What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4625609?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 (5489372-001) apportioned in

How much money was awarded in case 4625609?

Contaminant Testing: $1,034.43 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent (One Day: $91.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4625609?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage, Exemplary damages, Meth Testing/Cleaning.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4625609?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9553177-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4625609?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 (5489372-001) apportioned in

How much money was awarded in case 4625609?

Contaminant Testing: $1,034.43 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent (One Day: $91.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4625609?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage, Exemplary damages, Meth Testing/Cleaning.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4625609?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9553177-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

155B Gray Avenue, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4625609 — Mould & damp

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4625609. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent (one day	$91.43	Rent (one day
Contaminant testing	$1,034.43	Contaminant testing
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement

Two representatives of the landlord together with the tenant, and two of her family members, attended the hearing on 20 October 2023.

The tenant and family lived at the premises for 4 years. The tenancy ended because the landlord had family who wanted to move in.

The landlord has made this application. I discuss each claim below. One day of rent to pay

The landlord gave notice to end the tenancy. The notice period was extended. The tenant then advised of a final move out date. The rent ledger shows that one day of rent is owing up to this date. I award this amount. Cost to remove stain on one wall

The landlord proved that there was a new stain on one wall that occurred during the tenancy and is more than wear and tear.

The parties think it probable that the stain was from mould or damp from an item of furniture being close against this wall during the tenancy.

The law considers this to be careless damage which means that a tenant is responsible for any cost to remedy (up to the amount of an insurance excess or a maximum of 4 weeks’ rent); see section 49B(3)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

In this case, there is no evidence as to any cost incurred. A quote was supplied (to sand and revarnish the wooden wall) but this work has not been done. I do not award compensation as the amount of any loss is not known. Contaminants testing and decontamination/cleaning costs

The landlord claims compensation for the cost of contaminants testing and decontamination, and seeks exemplary damages (which are like a fine).

The landlord has proven that:- a. A contaminants test done 6 days before the tenancy began was positive for methamphetamine at what the testing company described as “EXTREMELY low levels”. The Analytica laboratory test result 1 from a 10-sample composite (all samples combined into one test tube) was an average of 0.02 micrograms 2 (“mcg”) per 100cm 2 sample area or a theoretical maximum in one sample of 0.22mcg. The report recommendation was that no further testing or disclosure was required. 3 b. A contaminants test done 6 days after the tenancy ended was positive for methamphetamine with the composite test result an average of 1.13mcg per sample or a potential maximum in one sample of 11.3 mcg. 4 This was also a composite test of 10 samples. 1 Analytica Laboratories Limited certificate of analysis dated 24 May 2019. 2 One microgram is one millionth of a gram. 3 All Clear Group Limited test result report Job #8697 at page 2. 4 Hill Laboratories certificate of analysis dated 31 May 2023. c. The testing company recommended that the 10 samples then be tested individually so that contaminant levels from each sample location could be precisely determined. 5 d. The individual sample test results were: 6

7mcgtoilet (window frame)

3mcgbedroom 2 / master bedroom (wall) Below 1.5mcg 7 other samples from 7 separate rooms

The tenant said, on behalf of herself and the two members of her family who were present, that they had not used methamphetamine in the premises and did not know (for sure) of anyone who had. She said that after being told of the positive test result, she did have her suspicions about one person who had lived at the house for a time and occupied the master bedroom.

The pre-tenancy composite test result was positive for methamphetamine at a very low level (0.22mcg being the highest possible sample result). The end-of- tenancy composite test and retest were 30 times and 50 times higher (6.4mcg for the first outgoing test and 11.3mcg for the retest). A composite test result does not give an exact contamination level but in this case, it has increased significantly in samples taken from similar locations. 7

My conclusion from the above evidence is that it is more probable than not that someone who was at the premises with the tenant’s consent used methamphetamine in the house during this tenancy.

Ms Barber understands that she is legally responsible for the actions of people at the premises with her permission (including visitors) and for any damage that they cause; see sections 41 and 49B(1) RTA.

I now consider whether to award compensation or exemplary damages (like a fine) related to the methamphetamine use.

I have decided that the tenant must compensate the landlord for the cost of testing the individual samples which is $1,034.43. It was reasonable of the landlord to have this more detailed testing done to identify the exact contaminant levels in different rooms in the house.

The testing was required as a direct result of the unlawful drug use at the premises which is a breach of s40(2)(b) RTA. The tenant may not have been 5 All Clear Group Limited test result report Job #58723 at 4.0 Conclusion, page 2. 6 Hill Laboratories certificate of analysis dated 2 June 2023. 7 The tenant asked in the hearing why two end-of-tenancy tests had been done and the landlord replied that a retest was done to improve the consistency of sample locations with the pre-tenancy tests. The same testing company did the pre-tenancy and end-of-tenancy tests. aware that methamphetamine was being used in the premises, but she is responsible for that use by anyone she has permitted to be there.

I do not award compensation for decontamination (methamphetamine cleaning) of the premises. This is because none of the individual sample results were at a level high enough to justify decontamination for health or safety reasons.

In making this decision, I acknowledge that there is uncertainty about methamphetamine contamination levels in residential tenancy premises in New Zealand because there is no legally binding standard, as yet. It is accepted by the RTA that methamphetamine is a contaminant 8 however regulations have not yet been made under s138C RTA to set maximum acceptable levels. 9

The two most accepted sources of (non-legally binding) guidance are quite different in their recommendations. New Zealand Standard 8510:2017 (NZS8510:2017) says methamphetamine residue of no more than

5mcg/100cm 2 is recommended. In contrast, the Gluckman Report 10 concludes that results up to 15mcg/100cm 2 (where there is no evidence of manufacture) is highly unlikely to cause adverse health effects. That report does recommend decontamination to the NZS level where there is evidence of manufacture or of very high methamphetamine use (test results above 30mcg/100cm 2 ) to reduce levels of other toxicants that may be present. 11

The District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 has described the Gluckman report as representing “the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination in dwellings” and endorsed the Tenancy Tribunal’s decision to rely on that report to conclude that there was no damage to premises where methamphetamine levels were below 15mcg/100cm 2 .

I am required to follow District Court decisions.

In this case, it is highly unlikely that the manufacture of methamphetamine has occurred at the property 12 and all the test results are well below 15mcg/100cm 2 . Relying on the recommendations of the Gluckman Report, I conclude that the 8 Methamphetamine is included in the definition of “contaminant” in section 2 RTA. S138C(2) says that the Minister must be satisfied that a substance “may be harmful to the health of persons” before recommending that it be prescribed as a contaminant. 9 Proposed new regulations have been developed but not yet passed into law. See Regulation of Methamphetamine Contamination in Rental Housing - Te Tūāpapa Kura Kāinga - Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (hud.govt.nz). 10 29 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.” 11 Gluckman Report at pages 6 and 27. 12 All Clear Group Limited test result report Job #58936 at 4.0 Conclusion, page 3. premises were not left damaged or unreasonably clean and the tenant is not liable for the decontamination costs incurred by the landlord.

I note that the evidence includes an estimate of decontamination costs but no final invoice. This part of the claim is dismissed. Exemplary damages

A tenant must not use tenancy premises, or permit the premises to be used for, an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Use of methamphetamine is an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Exemplary damages are like a fine and are intended to deter or punish. The Tribunal may award these where it is satisfied a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally and it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

I have decided not to award exemplary damages in this case. I am not satisfied that the tenant herself was aware of the methamphetamine use. It would not be just to punish her.

This claim is dismissed. Filing fee

The landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, so I award the filing fee. Bond

The bond will be refunded in accordance with the orders made. Suppression of name

The agent company does not seek suppression of name.

The claim against the tenant has been proven so she is not entitled to suppression of name as of right; s95A RTA. I acknowledge that this decision may have an impact on her in circumstances where she may not personally be at fault. However, generally, public interest presumes that proceedings are open, unless the circumstances are exceptional. 13 I do not order suppression in this case.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4625609. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent (one day	$91.43	Rent (one day
Contaminant testing	$1,034.43	Contaminant testing
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement

Two representatives of the landlord together with the tenant, and two of her family members, attended the hearing on 20 October 2023.

The tenant and family lived at the premises for 4 years. The tenancy ended because the landlord had family who wanted to move in.

The landlord has made this application. I discuss each claim below. One day of rent to pay

The landlord proved that there was a new stain on one wall that occurred during the tenancy and is more than wear and tear.

The parties think it probable that the stain was from mould or damp from an item of furniture being close against this wall during the tenancy.

The landlord claims compensation for the cost of contaminants testing and decontamination, and seeks exemplary damages (which are like a fine).

7mcgtoilet (window frame)

3mcgbedroom 2 / master bedroom (wall) Below 1.5mcg 7 other samples from 7 separate rooms

My conclusion from the above evidence is that it is more probable than not that someone who was at the premises with the tenant’s consent used methamphetamine in the house during this tenancy.

I now consider whether to award compensation or exemplary damages (like a fine) related to the methamphetamine use.

I am required to follow District Court decisions.

I note that the evidence includes an estimate of decontamination costs but no final invoice. This part of the claim is dismissed. Exemplary damages

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

I have decided not to award exemplary damages in this case. I am not satisfied that the tenant herself was aware of the methamphetamine use. It would not be just to punish her.

This claim is dismissed. Filing fee

The landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, so I award the filing fee. Bond

The bond will be refunded in accordance with the orders made. Suppression of name

The agent company does not seek suppression of name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4625609 — Mould & damp at 155B Gray Avenue, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2024

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4625609 — Mould & damp at 155B Gray Avenue, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2024

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions