What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4821406?

The tribunal order states: Carl David Grimes must pay Graham Leslie Willis and Kathy (Kathleen) Evelyn

How much money was awarded in case 4821406?

Cleaning: $305.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,725.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4821406?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4821406?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10914800-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4821406?

The tribunal order states: Carl David Grimes must pay Graham Leslie Willis and Kathy (Kathleen) Evelyn

How much money was awarded in case 4821406?

Cleaning: $305.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,725.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4821406?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4821406?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10914800-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

93A Duck Creek Road, Stillwater, Silverdale 0993 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4821406 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4821406 — net $4,015.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 14 March 2023	$2,725.00	Rent arrears to 14 March 2023
Cleaning	$305.00	Cleaning
Repairs: Carpet and vinyl	$100.00	Repairs: Carpet and vinyl
Meth testing/Cleaning: Decontamination - insurance excess	$2,500.00	Meth testing/Cleaning: Decontamination - insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,015.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,015.44

Order

Carl David Grimes must pay Graham Leslie Willis and Kathy (Kathleen) Evelyn Parker $4,015.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears to 14 March 2023$2,725.00 Cleaning$305.00 Repairs: Carpet and vinyl$100.00 Meth testing/Cleaning: Decontamination - insurance excess $2,500.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$5,650.44 Bond$1,635.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$4,015.44

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
The tenant, Mr Grimes, did not attend the hearing.
On 26 June 2024, I adjourned the previous remote hearing because there was uncertainty about the identity of the person I spoke to via phone. During the hearing, Ms. Parker raised concerns that the person on the phone was not the tenant, Mr Grimes, but someone speaking on his behalf.
The person on the phone did not explicitly confirm his identity, which caused me to question whether I was communicating with Mr Grimes. Additionally, the person did not dispute certain claims, such as rent arrears, but wanted to discuss other issues. Due to this uncertainty and the need to confirm Mr Grimes’ identity, I decided to adjourn and change the hearing to face-to-face to ensure proper representation and clarity.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 14 March 2023. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord has applied for compensation for the insurance excess for the cost of methamphetamine testing and remediation.
The landlord must prove that the tenant caused or permitted the contamination or that it was caused by someone at the premises with the tenant’s consent. The landlord must also prove that, as a result of the contamination, the premises have been damaged or are not reasonably clean.
Section 138C Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides for regulations to be made prescribing the maximum acceptable level for contaminants, but as yet no regulations have been made in relation to methamphetamine.
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/100cm 2 for high use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture. It recommended a higher level of 3.8μg/100cm 2 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 third-hand methamphetamine exposure poses a health risk to humans. It stated that guidelines should be proportionate to risk and that exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm 2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect. It recommended retaining the level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 where contamination resulted from manufacture, due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the process.
The District Court has held that remediation should be carried out in accordance with the prevailing guidelines at the time (Diamond Real Estate Limited v Allan [2017] NZDC 833, Judge Kellar).
The Tribunal has generally applied the Gluckman recommendation. This approach was approved by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947, where the Court stated (at para [36]): 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.
The landlord claimed a significant level of contamination, which resulted in decontamination and associated costs, including an insurance excess. My decision is based on the following points: Methamphetamine Contamination Evidence
The landlord conducted methamphetamine testing before the tenancy and after the tenant vacated the premises. The results showed contamination levels in the lounge were four times over the acceptable limit, with a reading of 60μg/100cm 2 .
This contamination was confirmed by professional testing services, specifically by Analytica Laboratories, which recorded high contamination readings, particularly in the bathroom and lounge. The landlord provided the Tribunal with a comprehensive methamphetamine report detailing the contamination levels. Tenant's Use of Methamphetamine
The landlord argued that Mr. Grimes was responsible for the contamination. They supported their claim by noting that new extractor fans were installed in the bathroom during Mr. Grimes’ tenancy, meaning no previous tenants could have caused the contamination. Additionally, there was evidence from neighbours indicating frequent visitors and suspicious activity at the property, consistent with drug use. For these factors, the landlord’s position is that Mr Grimes used methamphetamine during the tenancy. Costs of Decontamination
In addition to methamphetamine contamination, the landlord also provided evidence of other damages caused by the tenant or his associates. These included damaged carpets and flooring, further supporting the claim that methamphetamine use, and the resulting contamination had significant financial implications for the landlord. Conclusion
The methamphetamine contamination was proven by clear and reliable testing conducted after the tenant vacated the property. The high levels of contamination necessitated professional decontamination, which justified the insurance claim for excess costs.
The landlord demonstrated that the contamination occurred during the tenant's occupancy, particularly with the installation of new extractor fans in the bathroom during Mr. Grimes' tenancy.
The tenant did not attend the hearing or provide evidence to refute the landlord’s claims regarding methamphetamine use and contamination.
I find that Mr Grimes used methamphetamine during the tenancy and damaged the property and he has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee
Because Graham Leslie Willis, Kathy (Kathleen) Evelyn Parker has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4821406 — net $4,015.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 14 March 2023	$2,725.00	Rent arrears to 14 March 2023
Cleaning	$305.00	Cleaning
Repairs: Carpet and vinyl	$100.00	Repairs: Carpet and vinyl
Meth testing/Cleaning: Decontamination - insurance excess	$2,500.00	Meth testing/Cleaning: Decontamination - insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,015.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,015.44

Order

Carl David Grimes must pay Graham Leslie Willis and Kathy (Kathleen) Evelyn Parker $4,015.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears to 14 March 2023$2,725.00 Cleaning$305.00 Repairs: Carpet and vinyl$100.00 Meth testing/Cleaning: Decontamination - insurance excess $2,500.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$5,650.44 Bond$1,635.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$4,015.44

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
The tenant, Mr Grimes, did not attend the hearing.
On 26 June 2024, I adjourned the previous remote hearing because there was uncertainty about the identity of the person I spoke to via phone. During the hearing, Ms. Parker raised concerns that the person on the phone was not the tenant, Mr Grimes, but someone speaking on his behalf.
The person on the phone did not explicitly confirm his identity, which caused me to question whether I was communicating with Mr Grimes. Additionally, the person did not dispute certain claims, such as rent arrears, but wanted to discuss other issues. Due to this uncertainty and the need to confirm Mr Grimes’ identity, I decided to adjourn and change the hearing to face-to-face to ensure proper representation and clarity.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 14 March 2023. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord has applied for compensation for the insurance excess for the cost of methamphetamine testing and remediation.
The landlord must prove that the tenant caused or permitted the contamination or that it was caused by someone at the premises with the tenant’s consent. The landlord must also prove that, as a result of the contamination, the premises have been damaged or are not reasonably clean.
Section 138C Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides for regulations to be made prescribing the maximum acceptable level for contaminants, but as yet no regulations have been made in relation to methamphetamine.
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/100cm 2 for high use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture. It recommended a higher level of 3.8μg/100cm 2 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 third-hand methamphetamine exposure poses a health risk to humans. It stated that guidelines should be proportionate to risk and that exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm 2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect. It recommended retaining the level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 where contamination resulted from manufacture, due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the process.
The District Court has held that remediation should be carried out in accordance with the prevailing guidelines at the time (Diamond Real Estate Limited v Allan [2017] NZDC 833, Judge Kellar).
The Tribunal has generally applied the Gluckman recommendation. This approach was approved by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947, where the Court stated (at para [36]): 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.
The landlord claimed a significant level of contamination, which resulted in decontamination and associated costs, including an insurance excess. My decision is based on the following points: Methamphetamine Contamination Evidence
The landlord conducted methamphetamine testing before the tenancy and after the tenant vacated the premises. The results showed contamination levels in the lounge were four times over the acceptable limit, with a reading of 60μg/100cm 2 .
This contamination was confirmed by professional testing services, specifically by Analytica Laboratories, which recorded high contamination readings, particularly in the bathroom and lounge. The landlord provided the Tribunal with a comprehensive methamphetamine report detailing the contamination levels. Tenant's Use of Methamphetamine
The landlord argued that Mr. Grimes was responsible for the contamination. They supported their claim by noting that new extractor fans were installed in the bathroom during Mr. Grimes’ tenancy, meaning no previous tenants could have caused the contamination. Additionally, there was evidence from neighbours indicating frequent visitors and suspicious activity at the property, consistent with drug use. For these factors, the landlord’s position is that Mr Grimes used methamphetamine during the tenancy. Costs of Decontamination
In addition to methamphetamine contamination, the landlord also provided evidence of other damages caused by the tenant or his associates. These included damaged carpets and flooring, further supporting the claim that methamphetamine use, and the resulting contamination had significant financial implications for the landlord. Conclusion
The methamphetamine contamination was proven by clear and reliable testing conducted after the tenant vacated the property. The high levels of contamination necessitated professional decontamination, which justified the insurance claim for excess costs.
The landlord demonstrated that the contamination occurred during the tenant's occupancy, particularly with the installation of new extractor fans in the bathroom during Mr. Grimes' tenancy.
The tenant did not attend the hearing or provide evidence to refute the landlord’s claims regarding methamphetamine use and contamination.
I find that Mr Grimes used methamphetamine during the tenancy and damaged the property and he has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee
Because Graham Leslie Willis, Kathy (Kathleen) Evelyn Parker has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4821406 — Rent arrears at 93A Duck Creek Road, Stillwater, Silverdale 0993

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4821406 — Rent arrears at 93A Duck Creek Road, Stillwater, Silverdale 0993

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions