Claiming meth testing cost from the tenant

The recent publication of Brooking v Imrie [2020] NZTT Timaru 4216438 gives
some insight, albeit sketchy, into what the Tribunal looks for when ordering a tenant to compensate the landlord for meth testing.

 

The facts

• This is a cross-application case concerning a periodic tenancy from July 2017 to October 2019.
• The circumstance of the tenant’s exit was somewhat unusual. The tenant vacated on the 7th of October leaving behind an “associate” to clean up the
  property. The landlord acquiesced to the associate remaining on the property for what looks like four days.
• During the tenancy, activities on the property gave rise to sufficient concern for the police as to have armed officers entering onto the property
  on at least one occasion.
• On testing, the property was found to be significantly contaminated with meth so much so that retesting was required after decontamination to establish
  the property as suitable for occupation for future tenants.
• It is unclear from the order whether there was a pre-tenancy baseline test (the adjudication made no mention of it so we assume not) and when the significant
  level of meth was first detected at the property (we assume this came to light post-termination).
• The tenant submitted that he had not been involved in any meth-related activities at the premises during the tenancy. It is unclear how the tenant
  had substantiated his claim for good character in this instance. 
• During the hearing, the landlord withdrew his claim to be compensated for costs associated with the remediation of methamphetamine contamination.

 

The landlord’s claim

Among other things, the landlord asked to be compensated for fees associated with post-decontamination re-testing ($4,022.70 😱) and made a general reference
...