Landlord’s meth compensation claims denied
A landlord who wanted compensation for a drop in property value caused by a tenant’s methamphetamine use has had her claim dismissed.
Diane Hannay, and her company Solifirst, took Ashleigh White to the Tenancy Tribunal in a dispute over the rental of an Upper Hutt flat.
White moved in last September and moved out in February.
Testing six months before the tenancy began showed no methamphetamine residue in the property.
Another test in December showed a level of 5.3 micrograms per 100 square centimetres.
That is higher than the New Zealand Standard of 1.5 micrograms deemed safe for homes, but less than the 15 micrograms recommended in the Gluckman Report.
White was evicted in February and the property was tested again. Readings were returned up to 11 micrograms. The tribunal noted that White did not appear to challenge them.
Solifirst sought exemplary damages for an unlawful act, $4500 paid as insurance excess to clean the property, $2000 in compensation for the cost of cleaning areas that were below the insurer’s 1.5 microgram threshold, $2090 in loss of rent and $12,500 in loss of value of the property.
Adjudicator B Smallbone said landlords could be awarded up to $1000 in exemplary damages for unlawful acts by tenants – and that White had intentionally broken the law by using methamphetamine.
‘‘It is in the public interest that tenants be discouraged, by a fine, from using illegal drugs in tenanted properties.’’
But because it was the first time that the tribunal was aware of concerns about White’s methamphetamine use, she was only ordered to pay $500.
‘‘Hannay has also claimed exemplary damages for her stress relating to the methamphetamine use at the premises. However Hannay is not a party to this claim. Hannay is not the landlord. A registered company is the landlord. Solifirst Limited and Hannay are separate legal entities. A company is not flesh and blood and cannot feel stress,’’ Smallbone said.
The adjudicator noted that, in almost all Tenancy Tribunal decisions since the Gluckman Report was issued, 15 micrograms per 100 square centimetres had been used as the level at which tenants were required to pay remediation costs.
Solifirst challenged that and said the New Zealand Standard was more reliable.
Smallbone rejected that argument. ‘‘Hannay has submitted that the conclusions in the Gluckman Report cannot be relied on because Sir Peter Gluckman is a scientist not a toxicologist. I accept the distinction however I am satisfied that at the time the Gluckman Report was released toxicologists could not prove that there was a health risk at 15 micrograms per 100 square centimetres, if exposure was third-hand. My conclusion is that there is insufficient evidence currently to show that third-hand exposure to methamphetamine residue on household surfaces is harmful if it is below 15 micrograms.’’
Hannay argued that the property would be less desirable to future buyers because of its positive methamphetamine tests.
‘‘The applicant may be correct that public perception of any presence of methamphetamine will affect the price a person is willing to pay,’’ Smallbone said.
‘‘However losses such as this are not ordered because they may not eventuate. For example, the property may not be sold but be passed through generations. The property may collapse in an earthquake or burn to the ground before it is ever marketed. It is unsafe to order a party to pay an amount where a loss is uncertain. Future losses cannot be ordered. For that reason, the claim for the $12,500 is dismissed.’’
White was also ordered to pay for carpet repair, key replacement, broken doors, and a filing fee, reaching a total of $3759.84.