What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4758641?

The tribunal order states: The landlords’ application for termination of the tenancy is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4758641?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4758641?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4758641?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10482307-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4758641?

The tribunal order states: The landlords’ application for termination of the tenancy is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4758641?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4758641?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4758641?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10482307-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

6 Malbec Place, Huapai, Kumeu 0810 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4758641 — Mould & damp

Order

The landlords’ application for termination of the tenancy is dismissed.

Reasons

Marion Paterson and Lisa Johnson attended the hearing for the landlord’s agent.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for the tenant breaching her obligation their obligations not to use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose, namely, the criminal offence of using or permitting premises to be used for the consumption of methamphetamine.
The tenant denies using methamphetamine or knowingly permitting anyone else. Background
The tenancy began on 27 July 2019. The tenant lives there with her two school- age children.
Shortly before the tenancy began, the landlord had a methamphetamine assessment done which confirmed the absence of methamphetamine over 10 test sites.
On 6 December 2023, the landlord had the premises tested again and the premises tested positive over 10 test sites with an average per-site result of
8μg/100cm 2 .
Further testing and more detailed analysis was conducted on about 30 March 2024. Individualised testing of 17 test sites showed widespread methamphetamine present at relatively low levels. The highest levels were on a lounge door (5.3μg/100cm 2 ), bedroom 2 door (5.7μg/100cm 2 ), bedroom 3 door (3.7μg/100cm 2 ), and bedroom 1 door frame 3.2μg/100cm 2 ).
The average level of contamination from the later testing is lower than the testing a few months earlier at 1.7μg/100cm 2 per site. Legal principles
The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. 1
Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.
A recent amendment to s 138C of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides for regulations to be made prescribing the maximum acceptable level for contaminants, but no regulations have been made in relation to methamphetamine levels yet.
There are currently two sources of guidance on the issue of a safe level of methamphetamine contamination in residential premises. In June 2017 Standards New Zealand published NZS 8510:2017. The standard recommended a maximum contamination level of 1.5μg/100cm2 for high use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture. It recommended a higher level of 3.8μg/100cm2 for limited use areas.
In May 2018 Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the then Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor, released a report, Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards. The report noted that there is a lack of scientific evidence to prove that low-level 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), s 56(1). third-hand methamphetamine exposure poses a health risk to humans and exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm 2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect.
The report recommended decontamination to the level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 only where contamination resulted from manufacture due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the manufacturing process.
The District Court has held that remediation should be carried out in accordance with the prevailing guidelines at the time. 2
The Tribunal has endorsed the Gluckman recommendations and has applied them for several years. The District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 approved the Tribunal’s approach: 3 The Tenancy Tribunal was in a difficult position. The best state of knowledge of risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination available to the adjudicator was the Gluckman Report. It would have been bold for the adjudicator to have ignored that report in favour of the New Zealand Standard given that the Gluckman report represents the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination in dwellings.
The District Court took a similar approach in Acme Realty Limited v Hogg and others [2021] NZDC 3231, where the Court referred to the Full Circle case and held that, because NZS 8510:2017 has not been adopted into law, the Tribunal was not bound to apply the 1.5μg standard.
More recently, in Barfoot and Thompson Limited v Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited [2021] NZTT Auckland 4276319, both parties presented scientific evidence at a hearing before the Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that there was no new scientific research to change the conclusions reached in the Gluckman Report. Discussion
The highest levels of contamination in this case are little more than one third of the level where the Tribunal would find decontamination is required.
As the law stands, the landlord would not be obliged to decontaminate the premises prior to reletting it.
It is of concern that methamphetamine must have been consumed in several locations at the premises during the tenancy. There is low-level methamphetamine contamination inside all three bedrooms. The tenant denies knowledge of how the contamination occurred but speculates it may be due to visiting family members. 2 Diamond Real Estate Limited v Allan [2017] NZDC 833. 3 At [36].
It does not seem plausible the tenant would have such scant knowledge of the likely causes of such widespread contamination throughout the house, including her children’s bedrooms. I find it more likely than not that the tenant did consume methamphetamine or permitted methamphetamine consumption to occur.
Having found that the tenant breached her obligations, I must decide whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the premises due to the nature or extent of the breach.
The levels of methamphetamine in this case are considerably below the Gluckman level of 15μg/100cm 2 . The second round of testing returned a lower average level of contamination, consistent with the source of the contamination possibly having ceased. That would be consistent with the tenant’s theory of a visitor or visitors to the premises as a possible source of the contamination.
As the law stands, the landlord would have no obligation to have the premises decontaminated before reletting it. The tenant says she intends to thoroughly clean the internal walls and ceilings soon for the safety of her children.
The tenant has lived in the premises for almost five years and wishes to remain there. I am not aware of the tenant breaching any other of her obligations, although she has indicated she is in the process of bringing a claim in the Tribunal for damp and mould issues. If the Tribunal does not terminate the tenancy, the landlord would continue to have a tenant who has complied with most of her tenancy obligations. Conclusion
I am not satisfied that it would be inequitable to refuse to the terminate the premises.
The landlord’s application to terminate the tenancy is dismissed.

Order

The landlords’ application for termination of the tenancy is dismissed.

Reasons

Marion Paterson and Lisa Johnson attended the hearing for the landlord’s agent.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for the tenant breaching her obligation their obligations not to use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose, namely, the criminal offence of using or permitting premises to be used for the consumption of methamphetamine.
The tenant denies using methamphetamine or knowingly permitting anyone else. Background
The tenancy began on 27 July 2019. The tenant lives there with her two school- age children.
Shortly before the tenancy began, the landlord had a methamphetamine assessment done which confirmed the absence of methamphetamine over 10 test sites.
On 6 December 2023, the landlord had the premises tested again and the premises tested positive over 10 test sites with an average per-site result of
8μg/100cm 2 .
Further testing and more detailed analysis was conducted on about 30 March 2024. Individualised testing of 17 test sites showed widespread methamphetamine present at relatively low levels. The highest levels were on a lounge door (5.3μg/100cm 2 ), bedroom 2 door (5.7μg/100cm 2 ), bedroom 3 door (3.7μg/100cm 2 ), and bedroom 1 door frame 3.2μg/100cm 2 ).
The average level of contamination from the later testing is lower than the testing a few months earlier at 1.7μg/100cm 2 per site. Legal principles
The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. 1
Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.
A recent amendment to s 138C of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides for regulations to be made prescribing the maximum acceptable level for contaminants, but no regulations have been made in relation to methamphetamine levels yet.
There are currently two sources of guidance on the issue of a safe level of methamphetamine contamination in residential premises. In June 2017 Standards New Zealand published NZS 8510:2017. The standard recommended a maximum contamination level of 1.5μg/100cm2 for high use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture. It recommended a higher level of 3.8μg/100cm2 for limited use areas.
In May 2018 Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the then Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor, released a report, Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards. The report noted that there is a lack of scientific evidence to prove that low-level 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), s 56(1). third-hand methamphetamine exposure poses a health risk to humans and exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm 2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect.
The report recommended decontamination to the level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 only where contamination resulted from manufacture due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the manufacturing process.
The District Court has held that remediation should be carried out in accordance with the prevailing guidelines at the time. 2
The Tribunal has endorsed the Gluckman recommendations and has applied them for several years. The District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 approved the Tribunal’s approach: 3 The Tenancy Tribunal was in a difficult position. The best state of knowledge of risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination available to the adjudicator was the Gluckman Report. It would have been bold for the adjudicator to have ignored that report in favour of the New Zealand Standard given that the Gluckman report represents the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination in dwellings.
The District Court took a similar approach in Acme Realty Limited v Hogg and others [2021] NZDC 3231, where the Court referred to the Full Circle case and held that, because NZS 8510:2017 has not been adopted into law, the Tribunal was not bound to apply the 1.5μg standard.
More recently, in Barfoot and Thompson Limited v Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited [2021] NZTT Auckland 4276319, both parties presented scientific evidence at a hearing before the Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that there was no new scientific research to change the conclusions reached in the Gluckman Report. Discussion
The highest levels of contamination in this case are little more than one third of the level where the Tribunal would find decontamination is required.
As the law stands, the landlord would not be obliged to decontaminate the premises prior to reletting it.
It is of concern that methamphetamine must have been consumed in several locations at the premises during the tenancy. There is low-level methamphetamine contamination inside all three bedrooms. The tenant denies knowledge of how the contamination occurred but speculates it may be due to visiting family members. 2 Diamond Real Estate Limited v Allan [2017] NZDC 833. 3 At [36].
It does not seem plausible the tenant would have such scant knowledge of the likely causes of such widespread contamination throughout the house, including her children’s bedrooms. I find it more likely than not that the tenant did consume methamphetamine or permitted methamphetamine consumption to occur.
Having found that the tenant breached her obligations, I must decide whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the premises due to the nature or extent of the breach.
The levels of methamphetamine in this case are considerably below the Gluckman level of 15μg/100cm 2 . The second round of testing returned a lower average level of contamination, consistent with the source of the contamination possibly having ceased. That would be consistent with the tenant’s theory of a visitor or visitors to the premises as a possible source of the contamination.
As the law stands, the landlord would have no obligation to have the premises decontaminated before reletting it. The tenant says she intends to thoroughly clean the internal walls and ceilings soon for the safety of her children.
The tenant has lived in the premises for almost five years and wishes to remain there. I am not aware of the tenant breaching any other of her obligations, although she has indicated she is in the process of bringing a claim in the Tribunal for damp and mould issues. If the Tribunal does not terminate the tenancy, the landlord would continue to have a tenant who has complied with most of her tenancy obligations. Conclusion
I am not satisfied that it would be inequitable to refuse to the terminate the premises.
The landlord’s application to terminate the tenancy is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4758641 — Mould & damp at 6 Malbec Place, Huapai, Kumeu 0810

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4758641 — Mould & damp at 6 Malbec Place, Huapai, Kumeu 0810

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions