What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5103588 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5103588?

Cleaning: $310.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $26.78 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing: $1,314.45 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $274.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,960.00 awarded to landlord; Door: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $468.63 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5103588?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5103588?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11601271-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5103588 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5103588?

Cleaning: $310.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $26.78 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing: $1,314.45 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $274.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,960.00 awarded to landlord; Door: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $468.63 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5103588?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5103588?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11601271-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5103588 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5103588 — net $3,584.36 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 23 January 2025	$1,960.00	Rent arrears (to 23 January 2025
Cleaning	$310.50	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$468.63	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$274.00	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning: - Mattress	$26.78	Cleaning: - Mattress
Repairs: Door	$230.00	Repairs: Door
Meth testing	$1,314.45	Meth testing
Net award	$3,584.36
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,584.36

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Mogens Peterson must pay [The landlord/s] $3,584.36 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears (to 23 January 2025)$1,960.00 Cleaning$310.50 Rubbish removal$468.63 Lock/key replacement$274.00 Cleaning: - Mattress$26.78 Repairs: Door$230.00 Meth testing$1,314.45 Total award$4,584.36 Bond$1,000.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$3,584.36
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

A representative of the landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for termination rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee. The tenancy had ended before the application could be heard. The remaining issues before me were claims for rent arrears and compensation.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 23 January 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount of $1960.00 owing at the end of the tenancy.

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The tenant did not return the keys.
The landlord provided photographs of the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy and invoices and receipts for costs incurred. The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that 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.
The bedroom door was damaged during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The landlord provided photographs, evidence of repair costs and an email from the tenant to establish its claim. The amount ordered is proved. Methamphetamine
The landlord has applied for compensation for the cost methamphetamine testing and remediation.
The landlord must prove that the tenant caused or permitted the contamination, or that it was caused by someone at the premises with the tenant’s consent. The landlord must also prove that, because of the contamination, the premises have been damaged.
Section 138C Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides for regulations to be made prescribing the maximum acceptable level for contaminants, but as yet no regulations have been made in relation to methamphetamine.
This tenancy started in August 2022. The landlord has provided laboratory test results and reports which show 1 : a. The premises tested positive for methamphetamine on 2 March 2023. There was a composite result from 8 samples which gave a reading of 7.7 mcg. b. The 2 March samples were separated to provide individual results which included: Kitchen/Lounge – 1.83mcg, Tenant’s Bedroom – 0.40mcg. c. The premises were tested again during the tenancy; on 5 July 2024 (after the landlord became concerned about the tenant). Eight samples were taken from the same rooms as on 2 March 2023. The composite result from the 8 samples taken on 9 July 2024 was 22 mcg. d. Those samples were also separated to provide an individual results for the Tenant’s Bedroom of 8mcg. e. The premises were tested again on 9 December 2024. This time, the 8 samples returned a composite result of 36mcg. f. Those samples were also separated to provide an individual results for the Tenant’s Bedroom of 12.5mcg and the Kitchen/Lounge of 10.5mcg.
In the absence of any other explanation or evidence, I accept the landlord’s submission that the increase in methamphetamine readings from March 2023 to December 2024 establishes the use of methamphetamine at the premises during the tenancy.
I must now consider whether there has been damage as result of the Methamphetamine use.
There are currently two sources of guidance on the issue of a safe level of methamphetamine contamination in residential premises. In June 2017 Standards New Zealand published NZS 8510:2017. The standard recommended a maximum contamination level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 for high use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture. It recommended a higher level of 3.8μg/100cm 2 for limited use areas. 1 All references expressed as micrograms per 100cm2.
In May 2018 Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the then Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor, released a report "Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards”. The report noted that there is a lack of scientific evidence to prove that low-level third-hand methamphetamine exposure poses a health risk to humans. It stated that guidelines should be proportionate to risk and that exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm 2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect. It recommended retaining the level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 where contamination resulted from manufacture, due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the process.
In Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 the District Court described the Gluckman report as representing “the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination in dwellings” and endorsed the Tenancy Tribunal’s decision to conclude that there was no damage to premises where methamphetamine levels were below 15mcg/100cm2. That approach has been endorsed in subsequent decisions of the District Court. See Acme Realty Ltd v Alexander James Hogg, Tuitui Grace Polotu, Leigh Sharyn Coughlin [2021] NZDC 3231 and Eren Limited v Martin and Kukuruzsnayak [2021] NZDC 15210
I am satisfied that the tenant should pay for the cost of testing. The testing was required as a direct consequence of unlawful drug use at the premises, which is a breach of s 40(2) RTA. 2 However, I am not satisfied that the tenant is responsible for decontamination costs. That is because the levels of methamphetamine were not so high as to have caused “damage” to the premises. See Talk Property Ltd v Jason Pierre Thomas [2021] NZTT 4306118.
The landlord provided evidence (receipts) of the testing costs incurred. Theses total $1,314.45. I make an award for that amount. The claim for remediation costs is dismissed.
As the landlord was substantially successful, I award reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee and grant its request for suppression of its details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5103588 — net $3,584.36 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 23 January 2025	$1,960.00	Rent arrears (to 23 January 2025
Cleaning	$310.50	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$468.63	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$274.00	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning: - Mattress	$26.78	Cleaning: - Mattress
Repairs: Door	$230.00	Repairs: Door
Meth testing	$1,314.45	Meth testing
Net award	$3,584.36
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,584.36

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Mogens Peterson must pay [The landlord/s] $3,584.36 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears (to 23 January 2025)$1,960.00 Cleaning$310.50 Rubbish removal$468.63 Lock/key replacement$274.00 Cleaning: - Mattress$26.78 Repairs: Door$230.00 Meth testing$1,314.45 Total award$4,584.36 Bond$1,000.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$3,584.36
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

A representative of the landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for termination rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee. The tenancy had ended before the application could be heard. The remaining issues before me were claims for rent arrears and compensation.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 23 January 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount of $1960.00 owing at the end of the tenancy.

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The tenant did not return the keys.
The landlord provided photographs of the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy and invoices and receipts for costs incurred. The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that 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.
The bedroom door was damaged during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The landlord provided photographs, evidence of repair costs and an email from the tenant to establish its claim. The amount ordered is proved. Methamphetamine
The landlord has applied for compensation for the cost methamphetamine testing and remediation.
The landlord must prove that the tenant caused or permitted the contamination, or that it was caused by someone at the premises with the tenant’s consent. The landlord must also prove that, because of the contamination, the premises have been damaged.
Section 138C Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides for regulations to be made prescribing the maximum acceptable level for contaminants, but as yet no regulations have been made in relation to methamphetamine.
This tenancy started in August 2022. The landlord has provided laboratory test results and reports which show 1 : a. The premises tested positive for methamphetamine on 2 March 2023. There was a composite result from 8 samples which gave a reading of 7.7 mcg. b. The 2 March samples were separated to provide individual results which included: Kitchen/Lounge – 1.83mcg, Tenant’s Bedroom – 0.40mcg. c. The premises were tested again during the tenancy; on 5 July 2024 (after the landlord became concerned about the tenant). Eight samples were taken from the same rooms as on 2 March 2023. The composite result from the 8 samples taken on 9 July 2024 was 22 mcg. d. Those samples were also separated to provide an individual results for the Tenant’s Bedroom of 8mcg. e. The premises were tested again on 9 December 2024. This time, the 8 samples returned a composite result of 36mcg. f. Those samples were also separated to provide an individual results for the Tenant’s Bedroom of 12.5mcg and the Kitchen/Lounge of 10.5mcg.
In the absence of any other explanation or evidence, I accept the landlord’s submission that the increase in methamphetamine readings from March 2023 to December 2024 establishes the use of methamphetamine at the premises during the tenancy.
I must now consider whether there has been damage as result of the Methamphetamine use.
There are currently two sources of guidance on the issue of a safe level of methamphetamine contamination in residential premises. In June 2017 Standards New Zealand published NZS 8510:2017. The standard recommended a maximum contamination level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 for high use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture. It recommended a higher level of 3.8μg/100cm 2 for limited use areas. 1 All references expressed as micrograms per 100cm2.
In May 2018 Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the then Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor, released a report "Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards”. The report noted that there is a lack of scientific evidence to prove that low-level third-hand methamphetamine exposure poses a health risk to humans. It stated that guidelines should be proportionate to risk and that exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm 2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect. It recommended retaining the level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 where contamination resulted from manufacture, due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the process.
In Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 the District Court described the Gluckman report as representing “the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination in dwellings” and endorsed the Tenancy Tribunal’s decision to conclude that there was no damage to premises where methamphetamine levels were below 15mcg/100cm2. That approach has been endorsed in subsequent decisions of the District Court. See Acme Realty Ltd v Alexander James Hogg, Tuitui Grace Polotu, Leigh Sharyn Coughlin [2021] NZDC 3231 and Eren Limited v Martin and Kukuruzsnayak [2021] NZDC 15210
I am satisfied that the tenant should pay for the cost of testing. The testing was required as a direct consequence of unlawful drug use at the premises, which is a breach of s 40(2) RTA. 2 However, I am not satisfied that the tenant is responsible for decontamination costs. That is because the levels of methamphetamine were not so high as to have caused “damage” to the premises. See Talk Property Ltd v Jason Pierre Thomas [2021] NZTT 4306118.
The landlord provided evidence (receipts) of the testing costs incurred. Theses total $1,314.45. I make an award for that amount. The claim for remediation costs is dismissed.
As the landlord was substantially successful, I award reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee and grant its request for suppression of its details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5103588 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5103588 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions