted a standard of 1.5ug/100cm2 for high use areas, for both manufacture and use. The foreword said that methamphetamine production and use can contaminate properties and expose occupants, particularly young children, to potential health risks. A post-contamination level of 1.5ug/100cm2 or less was considered appropriate to minimize exposure risks, acknowledging “safety factors” already built into a risk assessment by Environmental Science and Research Limited in October 2016.
Professor Gluckman, at that time the government’s chief science advisor, authored a report dated 29 May 2018 which concluded that methamphetamine levels exceeding the NZ Standard level of 1.5ug/100cm2 “...should not be regarded as signaling a health risk”. The report said that exposure to methamphetamine levels below 15ug/100cm2 would be unlikely to give rise to any adverse effects. Remediation to the 1.5ug/100cm2 standard was appropriate for former meth labs and properties with high levels of methamphetamine contamination from excessive use. The report said that manufacture in general results in greater methamphetamine residue levels than smoking alone and concluded that “...levels around or exceeding 30ug/100cm2 are regarded as strongly suggestive of manufacturing activity”.
In Full Circle Real Estate v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 the District Court had to determine whether the level of methamphetamine contamination would present a risk to human health. Where there is a risk to human health from such contamination, the property can be said to be damaged. The District Court said that the Gluckman report constituted the best available knowledge of the risks to human health from methamphetamine contamination. I interpret this case as confirmation that the Gluckman report is to be applied rather than the NZ Standard when determining whether there is damage.
Section 40(2)(b) of the Act requires that the tenant must not use the premises, or permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose. It is an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 to manufacture or use any controlled drug, or to knowingly permit any premises to be used for the purpose of consuming controlled drugs (sections 6, 7 and 12). It follows that methamphetamine use or manufacture at residential premises is a breach of section 40(2)(b) and is an “unlawful act” for which exemplary damages of up to $1,800.00 may be awarded. Landlord’s Application Methamphetamine-related issues
The landlord’s insurer paid the cost of the screening test, the detailed assessment testing, the cost of decontamination, replacement carpets, and the cost of replacing ducting and filters, subject to an excess of $2,500.00. The replacement blinds were not covered by the insurance ($2,512.75).
At the hearing, the Tribunal directed the landlord to confirm whether the detailed assessment testing ($2,772.65) and post-decontamination testing costs ($1,864.65) were also paid by insurers. Following the hearing, the landlord confirmed that its claim was limited to the insurance excess and the cost of replacement blinds, plus exemplary damages. I understood this to mean that all the remediation and testing costs, apart from the blinds, were covered by the insurance.
The tenant accepts that methamphetamine was used during the tenancy by her partner. Whilst in the relationship she was subjected to domestic abuse. She tells me, and I accept, that she could not prevent her partner from using drugs in the premises for fear of serious assault.
While the premises have been used for an unlawful purpose, the tenant did not use the premises for that purpose, and I accept she was not in a position to prevent her partner from doing so. As such, she did not “permit” the unlawful use. I consider it would not be just to award exemplary damages.
While there was methamphetamine contamination during the tenancy, it did not reach the levels, identified in the Gluckman Report, at which the property could be considered unsafe for human habitation. There is no evidence suggesting methamphetamine was manufactured on site. It follows that remediation costs, including the cost of replacement blinds, cannot be recovered because the premises were not damaged.
There were also testing costs. In my view, the initial screening cost cannot be recovered because such testing would have occurred whether or not the tenant breached section 40(2)(b) of the Act. Indeed, it was not included in the claim summary.
The cost of the detailed assessment following the screening test, however, is a cost flowing from the use of the premises for an unlawful purpose. After receiving the screening test results, which showed a maximum theoretical methamphetamine contamination of 10ug/100cm2, it was reasonable for the landlord to perform a detailed assessment to check the actual extent of contamination. Applying the Gluckman Report, the results of the detailed assessment indicated that no further testing was necessary. I therefore award the costs of the first detailed assessment ($2,772.65) but not the cost of further testing after decontamination ($1,864.15). The landlord claimed the insurance excess, and I award that amount ($2,500.00). Outgoings
The landlord claimed $167.60 for the final water charges. The tenant accepted that this amount is owed for water. Tenant’s Application
The tenant claimed exemplary damages for breach of section 56E of the Act. This provides that a landlord must not disclose the whole or part of a notice of withdrawal under section 56B(1) or any of the accompanying qualifying evidence, except, inter alia, with the consent of the tenant.
This provision is now supplemented by the Residential Tenancies (Termination for Physical Assault by Tenant and Withdrawal Following Family Violence) Regulations 2022. Regulation 11 provides that the landlord or the landlord’s agent may disclose to the owner, the landlord, or the landlord’s agent a withdrawal notice or any of the accompanying qualifying evidence, where “necessary or desirable” for reasons related to the tenancy.
The withdrawal notice was acknowledged by an employee of the landlord’s agent (Barfoot & Thompson) by email on 16 September 2022. At the end of a string of emails with the same employee, the tenant was informed that this employee was leaving Barfoot and her colleagues would deal with remaining matters, including testing and cleaning. These colleagues were copied to the email.
The tenant complained that her details and circumstances were being shared. I can understand the concern. However, I am not satisfied that section 56E has been breached. It does not appear that the withdrawal notice was disclosed by email to the other Barfoot employees. The email of 16 September 2022 only attached information acknowledging the end of the tenancy. Even if the other colleagues did receive a copy of the withdrawal notice or were able to find it on their employer’s file, in my view there was no breach of section 56E. It was necessary or desirable for Barfoot employees to be able to see the information, as part of their administrative completion of the tenancy. Filing fee and name suppression
The landlord has succeeded in recovering the insurance excess. I exercise my discretion to award the landlord the filing fee.
In their respective applications, both parties indicated they did not seek suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4446660 — Property damage at 150A Great South Road, Drury, Drury 2113

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4446660 — Property damage at 150A Great South Road, Drury, Drury 2113

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions