$26,000 rent refund claim dismissed
An Auckland Housing New Zealand tenant who was moved from his home after it was found to be highly contaminated with methamphetamine residues has sought a $26,000 rent refund.
But Tenancy Tribunal adjudicator Nicola Maplesden dismissed the claim and ruled that the ‘‘extreme’’ levels of residue found were likely caused by the tenant, Brett Micheal Williams, or ‘‘someone at the premises with his consent’’, an observation the former tenant rejects.
Williams sought the refund of all rent paid by him from November 2012 up to the end of his tenancy at an address in Ranui in December 2018.
The property, which had not previously been tested for meth residue, was examined by Drug Free NZ in October 2018 at the request of Housing New Zealand (HNZ) – and with Williams’ consent – after a police search in August that year.
Police found items used in the manufacture of meth, and swabs from the kitchen and laundry confirmed the kitchen had been used as a cookhouse.
The resulting report found that ‘‘the contamination found in this house was at the very highest levels so far tested and likely indicate that methamphetamine has been manufactured on site’’.
The highest reading found 1621.80 micrograms per square metre on the kitchen ceiling, with three other readings in the hundreds. There were positive readings for amphetamine, ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, and the report also said suspicious items linking drug manufacture to the property were found.
HNZ determined the property to be uninhabitable and served seven days notice on Williams, who left with his son in December. The pair were rehoused in another HNZ home in February.
Under a HNZ policy that compensates tenants who lose belongings or housing due to meth contamination, but who have not been charged by police, Williams claimed and received compensation of $6900.
Because of the wording of a letter sent to Williams by HNZ when it paid the compensation, which included an apology, Williams applied to the tribunal to be compensated for HNZ’s failure to provide ‘‘safe and healthy housing for him and his son’’ and for having to leave at short notice. He said he was not responsible for the drug residues.
Maplesden accepted that the wording of the letter was confusing by suggesting HNZ was at fault, but found that it was not to blame. HNZ explained that the wording came from a standardised template.
The tribunal dismissed the claim in its ruling, and said Williams had not proved HNZ failed in its duty to provide clean and safe premises and it had not breached its contract.