Sally Lindsay
A Christchurch couple who claimed on One News to have been “blindsided” by meth contamination in their rental property and demanded more than $77,000 in compensation have had their Tenancy Tribunal claim dismissed.
Georgia and Dylan Waghorn told the state broadcaster at the end of May that 80% of their possessions had been taken to the dump after they discovered a month earlier that the Parklands home they had been renting for nearly two years was contaminated with methamphetamine residue at levels exceeding what is considered acceptable in New Zealand.
But in refusing them compensation, the tribunal said there was no evidence that the landlord had knowingly rented out a contaminated property and further meth testing had revealed that only a small area inside the kitchen rangehood – an area unlikely to have been accessed regularly by the tenants – exceeded acceptable contamination limits.
The problem
The couple said they thought they had found a safe place to raise their three young children when they moved into the rental in late 2023. In the early stages of the tenancy, the Waghorns cleaned the property, repainted and had new carpet laid with the landlord’s agreement.
However, Georgia Waghorn said while she was attending a professional cleaning course for work earlier in the year, it dawned on her that her own house showed signs of being used for meth consumption.
First, she used a home testing kit which showed alarming results. So, she then engaged a professional testing company. Test results showed there were traces of meth residue throughout the house which were higher than the NZ Standard of 1.5μg/100cm2. Contamination above this level is considered to be unsafe.
The lounge showed 10.4mcg per 100cm² and a bedroom 3.0mcg but of most concern to the family was the rangehood in the kitchen-dining space which was 24mcg – well above the maximum level considered safe.
The Waghorns said they were horrified by the results.
“We felt really blindsided by the whole thing. It’s terrifying when young kids are involved. There’s no excuse.”
Gluckman report
A government report in 2018 by the then Prime Minister’s chief science adviser, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, found meth levels below 15μg/100cm2 were unlikely to present adverse effects. This is the yardstick used by the Tenancy Tribunal.
Abandoning nearly all their belongings, the couple and their children went to live with family. A friend set up a Givealittle page to help with replacing clothes and to cover their expenses.
The Waghorns told One News that warning signs were missed: a large security system was being taken down and curtains were tacked to the window frames when they moved into the rental.
During their tenancy, they also received visits from the police who were looking for the previous tenants. This raised further suspicion.
While the Gluckman report found there was no clear evidence linking third-hand exposure to meth with any adverse health effects, Georgia Waghorn told One News she remained deeply concerned about the risks of their two years of exposure and said she and one of her children were unwell while living at the property.
“We never would have rented that house had we known it was toxic, so we basically just want our rent back,” she said.
The claim
When the contamination issue came to light, landlord Tony McLaughlin agreed immediately to end the lease, refunded the bond in full and compensated the Waghorns for all meth testing costs.
However, the Waghorns filed a claim with the tribunal, saying the premises were uninhabitable because of the meth contamination.
They wanted $57,850 for a full rent refund and $61,624 compensation for furniture and replacing other belongings (this compensation claim was reduced to $16,050 before the tribunal hearing began), plus $2,500 for clothing and supplies and $1,300 for emergency accommodation, plus general damages for distress, emotional harm and health impacts on their family.
On 27 April the Waghorns sent McLaughlin an email, giving notice and demanding compensation for breaching his obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA). They demanded a response within seven days and said if it wasn’t received within that timeframe an application would be made to the Tenancy Tribunal.
They did not send McLaughlin the meth assessment report.
A subsequent meth test was then completed on 29 April at 10 individual sites in the rental. The highest recording was inside the kitchen rangehood and this level was 24μg/100cm2. This report was not given to the landlord either and the tribunal was not offered a clear explanation as to why this was the case.
McLaughlin then carried out his own testing on different areas of the rental and got different results, but acknowledged the tenants’ test results were accurate after discussions with his tester.
In evidence, McLaughlin said the property had not been cleaned before the Waghorns moved out and its state of cleanliness was well below the standard usually required at the end of the tenancy. But he signed the form for a full bond refund anyway and did not pursue unpaid rent.
He then had the property fully decontaminated for meth, costing more than $4,500.
Not uninhabitable
The highest meth contamination level at the Parklands rental was in a sample taken by removing the filters covering the internal workings of the rangehood fan above the kitchen hob and taking a sample from inside the fan.
This was the only reading above the risk level specified as unsafe in the Gluckman report.
Tribunal adjudicator S Steele said the rangehood could not be seen as a high-use area as it was neither easily accessed nor regularly used.
“It is unlikely the tenants ever accessed this area themselves,” he said.
“In this particular place, the level is unlikely to pose any risk to the tenants’ children as they would never be near such a difficult space to access – right above the kitchen hob and behind the rangehood filters.
“The presence of a contaminant in this place does not interfere in any way with the functionality or use of the premises,” Steele said. “Objectively, the premises were not uninhabitable.”
Steele said the landlord could have been given the opportunity to decontaminate this one area, or to replace the rangehood and safely dispose of the existing one.
Sections of the RTA relevant to decontamination under the regulations clearly anticipate situations where decontamination can take effect while tenants remain in the premises, such as s 45 (1AAB)(b).
“The Waghorns’ decision to remain away from the property and to seek an end to the tenancy may be understandable but it was objectively unnecessary,” Steele said.
“Although the landlord chose to decontaminate the premises entirely, objectively, the premises did not require full decontamination as it was not contaminated throughout.”
Steele dismissed the Waghorns’ claim for a rent refund.
No evidence
The Waghorns suggested to the tribunal that McLaughlin should have known the property was likely contaminated with methamphetamine and, therefore, “not clean”.
They said they had found other material suggesting drug use during the tenancy, but they didn’t have any evidence to confirm this or that McLaughlin was aware of it.
The Waghorns gave the tribunal a message chain with a previous tenant at the property to reduce the possibility of them being accused of introducing contaminants.
This previous tenant said he and other occupants had used illegal drugs at the property but when asked about whether the landlord knew, he wrote, “Nar he’s completely unaware.”
“There is no evidence that the landlord knowingly rented contaminated premises or was, or should have been, aware that the premises might be ‘unclean’ in any way,” Steele said.
“As soon as the issue was brought to the landlord’s attention, he responded in an entirely appropriate and timely way. There was no unreasonable delay in remediating the issue once he was aware of it and any such delay would have had no impact on these tenants, in any case, as they had already vacated the property.”
The Waghorns confirmed they stayed with friends when they left the rental, and no evidence was given to support any claim for compensation for costs relating to relocating or emergency accommodation.
Nor was any evidence provided to support their claim for costs associated with health issues for any family members.
“The tenants disposed of many of their possessions as a result of these matters, but no evidence before the tribunal supports their contention that this was necessary for health and safety or any reason why the landlord should be liable for replacement costs,” Steele said.
No contents were tested for methamphetamine residue.”
While the tenants clearly suffered stress as a consequence of these events, that was not due to any breach on the part of the landlord and no exemplary or other damages could or should be awarded.
Read the tribunal’s order here
0 Comments