Tenant ordered to pay $9,564.38 for damages and breaches

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5161531 1

[2025] NZTT 5161531

TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT PAPAKURA | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA KI PAPAKURA

APPLICANT: [redacted]

Landlord

RESPONDENT: [redacted]

Tenant

TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

ORDER

1. [NAME] and [NAME] must pay [COMPANY] As [COMPANY] As [COMPANY] - [NAME] $9,564.38 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

2. This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 31 March 2025 under this application number 5161531.

Description Landlord Tenant Previous order application 5161531 dated 31/03/2025

$4,017.68

Meth testing/Cleaning: Insurance excess and testing costs

$3,160.85

Exemplary damages - unlawful use $500.00 Light bulbs/batteries: Including labour $100.00 Repairs: plug/ strainer replacement $149.50 Exemplary damages - failing to quit $200.00 Replace furnishings: Kitchen bins $113.85 Carpet Cleaning $345.00 Cleaning $862.50 Lock/key replacement: Remote $115.00

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5161531 2

Total award $9,564.38 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord $9,564.38

Reasons:

1. The landlords attended the in-person hearing held on the 5 May 2025. The tenants did not attend. As I am satisfied that the tenants were notified of the hearing, I proceeded in their absence.

Background.

2. On the 31 March 2025, I made an order for outstanding rent arrears, water rates owing, rubbish removal, lawns, lock and key replacement (not including the remote for the garage) and the filing fee. That order is incorporated into this order for the purposes of enforcement.

3. The hearing of the landlord’s other claims- exemplary damages for unlawful use of the property and failing to quit, compensation for damage caused by methamphetamine use, compensation for cleaning, damage to the bathroom and carpet are adjourned were adjourned to the 5 May 2025.

4. This tenancy was ended by the Tribunal on the 12 December 2024 (See TT 5063089).

5. The tenants did not move from the property, despite giving the landlord assurances that they would do so. The landlord had to obtain a bailiff to evict the tenants on the 10 January 2025.

Methamphetamine.

6. On the day of the eviction the tenant and her associates were painting the property which was unusual as the landlord had not noticed any issues with damage to the paint work.

7. On the 10 January 2025 the landlord had the property tested for methamphetamine contamination. The property had been tested at the beginning of the tenancy and had been negative for methamphetamine.

8. At the end of the tenancy there were numerous places in the property that showed some methamphetamine use. However, only one result was above 15 micrograms/100cm2. That was a result of 117 micrograms/ 100cm2 in the rangehood.

9. The landlord had the property decontaminated and was successful in obtaining insurance cover. The landlord seeks its excess of $1000.00 together with the testing costs of $2160.85. (for testing on the 10 and 13 January 2025). The testing costs were not covered by the landlord’s insurance.

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5161531 3

10. 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 or are not reasonably clean.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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/100cm2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect. It recommended retaining the level of 1.5µg/100cm2 where contamination resulted from manufacture, due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the process.

14. The District Court has held that remediation should be carried out in accordance with the prevailing guidelines at the time (Diamond Real Estate Limited v Allan [2017] NZDC 833, Judge Kellar).

15. 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.

16. The District Court took a similar approach in [COMPANY] v [NAME] 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.

17. More recently, in [COMPANY] v Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited [2021] NZTT Auckland 4276319, both parties presented scientific evidence at a hearing

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5161531 4

before the Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that there was no new scientific research to change the conclusions reached in the Gluckman Report.

18. I am satisfied that the tenant or her invitees used methamphetamine in the property and the property became contaminated during the tenancy because the property was tested for the methamphetamine contamination before this tenancy began on the 18 May 2021. The testing was conducted by the same independent testing company who did the testing at the end of the tenancy. The tests were conducted in the same/ or similar places. The ingoing tests showed no methamphetamine contamination whereas the outgoing test results show areas of significant methamphetamine contamination.

19. The method of testing was different at the beginning of the tenancy to that at the end. Even taking that into account I am satisfied that the methamphetamine contamination occurred during this tenancy because the levels found were so high, that they would have produced a positive result if detected on a positive /negative test, and the property was tested before and after each other lot of tenants since it was built (the property managers say that this is at least 3 lots of tenants) and there has never been a positive result.

20. I am satisfied that the landlord had to have the property decontaminated due to the very high levels of contamination in the rangehood, and that the tenant should be liable for the insurance excess.

21. 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.

22. 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.

23. It is unlawful to use methamphetamine. (see Misuse of Drugs Act 1975)

24. I am satisfied that the tenant used or allowed others to use methamphetamine at the property because the test results show a high level of methamphetamine use at the property.

25. I am satisfied that the test costs arise as a result of the tenants’ breach of section 40(2)(b) RTA and therefore the tenants are liable to the landlord for those costs.

26. 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.

27. The landlord has sought exemplary damages as well in respect of this breach, the landlord tells me that they found it sad and stressful to deal with the contamination, they are also concerned that it makes the property unattractive and has a stigma for future tenants despite decontamination.

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5161531 5

28. Methamphetamine use is a scourge on our society, when it is used in tenancies, especially in the levels found in this tenancy, the public expects an award to be made to both punish the tenancy and act as a deterrent to others.

29. Taking the above factors into account I award the landlord $500 in exemplary damages.

Cleaning costs, replacement chattels, lightbulbs.

30. At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.

31. After the property was decontaminated, the property had to be cleaned. I am satisfied that the tenant did not leave the property in a clean and tidy condition and therefore I award the landlord the cleaning costs.

32. There was extensive staining on the carpet which had to be cleaned.

33. The tenant did not return the garage remote.

34. In the upstirs bathroom the tenant had removed all the plugs and strainers. These had to be put back in by a plumber. The tenant had also removed the rubbish bins from the kitchen, which had to be replaced.

35. The landlord had to replace 7 light bulbs, which were missing.

36. The amounts ordered are proved.

Failure to quit.

37. A tenant must vacate the premises on the termination of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(e)(i) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

38. Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 40(3A)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

39. The tenant did not vacate the premises on the termination date. I find they have committed an unlawful act. The landlord seeks exemplary damages for this breach.

40. I award $200.00 in exemplary damages for this breach. I have compensated the landlord by awarding rent for the time that the tenant remined in my order of the 31 March 2025.and awarded the costs of eviction. The amount of exemplary damages awarded is a nominal award to reflect the stress and inconvenience suffered by the landlord as a result of having to evict the tenant and trying to work with the tenant to get her to leave the property. It also reflects the public interest.

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5161531 6

[NAME]

07 May 2025

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5161531 7

Please read carefully: Visit justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals for more information on rehearings and appeals.

Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has happened. For example: • you did not get the letter telling you the date of the hearing, or • the adjudicator improperly admitted or rejected evidence, or • new evidence, relating to the original application, has become available.

You must give reasons and evidence to support your application for a rehearing. A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. You must apply within five working days of the decision using the Application for Rehearing form: justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf

Right of Appeal Both the landlord and the tenant can file an appeal. You should file your appeal at the District Court where the original hearing took place. The cost for an appeal is $260. You must apply within 10 working days after the decision is issued using this Appeal to the District Court form: justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals

Grounds for an appeal You can appeal if you think the decision was wrong, but not because you don’t like the decision. For some cases, there’ll be no right to appeal. For example, you can’t appeal: • against an interim order • a final order for the payment of less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work worth less than $1000.

Enforcement Where the Tribunal made an order about money or property this is called a civil debt. The Ministry of Justice Collections Team can assist with enforcing civil debt. You can contact the collections team on [PHONE] or go to justice.govt.nz/fines/civil-debt for forms and information.

Notice to a party ordered to pay money or vacate premises, etc. Failure to comply with any order may result in substantial additional costs for enforcement. It may also involve being ordered to appear in the District Court for an examination of your means or seizure of your property.

If you require further help or information regarding this matter, visit tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing- decisions or phone Tenancy Services on [PHONE].

Mēna ka hiahia koe ki ētahi atu awhina, kōrero ranei mo tēnei take, haere ki tenei ipurangi tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, waea atu ki Ratonga Takirua ma runga [PHONE] ranei.

https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals/ https://www.justice.govt.nz/fines/about-civil-debt/ https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions http://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions/

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5161531 8

A manaomia nisi faamatalaga poo se fesoasoani, e uiga i lau mataupu, asiasi ifo le matou aupega tafailagi: tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, pe fesootai mai le Tenancy Services i le numera [PHONE].

Reasons: