What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4724971?

The tribunal order states: Suzanne Victoria Arps and Shane David Wakefield must pay Barbara McBeath

How much money was awarded in case 4724971?

Cleaning: $1,978.03 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Methamphetamine testing: Detailed te…: $1,720.40 awarded to landlord; Methamphetamine testing: Post decont…: $558.04 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $93.98 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4724971?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4724971?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9861770-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4724971?

The tribunal order states: Suzanne Victoria Arps and Shane David Wakefield must pay Barbara McBeath

How much money was awarded in case 4724971?

Cleaning: $1,978.03 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Methamphetamine testing: Detailed te…: $1,720.40 awarded to landlord; Methamphetamine testing: Post decont…: $558.04 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $93.98 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4724971?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4724971?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9861770-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

31B Otaika Road, Woodhill, Whangarei 0110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4724971 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4724971 — net $4,670.89 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Methamphetamine testing: Detailed testing costs	$1,720.40	Methamphetamine testing: Detailed testing costs
Methamphetamine de-contamination cleaning	$1,978.03	Methamphetamine de-contamination cleaning
Methamphetamine testing: Post decontamination test	$558.04	Methamphetamine testing: Post decontamination test
Curtain replacement	$93.98	Curtain replacement
Carpet replacement	$300.00	Carpet replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	50. I will award $300.00 for carpet, based on one-third of the cost claimed for re- carpeting three areas, and applying depreciation of 75%.
Net award	$4,670.89
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,670.89

Order

Suzanne Victoria Arps and Shane David Wakefield must pay Barbara McBeath $4,670.89 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began in July 2020 and ended on 5 September 2023.
This was the first tenancy after Ms McBeath purchased the property in December 2019. Ms McBeath’s stepson and his wife lived in the property briefly before the start of the tenancy.
The property was tested for methamphetamine in August 2019, as part of the purchase process. The result was negative at that time.
Ms McBeath put a new heat pump in the property in October 2020.
Ms McBeath had the premises tested for methamphetamine at the end of the tenancy. The initial (composite) test result was positive, at a level of 11.6 micrograms per 100cm2.
Ms McBeath arranged for detailed (room by room) testing. The results were positive on all 14 samples, with levels ranging from 0.10 micrograms to 17.6 micrograms (master bedroom).
Ms McBeath arranged for de-contamination cleaning.
The claim seeks the costs of testing, de-contamination cleaning, and disposal of soft furnishings (carpet and curtains).
The hearing took place in Whangarei on 19 January 2024. Both parties attended the hearing. Methamphetamine – general principles
Methamphetamine contamination, at levels that necessitate de-contamination of the premises, is damage to the premises.
There is currently no level specified in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 as the ‘trigger’ for de-contamination.
The Tenancy Tribunal has adopted the recommendation of the Gluckman report, which concluded that contamination at levels below 15 micrograms per 100m2 does not pose any threat to human health and does not necessitate de- contamination 1 .
In any damage claim: a. The landlord must establish that the damage occurred during the period of the tenancy 2 . b. Tenants are liable for damage that they cause, and they are also liable for damage caused by anyone who is at the premises with their consent 3 .

Did the damage occur during the period of this tenancy?

1 This approach was affirmed by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Ltd v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947. It is noted that the Gluckman reports recommends de-contamination at levels above 1.5 micrograms per 100cm2 if the cause of the contamination is methamphetamine manufacture rather than methamphetamine use. There is no evidence of methamphetamine manufacture in this instance. 2 Section 49B(8) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 3 Section 41(1) RTA

As noted above, the landlord had a new heat pump installed in October 2020, several months into the tenancy.
The surface of the heat pump was one of the areas that was tested for methamphetamine.
The result was positive, at a level of 3.7 micrograms.
I am satisfied that this evidence establishes that the methamphetamine contamination occurred during the period of this tenancy. Methamphetamine testing
The claim seeks $1,720.40 for the detailed (room by room) cost.
The initial test result showed average contamination of 11.6 micrograms on a 2- sample composite. The report noted that the “theoretical maximum level” of contamination on one sample was 23.1 micrograms.
This level of contamination necessitated further, detailed, testing to ascertain whether any part of the property was contaminated at a level above 15 micrograms.
This cost was a direct consequence of the methamphetamine use during the tenancy. Methamphetamine use at the premises is a breach of the terms of the tenancy agreement and of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 4 .
The cost of the detailed testing is proven.
The tenants are liable for this cost.
The detailed test results showed that one sample, from the master bedroom, showed the presence of methamphetamine above 15 micrograms per 100cm2.
The claim seeks de-contamination cleaning and then re-testing of the entire premises.
For the reasons discussed in more detail below, my finding is that the tenants are liable for one-third of the cost of the post de-contamination test ($2,232.15 De-contamination cleaning
Ms McBeath’s written submission states: The ECS company was employed for the cleaning & decontamination process. They were selected because they use NZS 8510:2017 as their cleaning standard. I am required to clean to this standard for insurance purposes.
The proven cost of ECS’s work was $7,912.10. 4 Section 40(2)(b) RTA
The question to determine is whether the tenants are liable for all of that cost, or only for a portion of it on the grounds that only a portion of the property was contaminated at a level above 15 micrograms per 100cm2.
I accept that Ms McBeath’s insurer requires a ‘base line’ level of below 1.5 micrograms. However, this requirement, which is a matter of contract between Ms McBeath and her insurer, does not change the scope of tenant’s liability to Ms McBeath.
Ms McBeath referred me to a Tenancy Tribunal decision, Lvg Property Management Ltd v Clarke 5 . In that case the landlord’s evidence showed methamphetamine contamination in four rooms in the tenanted premises. Only one room had a reading above 15 micrograms. The landlord sought the cost of de-contaminating the entire premises. Adjudicator Kan held: I indicated to the landlord that my preliminary view was that only the living room area was damaged as opposed to the entire property being damaged due to methamphetamine contamination. I have reviewed several Tribunal decisions in similar cases after the hearing. In all cases, even if only one area has a reading exceeding 15ug/100cm2, it is said the entire property is intentionally damaged. Accordingly, I find the tenant had intentionally damaged the property by consuming methamphetamine during the tenancy.
The decision does not cite the other ‘similar cases’ and it does not set out the reasoning of the Adjudicators in those decisions.
I am reluctant to take a different approach than other Adjudicators when I do not know their reasoning, but in my view tenants are not liable for the cost of de- contaminating areas where the level of contamination is not proven to exceed 15 micrograms per 100cm2.
Methamphetamine contamination at levels below 15 micrograms does not constitute damage to the premises. The fact that the contamination was caused by an intentional action does not alter this.
Respectfully, to take the alternative approach is to conflate contamination with damage. The logical consequence is that tenants would be liable for de- contamination costs if there is any detectable contamination present.
The Tenancy Tribunal has never taken that approach to methamphetamine de- contamination claims. Having any ‘trigger’ level for de-contamination means that contamination below the level, even if it is .01 microgram below the level, does not require de-contamination. 5 [2023] NZTT 4393764
The ‘trigger’ level that the Tribunal has consistently applied since 2019 is 15 micrograms per 100cm2.
In this instance only the master bedroom had readings above 15 micrograms. My finding is that the tenants are not liable for all of the de-contamination cost, but only a portion of it.
I do not know the floor area of the property or of the master bedroom. I acknowledge that some of the de-contamination costs are not proportional to the size of the job – such as administration, health and safety documentation, and (in some respects) personal protection equipment.
All I can do is make an assessment of a reasonable portion of the costs based on the information that is available to me.
I will award 25% of the de-contamination costs claimed.
Applying the same reasoning, I will award 25% of the post de-contamination testing costs.
I will not award any of the second de-contamination test. The first test showed that the property was successfully de-contaminated to levels below 15 micrograms. Carpet and curtains
The claim seeks $3,600.00 for replacement of the carpet in the master bedroom, hallway, and lounge.
The claim seeks $375.90 for replacement of curtains in the master bedroom and lounge.
I accept that disposal of soft furnishings is a standard and recommended part of the de-contamination process.
The claim is proven in respect of replacement of curtains and carpet in the master bedroom only.
Depreciation must be applied to the new replacement costs claimed. I do not know the age of the curtains. The tenancy lasted approximately three years. Ms McBeath submitted that the carpet was approximately 15 years old.
I will award $93.98 for curtains, based on half the cost claimed for two rooms, and applying depreciation of 50%.
I will award $300.00 for carpet, based on one-third of the cost claimed for re- carpeting three areas, and applying depreciation of 75%. Filing fee
The landlord has been largely successful in this application and I will also award the landlord the filing fee of $20.44.
The bond has already been released by agreement between the landlord and tenants.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4724971 — net $4,670.89 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Methamphetamine testing: Detailed testing costs	$1,720.40	Methamphetamine testing: Detailed testing costs
Methamphetamine de-contamination cleaning	$1,978.03	Methamphetamine de-contamination cleaning
Methamphetamine testing: Post decontamination test	$558.04	Methamphetamine testing: Post decontamination test
Curtain replacement	$93.98	Curtain replacement
Carpet replacement	$300.00	Carpet replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	50. I will award $300.00 for carpet, based on one-third of the cost claimed for re- carpeting three areas, and applying depreciation of 75%.
Net award	$4,670.89
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,670.89

Order

Suzanne Victoria Arps and Shane David Wakefield must pay Barbara McBeath $4,670.89 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began in July 2020 and ended on 5 September 2023.
This was the first tenancy after Ms McBeath purchased the property in December 2019. Ms McBeath’s stepson and his wife lived in the property briefly before the start of the tenancy.
The property was tested for methamphetamine in August 2019, as part of the purchase process. The result was negative at that time.
Ms McBeath put a new heat pump in the property in October 2020.
Ms McBeath had the premises tested for methamphetamine at the end of the tenancy. The initial (composite) test result was positive, at a level of 11.6 micrograms per 100cm2.
Ms McBeath arranged for detailed (room by room) testing. The results were positive on all 14 samples, with levels ranging from 0.10 micrograms to 17.6 micrograms (master bedroom).
Ms McBeath arranged for de-contamination cleaning.
The claim seeks the costs of testing, de-contamination cleaning, and disposal of soft furnishings (carpet and curtains).
The hearing took place in Whangarei on 19 January 2024. Both parties attended the hearing. Methamphetamine – general principles
Methamphetamine contamination, at levels that necessitate de-contamination of the premises, is damage to the premises.
There is currently no level specified in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 as the ‘trigger’ for de-contamination.
The Tenancy Tribunal has adopted the recommendation of the Gluckman report, which concluded that contamination at levels below 15 micrograms per 100m2 does not pose any threat to human health and does not necessitate de- contamination 1 .
In any damage claim: a. The landlord must establish that the damage occurred during the period of the tenancy 2 . b. Tenants are liable for damage that they cause, and they are also liable for damage caused by anyone who is at the premises with their consent 3 .

Did the damage occur during the period of this tenancy?

As noted above, the landlord had a new heat pump installed in October 2020, several months into the tenancy.
The surface of the heat pump was one of the areas that was tested for methamphetamine.
The result was positive, at a level of 3.7 micrograms.
I am satisfied that this evidence establishes that the methamphetamine contamination occurred during the period of this tenancy. Methamphetamine testing
The claim seeks $1,720.40 for the detailed (room by room) cost.
The initial test result showed average contamination of 11.6 micrograms on a 2- sample composite. The report noted that the “theoretical maximum level” of contamination on one sample was 23.1 micrograms.
This level of contamination necessitated further, detailed, testing to ascertain whether any part of the property was contaminated at a level above 15 micrograms.
This cost was a direct consequence of the methamphetamine use during the tenancy. Methamphetamine use at the premises is a breach of the terms of the tenancy agreement and of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 4 .
The cost of the detailed testing is proven.
The tenants are liable for this cost.
The detailed test results showed that one sample, from the master bedroom, showed the presence of methamphetamine above 15 micrograms per 100cm2.
The claim seeks de-contamination cleaning and then re-testing of the entire premises.
For the reasons discussed in more detail below, my finding is that the tenants are liable for one-third of the cost of the post de-contamination test ($2,232.15 De-contamination cleaning
Ms McBeath’s written submission states: The ECS company was employed for the cleaning & decontamination process. They were selected because they use NZS 8510:2017 as their cleaning standard. I am required to clean to this standard for insurance purposes.
The proven cost of ECS’s work was $7,912.10. 4 Section 40(2)(b) RTA
The question to determine is whether the tenants are liable for all of that cost, or only for a portion of it on the grounds that only a portion of the property was contaminated at a level above 15 micrograms per 100cm2.
I accept that Ms McBeath’s insurer requires a ‘base line’ level of below 1.5 micrograms. However, this requirement, which is a matter of contract between Ms McBeath and her insurer, does not change the scope of tenant’s liability to Ms McBeath.
Ms McBeath referred me to a Tenancy Tribunal decision, Lvg Property Management Ltd v Clarke 5 . In that case the landlord’s evidence showed methamphetamine contamination in four rooms in the tenanted premises. Only one room had a reading above 15 micrograms. The landlord sought the cost of de-contaminating the entire premises. Adjudicator Kan held: I indicated to the landlord that my preliminary view was that only the living room area was damaged as opposed to the entire property being damaged due to methamphetamine contamination. I have reviewed several Tribunal decisions in similar cases after the hearing. In all cases, even if only one area has a reading exceeding 15ug/100cm2, it is said the entire property is intentionally damaged. Accordingly, I find the tenant had intentionally damaged the property by consuming methamphetamine during the tenancy.
The decision does not cite the other ‘similar cases’ and it does not set out the reasoning of the Adjudicators in those decisions.
I am reluctant to take a different approach than other Adjudicators when I do not know their reasoning, but in my view tenants are not liable for the cost of de- contaminating areas where the level of contamination is not proven to exceed 15 micrograms per 100cm2.
Methamphetamine contamination at levels below 15 micrograms does not constitute damage to the premises. The fact that the contamination was caused by an intentional action does not alter this.
Respectfully, to take the alternative approach is to conflate contamination with damage. The logical consequence is that tenants would be liable for de- contamination costs if there is any detectable contamination present.
The Tenancy Tribunal has never taken that approach to methamphetamine de- contamination claims. Having any ‘trigger’ level for de-contamination means that contamination below the level, even if it is .01 microgram below the level, does not require de-contamination. 5 [2023] NZTT 4393764
The ‘trigger’ level that the Tribunal has consistently applied since 2019 is 15 micrograms per 100cm2.
In this instance only the master bedroom had readings above 15 micrograms. My finding is that the tenants are not liable for all of the de-contamination cost, but only a portion of it.
I do not know the floor area of the property or of the master bedroom. I acknowledge that some of the de-contamination costs are not proportional to the size of the job – such as administration, health and safety documentation, and (in some respects) personal protection equipment.
All I can do is make an assessment of a reasonable portion of the costs based on the information that is available to me.
I will award 25% of the de-contamination costs claimed.
Applying the same reasoning, I will award 25% of the post de-contamination testing costs.
I will not award any of the second de-contamination test. The first test showed that the property was successfully de-contaminated to levels below 15 micrograms. Carpet and curtains
The claim seeks $3,600.00 for replacement of the carpet in the master bedroom, hallway, and lounge.
The claim seeks $375.90 for replacement of curtains in the master bedroom and lounge.
I accept that disposal of soft furnishings is a standard and recommended part of the de-contamination process.
The claim is proven in respect of replacement of curtains and carpet in the master bedroom only.
Depreciation must be applied to the new replacement costs claimed. I do not know the age of the curtains. The tenancy lasted approximately three years. Ms McBeath submitted that the carpet was approximately 15 years old.
I will award $93.98 for curtains, based on half the cost claimed for two rooms, and applying depreciation of 50%.
I will award $300.00 for carpet, based on one-third of the cost claimed for re- carpeting three areas, and applying depreciation of 75%. Filing fee
The landlord has been largely successful in this application and I will also award the landlord the filing fee of $20.44.
The bond has already been released by agreement between the landlord and tenants.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4724971 — Cleanliness at 31B Otaika Road, Woodhill, Whangarei 0110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4724971 — Cleanliness at 31B Otaika Road, Woodhill, Whangarei 0110

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the damage occur during the period of this tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the damage occur during the period of this tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions