What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4694470?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4694470?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4694470?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4694470?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9515573-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4694470?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4694470?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4694470?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4694470?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9515573-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1F, 21 St Jude Street, Avondale, Auckland 1026 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4694470 — Tenancy dispute

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The tenancy of Glenn Carcuera at Unit/Flat 1F, 21 St Jude Street, Avondale, Auckland 1026 is terminated, and possession is granted to The Property Managers Limited Ray White As Agent For Ejp Limited immediately.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord, and the relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Only the landlord appeared at the hearing today. I have no reason to believe the tenant was not aware of the hearing, so I will proceed to consider the landlords claim.
The landlord seeks an order terminating the tenancy. The landlord has recently had the premises tested for methamphetamine. The report from the laboratory which undertook the tests, show that tests corresponding to 7 separate tests were undertaken. Of those tests, 5 tests returned a result above 15 μg per sample, those results were: a. 142 μg per sample b. 49.9 μg per sample c. 16.7 μg per sample d. 19.2 μg per sample e. 23.5 μg per sample
Based on the report provided from the person who undertook the testing, I accept that these samples were taken inside the tenancy, and represent a sample area of 100 cm 2
Based on the high levels of methamphetamine detected in the samples, the landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy. Discussion
In 2017 Standards New Zealand released Standard NZS 8510:2017 “Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine-contaminated properties”. At that time, this standard set the definitive levels at which properties which had methamphetamine contamination, required remediation. The Standard confirmed that: After seeking expert advice on exposure risk from Environmental Science and Research Ltd (ESR) and the Ministry of Health, and reviewing a large number of public comments on a draft of this standard, the committee has decided to set the maximum acceptable level of methamphetamine in an affected property at 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 after decontamination. While this level is greater than the Ministry of Health 2010 guideline value of 0.5 μg/100 cm 2 for properties used as clandestine laboratories, there are a number of reasons why the committee decided to adopt the single value of 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 in this standard.
In short, this standard confirmed that the level at which habitation of residential premises was considered safe, was a level below 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 of sampled area. The expectation on landlords arising from this Standard, was to remediate premises contaminated with methamphetamine, to a level of less than 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 .
In more recent times, the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman determined that there was little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption (Report entitled ‘Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards’, 29 May 2018). The report concluded that any levels below 15 μg/100 cm 2 were unlikely to present adverse effects: Taken together, these factors indicate that methamphetamine levels that exceed the NZS 8510:2017 clean-up standard of 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 should not be regarded as signalling a health risk. Indeed, exposure to methamphetamine levels below 15 μg/100 cm 2 would be unlikely to give rise to any adverse effects. This level still incorporates a 30-fold safety buffer on a conservative estimate of risk.
At this time there remains a current New Zealand Standard of 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 , and also a current opinion from the Chief Science Advisor that there is no evidence of risk below 15 μg/100 cm 2 . While there are two currently accepted levels, even if the highest level was applied, there are still multiple samples in these premises well over the 15 μg/100 cm 2 maximum level.
Finding as I do that the premises are methamphetamine contaminated, and finding that the levels are above a level that would be considered safe / habitable, the Tribunal grant’s the landlords application to terminate the tenancy.
Given the issue presents a safety issue for anyone in the premises, the Tribunal orders a termination with immediate effect.
I record for completeness, and in fairness to the tenant, that the landlord confirmed that there was no pre-tenancy methamphetamine testing undertaken, and to that extent there is no evidence linking the contamination to being caused by this tenant. But the matter before me is around termination, and whether the contamination was caused by the tenant is immaterial, the only question is whether the premises are save to live in, and for the reasons I have set out above they are not, therefore the tenancy is terminated.

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The tenancy of Glenn Carcuera at Unit/Flat 1F, 21 St Jude Street, Avondale, Auckland 1026 is terminated, and possession is granted to The Property Managers Limited Ray White As Agent For Ejp Limited immediately.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord, and the relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Only the landlord appeared at the hearing today. I have no reason to believe the tenant was not aware of the hearing, so I will proceed to consider the landlords claim.
The landlord seeks an order terminating the tenancy. The landlord has recently had the premises tested for methamphetamine. The report from the laboratory which undertook the tests, show that tests corresponding to 7 separate tests were undertaken. Of those tests, 5 tests returned a result above 15 μg per sample, those results were: a. 142 μg per sample b. 49.9 μg per sample c. 16.7 μg per sample d. 19.2 μg per sample e. 23.5 μg per sample
Based on the report provided from the person who undertook the testing, I accept that these samples were taken inside the tenancy, and represent a sample area of 100 cm 2
Based on the high levels of methamphetamine detected in the samples, the landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy. Discussion
In 2017 Standards New Zealand released Standard NZS 8510:2017 “Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine-contaminated properties”. At that time, this standard set the definitive levels at which properties which had methamphetamine contamination, required remediation. The Standard confirmed that: After seeking expert advice on exposure risk from Environmental Science and Research Ltd (ESR) and the Ministry of Health, and reviewing a large number of public comments on a draft of this standard, the committee has decided to set the maximum acceptable level of methamphetamine in an affected property at 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 after decontamination. While this level is greater than the Ministry of Health 2010 guideline value of 0.5 μg/100 cm 2 for properties used as clandestine laboratories, there are a number of reasons why the committee decided to adopt the single value of 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 in this standard.
In short, this standard confirmed that the level at which habitation of residential premises was considered safe, was a level below 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 of sampled area. The expectation on landlords arising from this Standard, was to remediate premises contaminated with methamphetamine, to a level of less than 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 .
In more recent times, the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman determined that there was little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption (Report entitled ‘Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards’, 29 May 2018). The report concluded that any levels below 15 μg/100 cm 2 were unlikely to present adverse effects: Taken together, these factors indicate that methamphetamine levels that exceed the NZS 8510:2017 clean-up standard of 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 should not be regarded as signalling a health risk. Indeed, exposure to methamphetamine levels below 15 μg/100 cm 2 would be unlikely to give rise to any adverse effects. This level still incorporates a 30-fold safety buffer on a conservative estimate of risk.
At this time there remains a current New Zealand Standard of 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 , and also a current opinion from the Chief Science Advisor that there is no evidence of risk below 15 μg/100 cm 2 . While there are two currently accepted levels, even if the highest level was applied, there are still multiple samples in these premises well over the 15 μg/100 cm 2 maximum level.
Finding as I do that the premises are methamphetamine contaminated, and finding that the levels are above a level that would be considered safe / habitable, the Tribunal grant’s the landlords application to terminate the tenancy.
Given the issue presents a safety issue for anyone in the premises, the Tribunal orders a termination with immediate effect.
I record for completeness, and in fairness to the tenant, that the landlord confirmed that there was no pre-tenancy methamphetamine testing undertaken, and to that extent there is no evidence linking the contamination to being caused by this tenant. But the matter before me is around termination, and whether the contamination was caused by the tenant is immaterial, the only question is whether the premises are save to live in, and for the reasons I have set out above they are not, therefore the tenancy is terminated.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4694470 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 1F, 21 St Jude Street, Avondale, Auckland 1026

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4694470 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 1F, 21 St Jude Street, Avondale, Auckland 1026

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