What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4741829?

The tribunal order states: Chanelle Brown must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $2,913.27

How much money was awarded in case 4741829?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Methamphetamine Testing: $1,638.25 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4647851 D…: $841.73 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $412.85 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4741829?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4741829?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9751943-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4741829?

The tribunal order states: Chanelle Brown must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $2,913.27

How much money was awarded in case 4741829?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Methamphetamine Testing: $1,638.25 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4647851 D…: $841.73 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $412.85 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4741829?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4741829?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9751943-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Flat 5, 250 Gloucester Street, Christchurch 8011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4741829 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4741829 — net $2,913.27 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4647851 dated 14 September 2023	$841.73	Previous order application 4647851 dated 14 September 2023
Lock/key replacement	$412.85	Lock/key replacement
Methamphetamine testing	$1,638.25	Methamphetamine testing
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,913.27
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,913.27

Order

Chanelle Brown must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $2,913.27 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The landlord’s claims are otherwise dismissed.

Reasons

Mr Waters and Ms Mason attended the hearing for the landlords. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord claims the cost of methamphetamine (meth) testing, meth decontamination of the premises including carpet replacement and lock changing following the end of the tenancy.
This tenancy began in September 2022 and ended in September 2023. The tenant had previously been the landlord’s tenant of other premises. Those premises were found to have been contaminated by meth and so the tenant was moved to these premises with the understanding that the landlord would monitor the premises for meth. The landlords are social housing providers and they have a policy of assisting tenants to remain housed if possible.
The premises tested negative for meth immediately before the start of the tenancy.
There was further meth testing during the tenancy both indicative and composite testing. All the testing, including the final testing at the end of the tenancy, was positive for meth.
The final test produced to the Tribunal for the hearing was a composite test of four samples from different areas of the premises. It showed a level of 42μg/100cm ² . The report concluded that at least one of the samples exceeded the NZ Standard of 1.5μg/cm² and the premises should therefore be considered contaminated. It recommended that a detailed test be completed to determine the extent of contamination on different surfaces. I was told that the detailed test was not done.
The report’s conclusion with respect to the NZ Standard is plainly correct. But that is not the standard that this Tribunal applies. It applies the 15μg/100cm² standard suggested in the report dated 28 May 2018 by Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the then Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor. The Gluckman report considered the available scientific evidence and concluded that levels at or below that level from meth use were unlikely to pose a significant risk to human health and therefore the premises affected would not need to be decontaminated.
The four samples composited and tested at the end of the tenancy could each have been below the Gluckman level depending on how the contamination was distributed between them. The landlords had therefore failed to prove that the premises were contaminated above the level and their claims for the cost of decontamination of the premises, including the cost of replacing the carpet, should be dismissed for that reason.
I indicated that I would consider claims for the cost of testing and since the hearing the landlord has provided invoices for the various tests that were conducted. The cost of those tests, excluding the pre-tenancy test, which was a routine test, was $1,435.61.
I find that the landlord’s testing of the premises was reasonable, and each test found meth contamination. The tenant wanted to remain in the premises and the landlord was trying to support her to do so. I find therefore that the tenant should have to pay for the cost of testing. I have therefore awarded that cost excluding the cost of the ingoing test.
In addition to the testing invoices, the landlord has now provided the result of testing individual samples from the bedroom and bathroom of the premises despite what I told at the hearing, there was some further testing of individual samples. One of those samples, bedroom-a, gave a result of 18.9μg/100cm² which is above the Gluckman level. There were also the results of other composite samples including three samples taken in the kitchen that gave a result of 59μg/cm². At least one of those samples must have been above the Gluckman level as well.
I cannot make any award for the cost of decontamination or carpet replacement without hearing further evidence because there is information relevant to whether an award should be made and if so in what amount that was not provided at the hearing. It was not necessary to elicit the information because the evidence that contamination exceeded the Gluckman level was not provided then.
The landlord has not requested an adjournment and so I cannot reconsider those claims.
The tenant did not return the keys to the premises at the end of the tenancy as she was required to do. I have therefore awarded the cost of changing the locks to the premises.
I have incorporated the previous order against the tenant relating to this tenancy for enforcement purposes.
The landlord has had some success and so I have awarded the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4741829 — net $2,913.27 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4647851 dated 14 September 2023	$841.73	Previous order application 4647851 dated 14 September 2023
Lock/key replacement	$412.85	Lock/key replacement
Methamphetamine testing	$1,638.25	Methamphetamine testing
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,913.27
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,913.27

Order

Chanelle Brown must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $2,913.27 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The landlord’s claims are otherwise dismissed.

Reasons

Mr Waters and Ms Mason attended the hearing for the landlords. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord claims the cost of methamphetamine (meth) testing, meth decontamination of the premises including carpet replacement and lock changing following the end of the tenancy.
This tenancy began in September 2022 and ended in September 2023. The tenant had previously been the landlord’s tenant of other premises. Those premises were found to have been contaminated by meth and so the tenant was moved to these premises with the understanding that the landlord would monitor the premises for meth. The landlords are social housing providers and they have a policy of assisting tenants to remain housed if possible.
The premises tested negative for meth immediately before the start of the tenancy.
There was further meth testing during the tenancy both indicative and composite testing. All the testing, including the final testing at the end of the tenancy, was positive for meth.
The final test produced to the Tribunal for the hearing was a composite test of four samples from different areas of the premises. It showed a level of 42μg/100cm ² . The report concluded that at least one of the samples exceeded the NZ Standard of 1.5μg/cm² and the premises should therefore be considered contaminated. It recommended that a detailed test be completed to determine the extent of contamination on different surfaces. I was told that the detailed test was not done.
The report’s conclusion with respect to the NZ Standard is plainly correct. But that is not the standard that this Tribunal applies. It applies the 15μg/100cm² standard suggested in the report dated 28 May 2018 by Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the then Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor. The Gluckman report considered the available scientific evidence and concluded that levels at or below that level from meth use were unlikely to pose a significant risk to human health and therefore the premises affected would not need to be decontaminated.
The four samples composited and tested at the end of the tenancy could each have been below the Gluckman level depending on how the contamination was distributed between them. The landlords had therefore failed to prove that the premises were contaminated above the level and their claims for the cost of decontamination of the premises, including the cost of replacing the carpet, should be dismissed for that reason.
I indicated that I would consider claims for the cost of testing and since the hearing the landlord has provided invoices for the various tests that were conducted. The cost of those tests, excluding the pre-tenancy test, which was a routine test, was $1,435.61.
I find that the landlord’s testing of the premises was reasonable, and each test found meth contamination. The tenant wanted to remain in the premises and the landlord was trying to support her to do so. I find therefore that the tenant should have to pay for the cost of testing. I have therefore awarded that cost excluding the cost of the ingoing test.
In addition to the testing invoices, the landlord has now provided the result of testing individual samples from the bedroom and bathroom of the premises despite what I told at the hearing, there was some further testing of individual samples. One of those samples, bedroom-a, gave a result of 18.9μg/100cm² which is above the Gluckman level. There were also the results of other composite samples including three samples taken in the kitchen that gave a result of 59μg/cm². At least one of those samples must have been above the Gluckman level as well.
I cannot make any award for the cost of decontamination or carpet replacement without hearing further evidence because there is information relevant to whether an award should be made and if so in what amount that was not provided at the hearing. It was not necessary to elicit the information because the evidence that contamination exceeded the Gluckman level was not provided then.
The landlord has not requested an adjournment and so I cannot reconsider those claims.
The tenant did not return the keys to the premises at the end of the tenancy as she was required to do. I have therefore awarded the cost of changing the locks to the premises.
I have incorporated the previous order against the tenant relating to this tenancy for enforcement purposes.
The landlord has had some success and so I have awarded the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4741829 — Property damage at Flat 5, 250 Gloucester Street, Christchurch 8011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4741829 — Property damage at Flat 5, 250 Gloucester Street, Christchurch 8011

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions