What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4524377?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4524377?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4524377?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4524377?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9185547-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4524377?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4524377?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4524377?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4524377?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9185547-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

107 Firth Street, Matamata 3400 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4524377 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4524377. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Bond refund	$2,400.00		Bond refund

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4524377. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Bond refund	$2,400.00		Bond refund

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The application for name suppression is declined.
The rest of the claims are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 (5235135-003) to Deanne Lesley Lawrence, Ricky Walker immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant bought a support person with her.
The landlord has applied for compensation for the cost methamphetamine remediation and reimbursement of the bond to cover the insurance excess.
The tenant said that she had not received a copy of the documents and was given the opportunity to adjourn or have extra time to read them. She declined this offer.
At the start of the hearing the tenant said that she would refund the bond to the landlord.
A negative methamphetamine test was recorded on 26 October 2022 by Resultz group New Zealand. The tenancy began on 4 November 2022.
The premises are located behind the landlord’s commercial premises. The tenant was made aware that a security camera was operating at the front area of the property. The tenant claimed it covered her deck but was unable to support this with evidence.
The camera automatically recorded activity form 10pm to 7am. After noting a lot of people coming and going from the premises for a few nights running the landlords got concerned and asked the property manager to conduct a methamphetamine test at the next property inspection.
The tenant was concerned that her visitors were being monitored and thought she was being blamed for having them at the premises. The landlords said that they were concerned with what the activity throughout the night was, not the fact that she had visitors.
The landlord must prove that the tenant caused or permitted the contamination, or that it was caused by someone at the premises with the tenant’s consent. The landlord must also prove that, as a result of the contamination, the premises have been damaged or are not reasonably clean.
The methamphetamine test was conducted by Resultz on 7 March 2023 .A composite test was undertaken and returned result of 20.4μg/100cm 2. ,being a theoretical maximum.
Individual or discrete testing followed on 28 March 2023 and individual analysis recorded, • 2.14μg/100cm 2 and 1.59μg/100cm 2 in the lounge • 4.45μg/100cm 2 in bedroom 1, • 2.03μg/100cm 2 in bedroom 2, • 5.55μg/100cm 2 in the bathroom • 4.08μg/100cm 2 and 1.56μg/100cm 2 in the hallway.
The tenant was informed of the methamphetamine results and said that she never smoked it the house and had a drug test to prove that she was clean. This was not available at the hearing. She agreed that some of the people that visited could have used methamphetamine and they were there with her consent.
Section 138C Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides for regulations to be made prescribing the maximum acceptable level for contaminants, but as yet no regulations have been made in relation to methamphetamine.
There are currently two sources of guidance on the issue of a safe level of methamphetamine contamination in residential premises. In June 2017 Standards New Zealand published NZS 8510:2017. The standard recommended a maximum contamination level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 for high use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture. It recommended a higher level of 3.8μg/100cm 2 for limited use areas.
In May 2018 Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the then Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor, released a report "Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards”. The report noted that there is a lack of scientific evidence to prove that low- level third-hand methamphetamine exposure poses a health risk to humans. It stated that guidelines should be proportionate to risk and that exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm 2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect. It recommended retaining the level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 where contamination resulted from manufacture, due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the process.
The District Court has held that remediation should be carried out in accordance with the prevailing guidelines at the time (Diamond Real Estate Limited v Allan [2017] NZDC 833, Judge Kellar).
The Tribunal has generally applied the Gluckman recommendation. This approach was approved by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947, where the Court stated (at para [36]): The Tenancy Tribunal was in a difficult position. 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.
The District Court took a similar approach in Acme Realty Limited v Hogg and others [2021] NZDC 3231, where the Court referred to the Full Circle case and held that, because NZS 8510:2017 has not been adopted into law, the Tribunal was not bound to apply the 1.5μg standard.
More recently, in Barfoot and Thompson Limited v Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited [2021] NZTT Auckland 4276319, both parties presented scientific evidence at a hearing before the Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that there was no new scientific research to change the conclusions reached in the Gluckman Report. There was no evidence or claim that the premises had been used for manufacturing.
The landlord sought reimbursement of the bond to cover the insurance excess, and costs to revarnish the flooring after it was decontaminated and stained by the chemicals used, replacement of all the curtains as these were not covered by insurance, replacement of lightbulbs and painting cost also not covered by insurance.
There was no evidence that there were missing light bulbs and that extra painting was required.
The Standards New Zealand published NZS 8510:2017, which recommended a maximum contamination level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 was used by the landlord’s insurance company in assessing if they would cover the remediation costs. The insurance did not cover curtain replacement and only covered one third of the cost to repair the wooden floors that were damaged by decontamination process. These costs were sought from the tenant.
Based on the decisions of the District Court and following Tenancy Tribunal orders I find that the maximum contamination level to be applied is that stated by the Gluckman report. Where contamination levels are below 15 μg/100cm² premises do not present a risk and are not considered to require remediation, therefore no damage to the premises has been established.
The claims are therefore dismissed.
Because Deanne Lesley Lawrence, Ricky Walker has not succeeded with the claim the filling fee is not reimbursed.
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The landlord requested suppression, but I did not find that they were successful with the proceedings. Having weighted up the interest of the parties versus the public interest I do not consider it justified to order suppression. I decline to make any suppression orders.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4524377 — Property damage at 107 Firth Street, Matamata 3400

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4524377 — Property damage at 107 Firth Street, Matamata 3400

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions