What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4873266?

The tribunal order states: Ariana Woods must pay Compass Property Management Limited $2,329.60

How much money was awarded in case 4873266?

Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,569.16 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,840.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4873266?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4873266?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10749413-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4873266?

The tribunal order states: Ariana Woods must pay Compass Property Management Limited $2,329.60

How much money was awarded in case 4873266?

Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,569.16 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,840.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4873266?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4873266?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10749413-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

20 Galilee Avenue, Red Hill, Papakura 2110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4873266 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4873266 — net $2,329.60 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 29 February 2024	$2,569.16	Rent arrears to 29 February 2024
Cleaning	$500.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$1,840.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,329.60
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,329.60

Order

Ariana Woods must pay Compass Property Management Limited $2,329.60 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 (3307924-011) to Compass Property Management Limited immediately.

Reasons

The landlord (Ms O’Donnell) attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord has claimed: a) $2,569.16 in rent arrears. b) $1,840.00 for rubbish removal c) $7, 553.60 for methamphetamine decontamination and cleaning. d) Filing fee.
The tenancy ended on the 29 February this year by eviction following an order of the Tribunal.
I am satisfied that the tenant owed $2,569.16 in rent arrears at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided me with a rent ledger that shows $3285.72 owing less a rent credit ($716.56) that was held in another ledger when the property was transferred to Compass Property Management Limited. This means that the amount owing by the tenant is $2569.00 Rubbish and cleaning.
Tenants must keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy, and they must return them in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy (ss 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) RTA).
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The landlord provided me with photographs and an inspection report detailing the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy, it shows a property that has not been cleaned to a reasonable standard and with a significant amount of furniture and rubbish left in the property. The landlord gave the tenant an opportunity to take away her furniture and belongings, but the tenant did not do so. None of the items left behind are worth more than the cost of removal.
The landlord had to engage rubbish removal contractors to remove the belongings and rubbish. They report that the rubbish and belongings filled two trucks. Whilst the amount charged is at the higher end of what the Tribunal would consider reasonable, I am satisfied that this was the actual cost incurred in removing, transporting and disposing of the rubbish and that the tenant is liable for that amount.
The landlord had the property cleaned/decontaminated at the end of the tenancy. For the reasons I have set out below the landlord’s claim for methamphetamine decontamination is not proven. The invoice for decontamination of the property included cleaning the property.
As the tenant did not leave the property in a reasonable condition, I have awarded the landlord compensation for that breach. Even if the property had not been contaminated the landlord would have had to clean the property to a reasonable standard and the tenant would have been liable for that cost. Methamphetamine
The landlord has applied for compensation for the cost 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/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 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/100cm2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect. It recommended retaining the level of 1.5μg/100cm2 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.
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.
Therefore, the Tribunal has continued to use the level of 15μg/100cm 2 as being the level where decontamination is necessary.
The District Court in Eren Limited v Louise Martin [2021] NZDC 15210 [3 August 2021] has also warned that in the absence of other evidence it will be difficult for a landlord to make out a claim that the tenant contaminated the premises when there was no testing for methamphetamine completed at the beginning of the tenancy. The court said: However, the significant problem for this claim is that there is no evidence of any methamphetamine testing carried out at the start of this tenancy. If there had been such testing and it revealed no methamphetamine, then clearly the methamphetamine residue that was found at the end of this tenancy could only have occurred during the tenancy and could only have occurred by either the tenants using methamphetamine or permitting others to use methamphetamine inside the house. The lack of methamphetamine testing at the start of the tenancy significantly weakens the circumstantial case against the tenants to the point where it is not possible to conclude on the balance of probabilities that it was the tenants who were responsible for the methamphetamine residue located at the premises at the end of their tenancy.
The landlord did not carry out methamphetamine testing on this property before the tenancy began. There was no methamphetamine or methamphetamine utensils found at the address, and no other evidence which directly shows that the tenant was using methamphetamine at the address. The landlord has not met the evidential burden of proof to show that it was likely that the tenancy became contaminated during the tenant’s tenancy and not at some time before the tenancy. The landlord’s claim for costs of decontamination is therefore dismissed.
I also note that none of the results showed contamination of more than 15μg/100cm 2 The filing fee
As the landlord has been partly successful in their claim, I award the landlord the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4873266 — net $2,329.60 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 29 February 2024	$2,569.16	Rent arrears to 29 February 2024
Cleaning	$500.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$1,840.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,329.60
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,329.60

Order

Ariana Woods must pay Compass Property Management Limited $2,329.60 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 (3307924-011) to Compass Property Management Limited immediately.

