What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4657169?

The tribunal order states: Laura Leigh Symons and Jayden Andrew Kerr Manning must pay Wellington

How much money was awarded in case 4657169?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $135.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $630.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $171.64 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $57.13 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $338.10 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $330.63 awarded to landlord; Walls and Doors: $1,632.14 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,479.59 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,144.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4657169?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4657169?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11655673-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4657169?

The tribunal order states: Laura Leigh Symons and Jayden Andrew Kerr Manning must pay Wellington

How much money was awarded in case 4657169?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $135.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $630.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $171.64 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $57.13 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $338.10 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $330.63 awarded to landlord; Walls and Doors: $1,632.14 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,479.59 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,144.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4657169?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4657169?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11655673-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

9 Phar Lap Grove, Trentham, Upper Hutt 5018 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4657169 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4657169 — net $7,880.79 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$1,144.25	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$135.00	Lock/key replacement
Replace damaged oven	$630.00	Replace damaged oven
Replace damaged doors x 5	$350.00	Replace damaged doors x 5
Repairs: Holes in walls and doors	$1,632.14	Repairs: Holes in walls and doors
Repairs: Painting new doors and repaired walls	$1,479.59	Repairs: Painting new doors and repaired walls
Repair bathroom door jamb	$171.64	Repair bathroom door jamb
Repair shower door	$57.13	Repair shower door
Repair/replace window latches	$338.10	Repair/replace window latches
Electrical fittings replacement/repair	$330.63	Electrical fittings replacement/repair
Meth testing/decontamination: insurance excess	$2,500.00	Meth testing/decontamination: insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,880.79
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,880.79

Order

Laura Leigh Symons and Jayden Andrew Kerr Manning must pay Wellington Property Management Limited $7,880.79 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $908.13 (3358031-017) to Wellington Property Management Limited immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing represented by Ms Collins. There was no appearance by the tenants.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) RTA. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not remove all rubbish from the premises including the garage and the yard. The grounds were also untidy with a section of lawn damaged and requiring topsoil and reseeding. I have deducted the lawn mowing costs of $109.25 from the invoice, which was carried out more than 2 months after the tenancy ended because they were in reasonable condition at that stage.
The tenant did not return the keys.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. The landlord held general damage cover with an excess of $850 and methamphetamine contamination cover (including testing and decontamination) with an excess of $2,500.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The evidence proves that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: ItemDescription of damageCost estimate/quotesAward after depreciation (where applicable) 1Oven door damagedReplacement oven from Trade Me $840 $630 (Reduced for depreciation by 25%) 24 x damaged doors beyond repair in kitchen, lounge, Bedrooms 2 and 3 Bosh Contracting quote to install 4 replacement doors $1,535.25 plus GST =$1,765.25 $350 (Reduced for depreciation by 85%) 3Holes in walls of hallway, lounge, master bedroom, bedroom 2 Bosh Contracting quote to repair $1,419.25 plus GST=$1,632.14 $1,632.14 4Repainting 4 new doors and repainting and make good all walls repaired Bosh Contracting quote to paint $1,838 plus GST=$2113.70 $1,479.59 (Reduced for depreciation by 30%) 5Damaged bathroom door jamb Bosh Contracting quote to repair $149.25 plus GST =$171.64 $171.64 6Repair shower doorBosh Contracting quote to repair $49.75 plus GST =$57.13 $57.13 7Damaged window latchesBosh Contracting quote to repair $294 plus GST=$338.10 $338.10 8Damage to light fittings and missing bulbs Tungsten Electrical invoice $330.63 $330.63
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage which was likely intentional damage.
Ms Collins advised that the property owner made an insurance claim for some of the above damage, where the costs exceeded the insurance excess. She provided an email from the insurers dated 29 January 2024 which indicates that 5 excesses of $850 (a total of $4,250) would be applied for 5 of the rooms in the house regardless of the amount of general damage caused in each room. In other words, an excess was applied to each room rather than each incident of damage in the room. The email also referred to “quotes/rough estimates” for each claim provided by the insurance assessor. However, the landlord produced an invoice dated 2 June 2024 from Bosh Contracting who did the repair work detailed in items 2-7 in the above table. While the invoice is for a global amount and does not itemise each repair, an earlier itemised quote from Bosh shows that they charged as per their quote. Therefore, I have relied on those figures. The landlord also provided proof of the oven replacement costs and an invoice for the electrical work set out in the table.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have considered betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The oven was installed in 2022. Therefore, it was two years old when replaced in June 2024. Depreciation guidelines estimate that an oven should last 8 years. Therefore, I have reduced the replacement costs by 25% for depreciation.
In relation to the doors, the landlord reported that they were probably original hollow core doors when the premises were constructed in the 1960s. Current depreciation guidelines estimate the life of that type of door to be 20-30 years. Therefore, they should be fully depreciated. However, I have awarded 15% of the replacement costs on the basis that, but for the damage, they would be expected to last a few more years and the landlord is entitled to some compensation for the unintended early replacement.
The landlord gave evidence that walls were last painted in 2021, so were three years old when repainted in June 2024. Based on current depreciation guidelines, the painted walls should last 10 years. Therefore, I have reduced the amount claimed by 30% for depreciation.
Three of the light fitting battens were damaged and required replacement. The replacement cost was minimal, and I consider the amount claimed is reasonable without further depreciating the costs.
Ms Collins was unable to advise the final amount paid out to the property owner by the insurers. It appears that despite her seeking this information from the owners it has not been supplied. However, I am satisfied that the work was completed as shown in invoices produced in evidence and the amounts I have awarded are less than the applicable excesses. Therefore, I am satisfied that I am not awarding more than the owner is entitled to recover because any lump sum awarded by the insurers would be less the applicable excesses.

Methamphetamine contamination-What must be proved?

If the landlord proves methamphetamine (meth) activity during the tenancy, then the tenant is liable for the costs of making good the damage and other reasonably foreseeable losses related to the damage. See ss49A and 49B(1)(b) RTA. In other words, the landlord must prove: first, that the tenant or someone at the premises they are responsible for has used or been in possession of meth and, second, that the meth activity has caused damage.
The District Court has held that the absence of pre-let testing at the start of the tenancy significantly weakens the circumstantial case against a tenant. The absence of a pre-tenancy meth test means other evidence is particularly important and must be strong. 1
In those circumstances, the landlord must prove that it is more probable than not that the tenant, or a person at the premises for whom they are responsible, used, or allowed the use of, meth at the premises during the tenancy.
Whether damage has been caused involves a determination of the level of meth present at the premises.
By following the pre-dominance of Tribunal cases 2 , also supported by the District Court, I accept: a. methamphetamine residue of below 15mcg/100cm² does not cause damage to residential tenancy premises unless there is evidence of manufacture; b. in premises, or parts of premises, where residue is higher than 15mcg/100cm², this is considered damage and decontamination of those areas is appropriate; 1 Eren Limited v Martin and Kukuruzsnayak [2021] NZDC 15210 and Brooking and Hodges v Imrie [2021] NZDC 16976 2 See Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 and Acme Realty Ltd v Alexander James Hogg, Tuitui Grace Polotu, Leigh Sharyn Coughlin [2021] NZDC 3231 c. residue levels of higher than 30mcg/100cm² indicate a high level of use and may indicate manufacture. Decontamination of premises to the lower level of below 1.5mcg is justified.
The standard of proof that applies is the civil standard “on the balance of probabilities”. This means that I do not have to be completely certain, but I must be satisfied that what is alleged is “more probable than not”.
Generally, the more serious the claim, the stronger the evidence that is required (Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55). The claim regarding methamphetamine activity is an allegation of criminal behaviour so the evidence must be strong. Evidence of meth contamination
The premises were tested for the presence of meth on 14 August 2023 after the tenancy ended on 10 August 2023 and the tenants had vacated the premises.
A composite test where the results of several samples are combined indicated that meth was present. Discrete testing of individual samples was then undertaken confirming meth in all the samples. The following table shows the results (in mcg/100cm²): Area testedResult Kitchen rangehood9.2 Dining room wall14.4 Bedroom 1 wall27 Bedroom 2 wall9.4 Lounge heat pump28 Bedroom 3 wall33 Hallway wall63 Bathroom extractor fan185 Laundry wall0.98 Garage wall1.72
Five of the readings are extremely high and exceed the “safe level” of 15 mcg/100cm² indicating heavy use and potentially manufacture.
There was no pre-tenancy meth testing carried out at the premises. However, the tenants left some of their furnishings and electronic goods at the premises which the landlord had tested. Composite testing undertaken on 17 August 2023 of 6 samples from the television, radio, two sets of drawers and the microwave established the presence of meth with a level of 12.7 mcg/100cm². This indicates either the presence of meth in the tenant’s belongings when they brought them into the premises or that the belongings became contaminated by meth during the tenancy. Either way, this supports a conclusion that the tenants likely used or dealt with meth during the tenancy.
The landlord argues that this evidence together with the extremely high readings for individual samples tested in other areas of the house supports a finding that the tenants or someone at the premises with their permission were using meth at the premises. The extremely high levels above 30 mcg/100cm².are also considered by forensic experts to signify that manufacture has taken place as noted by Professor Gluckman in his May 2018 report “Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards.” The high levels would also indicate recent, high use.
After considering this evidence, I am satisfied that there is strong evidence to establish that it was more likely than not that the tenant was responsible for the presence of meth at the premises during the tenancy.
The onus is then on the tenant to prove that the contamination did not occur intentionally or carelessly (see s40(4) RTA). However, there is no evidence to displace my finding that the tenant is responsible for the contamination at the property and that the damage was more than likely caused intentionally by the tenant in breach of s40(2)(a) RTA and/or as a result of the tenant permitting the property to be used for an unlawful purpose in breach of s40(2)(b) RTA, for which the tenant is responsible.
Ms Collins gave evidence that the property owner had insurance cover for meth contamination with an excess of $2,500. She says that the insurance claim was approved. Again, despite requesting that the owners provide detailed information, Ms Collins was unable to advise how much the insurers paid and whether it covered all the testing and decontamination costs. Usually, insurance cover for meth is capped and any costs exceeding the cap are for the owner to pay. In this case, there is no evidence as to whether the meth testing and decontamination costs exceeded any insurance cap. Therefore, I assume that all costs were covered less the excess and I cannot award any shortfall, which has not been proved.
The landlord provided invoices paid covering the costs of testing, decontamination, and remediation exceeding $15,806. In addition the landlord provided a quote of $3,991 to replace curtains and a quote of $5880 to replace carpets. Based on the evidence, and Ms Collins’ understanding that the insurers covered all these costs less the insurance excess, I award the insurance excess of $2,500 applicable to the meth testing and decontamination claim.
As the landlord has succeeded with their claims, they are entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4657169 — net $7,880.79 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$1,144.25	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$135.00	Lock/key replacement
Replace damaged oven	$630.00	Replace damaged oven
Replace damaged doors x 5	$350.00	Replace damaged doors x 5
Repairs: Holes in walls and doors	$1,632.14	Repairs: Holes in walls and doors
Repairs: Painting new doors and repaired walls	$1,479.59	Repairs: Painting new doors and repaired walls
Repair bathroom door jamb	$171.64	Repair bathroom door jamb
Repair shower door	$57.13	Repair shower door
Repair/replace window latches	$338.10	Repair/replace window latches
Electrical fittings replacement/repair	$330.63	Electrical fittings replacement/repair
Meth testing/decontamination: insurance excess	$2,500.00	Meth testing/decontamination: insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,880.79
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,880.79

Order

Laura Leigh Symons and Jayden Andrew Kerr Manning must pay Wellington Property Management Limited $7,880.79 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $908.13 (3358031-017) to Wellington Property Management Limited immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing represented by Ms Collins. There was no appearance by the tenants.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) RTA. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not remove all rubbish from the premises including the garage and the yard. The grounds were also untidy with a section of lawn damaged and requiring topsoil and reseeding. I have deducted the lawn mowing costs of $109.25 from the invoice, which was carried out more than 2 months after the tenancy ended because they were in reasonable condition at that stage.
The tenant did not return the keys.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. The landlord held general damage cover with an excess of $850 and methamphetamine contamination cover (including testing and decontamination) with an excess of $2,500.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The evidence proves that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: ItemDescription of damageCost estimate/quotesAward after depreciation (where applicable) 1Oven door damagedReplacement oven from Trade Me $840 $630 (Reduced for depreciation by 25%) 24 x damaged doors beyond repair in kitchen, lounge, Bedrooms 2 and 3 Bosh Contracting quote to install 4 replacement doors $1,535.25 plus GST =$1,765.25 $350 (Reduced for depreciation by 85%) 3Holes in walls of hallway, lounge, master bedroom, bedroom 2 Bosh Contracting quote to repair $1,419.25 plus GST=$1,632.14 $1,632.14 4Repainting 4 new doors and repainting and make good all walls repaired Bosh Contracting quote to paint $1,838 plus GST=$2113.70 $1,479.59 (Reduced for depreciation by 30%) 5Damaged bathroom door jamb Bosh Contracting quote to repair $149.25 plus GST =$171.64 $171.64 6Repair shower doorBosh Contracting quote to repair $49.75 plus GST =$57.13 $57.13 7Damaged window latchesBosh Contracting quote to repair $294 plus GST=$338.10 $338.10 8Damage to light fittings and missing bulbs Tungsten Electrical invoice $330.63 $330.63
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage which was likely intentional damage.
Ms Collins advised that the property owner made an insurance claim for some of the above damage, where the costs exceeded the insurance excess. She provided an email from the insurers dated 29 January 2024 which indicates that 5 excesses of $850 (a total of $4,250) would be applied for 5 of the rooms in the house regardless of the amount of general damage caused in each room. In other words, an excess was applied to each room rather than each incident of damage in the room. The email also referred to “quotes/rough estimates” for each claim provided by the insurance assessor. However, the landlord produced an invoice dated 2 June 2024 from Bosh Contracting who did the repair work detailed in items 2-7 in the above table. While the invoice is for a global amount and does not itemise each repair, an earlier itemised quote from Bosh shows that they charged as per their quote. Therefore, I have relied on those figures. The landlord also provided proof of the oven replacement costs and an invoice for the electrical work set out in the table.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have considered betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The oven was installed in 2022. Therefore, it was two years old when replaced in June 2024. Depreciation guidelines estimate that an oven should last 8 years. Therefore, I have reduced the replacement costs by 25% for depreciation.
In relation to the doors, the landlord reported that they were probably original hollow core doors when the premises were constructed in the 1960s. Current depreciation guidelines estimate the life of that type of door to be 20-30 years. Therefore, they should be fully depreciated. However, I have awarded 15% of the replacement costs on the basis that, but for the damage, they would be expected to last a few more years and the landlord is entitled to some compensation for the unintended early replacement.
The landlord gave evidence that walls were last painted in 2021, so were three years old when repainted in June 2024. Based on current depreciation guidelines, the painted walls should last 10 years. Therefore, I have reduced the amount claimed by 30% for depreciation.
Three of the light fitting battens were damaged and required replacement. The replacement cost was minimal, and I consider the amount claimed is reasonable without further depreciating the costs.
Ms Collins was unable to advise the final amount paid out to the property owner by the insurers. It appears that despite her seeking this information from the owners it has not been supplied. However, I am satisfied that the work was completed as shown in invoices produced in evidence and the amounts I have awarded are less than the applicable excesses. Therefore, I am satisfied that I am not awarding more than the owner is entitled to recover because any lump sum awarded by the insurers would be less the applicable excesses.

Methamphetamine contamination-What must be proved?

If the landlord proves methamphetamine (meth) activity during the tenancy, then the tenant is liable for the costs of making good the damage and other reasonably foreseeable losses related to the damage. See ss49A and 49B(1)(b) RTA. In other words, the landlord must prove: first, that the tenant or someone at the premises they are responsible for has used or been in possession of meth and, second, that the meth activity has caused damage.
The District Court has held that the absence of pre-let testing at the start of the tenancy significantly weakens the circumstantial case against a tenant. The absence of a pre-tenancy meth test means other evidence is particularly important and must be strong. 1
In those circumstances, the landlord must prove that it is more probable than not that the tenant, or a person at the premises for whom they are responsible, used, or allowed the use of, meth at the premises during the tenancy.
Whether damage has been caused involves a determination of the level of meth present at the premises.
By following the pre-dominance of Tribunal cases 2 , also supported by the District Court, I accept: a. methamphetamine residue of below 15mcg/100cm² does not cause damage to residential tenancy premises unless there is evidence of manufacture; b. in premises, or parts of premises, where residue is higher than 15mcg/100cm², this is considered damage and decontamination of those areas is appropriate; 1 Eren Limited v Martin and Kukuruzsnayak [2021] NZDC 15210 and Brooking and Hodges v Imrie [2021] NZDC 16976 2 See Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 and Acme Realty Ltd v Alexander James Hogg, Tuitui Grace Polotu, Leigh Sharyn Coughlin [2021] NZDC 3231 c. residue levels of higher than 30mcg/100cm² indicate a high level of use and may indicate manufacture. Decontamination of premises to the lower level of below 1.5mcg is justified.
The standard of proof that applies is the civil standard “on the balance of probabilities”. This means that I do not have to be completely certain, but I must be satisfied that what is alleged is “more probable than not”.
Generally, the more serious the claim, the stronger the evidence that is required (Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55). The claim regarding methamphetamine activity is an allegation of criminal behaviour so the evidence must be strong. Evidence of meth contamination
The premises were tested for the presence of meth on 14 August 2023 after the tenancy ended on 10 August 2023 and the tenants had vacated the premises.
A composite test where the results of several samples are combined indicated that meth was present. Discrete testing of individual samples was then undertaken confirming meth in all the samples. The following table shows the results (in mcg/100cm²): Area testedResult Kitchen rangehood9.2 Dining room wall14.4 Bedroom 1 wall27 Bedroom 2 wall9.4 Lounge heat pump28 Bedroom 3 wall33 Hallway wall63 Bathroom extractor fan185 Laundry wall0.98 Garage wall1.72
Five of the readings are extremely high and exceed the “safe level” of 15 mcg/100cm² indicating heavy use and potentially manufacture.
There was no pre-tenancy meth testing carried out at the premises. However, the tenants left some of their furnishings and electronic goods at the premises which the landlord had tested. Composite testing undertaken on 17 August 2023 of 6 samples from the television, radio, two sets of drawers and the microwave established the presence of meth with a level of 12.7 mcg/100cm². This indicates either the presence of meth in the tenant’s belongings when they brought them into the premises or that the belongings became contaminated by meth during the tenancy. Either way, this supports a conclusion that the tenants likely used or dealt with meth during the tenancy.
The landlord argues that this evidence together with the extremely high readings for individual samples tested in other areas of the house supports a finding that the tenants or someone at the premises with their permission were using meth at the premises. The extremely high levels above 30 mcg/100cm².are also considered by forensic experts to signify that manufacture has taken place as noted by Professor Gluckman in his May 2018 report “Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards.” The high levels would also indicate recent, high use.
After considering this evidence, I am satisfied that there is strong evidence to establish that it was more likely than not that the tenant was responsible for the presence of meth at the premises during the tenancy.
The onus is then on the tenant to prove that the contamination did not occur intentionally or carelessly (see s40(4) RTA). However, there is no evidence to displace my finding that the tenant is responsible for the contamination at the property and that the damage was more than likely caused intentionally by the tenant in breach of s40(2)(a) RTA and/or as a result of the tenant permitting the property to be used for an unlawful purpose in breach of s40(2)(b) RTA, for which the tenant is responsible.
Ms Collins gave evidence that the property owner had insurance cover for meth contamination with an excess of $2,500. She says that the insurance claim was approved. Again, despite requesting that the owners provide detailed information, Ms Collins was unable to advise how much the insurers paid and whether it covered all the testing and decontamination costs. Usually, insurance cover for meth is capped and any costs exceeding the cap are for the owner to pay. In this case, there is no evidence as to whether the meth testing and decontamination costs exceeded any insurance cap. Therefore, I assume that all costs were covered less the excess and I cannot award any shortfall, which has not been proved.
The landlord provided invoices paid covering the costs of testing, decontamination, and remediation exceeding $15,806. In addition the landlord provided a quote of $3,991 to replace curtains and a quote of $5880 to replace carpets. Based on the evidence, and Ms Collins’ understanding that the insurers covered all these costs less the insurance excess, I award the insurance excess of $2,500 applicable to the meth testing and decontamination claim.
As the landlord has succeeded with their claims, they are entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4657169 — Property damage at 9 Phar Lap Grove, Trentham, Upper Hutt 5018

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4657169 — Property damage at 9 Phar Lap Grove, Trentham, Upper Hutt 5018

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Methamphetamine contamination-What must be proved?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Methamphetamine contamination-What must be proved?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions