What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4609816?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4609816?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Walls Feb 2023: $503.94 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $172.20 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4609816?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4609816?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9534106-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4609816?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4609816?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Walls Feb 2023: $503.94 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $172.20 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4609816?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4609816?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9534106-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

2B Lili Road, Tuakau, Tuakau 2121 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4609816 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4609816 — net $696.58 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Walls Feb 2023	$503.94	Repairs: Walls Feb 2023
Water rates	$172.20	Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$696.58
Bond	$1,920.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$696.58

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The landlord’s claims for methamphetamine contamination, cleaning, and testing are dismissed.
Stacey Potini-Rau to pay Reforma Limited - As Agent For Paul And Corinne Tilbury $696.58 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,920.00 (6405049-001) immediately apportioned as follows: Reforma Limited - As Agent For Paul And Corinne Tilbury: $696.58 Stacey Potini-Rau: $1,223.42

Reasons

Ms Melville attended the hearing for the landlord. The tenant did not attend the hearing.
I am satisfied that the tenant was informed of today’s hearing and has not attended. The Tribunal can proceed to hear the case in her absence.
The landlord has applied for: a) Water rates to the end of the tenancy $172.20 b) Damage to the walls $503.94 c) Loss of rent due to methamphetamine contamination $942.84 d) Methamphetamine cleaning $172.50 e) Room by Room testing $1283.40 f) After clean room test $402.62. g) The filing fee $20.44

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 28 April 2023. The landlord provided water rates invoices and a copy of the reading which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the walls incurred in February?

During a routine inspection in January 2023 the landlord noted 3 walls where the door handles had made holes in the walls. There were door stops on each of the walls.
The landlord repaired the walls and painted them during the tenancy. The tenant agreed to pay the cost of the repairs. The tenant has not paid for the repairs. I am satisfied that the tenant or her children careless damaged the walls because the doors should have been able to be opened without causing a hole in the wall and therefore the tenant is responsible for the costs of repairs of $503.94. Is the tenant responsible for methamphetamine contamination.
The landlord claims that the tenant has used methamphetamine at the property resulting in damage to the property.
The property has been tenanted by different tenants for at least 10 years, at the end of each tenancy the landlord has the property tested for methamphetamine. This outgoing testing is also used as a baseline for the next tenants. The property was tested when the last tenants left on 7 December 2020. This tenant did not start her tenancy until April 2021. The property was not tested again until the tenants left. The testing in December 2020 was a composite test comprising of two samples- Sample A had a level of 0.09 micrograms of methamphetamine and Sample B had a level of 0.11 micrograms of methamphetamine detected. In the testing on the 1 May 2023 the samples were taken in the identical areas Sample A showed 2.67 micrograms of methamphetamine detected and Sample B showed 2.79 micrograms of methamphetamine detected. As these showed an increase above 1.5 micrograms the landlord had individual or discreet testing completed. The only individual sample area that was above 1.5 micrograms was the lounge door
22 micrograms.
The Tribunal has previously found that damage occurs, and decontamination is necessary when levels of methamphetamine contamination are above 15μg/100cm 2 . Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4797. 1 This is the level adopted by the authors of what is colloquially known as the Gluckman report dated 29 May 2018 (“the Gluckman Report”). 2 The Gluckman Report concludes that there is no evidence of risk of harm from second or third hand exposure to methamphetamine residue measured at or less than 15μg/100cm 2 unless there is evidence to suggest that the premises have been used for manufacture.
Neither the Gluckman Report nor the previously used New Zealand Standard NZS 8510:2017 3 (NZS) which recommended a level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 are embedded into law, they both represent guidelines and are not regulatory.
In the aforementioned Full Circle Real Estate v Piper his Honour Judge Kellar gave consideration as to whether the Tribunal erred in applying the Gluckman level of 15μg/100cm 2 over the NZS of 1.5μg/100cm 2 and found that; “it would have been bold for the adjudicator to have ignored that report (the Gluckman 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.” 4 Therefore, the Tribunal continues to adopt a level of 15μg/100cm 2 as a level that requires remediation for contamination. 1 Full Circle Real Estate v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947- CIV2018-009-2490 2 Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposure, risk levels and interpretation of standards.” 29 May 2018 - Professor Gluckman – Prime Minister’s chief science advisor; (The Gluckman Report). 3 NZS 8510:2017 New Zealand Standard – testing and decontamination of methamphetamine - contaminated properties. 4 Full Circle Real Estate v Piper at [36]
Landlord’s can also seek compensation if they can prove that the tenants or their invitees used methamphetamine at the property during the tenancy as using methamphetamine is an unlawful purpose (see s 40(2)(b) RTA).
However, the very first consideration is whether it was this tenant or her invitees that caused the contamination. This can be difficult to prove unless there is some testing that is done that establishes that the damage or contamination occurred during the tenancy.
In a recent District Court decision where there was no testing done before the tenancy the court said: 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 their tenancy. 5
Whilst there was some testing done before the tenancy began in December 2020, I regard the period of 4 months between when the tests done and the tenant took possession to be too long, in the absence of other evidence to prove that that the tenants had used methamphetamine at the property. There were other people in the house over that time, such as the owner, property manager and open homes for viewing.
As the landlord has not been able to prove that the tenants or their invitees used methamphetamine at the property then their claims for testing costs, cleaning and rent are dismissed.
As the landlord has been partly successful, I award the landlord the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4609816 — net $696.58 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Walls Feb 2023	$503.94	Repairs: Walls Feb 2023
Water rates	$172.20	Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$696.58
Bond	$1,920.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$696.58

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The landlord’s claims for methamphetamine contamination, cleaning, and testing are dismissed.
Stacey Potini-Rau to pay Reforma Limited - As Agent For Paul And Corinne Tilbury $696.58 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,920.00 (6405049-001) immediately apportioned as follows: Reforma Limited - As Agent For Paul And Corinne Tilbury: $696.58 Stacey Potini-Rau: $1,223.42

Reasons

Ms Melville attended the hearing for the landlord. The tenant did not attend the hearing.
I am satisfied that the tenant was informed of today’s hearing and has not attended. The Tribunal can proceed to hear the case in her absence.
The landlord has applied for: a) Water rates to the end of the tenancy $172.20 b) Damage to the walls $503.94 c) Loss of rent due to methamphetamine contamination $942.84 d) Methamphetamine cleaning $172.50 e) Room by Room testing $1283.40 f) After clean room test $402.62. g) The filing fee $20.44

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 28 April 2023. The landlord provided water rates invoices and a copy of the reading which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the walls incurred in February?

During a routine inspection in January 2023 the landlord noted 3 walls where the door handles had made holes in the walls. There were door stops on each of the walls.
The landlord repaired the walls and painted them during the tenancy. The tenant agreed to pay the cost of the repairs. The tenant has not paid for the repairs. I am satisfied that the tenant or her children careless damaged the walls because the doors should have been able to be opened without causing a hole in the wall and therefore the tenant is responsible for the costs of repairs of $503.94. Is the tenant responsible for methamphetamine contamination.
The landlord claims that the tenant has used methamphetamine at the property resulting in damage to the property.
The property has been tenanted by different tenants for at least 10 years, at the end of each tenancy the landlord has the property tested for methamphetamine. This outgoing testing is also used as a baseline for the next tenants. The property was tested when the last tenants left on 7 December 2020. This tenant did not start her tenancy until April 2021. The property was not tested again until the tenants left. The testing in December 2020 was a composite test comprising of two samples- Sample A had a level of 0.09 micrograms of methamphetamine and Sample B had a level of 0.11 micrograms of methamphetamine detected. In the testing on the 1 May 2023 the samples were taken in the identical areas Sample A showed 2.67 micrograms of methamphetamine detected and Sample B showed 2.79 micrograms of methamphetamine detected. As these showed an increase above 1.5 micrograms the landlord had individual or discreet testing completed. The only individual sample area that was above 1.5 micrograms was the lounge door
22 micrograms.
The Tribunal has previously found that damage occurs, and decontamination is necessary when levels of methamphetamine contamination are above 15μg/100cm 2 . Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4797. 1 This is the level adopted by the authors of what is colloquially known as the Gluckman report dated 29 May 2018 (“the Gluckman Report”). 2 The Gluckman Report concludes that there is no evidence of risk of harm from second or third hand exposure to methamphetamine residue measured at or less than 15μg/100cm 2 unless there is evidence to suggest that the premises have been used for manufacture.
Neither the Gluckman Report nor the previously used New Zealand Standard NZS 8510:2017 3 (NZS) which recommended a level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 are embedded into law, they both represent guidelines and are not regulatory.
In the aforementioned Full Circle Real Estate v Piper his Honour Judge Kellar gave consideration as to whether the Tribunal erred in applying the Gluckman level of 15μg/100cm 2 over the NZS of 1.5μg/100cm 2 and found that; “it would have been bold for the adjudicator to have ignored that report (the Gluckman 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.” 4 Therefore, the Tribunal continues to adopt a level of 15μg/100cm 2 as a level that requires remediation for contamination. 1 Full Circle Real Estate v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947- CIV2018-009-2490 2 Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposure, risk levels and interpretation of standards.” 29 May 2018 - Professor Gluckman – Prime Minister’s chief science advisor; (The Gluckman Report). 3 NZS 8510:2017 New Zealand Standard – testing and decontamination of methamphetamine - contaminated properties. 4 Full Circle Real Estate v Piper at [36]
Landlord’s can also seek compensation if they can prove that the tenants or their invitees used methamphetamine at the property during the tenancy as using methamphetamine is an unlawful purpose (see s 40(2)(b) RTA).
However, the very first consideration is whether it was this tenant or her invitees that caused the contamination. This can be difficult to prove unless there is some testing that is done that establishes that the damage or contamination occurred during the tenancy.
In a recent District Court decision where there was no testing done before the tenancy the court said: 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 their tenancy. 5
Whilst there was some testing done before the tenancy began in December 2020, I regard the period of 4 months between when the tests done and the tenant took possession to be too long, in the absence of other evidence to prove that that the tenants had used methamphetamine at the property. There were other people in the house over that time, such as the owner, property manager and open homes for viewing.
As the landlord has not been able to prove that the tenants or their invitees used methamphetamine at the property then their claims for testing costs, cleaning and rent are dismissed.
As the landlord has been partly successful, I award the landlord the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4609816 — Property damage at 2B Lili Road, Tuakau, Tuakau 2121

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4609816 — Property damage at 2B Lili Road, Tuakau, Tuakau 2121

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the walls incurred in February?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the walls incurred in February?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions