What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4938175 about?

The tribunal order states: Stanlee Tipokoroa must pay [The landlord/s] $1,639.62 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4938175?

Cleaning: $810.75 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $301.87 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4938175?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4938175?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10969289-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4938175 about?

The tribunal order states: Stanlee Tipokoroa must pay [The landlord/s] $1,639.62 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4938175?

Cleaning: $810.75 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $301.87 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4938175?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4938175?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10969289-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4938175 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4938175 — Cleanliness | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4938175 — net $1,639.62 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$810.75	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$301.87	Rubbish removal
Exemplary damages-failing to quit premises	$500.00	failing to quit premises
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,639.62
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,639.62

Claims and awards for application 4938175 — net $1,639.62 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Cleaning

Amount: $810.75
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Rubbish removal

Amount: $301.87
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Exemplary damages-failing to quit premises

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: failing to quit premises

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $27.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Landlord $1,639.62

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $1,639.62

Dismissed claims

Other Claims — All other claims dismissed

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Exemplary damages Filing Fee Rubbish Removal

Order

Stanlee Tipokoroa must pay [The landlord/s] $1,639.62 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The claims may be summarised as follows: a. Exemplary damages for failing without reasonable excuse to quit the premises on termination of the tenancy; b. Reimbursement of methamphetamine testing costs of $400.20; c. Reimbursement of costs to clean and remove rubbish from the premises after the tenancy was vacated by the tenant in the total sum of $1,112.62.
The landlord clarified at the hearing that in fact they were seeking cleaning and rubbish removal costs contained in four separate invoices of $402.50, $431.25, $379.50 and $301.87. This totals 1,515.12. I note that all of the invoices pre- dated the lodgement date of the application but for some reason, the amount of one invoice was not included in the claim.
The landlord requested that they be permitted to amend their claims at the hearing for the increased amount. The tenant did not consent to any amendment. It is important that parties are aware of all the claims they are facing at a hearing and they are entitled to full and fair disclosure of the claims beforehand. In the circumstances, I am not prepared to allow an amendment at the hearing without the tenant’s consent and will not consider claims in excess of the amount claimed in the application for cleaning and rubbish removal.
In addition, the landlord also sought to recover the cost of $189.01 for changing the locks. However, this was not articulated as a claim in the landlord’s application. For the same reasons detailed above, I do not consider the claim. Background facts
By a previous order of the Tribunal under application 4855500 dated 20 May 2024, the tenancy was terminated for rent arrears effective at 5pm on 20 May 2024. The order records that the hearing took place by remote teleconference and despite the Adjudicator attempting to contact the tenant by telephone, the call was not answered and the hearing proceeded in his absence.
The landlord says that they delivered a copy of the termination notice to the tenant shortly after the hearing concluded.
On 20 May 2024, the tenant and his daughter attended the landlord’s offices. The landlord advised them that the termination order had been made but gave an extension until Friday 24 May 2024 to vacate the premises and remove their belongings. The landlord requested that the tenant return the flat keys to the landlord’s office by 4pm on 24 May. They also indicated that if the tenant was unable to remove all their belongings by this date, they would arrange a time for the tenant to return to the premises and collect any remaining goods.
On Friday 24 May, the tenant asked the landlord for another extension until Monday 27 May. The landlord agreed, again requiring the tenant to return the keys to the landlord’s office by 4pm on 27 May. The landlord also advised the tenant that no further extension would be granted.
On 27 May, the landlord sent the tenant a text message to check if he had vacated the premises. The tenant said that he had not vacated. He also advised the landlord that he had obtained advice from an ex-partner that the landlord must give him 63 days’ notice to vacate the premises under section 51 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Therefore, he was not intending to leave. The landlord advised that because there was a termination order, they would apply to the District Court for an eviction order. This was done and the tenant was evicted by the bailiff on 28 June 2024.

Did the tenant fail without reasonable excuse to quit the premises?

A tenant must vacate the premises on the termination of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(e)(i) RTA.
Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 40(3A)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA.
I find on the evidence that the tenant failed to vacate the premises on the extended termination date agreed by the landlord of 27 May 2024. The landlord claims that the tenant had no reasonable excuse for failing to vacate because he was served with a copy of the termination order issued by the Tribunal; there was clear communication about extending the date; and, there was also clear communication that 27 May was the final extension.
The tenant claims that he was aware of the first hearing and was waiting to be contacted by the Tribunal. He claims that the Tribunal did not call him for the hearing. However, as I explained at the hearing, I cannot revisit the order terminating the tenancy. If the tenant believed that he was not called for the hearing and the order should not have been made, he could have applied for a rehearing, but he did not do so.
The tenant also claimed that his ex-partner (who is a landlord) gave him advice that his tenancy could not be terminated unless he was given 63 days’ notice and he believed this was correct.
I am not persuaded that the tenant could reasonably believe that a Tribunal order terminating the tenancy was not effective and that further notice from the landlord was required. He could have checked the position with Tenancy Services and obtained accurate information. I note that there is detailed information in the termination order explaining rehearing and appeal options. This information also contains a telephone number for Tenancy Services for help.
Finally, the tenant claims that he was given only 48 hours’ notice to vacate, prior to being evicted by the bailiff, which was not enough time to vacate and remove his belongings. I do not accept this submission. I find that the tenant was aware that the tenancy was terminated on 20 May and he had negotiated two extensions of time from the landlord but still did not vacate the premises. Having failed to comply with the termination order and the extensions of time granted by the landlord, the tenant was not entitled to any further notice of the eviction. It was incumbent on him to leave the premises before the eviction order had to be enforced.
After carefully considering all the available evidence, I am satisfied that the tenant failed without reasonable excuse to quit the premises, which is an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
Intention is proved where the party turns their mind to the unlawful act and deliberately sets out to commit the act. It is unnecessary to prove that the party intended to act unlawfully, it is enough that they intended to commit the act which is in fact unlawful. The same principle applies where the party fails to carry out a legal requirement. Even if the party is unaware of the particular obligation they have failed to perform, ignorance of the law is no defence. They are deemed to know the law, and therefore failure to perform the obligation is considered intentional. Also, if the party is wilfully blind to the factual circumstances that give rise to an unlawful act, this may also be sufficient to prove they acted intentionally.
I am satisfied that the matter of intention has been proved.
It is of significant interest to landlords, the Public, and the Tribunal that parties comply with Tribunal orders. In the circumstances, I consider an award of $500 exemplary damages is justified. The award is at the lower end of the scale, representing 33% of the maximum award. This reflects that there is no evidence of a previous breach of this nature by the tenant. What does the RTA say about methamphetamine damage/contamination to tenancy premises?
A landlord must prove that premises have been damaged during the tenancy and that the damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA. The use or possession of methamphetamine is an imprisonable offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
If a landlord proves this, then a tenant is liable for the costs of “making good the damage” and any other reasonably foreseeable losses that flow from the damage. See sections 49A and 49B(1)(b) RTA.
The standard of proof that applies is the civil standard “on the balance of probabilities”. This means I do not have to be completely certain but I must be satisfied that what is alleged is “more probable than not.”
Generally, the more serious the claim, the stronger the evidence that is required. 1

What were the methamphetamine testing results in this case?

The premises were tested for methamphetamine after the tenancy ended and the tenant vacated the premises. The landlord says that they had reasonable cause to suspect methamphetamine use at the premises based on reports from neighbouring tenants, the police and a social worker.
A composite test (where the result of 9 samples were combined) on 24 June 2024 indicated that methamphetamine was present. The Theoretical Maximum (if all methamphetamine residue was in one sample) was 9.78 μg/100cm² (micrograms per 100 square centimetres). The amount of methamphetamine detected as an average of the 9 samples taken was 1.09 μg/100cm².
It was accepted by the landlord that the results fall well below the level required to establish that the premises were damaged.
There is ongoing uncertainty in New Zealand about what level of methamphetamine residue should be considered “damage” to residential tenancies. There is no level prescribed in law as yet and the two most accepted sources of (non-legal) guidance are quite different.
In June 2017, Standards New Zealand published New Zealand Standard 8510:2017 Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine-contaminated properties (the NZ standard) for testing and decontamination of methamphetamine contaminated properties. It adopted a maximum acceptable level of methamphetamine contamination in an affected property of 1.5μg/100cm² for high use areas, for both manufacture and use. Beyond that level, a property was regarded as needing decontamination. If a property needs decontamination, then for the purposes of the RTA, the property is damaged. 1 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55
However, on 29 May 2018, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the then Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, released a report titled; “Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposure, risk levels and interpretation of standards” (the Gluckman Report). This report concluded that, in the case of third-hand contact, exposure to methamphetamine at levels below 15μg/100cm² was unlikely to have an adverse effect and remediation to the1.5μg/100cm² standard was only appropriate if there was reason to suspect manufacturing activity.
In Full Circle Real Estate v Piper 2 , the District Court considered an appeal from a decision of the Tribunal which adopted the Gluckman report and stated at paragraph [36] “the best state of knowledge of risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination available to the adjudicator was the Gluckman report. It would have been bold for the adjudicator to have ignored that report in favour of the New Zealand Standard given that the Gluckman report represents the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination in dwellings”.
Accordingly, the Tribunal has treated Full Circle Real Estate as confirmation that the Gluckman report is to be applied rather than the NZ standard. The District Court has also consistently confirmed that it is open to the Tribunal to take this approach because of the lack of legislative regulation at present. 3
Therefore, it was accepted that the level of methamphetamine detected here was well below the level of 15μg/100cm² and likely also below 1.5μg/100cm² for each sample. Therefore, the property has not been damaged by methamphetamine contamination.
However, the landlord seeks the testing costs from the tenant because: a. they had reasonable cause to conduct testing; and b. there was methamphetamine residue present. Therefore, it was incumbent on the landlord to check whether use of methamphetamine at the premises by the tenant (or someone at the premises they are responsible for) had caused damage that must be remediated.

What must be proved in this case?

The landlord’s oral evidence was that there was no testing for the presence of methamphetamine at the premises prior to the tenant moving into the premises. This means that we cannot be certain whether any methamphetamine residue was present before the tenancy started. 2 Full Circle Real Estate v Piper 2 [2019] NZDC 4947 3 Acme Realty Ltd v Alexander James Hogg, Tuitui Grace Polotu, Leigh Sharyn Coughlin [2021] NZDC 3231
The District Court has held that the absence of pre-let testing at the start of the tenancy significantly weakens the circumstantial case against a tenant. The absence of a pre-tenancy methamphetamine test means other evidence is particularly important and must be strong. 4
In these circumstances, the landlord must prove that it is more probable than not that the tenant, or a person at the premises for whom they are responsible, used, or allowed the use of, methamphetamine at the premises during the tenancy.
The landlord claims that there is evidence from neighbours, the Police and a social worker that methamphetamine was being used at the premises by the tenant or by someone he was responsible for. However, there was no direct evidence from those persons such as a written statement and nor did they attend the hearing as witnesses to give direct evidence and be questioned. Therefore, the landlords evidence is hearsay and is of limited evidential value.
The landlord also said that this particular building was constructed in 2016. There has only been one previous long-term tenant at the property and the landlord has no cause to suspect that they used methamphetamine at the premises.
After considering this evidence, I am not satisfied that the evidence is strong enough to establish that it was more likely than not that the tenant was responsible for the presence of methamphetamine at the premises during the tenancy.
It follows that the claim for testing costs must be dismissed.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish and belongings, as shown in photos produced in evidence by the landlord. However, in respect of the costs claimed for cleaning the oven, rangehood, bath, lamps, and skirtings, no supporting photos showing the condition of those areas were produced in evidence. However, I consider that the costs claimed in the application of $1,112.62 are proved in relation to the cleaning and rubbish removal work that was proved. Of this amount I award the 4 Eren Limited v Martin and Kukuruzsnayak [2021] NZDC 15210 and Brooking and Hodges v Imrie [2021] NZDC 16976 full amount of $301.87 in the rubbish removal invoice and the balance claimed of $810.75 for cleaning.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. Both parties applied for suppression. As the landlord has substantially succeeded, they are granted suppression. The tenant has not substantially defended the claims and is therefore not granted suppression.
As the landlord has substantially succeeded with their claim, they are also entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4938175 — net $1,639.62 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$810.75	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$301.87	Rubbish removal
Exemplary damages-failing to quit premises	$500.00	failing to quit premises
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,639.62
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,639.62

Claims and awards for application 4938175 — net $1,639.62 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Cleaning

Amount: $810.75
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Rubbish removal

Amount: $301.87
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Exemplary damages-failing to quit premises

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: failing to quit premises

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $27.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Landlord $1,639.62

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $1,639.62

Dismissed claims

Other Claims — All other claims dismissed

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Exemplary damages Filing Fee Rubbish Removal

Order

Stanlee Tipokoroa must pay [The landlord/s] $1,639.62 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The claims may be summarised as follows: a. Exemplary damages for failing without reasonable excuse to quit the premises on termination of the tenancy; b. Reimbursement of methamphetamine testing costs of $400.20; c. Reimbursement of costs to clean and remove rubbish from the premises after the tenancy was vacated by the tenant in the total sum of $1,112.62.
The landlord clarified at the hearing that in fact they were seeking cleaning and rubbish removal costs contained in four separate invoices of $402.50, $431.25, $379.50 and $301.87. This totals 1,515.12. I note that all of the invoices pre- dated the lodgement date of the application but for some reason, the amount of one invoice was not included in the claim.
The landlord requested that they be permitted to amend their claims at the hearing for the increased amount. The tenant did not consent to any amendment. It is important that parties are aware of all the claims they are facing at a hearing and they are entitled to full and fair disclosure of the claims beforehand. In the circumstances, I am not prepared to allow an amendment at the hearing without the tenant’s consent and will not consider claims in excess of the amount claimed in the application for cleaning and rubbish removal.
In addition, the landlord also sought to recover the cost of $189.01 for changing the locks. However, this was not articulated as a claim in the landlord’s application. For the same reasons detailed above, I do not consider the claim. Background facts
By a previous order of the Tribunal under application 4855500 dated 20 May 2024, the tenancy was terminated for rent arrears effective at 5pm on 20 May 2024. The order records that the hearing took place by remote teleconference and despite the Adjudicator attempting to contact the tenant by telephone, the call was not answered and the hearing proceeded in his absence.
The landlord says that they delivered a copy of the termination notice to the tenant shortly after the hearing concluded.
On 20 May 2024, the tenant and his daughter attended the landlord’s offices. The landlord advised them that the termination order had been made but gave an extension until Friday 24 May 2024 to vacate the premises and remove their belongings. The landlord requested that the tenant return the flat keys to the landlord’s office by 4pm on 24 May. They also indicated that if the tenant was unable to remove all their belongings by this date, they would arrange a time for the tenant to return to the premises and collect any remaining goods.
On Friday 24 May, the tenant asked the landlord for another extension until Monday 27 May. The landlord agreed, again requiring the tenant to return the keys to the landlord’s office by 4pm on 27 May. The landlord also advised the tenant that no further extension would be granted.
On 27 May, the landlord sent the tenant a text message to check if he had vacated the premises. The tenant said that he had not vacated. He also advised the landlord that he had obtained advice from an ex-partner that the landlord must give him 63 days’ notice to vacate the premises under section 51 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Therefore, he was not intending to leave. The landlord advised that because there was a termination order, they would apply to the District Court for an eviction order. This was done and the tenant was evicted by the bailiff on 28 June 2024.

Did the tenant fail without reasonable excuse to quit the premises?

A tenant must vacate the premises on the termination of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(e)(i) RTA.
Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 40(3A)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA.
I find on the evidence that the tenant failed to vacate the premises on the extended termination date agreed by the landlord of 27 May 2024. The landlord claims that the tenant had no reasonable excuse for failing to vacate because he was served with a copy of the termination order issued by the Tribunal; there was clear communication about extending the date; and, there was also clear communication that 27 May was the final extension.
The tenant claims that he was aware of the first hearing and was waiting to be contacted by the Tribunal. He claims that the Tribunal did not call him for the hearing. However, as I explained at the hearing, I cannot revisit the order terminating the tenancy. If the tenant believed that he was not called for the hearing and the order should not have been made, he could have applied for a rehearing, but he did not do so.
The tenant also claimed that his ex-partner (who is a landlord) gave him advice that his tenancy could not be terminated unless he was given 63 days’ notice and he believed this was correct.
I am not persuaded that the tenant could reasonably believe that a Tribunal order terminating the tenancy was not effective and that further notice from the landlord was required. He could have checked the position with Tenancy Services and obtained accurate information. I note that there is detailed information in the termination order explaining rehearing and appeal options. This information also contains a telephone number for Tenancy Services for help.
Finally, the tenant claims that he was given only 48 hours’ notice to vacate, prior to being evicted by the bailiff, which was not enough time to vacate and remove his belongings. I do not accept this submission. I find that the tenant was aware that the tenancy was terminated on 20 May and he had negotiated two extensions of time from the landlord but still did not vacate the premises. Having failed to comply with the termination order and the extensions of time granted by the landlord, the tenant was not entitled to any further notice of the eviction. It was incumbent on him to leave the premises before the eviction order had to be enforced.
After carefully considering all the available evidence, I am satisfied that the tenant failed without reasonable excuse to quit the premises, which is an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
Intention is proved where the party turns their mind to the unlawful act and deliberately sets out to commit the act. It is unnecessary to prove that the party intended to act unlawfully, it is enough that they intended to commit the act which is in fact unlawful. The same principle applies where the party fails to carry out a legal requirement. Even if the party is unaware of the particular obligation they have failed to perform, ignorance of the law is no defence. They are deemed to know the law, and therefore failure to perform the obligation is considered intentional. Also, if the party is wilfully blind to the factual circumstances that give rise to an unlawful act, this may also be sufficient to prove they acted intentionally.
I am satisfied that the matter of intention has been proved.
It is of significant interest to landlords, the Public, and the Tribunal that parties comply with Tribunal orders. In the circumstances, I consider an award of $500 exemplary damages is justified. The award is at the lower end of the scale, representing 33% of the maximum award. This reflects that there is no evidence of a previous breach of this nature by the tenant. What does the RTA say about methamphetamine damage/contamination to tenancy premises?
A landlord must prove that premises have been damaged during the tenancy and that the damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA. The use or possession of methamphetamine is an imprisonable offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
If a landlord proves this, then a tenant is liable for the costs of “making good the damage” and any other reasonably foreseeable losses that flow from the damage. See sections 49A and 49B(1)(b) RTA.
The standard of proof that applies is the civil standard “on the balance of probabilities”. This means I do not have to be completely certain but I must be satisfied that what is alleged is “more probable than not.”
Generally, the more serious the claim, the stronger the evidence that is required. 1

What were the methamphetamine testing results in this case?

The premises were tested for methamphetamine after the tenancy ended and the tenant vacated the premises. The landlord says that they had reasonable cause to suspect methamphetamine use at the premises based on reports from neighbouring tenants, the police and a social worker.
A composite test (where the result of 9 samples were combined) on 24 June 2024 indicated that methamphetamine was present. The Theoretical Maximum (if all methamphetamine residue was in one sample) was 9.78 μg/100cm² (micrograms per 100 square centimetres). The amount of methamphetamine detected as an average of the 9 samples taken was 1.09 μg/100cm².
It was accepted by the landlord that the results fall well below the level required to establish that the premises were damaged.
There is ongoing uncertainty in New Zealand about what level of methamphetamine residue should be considered “damage” to residential tenancies. There is no level prescribed in law as yet and the two most accepted sources of (non-legal) guidance are quite different.
In June 2017, Standards New Zealand published New Zealand Standard 8510:2017 Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine-contaminated properties (the NZ standard) for testing and decontamination of methamphetamine contaminated properties. It adopted a maximum acceptable level of methamphetamine contamination in an affected property of 1.5μg/100cm² for high use areas, for both manufacture and use. Beyond that level, a property was regarded as needing decontamination. If a property needs decontamination, then for the purposes of the RTA, the property is damaged. 1 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55
However, on 29 May 2018, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the then Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, released a report titled; “Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposure, risk levels and interpretation of standards” (the Gluckman Report). This report concluded that, in the case of third-hand contact, exposure to methamphetamine at levels below 15μg/100cm² was unlikely to have an adverse effect and remediation to the1.5μg/100cm² standard was only appropriate if there was reason to suspect manufacturing activity.
In Full Circle Real Estate v Piper 2 , the District Court considered an appeal from a decision of the Tribunal which adopted the Gluckman report and stated at paragraph [36] “the best state of knowledge of risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination available to the adjudicator was the Gluckman report. It would have been bold for the adjudicator to have ignored that report in favour of the New Zealand Standard given that the Gluckman report represents the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination in dwellings”.
Accordingly, the Tribunal has treated Full Circle Real Estate as confirmation that the Gluckman report is to be applied rather than the NZ standard. The District Court has also consistently confirmed that it is open to the Tribunal to take this approach because of the lack of legislative regulation at present. 3
Therefore, it was accepted that the level of methamphetamine detected here was well below the level of 15μg/100cm² and likely also below 1.5μg/100cm² for each sample. Therefore, the property has not been damaged by methamphetamine contamination.
However, the landlord seeks the testing costs from the tenant because: a. they had reasonable cause to conduct testing; and b. there was methamphetamine residue present. Therefore, it was incumbent on the landlord to check whether use of methamphetamine at the premises by the tenant (or someone at the premises they are responsible for) had caused damage that must be remediated.

What must be proved in this case?

The landlord’s oral evidence was that there was no testing for the presence of methamphetamine at the premises prior to the tenant moving into the premises. This means that we cannot be certain whether any methamphetamine residue was present before the tenancy started. 2 Full Circle Real Estate v Piper 2 [2019] NZDC 4947 3 Acme Realty Ltd v Alexander James Hogg, Tuitui Grace Polotu, Leigh Sharyn Coughlin [2021] NZDC 3231
The District Court has held that the absence of pre-let testing at the start of the tenancy significantly weakens the circumstantial case against a tenant. The absence of a pre-tenancy methamphetamine test means other evidence is particularly important and must be strong. 4
In these circumstances, the landlord must prove that it is more probable than not that the tenant, or a person at the premises for whom they are responsible, used, or allowed the use of, methamphetamine at the premises during the tenancy.
The landlord claims that there is evidence from neighbours, the Police and a social worker that methamphetamine was being used at the premises by the tenant or by someone he was responsible for. However, there was no direct evidence from those persons such as a written statement and nor did they attend the hearing as witnesses to give direct evidence and be questioned. Therefore, the landlords evidence is hearsay and is of limited evidential value.
The landlord also said that this particular building was constructed in 2016. There has only been one previous long-term tenant at the property and the landlord has no cause to suspect that they used methamphetamine at the premises.
After considering this evidence, I am not satisfied that the evidence is strong enough to establish that it was more likely than not that the tenant was responsible for the presence of methamphetamine at the premises during the tenancy.
It follows that the claim for testing costs must be dismissed.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish and belongings, as shown in photos produced in evidence by the landlord. However, in respect of the costs claimed for cleaning the oven, rangehood, bath, lamps, and skirtings, no supporting photos showing the condition of those areas were produced in evidence. However, I consider that the costs claimed in the application of $1,112.62 are proved in relation to the cleaning and rubbish removal work that was proved. Of this amount I award the 4 Eren Limited v Martin and Kukuruzsnayak [2021] NZDC 15210 and Brooking and Hodges v Imrie [2021] NZDC 16976 full amount of $301.87 in the rubbish removal invoice and the balance claimed of $810.75 for cleaning.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. Both parties applied for suppression. As the landlord has substantially succeeded, they are granted suppression. The tenant has not substantially defended the claims and is therefore not granted suppression.
As the landlord has substantially succeeded with their claim, they are also entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4938175 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4938175 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant fail without reasonable excuse to quit the premises?

What were the methamphetamine testing results in this case?

What must be proved in this case?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant fail without reasonable excuse to quit the premises?

What were the methamphetamine testing results in this case?

What must be proved in this case?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions