What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4670550?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4670550?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4670550?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4670550?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9433923-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4670550?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4670550?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4670550?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4670550?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9433923-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 17, 166 Waihi Road, Judea, Tauranga 3110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4670550 — Tenancy dispute

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

On the morning of today’s scheduled hearing Ms Tukaki emailed the Tribunal requesting an adjournment because she was “still a little sick from the flu” and because she didn’t have a babysitter. I did not receive this email until just before the hearing and at that time the tenant was emailed and advised that without a medical certificate the hearing was proceeding.
Ms Tukaki did not attend today’s hearing and the hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for a possession order on the grounds that on 18 August 2023 they issued Ms Tukaki with a 7 day notice under s59A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 because the premises were uninhabitable. This letter advised Ms Tukaki that the tenancy would end on 28 August 2023.
Ms Tukaki remains in the tenancy.
The landlord also seeks the cost of the methamphetamine screening tests - $690.00.
By way of background to this claim, two methamphetamine screening tests were undertaken at the premises. The first was on 8 August 2023 and was a composite test – ie, 5 areas in the house were tested and their combined reading amounted to a total of 28 mu/100cm 2 .
This assessment prompted a second assessment report which was conducted on 14 August 2023. This assessment separated out the five locations in the house and concluded that in the kitchen/lounge area the level of methamphetamine detected was 6.1mu/100cm 2 , in bedroom 2 it was
84mu/100cm 2 , in bedroom 3 it was 8.7mu/100cm 2 , in bedroom 2 the level of methamphetamine detected was 2.1mu/100cm 2 , and in the garage the level was 11.7mu/100cm 2 .
On this evidence the landlord issued the tenant with a 7 day notice under s59A because the landlord considered the premises to be uninhabitable.
The first issue to be determined is what level of ‘contamination’ renders premises uninhabitable.
In July 2017, ESR, the Crown Research Institute, released NZS8510:2017. This report set one level – 1.5/100 cm2, with any reading over this level being considered unsafe.
However, in May 2018, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the then-Chief Scientific Advisor in the Office of the Prime Minister, released a report indicating that the previous guideline was unnecessarily risk averse. The report recommended that below 15mu/100cm 2 methamphetamine levels would be unlikely to give rise to any adverse effects – in other words, only levels of 15mu/100cm 2 and above could be considered unsafe.
The Tenancy Tribunal has for a number of years adopted the Gluckman report and its findings – that is, any levels of 15mu/100cm 2 or above is unsafe. These levels relate to testing of individual locations within the premises and do not relate to composite testing where a number of levels recorded in different locations in the premises are added together.
This approach has been endorsed by the District Court in cases such as Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 and Eren Ltd v Martin & Kukuruzsnayak [2021] NZDC 15210.
None of the locations tested throughout these premises reach the level of 15mu/100cm 2 or above, the highest being in the garage at 11.7mu/100cm 2 . On this evidence and applying the Gluckman level,I am satisfied that the premises may be considered safe and are not uninhabitable.
It follows that the 7 day notice given to the tenant on the grounds that the premises were uninhabitable is unenforceable and I am therefore dismissing the claim for a possession order.
For the same reasons I am dismissing that part of the claim which relates to the cost of the methamphetamine screening reports. Since the premises are deemed safe there is no reason that the tenant should pay for the cost of testing.
Given that I have dismissed the landlord’s claim, I am not ordering the tenant to reimburse them the filing fee. C ter Haar 19 September 2023

Reasons

On the morning of today’s scheduled hearing Ms Tukaki emailed the Tribunal requesting an adjournment because she was “still a little sick from the flu” and because she didn’t have a babysitter. I did not receive this email until just before the hearing and at that time the tenant was emailed and advised that without a medical certificate the hearing was proceeding.

Ms Tukaki did not attend today’s hearing and the hearing proceeded in her absence.

The landlord has applied for a possession order on the grounds that on 18 August 2023 they issued Ms Tukaki with a 7 day notice under s59A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 because the premises were uninhabitable. This letter advised Ms Tukaki that the tenancy would end on 28 August 2023.

Ms Tukaki remains in the tenancy.

The landlord also seeks the cost of the methamphetamine screening tests - $690.00.

By way of background to this claim, two methamphetamine screening tests were undertaken at the premises. The first was on 8 August 2023 and was a composite test – ie, 5 areas in the house were tested and their combined reading amounted to a total of 28 mu/100cm 2 .

This assessment prompted a second assessment report which was conducted on 14 August 2023. This assessment separated out the five locations in the house and concluded that in the kitchen/lounge area the level of methamphetamine detected was 6.1mu/100cm 2 , in bedroom 2 it was

84mu/100cm 2 , in bedroom 3 it was 8.7mu/100cm 2 , in bedroom 2 the level of methamphetamine detected was 2.1mu/100cm 2 , and in the garage the level was 11.7mu/100cm 2 .

On this evidence the landlord issued the tenant with a 7 day notice under s59A because the landlord considered the premises to be uninhabitable.

The first issue to be determined is what level of ‘contamination’ renders premises uninhabitable.

In July 2017, ESR, the Crown Research Institute, released NZS8510:2017. This report set one level – 1.5/100 cm2, with any reading over this level being considered unsafe.

However, in May 2018, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the then-Chief Scientific Advisor in the Office of the Prime Minister, released a report indicating that the previous guideline was unnecessarily risk averse. The report recommended that below 15mu/100cm 2 methamphetamine levels would be unlikely to give rise to any adverse effects – in other words, only levels of 15mu/100cm 2 and above could be considered unsafe.

The Tenancy Tribunal has for a number of years adopted the Gluckman report and its findings – that is, any levels of 15mu/100cm 2 or above is unsafe. These levels relate to testing of individual locations within the premises and do not relate to composite testing where a number of levels recorded in different locations in the premises are added together.

This approach has been endorsed by the District Court in cases such as Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 and Eren Ltd v Martin & Kukuruzsnayak [2021] NZDC 15210.

None of the locations tested throughout these premises reach the level of 15mu/100cm 2 or above, the highest being in the garage at 11.7mu/100cm 2 . On this evidence and applying the Gluckman level,I am satisfied that the premises may be considered safe and are not uninhabitable.

It follows that the 7 day notice given to the tenant on the grounds that the premises were uninhabitable is unenforceable and I am therefore dismissing the claim for a possession order.

For the same reasons I am dismissing that part of the claim which relates to the cost of the methamphetamine screening reports. Since the premises are deemed safe there is no reason that the tenant should pay for the cost of testing.

Given that I have dismissed the landlord’s claim, I am not ordering the tenant to reimburse them the filing fee. C ter Haar 19 September 2023

Tenancy Tribunal case 4670550 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 17, 166 Waihi Road, Judea, Tauranga 3110

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4670550 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 17, 166 Waihi Road, Judea, Tauranga 3110

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions