What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5132308?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Bailey Miria Faith Binns at 694 Whitemans Valley Road,

How much money was awarded in case 5132308?

Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5132308?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5132308?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11374381-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5132308?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Bailey Miria Faith Binns at 694 Whitemans Valley Road,

How much money was awarded in case 5132308?

Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5132308?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5132308?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11374381-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

694 Whitemans Valley Road, Whitemans Valley, RD 1, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5132308 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5132308. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages	$600.00		Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement

Order

The tenancy of Bailey Miria Faith Binns at 694 Whitemans Valley Road, Whitemans Valley, RD 1, Upper Hutt 5371 is terminated, and possession is granted to Steadfast Property Management Limited, at 11.59 pm on Friday 31 January 2025.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $627.00 (6241694-011) to Steadfast Property Management Limited immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the part of the bond of $3,200.00 (6241694-011) immediately to the landlord and HOLD the balance apportioned as follows: Steadfast Property Management Limited: $627.00 Bailey Miria Faith Binns: HOLD $2,573.00
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. The landlord claims the tenant has used the tenancy premises for an unlawful purpose, namely smoking methamphetamine. The landlord also wants compensation for damage caused by methamphetamine use.
The claims for the window and the wall damage were not considered at the hearing and the landlord can bring another claim after the tenancy ends for these.
The questions I have to consider are: • Did the tenant use methamphetamine during the tenancy? • Should the tenancy be terminated? • Should the tenant pay for remediation? • Should the tenant pay exemplary damages?

Did the tenant use methamphetamine during the tenancy?

The landlord bought the tenancy premises in 2016. No testing for methamphetamine has ever been carried out. This tenancy started in August 2024. The landlord tested for methamphetamine contamination in November and December 2024. The discrete samples tested on 18 December 2024 by ALS Food and Environment NZ show varying levels of contamination throughout the house, ranging from 0.21 μg/100cm 2 in the bedroom used by the tenant, 0.22 μg in the ensuite off the same bedroom, to the highest level of 11.7 μg in the foyer.
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. An applicant must prove all the elements of the claim on the balance of probabilities, meaning more probable than not. It follows that, where the allegation is serious, the Tribunal is likely to require stronger evidence before finding the claim proved on the balance of probabilities. Ending a tenancy because the tenant is using illegal drugs is a serious allegation requiring stronger evidence.
The landlord submitted that there was evidence of contamination during the tenancy because a new shower, installed in the ensuite immediately before the tenancy started, and a gib repair completed by the tenant on the wall above the bed in the tenant’s bedroom, both had low levels of contamination. The landlord said this proved the tenant had smoked methamphetamine during the tenancy. There are other Tenancy Tribunal orders where this type of evidence has been accepted as proof of contamination by a tenant, even where there was no pretesting. In 4460968 the Adjudicator was persuaded by the presence of methamphetamine on a heatpump installed during the tenancy. In 4655629 another Adjudicator relied on the presence of methamphetamine on a washing machine installed during the tenancy.
Here the landlord provided evidence proving the shower was installed before this tenancy started. I was also provided with an ingoing photo showing there was no damage to the bedroom wall at the start of the tenancy, which I could compare with the photo of the gib repair in the methamphetamine tester’s report. Even though the levels are low, it seems most likely to me the levels of methamphetamine showing on the shower lining and the gib repair are because the tenant has used methamphetamine during the tenancy. I note that I have no alternative explanation from the tenant.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable – very unfair - to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.
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. It follows that the consumption of methamphetamine on the tenancy premises amounts to the use of those premises for an unlawful purpose, in breach of section 40(2)(b) RTA.
I find the tenant has breached her obligations by using the tenancy premises for an unlawful purpose and this is not a breach capable of remedy. In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the District Court considered s 56(1)(c) RTA and set out a range of factors relevant to whether it would be “inequitable to refuse” to terminate the tenancy: • The history of the tenancy. • Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. • Whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. • Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. • The conduct of the landlord. • The gravity of the breach. • Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
I find it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because of the gravity of the breach and because termination is a proportionate response to the breach. The landlord has acted promptly and reasonably and I have heard no evidence at all from the tenant. This means the tenancy will end.

Should the tenant pay for remediation?

The landlord has claimed the insurance excess and the as yet unknown cost of 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.
Section 138C RTA 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.
None of the readings at the tenancy premises were above 15 μg/100cm 2 . The tester’s report states there was no evidence of manufacturing. I find the landlord has not proved there was damage to the tenancy premises because the levels in the house were unlikely to have an adverse effect. The claim for the insurance excess and the costs of remediation are dismissed.

Should the tenant pay exemplary damages?

A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. Because the tenant has used the premises unlawfully I can consider the landlord’s claim for exemplary damages, which can be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800. See section 40(2), (3A)(c) and Schedule 1A RTA.
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) RTA.
The consumption of methamphetamine is an intentional act. The effect for the landlord has been stress, the cost of testing, and additional time managing the tenancy. There is a public interest in deterring tenants from committing unlawful acts in tenanted properties. I allow exemplary damages in the amount of $600. This is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of any previous, similar orders against the tenant. Other orders
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The bond is partly refunded to the landlord. The balance will be held by the Bond Centre.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5132308. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages	$600.00		Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement

Order

The tenancy of Bailey Miria Faith Binns at 694 Whitemans Valley Road, Whitemans Valley, RD 1, Upper Hutt 5371 is terminated, and possession is granted to Steadfast Property Management Limited, at 11.59 pm on Friday 31 January 2025.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $627.00 (6241694-011) to Steadfast Property Management Limited immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the part of the bond of $3,200.00 (6241694-011) immediately to the landlord and HOLD the balance apportioned as follows: Steadfast Property Management Limited: $627.00 Bailey Miria Faith Binns: HOLD $2,573.00
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. The landlord claims the tenant has used the tenancy premises for an unlawful purpose, namely smoking methamphetamine. The landlord also wants compensation for damage caused by methamphetamine use.
The claims for the window and the wall damage were not considered at the hearing and the landlord can bring another claim after the tenancy ends for these.
The questions I have to consider are: • Did the tenant use methamphetamine during the tenancy? • Should the tenancy be terminated? • Should the tenant pay for remediation? • Should the tenant pay exemplary damages?

Did the tenant use methamphetamine during the tenancy?

The landlord bought the tenancy premises in 2016. No testing for methamphetamine has ever been carried out. This tenancy started in August 2024. The landlord tested for methamphetamine contamination in November and December 2024. The discrete samples tested on 18 December 2024 by ALS Food and Environment NZ show varying levels of contamination throughout the house, ranging from 0.21 μg/100cm 2 in the bedroom used by the tenant, 0.22 μg in the ensuite off the same bedroom, to the highest level of 11.7 μg in the foyer.
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. An applicant must prove all the elements of the claim on the balance of probabilities, meaning more probable than not. It follows that, where the allegation is serious, the Tribunal is likely to require stronger evidence before finding the claim proved on the balance of probabilities. Ending a tenancy because the tenant is using illegal drugs is a serious allegation requiring stronger evidence.
The landlord submitted that there was evidence of contamination during the tenancy because a new shower, installed in the ensuite immediately before the tenancy started, and a gib repair completed by the tenant on the wall above the bed in the tenant’s bedroom, both had low levels of contamination. The landlord said this proved the tenant had smoked methamphetamine during the tenancy. There are other Tenancy Tribunal orders where this type of evidence has been accepted as proof of contamination by a tenant, even where there was no pretesting. In 4460968 the Adjudicator was persuaded by the presence of methamphetamine on a heatpump installed during the tenancy. In 4655629 another Adjudicator relied on the presence of methamphetamine on a washing machine installed during the tenancy.
Here the landlord provided evidence proving the shower was installed before this tenancy started. I was also provided with an ingoing photo showing there was no damage to the bedroom wall at the start of the tenancy, which I could compare with the photo of the gib repair in the methamphetamine tester’s report. Even though the levels are low, it seems most likely to me the levels of methamphetamine showing on the shower lining and the gib repair are because the tenant has used methamphetamine during the tenancy. I note that I have no alternative explanation from the tenant.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable – very unfair - to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.
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. It follows that the consumption of methamphetamine on the tenancy premises amounts to the use of those premises for an unlawful purpose, in breach of section 40(2)(b) RTA.
I find the tenant has breached her obligations by using the tenancy premises for an unlawful purpose and this is not a breach capable of remedy. In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the District Court considered s 56(1)(c) RTA and set out a range of factors relevant to whether it would be “inequitable to refuse” to terminate the tenancy: • The history of the tenancy. • Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. • Whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. • Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. • The conduct of the landlord. • The gravity of the breach. • Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
I find it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because of the gravity of the breach and because termination is a proportionate response to the breach. The landlord has acted promptly and reasonably and I have heard no evidence at all from the tenant. This means the tenancy will end.

Should the tenant pay for remediation?

The landlord has claimed the insurance excess and the as yet unknown cost of 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.
Section 138C RTA 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.
None of the readings at the tenancy premises were above 15 μg/100cm 2 . The tester’s report states there was no evidence of manufacturing. I find the landlord has not proved there was damage to the tenancy premises because the levels in the house were unlikely to have an adverse effect. The claim for the insurance excess and the costs of remediation are dismissed.

Should the tenant pay exemplary damages?

A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. Because the tenant has used the premises unlawfully I can consider the landlord’s claim for exemplary damages, which can be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800. See section 40(2), (3A)(c) and Schedule 1A RTA.
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) RTA.
The consumption of methamphetamine is an intentional act. The effect for the landlord has been stress, the cost of testing, and additional time managing the tenancy. There is a public interest in deterring tenants from committing unlawful acts in tenanted properties. I allow exemplary damages in the amount of $600. This is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of any previous, similar orders against the tenant. Other orders
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The bond is partly refunded to the landlord. The balance will be held by the Bond Centre.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5132308 — Exemplary damages at 694 Whitemans Valley Road, Whitemans Valley, RD 1,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5132308 — Exemplary damages at 694 Whitemans Valley Road, Whitemans Valley, RD 1,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant use methamphetamine during the tenancy?

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Should the tenant pay for remediation?

Should the tenant pay exemplary damages?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant use methamphetamine during the tenancy?

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Should the tenant pay for remediation?

Should the tenant pay exemplary damages?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions