What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4970236?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Justine Edwards at 9 Wakefield Terrace, Tawa, Wellington 5028

How much money was awarded in case 4970236?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4970236?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4970236?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10874042-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4970236?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Justine Edwards at 9 Wakefield Terrace, Tawa, Wellington 5028

How much money was awarded in case 4970236?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4970236?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4970236?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10874042-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

9 Wakefield Terrace, Tawa, Wellington 5028 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4970236 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The tenancy of Justine Edwards at 9 Wakefield Terrace, Tawa, Wellington 5028 is terminated, and possession is granted to Te Ahuru Mowai Limited Partnership, at 5pm on Sunday, 29 September 2024.
Justine Edwards must pay Te Ahuru Mowai Limited Partnership $27.00 immediately, being the filing fee.

Reasons

On 8 August 2024, after receiving results of methamphetamine testing at the property, the landlord gave notice of termination to the tenant under section 59A(4) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The premises was tested in April and results showed methamphetamine levels over 15ug/100cm 2 in some rooms. A subsequent test in July 2024 found dangerous levels of contamination in most living areas. The termination notice was given because the landlord determined that the level of contamination has resulted in the premises being uninhabitable.
The July test results returned readings of: a. 38μg/100cm 2 in the entrance and hallway, b. 35μg/100cm 2 in the kitchen, c. 27μg/100cm 2 in the dining room, d. 37μg/100cm 2 in the laundry, e. 3.4μg/100cm 2 in the bathroom, f.26μg/100cm 2 and 38μg/100cm 2 in the hallway, g. 7.6ug/100cm 2 in bedroom 1, h. 41μg/100cm 2 in bedroom 2, i.55μg/100cm 2 and 30μg/100cm 2 in bedroom 3 (2 swabs taken) and j.33μg/100cm2 in bedroom 4.
The landlord has requested the Tribunal to confirm termination of the tenancy.
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. I am satisfied that has been proved.
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 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. Conclusion
Whether the premises is assessed using NZS 8510:2017 or the standard recommended by Gluckman, the premises is unsafe and uninhabitable due to contamination and must be vacated immediately. I have therefore ordered that the tenant leaves the property and the landlord takes possession to prevent any further danger to any occupants. Filing Fee
Because the landlord has been wholly successful with the claim, the filing fee of $27.00 is ordered.

Order

The tenancy of Justine Edwards at 9 Wakefield Terrace, Tawa, Wellington 5028 is terminated, and possession is granted to Te Ahuru Mowai Limited Partnership, at 5pm on Sunday, 29 September 2024.
Justine Edwards must pay Te Ahuru Mowai Limited Partnership $27.00 immediately, being the filing fee.

Reasons

On 8 August 2024, after receiving results of methamphetamine testing at the property, the landlord gave notice of termination to the tenant under section 59A(4) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The premises was tested in April and results showed methamphetamine levels over 15ug/100cm 2 in some rooms. A subsequent test in July 2024 found dangerous levels of contamination in most living areas. The termination notice was given because the landlord determined that the level of contamination has resulted in the premises being uninhabitable.
The July test results returned readings of: a. 38μg/100cm 2 in the entrance and hallway, b. 35μg/100cm 2 in the kitchen, c. 27μg/100cm 2 in the dining room, d. 37μg/100cm 2 in the laundry, e. 3.4μg/100cm 2 in the bathroom, f.26μg/100cm 2 and 38μg/100cm 2 in the hallway, g. 7.6ug/100cm 2 in bedroom 1, h. 41μg/100cm 2 in bedroom 2, i.55μg/100cm 2 and 30μg/100cm 2 in bedroom 3 (2 swabs taken) and j.33μg/100cm2 in bedroom 4.
The landlord has requested the Tribunal to confirm termination of the tenancy.
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. I am satisfied that has been proved.
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 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. Conclusion
Whether the premises is assessed using NZS 8510:2017 or the standard recommended by Gluckman, the premises is unsafe and uninhabitable due to contamination and must be vacated immediately. I have therefore ordered that the tenant leaves the property and the landlord takes possession to prevent any further danger to any occupants. Filing Fee
Because the landlord has been wholly successful with the claim, the filing fee of $27.00 is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4970236 — Tenancy dispute at 9 Wakefield Terrace, Tawa, Wellington 5028

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4970236 — Tenancy dispute at 9 Wakefield Terrace, Tawa, Wellington 5028

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions