No proof worker contaminated house

A dairy farm worker has been ordered to pay $8537.28 for damage to a property on Naughton Rd, Timaru, as well as for cleaning, rent arrears, and the cost of meth testing.

However, Tenancy Tribunal adjudicator J Talbot declined an application by Stratford Dairy Ltd to make tenant Jeremiah Witana pay compensation for methamphetamine contamination at the property, despite Witana admitting to having smoked meth on the property, according to a tribunal ruling made on November 12.

The property was a farmhouse provided as part of Witana’s employment by Stratford Dairy, which was terminated on August 30, 2019, the same time as his employment, but Witana remained at the property. Possession was returned to the landlord on October 9.

Talbot ordered Witana to pay Stratford Dairy $494.50 for the cost of meth testing the property, which the landlord undertook on October 16, 2019, seven days after the tenancy had ended.

The testing found ‘‘significant levels of contamination in some areas of the house. Further, later testing of an item of child’s clothing from the property also showed high levels of residue’’.

Talbot ruled it was reasonable to undertake meth testing as ‘‘the tenant acknowledged consuming methamphetamine on the farm property’’.

‘‘In addition, the tenant acknowledged associating with a gang-related person inside the premises during the tenancy. Drugrelated paraphernalia were found at the premises after the tenancy.’’

‘‘These facts give weight to suspicion that the tenant or associates caused contamination of the property.

‘‘The tenant flatly denies consuming, or permitting consumption of, methamphetamine at the premises. While acknowledging that consumption occurred on the farm away from the premises, the tenant states that no consumption occurred in the dwelling because of concern for the children.

‘‘Further, it was stated the clothing found to be contaminated does not belong to the tenant’s children, is the wrong size for the tenant’s children, and is therefore not connected to the tenant.

‘‘It is common ground that at least one other company employee, the direct supervisor of the tenant, has acknowledged consuming methamphetamine on the farm.

‘‘I consider there is a possibility that the premises could have been contaminated by others prior to the tenancy or in the short period between possession passing to the landlord and testing occurring.’’

Talbot also noted ‘‘there is no information about methamphetamine levels at the premises at the beginning of the tenancy as no pretenancy testing was carried out’’.

Talbot ruled the landlord ‘‘has not sufficiently proved that the premises became contaminated during the tenancy’’.

Witana was also ordered to pay $926.03 for rent arrears, $2176.94 for repairs to doors, $2,939.81 for repairs to walls, and $2000 for cleaning and tidying the house and section.

Witana was unsuccessful in claiming compensation for the presence of mould under carpet in the bathroom, which a report by a mould specialist commissioned by the tenant said contained ‘‘the presence of moulds associated with toxicity and allergy including stachybotrys, aspergillus and alternaria at levels of concern’’.

Talbot ruled the landlord was not responsible for the mould as it was a ‘‘hidden, or latent, defect’’ which landlords are not liable for.

‘‘[The landlord] has not sufficiently proved that the premises became contaminated during the tenancy’’.

Tenancy Tribunal ruling