Reasons

The landlord (Ms O’Donnell) attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord has claimed: a) $2,569.16 in rent arrears. b) $1,840.00 for rubbish removal c) $7, 553.60 for methamphetamine decontamination and cleaning. d) Filing fee.
The tenancy ended on the 29 February this year by eviction following an order of the Tribunal.
I am satisfied that the tenant owed $2,569.16 in rent arrears at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided me with a rent ledger that shows $3285.72 owing less a rent credit ($716.56) that was held in another ledger when the property was transferred to Compass Property Management Limited. This means that the amount owing by the tenant is $2569.00 Rubbish and cleaning.
Tenants must keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy, and they must return them in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy (ss 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) RTA).
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The landlord provided me with photographs and an inspection report detailing the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy, it shows a property that has not been cleaned to a reasonable standard and with a significant amount of furniture and rubbish left in the property. The landlord gave the tenant an opportunity to take away her furniture and belongings, but the tenant did not do so. None of the items left behind are worth more than the cost of removal.
The landlord had to engage rubbish removal contractors to remove the belongings and rubbish. They report that the rubbish and belongings filled two trucks. Whilst the amount charged is at the higher end of what the Tribunal would consider reasonable, I am satisfied that this was the actual cost incurred in removing, transporting and disposing of the rubbish and that the tenant is liable for that amount.
The landlord had the property cleaned/decontaminated at the end of the tenancy. For the reasons I have set out below the landlord’s claim for methamphetamine decontamination is not proven. The invoice for decontamination of the property included cleaning the property.
As the tenant did not leave the property in a reasonable condition, I have awarded the landlord compensation for that breach. Even if the property had not been contaminated the landlord would have had to clean the property to a reasonable standard and the tenant would have been liable for that cost. Methamphetamine
The landlord has applied for compensation for the cost 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/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 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/100cm2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect. It recommended retaining the level of 1.5μg/100cm2 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.
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.
Therefore, the Tribunal has continued to use the level of 15μg/100cm 2 as being the level where decontamination is necessary.
The District Court in Eren Limited v Louise Martin [2021] NZDC 15210 [3 August 2021] has also warned that in the absence of other evidence it will be difficult for a landlord to make out a claim that the tenant contaminated the premises when there was no testing for methamphetamine completed at the beginning of the tenancy. The court said: However, the significant problem for this claim is that there is no evidence of any methamphetamine testing carried out at the start of this tenancy. If there had been such testing and it revealed no methamphetamine, then clearly the methamphetamine residue that was found at the end of this tenancy could only have occurred during the tenancy and could only have occurred by either the tenants using methamphetamine or permitting others to use methamphetamine inside the house. The lack of methamphetamine testing at the start of the tenancy significantly weakens the circumstantial case against the tenants to the point where it is not possible to conclude on the balance of probabilities that it was the tenants who were responsible for the methamphetamine residue located at the premises at the end of their tenancy.
The landlord did not carry out methamphetamine testing on this property before the tenancy began. There was no methamphetamine or methamphetamine utensils found at the address, and no other evidence which directly shows that the tenant was using methamphetamine at the address. The landlord has not met the evidential burden of proof to show that it was likely that the tenancy became contaminated during the tenant’s tenancy and not at some time before the tenancy. The landlord’s claim for costs of decontamination is therefore dismissed.
I also note that none of the results showed contamination of more than 15μg/100cm 2 The filing fee
As the landlord has been partly successful in their claim, I award the landlord the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4873266 — Rent arrears at 20 Galilee Avenue, Red Hill, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4873266 — Rent arrears at 20 Galilee Avenue, Red Hill, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions