What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4948973?

The tribunal order states: Zarra Marie Fishlock must pay Dunedin Property Management Tapui as gent for

How much money was awarded in case 4948973?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $469.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4948973?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4948973?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11041978-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4948973?

The tribunal order states: Zarra Marie Fishlock must pay Dunedin Property Management Tapui as gent for

How much money was awarded in case 4948973?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $469.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4948973?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4948973?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11041978-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

480 North Road, Normanby, Dunedin 9010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4948973 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4948973. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 4.8.24	$469.86		Rent arrears to 4.8.24
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement

Order

Zarra Marie Fishlock must pay Dunedin Property Management Tapui as gent for Kay Pringle $496.86 as shown in table below.
The balance of the claim of Dunedin Property Management Tapui Limited is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy in this matter started on 21 April 2021.
At a prior hearing of this matter the landlord advised the tribunal that the tenancy came to an end on 4 August 2024. The landlord is seeking rent arrears to that date. The tenant accepts that sum is owing for rent areas.
The landlord is also claiming an excess regarding an insurance claim the owner has filed relating to alleged methamphetamine contamination. The landlord advises that the remediation works will be in the order of $50,000. The work is in the throes of being completed. The tenant denies she caused this damage.
The parties advise that the bond has already been paid out.

How much does the tenant owe?

The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. In any event, I note this sum is not challenged by the tenant.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
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 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
In 2010 the New Zealand Ministry of Health produced guidelines for the remediation of clandestine methamphetamine laboratories and determined that remediation was required if the environmental level of methamphetamine was 0.5 μg/100 cm2. While that related to laboratories, it is the case that the 0.5 level became the de facto level at which premises were considered to require remediation. 1
On 29 June 2017, the level was increased when Standards New Zealand released Standard NZS8510:2017 “Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine-contaminated properties” (the NZ Standard). At that time, this standard set the definitive levels at which properties contaminated by methamphetamine required remediation and provided industry guidance on good practice methods in the testing and cleaning of methamphetamine contamination.
The NZ Standard recorded that: After seeking expert advice on exposure risk from Environmental Science and Research Ltd (ESR) and the Ministry of Health, and reviewing a large number of public comments on a draft of this standard, the committee has decided to set the maximum acceptable level of methamphetamine in an affected property at 1.5 μg/100 cm2 after decontamination While this level is greater than the Ministry of Health 2010 guideline value of 0.5 μg/100 cm2 for properties used as clandestine laboratories, there are a number of reasons why the committee decided to adopt the single value of 1.5 μg/100 cm2 in this standard.
The NZ Standard therefore provided that the level at which habitation of residential premises was considered safe, was a level of 1.5 μg/100 cm2. The expectation of landlords was therefore to remediate premises contaminated with methamphetamine, to a level of less than 1.5 μg/100 cm2.
In 2018, the Prime Minister’s former Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, produced a report (the Gluckman Report) which determined that there was little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption. 2 The Gluckman report concluded that any levels below 15 μg/100 cm2 were unlikely to present adverse effects. The following is an excerpt: “Taken together, these factors indicate that methamphetamine levels that exceed the NZS 8510:2017 clean-up standard of 1.5 μg/100 cm2 should not be regarded as signalling a health risk. Indeed, exposure to methamphetamine levels below 15 μg/100 cm2 would be unlikely to give rise to any adverse effects. This level still incorporates a 30-fold safety buffer on a conservative estimate of risk. 1 Hibiscus Property Managers Ltd v Shore and Kelly [2019] NZTT North Shore 4212942, at [12] 2 (Report entitled ‘Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards’, 29 May 2018).
When the Gluckman report was made public, this left landlords in a difficult position, because of the conflict between the NZ Standard and the conclusions of the Gluckman report.
The issue as to which test to apply was considered in 2019 by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper 3 . Judge Kellar found: “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 Tenancy Tribunal has accepted that this decision now confirms the level to be applied is the level expressed in the Gluckman report, namely, that there is no risk when the standard of contamination is below 15 μg/100 cm2. 4
It follows that if the level of contamination is below that level, no damage has been suffered and remediation is not required.
For completion I note that in Smith v Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd, 5 in reference to (and tacit approval of) the Gluckman report, the Court of Appeal said: “We acknowledge that the testing in this case yielded results now considered not to raise any health and safety concerns.”
As against that background and summary of the law, I now turn to consider the facts of this case. Burden of proof
I begin by noting that as with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
This is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal. No baseline testing 3 [2019] NZDC 4947 4 For eg, Hibiscus Property Managers Ltd v Shore and Kelly, ibid, fn 1, Kevin Deane Real Estate (Cambridge) Ltd v McKenzie [2021] NZTT, Tokoroa 4285249, Tremain Real Estate Rotorua Ltd v Dorothy Te Runa [2021] NZTT Rotorua 4283902 5 [2019] NZCA 38, at [16]
The landlord did not conduct baseline testing at the commencement of the tenancy. Baseline testing is an essential starting point when determining when methamphetamine contamination may have taken place.
The landlord submits that the methamphetamine levels in the exit inspection at well higher than 15 μg/100 cm2. The landlord submits that the contamination levels are at 22 μg/100 cm2 and 32 μg/100 cm2 in two areas of the house, and that at those levels, the contamination simply must have taken place during the course of the tenancy.
The tenant denies being responsible for this contamination.
Although in two areas of the property the contamination is higher than 15 μg/100 cm2, I must dismiss the claim for the excess. This is because there was no baseline testing. I cannot therefore be satisfied as to when the contamination occurred.
Because Dunedin Property Management Tapui Limited as agent for Kay Pringle has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4948973. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 4.8.24	$469.86		Rent arrears to 4.8.24
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement

Order

Zarra Marie Fishlock must pay Dunedin Property Management Tapui as gent for Kay Pringle $496.86 as shown in table below.
The balance of the claim of Dunedin Property Management Tapui Limited is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy in this matter started on 21 April 2021.
At a prior hearing of this matter the landlord advised the tribunal that the tenancy came to an end on 4 August 2024. The landlord is seeking rent arrears to that date. The tenant accepts that sum is owing for rent areas.
The landlord is also claiming an excess regarding an insurance claim the owner has filed relating to alleged methamphetamine contamination. The landlord advises that the remediation works will be in the order of $50,000. The work is in the throes of being completed. The tenant denies she caused this damage.
The parties advise that the bond has already been paid out.

How much does the tenant owe?

The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. In any event, I note this sum is not challenged by the tenant.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
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 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
In 2010 the New Zealand Ministry of Health produced guidelines for the remediation of clandestine methamphetamine laboratories and determined that remediation was required if the environmental level of methamphetamine was 0.5 μg/100 cm2. While that related to laboratories, it is the case that the 0.5 level became the de facto level at which premises were considered to require remediation. 1
On 29 June 2017, the level was increased when Standards New Zealand released Standard NZS8510:2017 “Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine-contaminated properties” (the NZ Standard). At that time, this standard set the definitive levels at which properties contaminated by methamphetamine required remediation and provided industry guidance on good practice methods in the testing and cleaning of methamphetamine contamination.
The NZ Standard recorded that: After seeking expert advice on exposure risk from Environmental Science and Research Ltd (ESR) and the Ministry of Health, and reviewing a large number of public comments on a draft of this standard, the committee has decided to set the maximum acceptable level of methamphetamine in an affected property at 1.5 μg/100 cm2 after decontamination While this level is greater than the Ministry of Health 2010 guideline value of 0.5 μg/100 cm2 for properties used as clandestine laboratories, there are a number of reasons why the committee decided to adopt the single value of 1.5 μg/100 cm2 in this standard.
The NZ Standard therefore provided that the level at which habitation of residential premises was considered safe, was a level of 1.5 μg/100 cm2. The expectation of landlords was therefore to remediate premises contaminated with methamphetamine, to a level of less than 1.5 μg/100 cm2.
In 2018, the Prime Minister’s former Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, produced a report (the Gluckman Report) which determined that there was little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption. 2 The Gluckman report concluded that any levels below 15 μg/100 cm2 were unlikely to present adverse effects. The following is an excerpt: “Taken together, these factors indicate that methamphetamine levels that exceed the NZS 8510:2017 clean-up standard of 1.5 μg/100 cm2 should not be regarded as signalling a health risk. Indeed, exposure to methamphetamine levels below 15 μg/100 cm2 would be unlikely to give rise to any adverse effects. This level still incorporates a 30-fold safety buffer on a conservative estimate of risk. 1 Hibiscus Property Managers Ltd v Shore and Kelly [2019] NZTT North Shore 4212942, at [12] 2 (Report entitled ‘Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards’, 29 May 2018).
When the Gluckman report was made public, this left landlords in a difficult position, because of the conflict between the NZ Standard and the conclusions of the Gluckman report.
The issue as to which test to apply was considered in 2019 by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper 3 . Judge Kellar found: “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 Tenancy Tribunal has accepted that this decision now confirms the level to be applied is the level expressed in the Gluckman report, namely, that there is no risk when the standard of contamination is below 15 μg/100 cm2. 4
It follows that if the level of contamination is below that level, no damage has been suffered and remediation is not required.
For completion I note that in Smith v Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd, 5 in reference to (and tacit approval of) the Gluckman report, the Court of Appeal said: “We acknowledge that the testing in this case yielded results now considered not to raise any health and safety concerns.”
As against that background and summary of the law, I now turn to consider the facts of this case. Burden of proof
I begin by noting that as with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
This is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal. No baseline testing 3 [2019] NZDC 4947 4 For eg, Hibiscus Property Managers Ltd v Shore and Kelly, ibid, fn 1, Kevin Deane Real Estate (Cambridge) Ltd v McKenzie [2021] NZTT, Tokoroa 4285249, Tremain Real Estate Rotorua Ltd v Dorothy Te Runa [2021] NZTT Rotorua 4283902 5 [2019] NZCA 38, at [16]
The landlord did not conduct baseline testing at the commencement of the tenancy. Baseline testing is an essential starting point when determining when methamphetamine contamination may have taken place.
The landlord submits that the methamphetamine levels in the exit inspection at well higher than 15 μg/100 cm2. The landlord submits that the contamination levels are at 22 μg/100 cm2 and 32 μg/100 cm2 in two areas of the house, and that at those levels, the contamination simply must have taken place during the course of the tenancy.
The tenant denies being responsible for this contamination.
Although in two areas of the property the contamination is higher than 15 μg/100 cm2, I must dismiss the claim for the excess. This is because there was no baseline testing. I cannot therefore be satisfied as to when the contamination occurred.
Because Dunedin Property Management Tapui Limited as agent for Kay Pringle has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4948973 — Rent arrears at 480 North Road, Normanby, Dunedin 9010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4948973 — Rent arrears at 480 North Road, Normanby, Dunedin 9010

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much does the tenant owe?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much does the tenant owe?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions