What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4897760?

The tribunal order states: Darcy Savard must pay Goodwin Realty Limited T/As Goodwins As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 4897760?

Cleaning: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4897760?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4897760?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10747199-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4897760?

The tribunal order states: Darcy Savard must pay Goodwin Realty Limited T/As Goodwins As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 4897760?

Cleaning: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4897760?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4897760?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10747199-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 15, 67 Sarsfield Street, Herne Bay, Auckland 1011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4897760 — Property damage

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4897760 — net $3,270.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: IAG Insurance excess	$2,500.00	Cleaning: IAG Insurance excess
Real Landlord Insurance excess	$750.00	Real Landlord Insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,270.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,270.44

Darcy Savard must pay Goodwin Realty Limited T/As Goodwins As Agent For Walker Gherman Investment Trust $3,270.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The landlord is granted a period of 28 days to reapply to the Tribunal regarding any losses not covered by insurance in this Order. Any such application made by the landlord must include: a. Insurance documents, and b. Receipts (as opposed to invoices) for any claims, c. Photographs of the items that have been replaced, taken at any time during the tenancy in question.

Reasons

The landlord has applied for compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenancy ended on 29 July 2023.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 (the “RTA”) section 49B(1).

The landlord seeks reimbursement for their insurance excess related to methamphetamine decontamination costs, and associated loss of rent and loss of furnishings.

A recent amendment to the RTA section 138C 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 third-hand methamphetamine exposure poses a health risk to humans and exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect.

The report recommended decontamination to the level of 1.5μg/100cm2only 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, (see Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541).

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.

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 NZS8510:2017 has not been adopted into law the Tribunal was not bout to apple the 1.5μg/100cm2 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 there was no new scientific research to change the conclusions reached in the Gluckman Report.

In this case a baseline test was conducted prior to the tenancy beginning and then after the end of the tenancy. The results of tests at the beginning of the tenancy showed no significant methamphetamine contamination. At the end of the tenancy, the levels tested well above the 15μg/100cm2 recommendation.

The tenant accepted that his conduct had caused the contamination, although he queried why on subsequent tests the test results varied and sometimes increased. The landlord was not able to answer this question categorically but suggested that samples may not have been taken from the exact same spot on each subsequent test.

I find that the damage was caused by the tenant, and the damage was caused intentionally.

The landlord provided invoices for nine methamphetamine tests that were conducted at the premises by AllClear between 30 August 2023 and 11 January 2024 which total $8,656.51. The landlord also provided an invoice from ECS for decontamination of the premises for $8,123.60.

These expenses were covered by IAG insurance for which the excess amounts to $2,500.00.

The landlord also sought the insurance excess of $750.00 for Real Landlord insurance which covered lost rent during the decontamination period and for asset replacement.

The amounts ordered are proved.

The landlord stated there was a large shortfall between what the insurance covered and the landlord’s loss.

Because Goodwin Realty Limited T/As Goodwins As Agent For Walker Gherman Investment Trust has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4897760 — net $3,270.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: IAG Insurance excess	$2,500.00	Cleaning: IAG Insurance excess
Real Landlord Insurance excess	$750.00	Real Landlord Insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,270.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,270.44

Order

Darcy Savard must pay Goodwin Realty Limited T/As Goodwins As Agent For Walker Gherman Investment Trust $3,270.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlord is granted a period of 28 days to reapply to the Tribunal regarding any losses not covered by insurance in this Order. Any such application made by the landlord must include: a. Insurance documents, and b. Receipts (as opposed to invoices) for any claims, c. Photographs of the items that have been replaced, taken at any time during the tenancy in question.

Reasons

The landlord has applied for compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy ended on 29 July 2023.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 (the “RTA”) section 49B(1).
The landlord seeks reimbursement for their insurance excess related to methamphetamine decontamination costs, and associated loss of rent and loss of furnishings.
A recent amendment to the RTA section 138C 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 third-hand methamphetamine exposure poses a health risk to humans and exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect.
The report recommended decontamination to the level of 1.5μg/100cm2only 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, (see Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541).
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.
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 NZS8510:2017 has not been adopted into law the Tribunal was not bout to apple the 1.5μg/100cm2 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 there was no new scientific research to change the conclusions reached in the Gluckman Report.
In this case a baseline test was conducted prior to the tenancy beginning and then after the end of the tenancy. The results of tests at the beginning of the tenancy showed no significant methamphetamine contamination. At the end of the tenancy, the levels tested well above the 15μg/100cm2 recommendation.
The tenant accepted that his conduct had caused the contamination, although he queried why on subsequent tests the test results varied and sometimes increased. The landlord was not able to answer this question categorically but suggested that samples may not have been taken from the exact same spot on each subsequent test.
I find that the damage was caused by the tenant, and the damage was caused intentionally.
The landlord provided invoices for nine methamphetamine tests that were conducted at the premises by AllClear between 30 August 2023 and 11 January 2024 which total $8,656.51. The landlord also provided an invoice from ECS for decontamination of the premises for $8,123.60.
These expenses were covered by IAG insurance for which the excess amounts to $2,500.00.
The landlord also sought the insurance excess of $750.00 for Real Landlord insurance which covered lost rent during the decontamination period and for asset replacement.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The landlord stated there was a large shortfall between what the insurance covered and the landlord’s loss.
Because Goodwin Realty Limited T/As Goodwins As Agent For Walker Gherman Investment Trust has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4897760 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 15, 67 Sarsfield Street, Herne Bay, Auckland 1011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4897760 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 15, 67 Sarsfield Street, Herne Bay, Auckland 1011

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions