What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4935234?

The tribunal order states: Gareth Loftus must pay Eves Realty Limited as Agent for Katie Stratton

How much money was awarded in case 4935234?

Cleaning: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing: $396.75 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Flight Lounger: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Jute Rug: $819.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: two-seater couc…: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $83.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4935234?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4935234?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11401004-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4935234?

The tribunal order states: Gareth Loftus must pay Eves Realty Limited as Agent for Katie Stratton

How much money was awarded in case 4935234?

Cleaning: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing: $396.75 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Flight Lounger: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Jute Rug: $819.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: two-seater couc…: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $83.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4935234?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4935234?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11401004-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 24, 436 Maunganui Road, Mount Maunganui, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4935234 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4935234 — net $1,978.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$83.00	Water rates
Carpet Cleaning: Stain removal	$80.00	Carpet Cleaning: Stain removal
Meth testing	$396.75	Meth testing
Replace furnishings: Flight lounger	$1,500.00	Replace furnishings: Flight lounger
Replace furnishings: two-seater couch	$350.00	Replace furnishings: two-seater couch
Replace furnishings: Jute rug	$819.00	Replace furnishings: Jute rug
Insurance excess	$250.00	Insurance excess
Exemplary damages unlawful purpose	$1,000.00	Exemplary damages unlawful purpose
Net award	$1,978.75
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,978.75

Order

Gareth Loftus must pay Eves Realty Limited as Agent for Katie Stratton $1978.75 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,500.00 (6166198-003) to Eves Realty Limited as Agent for Katie Stratton immediately.

Reasons

This order amends the order dated 1 November 2024 by ordering the bond centre to refund the bond in full to the landlord. It was recorded in the original hearing that the landlord had already received the bond, however the bond was still being held at the bond centre. This has been corrected. The rest of the order, amount payable and reasonings have not been altered.
Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for water rates, compensation, refund of the bond, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on13 June 2024. The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant agreed that he owed the water rates.

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. The tenant agreed that a carpet stain in the bedroom was caused by him, and the cleaner did not remove it at the end of the tenancy. The amount claimed is awarded.

Can the landlord claim decontamination costs?

The tenancy began on 16 June 2023 and the premises were pretested for methamphetamine on 24 May 2023.The result recorded was 0.04 μg/100cm 2 for the presence of Methamphetamine. The property manager said that the premises remained vacant from the pretest date to the start of the tenancy.
The tenancy was retested when the fixed term ended on 17 June 2024 returning a composite test value of 39 μg/100 cm 2 .
Individual testing was then conducted on 21 June 2024 confirming levels of •79μg/100 cm 2 in the kitchen, •6.5μg/100 cm 2 in the dining room, •13.0μg/100 cm 2 in the lounge, • 2.6μg/100 cm 2 in bedroom 1, • 28μg/100 cm 2 in the bathroom, •1.15 μg/100 cm 2 in bedroom 2, • 5.9 μg/100 cm 2 in the hallway.
The tenant agreed that methamphetamine had been used at the premises.
The landlord had the entire premises decontaminated by ’Specialised Cleaning Solutions’, who as part of the process disposed of 2 beds, 2 couches and 1 rug.
The landlords insurance covered decontamination costs only for areas that recorded methamphetamine above 15μg/100 cm 2 . The insurance payment extended in this instance to cover decontamination of the lounge, dining room and kitchen because of the open plan design of the premises.
Reimbursement of the insurance excess of $250.00 was sought and is awarded.
The cost for Methamphetamine testing after the premises were decontaminated are awarded as this is a cost the landlord would not usually have. The second end of tenancy test cost is not awarded as this was due to a mis test by the testing agent resulting in the need to test again.
The insurance policy did not cover the decontamination of the bedrooms because the recorded methamphetamine was under 15μg/100cm 2 .Replacement of the furnishings were also not covered. The landlord sought reimbursement of these costs based on the NZ standard NZS 8510:2017 recommending a maximum contamination level of 1.5μg/100 cm 2 as the level to be applied in these circumstances.
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.
A number of Tenancy Tribunal and District Court decisions have confirmed the insurance companies’ position that methamphetamine levels below 15μg/100cm 2 do not require decontamination.
In two recent decisions, the District Court has confirmed the Tribunal’s approach in adopting the Gluckman recommendations as correct and observed that the NZ standards do not have the force of law.
In Acme Realty Ltd v Alexander James Hogg, Tuitui Grace Polotu, Leigh Sharyn Coughlin [2021] NZDC 3231 Judge Harrison confirmed Judge de Ridder’s approach in the earlier decision of Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947. Both decisions held that the Tribunal was correct to adopt and apply the levels set out in the Gluckman report, with the result that only if levels are above 15μg/100cm 2 is decontamination required to ensure the premises are safe and not injurious to the health of future occupants.
I must apply the reasoning of the District Court and following Tenancy Tribunal orders and find that the maximum contamination level to be applied is that stated by the Gluckman report.
Where contamination levels are below 15 μg/100cm² premises do not present a risk and are not considered to require remediation, therefore no damage to the premises has been established. Decontamination of the two bedrooms and replacement of the beds and bedding was not required to restore the premises to a safe habitable state.
I am not satisfied that Mr Loftus is therefore responsible for the decontamination costs of the bedrooms and bedding. However, the replacement of the soft furnishings in the area with high recorded level of methamphetamine, being the flight lounger, two-seater couch and jute rug I find are his responsibility and order compensation for their replacement.
In assessing the replacement cost of these items, I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan and the IRD depreciation guidelines. Unlawful purpose
Eves Realty Limited as Agent for Katie Stratton claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by using methamphetamine at the premises.
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
It is an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 for any person to have in their possession or consume any controlled drug and to allow any premises to be used for the commission of an offence under that Act.
“Methamphetamine” is included as a controlled drug under Schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Act. The Tenancy Tribunal has previously found, and I agree, that the consumption of methamphetamine on premises amounts to the use of those premises for an unlawful purpose, in breach of section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant agreed that methamphetamine was used at the premises. This is an intentional act, and its use can pose a health risk to humans. The effect of this is the cost to the landlord to remediate the premises, possibly devalue the property and create a health hazard for others, as well as being an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. It is in the public interest that tenants do not put others health at risk and comply with the requirements of the RTA and Misuse of Drugs Act. I find it just to award exemplary damages of $1000.00.
The landlord has been substantially successful, and the filing fee is reimbursed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4935234 — net $1,978.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$83.00	Water rates
Carpet Cleaning: Stain removal	$80.00	Carpet Cleaning: Stain removal
Meth testing	$396.75	Meth testing
Replace furnishings: Flight lounger	$1,500.00	Replace furnishings: Flight lounger
Replace furnishings: two-seater couch	$350.00	Replace furnishings: two-seater couch
Replace furnishings: Jute rug	$819.00	Replace furnishings: Jute rug
Insurance excess	$250.00	Insurance excess
Exemplary damages unlawful purpose	$1,000.00	Exemplary damages unlawful purpose
Net award	$1,978.75
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,978.75

Order

Gareth Loftus must pay Eves Realty Limited as Agent for Katie Stratton $1978.75 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,500.00 (6166198-003) to Eves Realty Limited as Agent for Katie Stratton immediately.

Reasons

This order amends the order dated 1 November 2024 by ordering the bond centre to refund the bond in full to the landlord. It was recorded in the original hearing that the landlord had already received the bond, however the bond was still being held at the bond centre. This has been corrected. The rest of the order, amount payable and reasonings have not been altered.
Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for water rates, compensation, refund of the bond, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on13 June 2024. The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant agreed that he owed the water rates.

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. The tenant agreed that a carpet stain in the bedroom was caused by him, and the cleaner did not remove it at the end of the tenancy. The amount claimed is awarded.

Can the landlord claim decontamination costs?

The tenancy began on 16 June 2023 and the premises were pretested for methamphetamine on 24 May 2023.The result recorded was 0.04 μg/100cm 2 for the presence of Methamphetamine. The property manager said that the premises remained vacant from the pretest date to the start of the tenancy.
The tenancy was retested when the fixed term ended on 17 June 2024 returning a composite test value of 39 μg/100 cm 2 .
Individual testing was then conducted on 21 June 2024 confirming levels of •79μg/100 cm 2 in the kitchen, •6.5μg/100 cm 2 in the dining room, •13.0μg/100 cm 2 in the lounge, • 2.6μg/100 cm 2 in bedroom 1, • 28μg/100 cm 2 in the bathroom, •1.15 μg/100 cm 2 in bedroom 2, • 5.9 μg/100 cm 2 in the hallway.
The tenant agreed that methamphetamine had been used at the premises.
The landlord had the entire premises decontaminated by ’Specialised Cleaning Solutions’, who as part of the process disposed of 2 beds, 2 couches and 1 rug.
The landlords insurance covered decontamination costs only for areas that recorded methamphetamine above 15μg/100 cm 2 . The insurance payment extended in this instance to cover decontamination of the lounge, dining room and kitchen because of the open plan design of the premises.
Reimbursement of the insurance excess of $250.00 was sought and is awarded.
The cost for Methamphetamine testing after the premises were decontaminated are awarded as this is a cost the landlord would not usually have. The second end of tenancy test cost is not awarded as this was due to a mis test by the testing agent resulting in the need to test again.
The insurance policy did not cover the decontamination of the bedrooms because the recorded methamphetamine was under 15μg/100cm 2 .Replacement of the furnishings were also not covered. The landlord sought reimbursement of these costs based on the NZ standard NZS 8510:2017 recommending a maximum contamination level of 1.5μg/100 cm 2 as the level to be applied in these circumstances.
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.
A number of Tenancy Tribunal and District Court decisions have confirmed the insurance companies’ position that methamphetamine levels below 15μg/100cm 2 do not require decontamination.
In two recent decisions, the District Court has confirmed the Tribunal’s approach in adopting the Gluckman recommendations as correct and observed that the NZ standards do not have the force of law.
In Acme Realty Ltd v Alexander James Hogg, Tuitui Grace Polotu, Leigh Sharyn Coughlin [2021] NZDC 3231 Judge Harrison confirmed Judge de Ridder’s approach in the earlier decision of Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947. Both decisions held that the Tribunal was correct to adopt and apply the levels set out in the Gluckman report, with the result that only if levels are above 15μg/100cm 2 is decontamination required to ensure the premises are safe and not injurious to the health of future occupants.
I must apply the reasoning of the District Court and following Tenancy Tribunal orders and find that the maximum contamination level to be applied is that stated by the Gluckman report.
Where contamination levels are below 15 μg/100cm² premises do not present a risk and are not considered to require remediation, therefore no damage to the premises has been established. Decontamination of the two bedrooms and replacement of the beds and bedding was not required to restore the premises to a safe habitable state.
I am not satisfied that Mr Loftus is therefore responsible for the decontamination costs of the bedrooms and bedding. However, the replacement of the soft furnishings in the area with high recorded level of methamphetamine, being the flight lounger, two-seater couch and jute rug I find are his responsibility and order compensation for their replacement.
In assessing the replacement cost of these items, I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan and the IRD depreciation guidelines. Unlawful purpose
Eves Realty Limited as Agent for Katie Stratton claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by using methamphetamine at the premises.
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
It is an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 for any person to have in their possession or consume any controlled drug and to allow any premises to be used for the commission of an offence under that Act.
“Methamphetamine” is included as a controlled drug under Schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Act. The Tenancy Tribunal has previously found, and I agree, that the consumption of methamphetamine on premises amounts to the use of those premises for an unlawful purpose, in breach of section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant agreed that methamphetamine was used at the premises. This is an intentional act, and its use can pose a health risk to humans. The effect of this is the cost to the landlord to remediate the premises, possibly devalue the property and create a health hazard for others, as well as being an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. It is in the public interest that tenants do not put others health at risk and comply with the requirements of the RTA and Misuse of Drugs Act. I find it just to award exemplary damages of $1000.00.
The landlord has been substantially successful, and the filing fee is reimbursed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4935234 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 24, 436 Maunganui Road, Mount Maunganui,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4935234 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 24, 436 Maunganui Road, Mount Maunganui,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

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

Can the landlord claim decontamination costs?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

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

Can the landlord claim decontamination costs?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions