What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5036131 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Mid North Real Estate Limited (as agent

How much money was awarded in case 5036131?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5036131?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5036131?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11634520-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5036131 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Mid North Real Estate Limited (as agent

How much money was awarded in case 5036131?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5036131?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5036131?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11634520-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

2 Williams Avenue, Kaikohe, Kaikohe 0405 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5036131 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5036131 — net $1,253.74 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Meth testing/Cleaning: Methamphetamine de contamination	$2,500.00		Meth testing/Cleaning: Methamphetamine de contamination
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Balance of bond held by landlord		$1,273.26	Balance of bond held by landlord
Total award	$2,527.00	$1,273.26
Net award	$1,253.74
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,253.74

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Mid North Real Estate Limited (as agent for NZ Properties Ltd) $1,253.74 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 19 October 2020 and ended on 27 August 2024.
The landlord’s application seeks methamphetamine de-contamination costs and exemplary damages (using the premises, or permitting them to be used, for an unlawful purpose).
The hearing took place by phone today, 27 March 2025. Both parties participated in the hearing. Ms Robinson represented the landlord. Methamphetamine evidence.
Ms Robinson provided: a. The results of a pre-tenancy composite methamphetamine test. The results are dated 29 September 2020. The samples were taken on 23 September 2020. The results show no detectable levels of methamphetamine on any of the samples. b. The results of an end-of-tenancy composite methamphetamine test. The result was positive. The average amount of methamphetamine on the ten samples was 21.6 micrograms per 100cm2. c. A detailed assessment report showing ‘room by room’ sample results. The report details the results of 19 samples taken from all over the property. All of the results are positive, at levels ranging from 0.1 micrograms to 37.6 micrograms. De-contamination
Methamphetamine contamination, at levels that necessitate de-contamination of the premises, constitutes damage to the premises.
There is currently no level specified in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 as the ‘trigger’ for de-contamination.
The Tenancy Tribunal adopted the recommendations of the “Gluckman report”, which concluded that contamination at levels below 15 micrograms per 100m2 does not pose any threat to human health and does not necessitate de- contamination 1 .
In any damage claim: a. The landlord must establish that the damage occurred during the period of the tenancy 2 . 1 This approach was affirmed by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Ltd v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 2 Section 49B(8) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) b. Tenants are liable for damage that they cause, and they are also liable for damage caused by anyone who is at the premises with their consent 3 .
In this instance the methamphetamine evidence establishes that: a. Methamphetamine contamination occurred during the tenancy. b. The levels of contamination necessitated de-contamination of the premises.
The owner held insurance cover for methamphetamine de-contamination and testing costs, subject to an excess of $2,500.00. The premises have been de- contaminated. The claim against Ms Ormsby seeks the amount of the insurance excess.
Although only parts of the property were contaminated at a level above 15 micrograms, the cost of testing and de-contamination of those areas would comfortably exceed the amount the claim.
The claim is proven. Exemplary damages
It is an unlawful act for the tenant to use the premises, or to permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful activity 4 . The Tenancy Tribunal can award exemplary damages of up to $1,800.00 for that unlawful act.
Because exemplary damages are punitive, the Tribunal must be satisfied that there is personal responsibility on the tenant – either that she herself consumed methamphetamine at the premises or that she “permitted” someone else to consume it.
“Permitting” something includes knowing that it is happening, or is likely to happen, and turning a blind eye it. 5
Ms Ormsby attended the hearing. Ms Ormsby said that she was very shocked when Ms Robinson informed her about the methamphetamine test result at the end of the tenancy. This is supported by Ms Robinson’s recollection of that conversation.
Ms Robinson said that in that conversation, Ms Ormsby told her that she knew who had used methamphetamine at the premises, but she declined to say who that person was. Ms Ormsby denied saying this. She said that Ms Robinson’s phone call was very unexpected, and she was not sure what to think. She said that she initially suspected one person, a friend who stayed briefly at the 3 Section 41(1) RTA 4 Section 40(2)(b) RTA 5 Terangi v Housing New Zealand Corporation DC Porirua 28 June 2010 premises, but after more thought she realised that the friend did not stay at the premises long enough to cause the amount of contamination shown in the results. Ms Ormsby said that to this day she does not know who caused the contamination.
Although the Tenancy Tribunal applies the ‘civil’ standard of proof, which is “more likely than not” and not the higher criminal standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt”, where the issue before the Tribunal involves allegation of serious criminal activity it is appropriate for the Tribunal to require “strong evidence” 6 .
My finding is that in this instance there is insufficient evidence to establish that Ms Ormsby caused or permitted methamphetamine use at the premises during the tenancy.
Therefore I will not make an award of exemplary damages. Filing fee, bond
The bond of $1,600.00 was released to the landlord at the end of the tenancy.
From that amount, $326.73 has been applied to rubbish removal and water rates. The tenant does not dispute these costs. The balance of $1,273.26 is being held by Mid North Real Estate and can be applied to methamphetamine decontamination costs.
The landlord has been substantially successful in this application, and I will also award the landlord the filing fee.
Per the calculation above, Ms Ormsby owes $1,253.74 over and above the bond.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5036131 — net $1,253.74 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Meth testing/Cleaning: Methamphetamine de contamination	$2,500.00		Meth testing/Cleaning: Methamphetamine de contamination
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Balance of bond held by landlord		$1,273.26	Balance of bond held by landlord
Total award	$2,527.00	$1,273.26
Net award	$1,253.74
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,253.74

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Mid North Real Estate Limited (as agent for NZ Properties Ltd) $1,253.74 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 19 October 2020 and ended on 27 August 2024.
The landlord’s application seeks methamphetamine de-contamination costs and exemplary damages (using the premises, or permitting them to be used, for an unlawful purpose).
The hearing took place by phone today, 27 March 2025. Both parties participated in the hearing. Ms Robinson represented the landlord. Methamphetamine evidence.
Ms Robinson provided: a. The results of a pre-tenancy composite methamphetamine test. The results are dated 29 September 2020. The samples were taken on 23 September 2020. The results show no detectable levels of methamphetamine on any of the samples. b. The results of an end-of-tenancy composite methamphetamine test. The result was positive. The average amount of methamphetamine on the ten samples was 21.6 micrograms per 100cm2. c. A detailed assessment report showing ‘room by room’ sample results. The report details the results of 19 samples taken from all over the property. All of the results are positive, at levels ranging from 0.1 micrograms to 37.6 micrograms. De-contamination
Methamphetamine contamination, at levels that necessitate de-contamination of the premises, constitutes damage to the premises.
There is currently no level specified in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 as the ‘trigger’ for de-contamination.
The Tenancy Tribunal adopted the recommendations of the “Gluckman report”, which concluded that contamination at levels below 15 micrograms per 100m2 does not pose any threat to human health and does not necessitate de- contamination 1 .
In any damage claim: a. The landlord must establish that the damage occurred during the period of the tenancy 2 . 1 This approach was affirmed by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Ltd v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 2 Section 49B(8) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) b. Tenants are liable for damage that they cause, and they are also liable for damage caused by anyone who is at the premises with their consent 3 .
In this instance the methamphetamine evidence establishes that: a. Methamphetamine contamination occurred during the tenancy. b. The levels of contamination necessitated de-contamination of the premises.
The owner held insurance cover for methamphetamine de-contamination and testing costs, subject to an excess of $2,500.00. The premises have been de- contaminated. The claim against Ms Ormsby seeks the amount of the insurance excess.
Although only parts of the property were contaminated at a level above 15 micrograms, the cost of testing and de-contamination of those areas would comfortably exceed the amount the claim.
The claim is proven. Exemplary damages
It is an unlawful act for the tenant to use the premises, or to permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful activity 4 . The Tenancy Tribunal can award exemplary damages of up to $1,800.00 for that unlawful act.
Because exemplary damages are punitive, the Tribunal must be satisfied that there is personal responsibility on the tenant – either that she herself consumed methamphetamine at the premises or that she “permitted” someone else to consume it.
“Permitting” something includes knowing that it is happening, or is likely to happen, and turning a blind eye it. 5
Ms Ormsby attended the hearing. Ms Ormsby said that she was very shocked when Ms Robinson informed her about the methamphetamine test result at the end of the tenancy. This is supported by Ms Robinson’s recollection of that conversation.
Ms Robinson said that in that conversation, Ms Ormsby told her that she knew who had used methamphetamine at the premises, but she declined to say who that person was. Ms Ormsby denied saying this. She said that Ms Robinson’s phone call was very unexpected, and she was not sure what to think. She said that she initially suspected one person, a friend who stayed briefly at the 3 Section 41(1) RTA 4 Section 40(2)(b) RTA 5 Terangi v Housing New Zealand Corporation DC Porirua 28 June 2010 premises, but after more thought she realised that the friend did not stay at the premises long enough to cause the amount of contamination shown in the results. Ms Ormsby said that to this day she does not know who caused the contamination.
Although the Tenancy Tribunal applies the ‘civil’ standard of proof, which is “more likely than not” and not the higher criminal standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt”, where the issue before the Tribunal involves allegation of serious criminal activity it is appropriate for the Tribunal to require “strong evidence” 6 .
My finding is that in this instance there is insufficient evidence to establish that Ms Ormsby caused or permitted methamphetamine use at the premises during the tenancy.
Therefore I will not make an award of exemplary damages. Filing fee, bond
The bond of $1,600.00 was released to the landlord at the end of the tenancy.
From that amount, $326.73 has been applied to rubbish removal and water rates. The tenant does not dispute these costs. The balance of $1,273.26 is being held by Mid North Real Estate and can be applied to methamphetamine decontamination costs.
The landlord has been substantially successful in this application, and I will also award the landlord the filing fee.
Per the calculation above, Ms Ormsby owes $1,253.74 over and above the bond.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5036131 — Cleanliness at 2 Williams Avenue, Kaikohe, Kaikohe 0405

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5036131 — Cleanliness at 2 Williams Avenue, Kaikohe, Kaikohe 0405

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions