What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5149171 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and

How much money was awarded in case 5149171?

Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing End Of Tenancy: $2,298.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5149171?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5149171?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11888944-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5149171 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and

How much money was awarded in case 5149171?

Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing End Of Tenancy: $2,298.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5149171?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5149171?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11888944-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5149171 — Exemplary damages

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5149171 — net $1,805.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Meth testing end of tenancy	$2,298.00	Meth testing end of tenancy
Exemplary damages unlawful use	$600.00	Exemplary damages unlawful use
Mantel piece replacement	$500.00	Mantel piece replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,805.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,805.00

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and identifying details.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,620.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

The tenant must pay the landlord $1,805.00 as set out in the table below:

All other claims are dismissed.

The tenant’s claim for refund of the bond is dismissed.

Reasons

[Suppressed], Directors for the landlord appeared. [ Suppressed] l, property manager, also appeared. The tenant appeared and was supported by [ suppressed].

The tenancy commenced on 8 July 2020 and was periodic. The tenant gave notice, and the tenancy ended on 16 January 2025.

On 12 February 2025, the landlord filed a claim alleging that the tenant was responsible for methamphetamine contamination that caused damage and that the property had been used for an unlawful purpose, namely the consumption of methamphetamine.

On 17 February 2025, the tenant filed a cross application seeking a refund of their bond.

The landlord states that from the commencement of the tenancy on 08 July 2020 to 8 February 2023, the property was managed by an agency with whom [ suppressed] was a property manager. From 8 February 2023, the landlords took over management themselves.

At the commencement of the hearing, the tenant made submissions suggesting that any contamination and unlawful use had likely been committed by another tenant of the landlord at the property.

The tenant stated that on or about the 20 March 2023, they had asked the landlord if their sister could stay temporarily at the property. The landlord agreed.

Approximately two months later, the landlord informed the tenant that they were moving a single cabin onto the front of the property for the sister to use. This was not to be a part of the tenant’s tenancy agreement and the rent payment of $150.00 per week would be made directly by the sister to the landlord. Around August/September 2023, the sister began sleeping in the cabin. As the cabin had no amenities the sister continued to use those inside the main house (kitchen, toilet, dining, laundry). The sister also contributed to utility costs.

On or about 30 October 2023, the sister vacated the cabin and left the property. After their departure, the tenant used the cabin for storage. The cabin was sold and moved off site in March 2024.

The landlord states they provided the cabin due to concerns of overcrowding in the main house and had entered into a “lease agreement” with the tenant’s sister, granting her the right to occupy the cabin for $150.00 per week.

The cabin is defined as premises under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”). By granting the tenant’s sister the right to occupy the cabin in return for rent, the landlord created a residential tenancy agreement.

The landlord states the agreement with the tenant’s sister did not include a right to enter the tenant’s house and use the facilities. This right was solely granted by the tenant and fell outside of the landlord’s agreement.

The Tribunal is satisfied that, from March 2023, the tenant’s sister resided in the house with the tenant’s permission. From August/September 2023, the tenant’s sister began occupying the cabin but continued to use the amenities in the main house, also with the tenant’s permission. This arrangement was not a right granted by the landlord. If the tenancy agreement with the tenant’s sister was to include the right to use the tenant’s amenities there would have had to have been an agreement between the tenant and the landlord, and a variation of the existing tenancy agreement. There is no evidence that such an agreement or variation occurred. I am not satisfied that a second tenancy, or joint tenancy, was created under which the tenant and their sister shared the main house. Damage by contamination

The landlord alleges that the tenant is responsible for methamphetamine contamination causing damage and either using or allowing the property to be used for an unlawful purpose.

The landlord is seeking compensation for methamphetamine testing and damage totalling $34 643.78.

On 7 July 2020, the landlord conducted pre-tenancy methamphetamine testing. The ten sites sampled returned a composite reading of less than 0.02ug, indicating no detectable trace of methamphetamine.

On 16 January 2025, the landlord conducted end of tenancy methamphetamine testing. The ten sites sampled returned a composite reading of 48ug.

On 23 January 2025, the landlord conducted discrete testing of 18 sites, 10 of which had been previously sampled, and eight had not. Law

To award compensation for damage occurring by contamination the Tribunal must be satisfied that the contamination has occurred during the tenancy and has reached a level deemed to have caused damage

In determining whether a property has been damaged by methamphetamine contamination the Tribunal has referred to non-legislative guidelines.

The New Zealand Standard 8510:2017 “Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine-contaminated properties,” provides industry guidance on good practice methods in the testing and clean-up of methamphetamine contamination in houses. The standard was released on 29 June 2017 and adopts a single level of 1.5 μg/100cm² (“ug”). The standard recommends that, at or above this level, ‘high use areas’ of affected properties should be decontaminated.

High use areas are defined as those areas that can be easily accessed and are regularly used by adults and children.

On 29 May 2018, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman (The Prime Minister’s then Chief Science Advisor) determined that there was little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption (Report entitled ‘Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards’, 29 May 2018). The “Gluckman Report” concluded that in the absence of evidence of manufacture, any levels below 15ug were highly unlikely to present adverse effects, and there would be no need for remediation.

The tribunal adopts 15ug as the contamination threshold for damage, a position that has been confirmed by the Court.

To be satisfied that contamination occurred during the tenancy the Tribunal must be in a position to make an accurate pre tenancy and end of tenancy comparison. Decision

In this case the pre-tenancy testing report includes a description of the sites sampled, but there are no photographs. The end of tenancy testing report, however, provides both a description of the sites sampled with corresponding photographs.

The landlord states although the pre tenancy report does not include photographic evidence, the description of the sites sampled in both reports are the same, and that the same company had conducted the testing. The inference is that the sites sampled pre and end of tenancy were, more likely than not, the same or in close proximity.

Discrete testing conducted on 23 January 2025 sampled locations proximate to those tested on the two previous occasions.

The only site that returned a reading over 15ug was the mantelpiece in the living room, with a reading of 27ug. The other readings included a kitchen windowsill (12.2ug), laundry window frame (8.6ug), door to bedroom three (4.8ug), door bedroom to two (3.9ug), door to bedroom one (3.6ug), hallway door 2.9ug, toilet window frame (1.03ug), dining room door frame (0.09ug), and the bathroom (0.02ug). Additional discrete testing of sites not previously tested returned readings ranging from 7.08ug to 0.02ug.

On or about April 2024, the landlord assembled a garden shed to be used for storage by the tenant. On 5 February 2025, a composite methamphetamine test of two sites in the shed returned a composite reading of 1.17ug. The shed had not been included in prior testing.

As contamination levels above 15ug are deemed to constitute damage, the only area “damaged by contamination” is the mantlepiece in the lounge. All of the other areas tested, including those not the subject of pre-tenancy testing, were below the threshold and have not been damaged by contamination. Nevertheless, the landlord chose to decontaminate the entire property. The landlord states however, that in their opinion, the chemicals used in the decontamination process rendered the property uninhabitable.

The mantelpiece has been damaged by contamination over 15ug. The landlord states the mantlepiece was irreparable, and they replaced it. The landlord conducted the work themselves. The cost of the mantlepiece is not itemised in the landlord’s invoice. In this case, the Tribunal awards the landlord $500.00 to replace the damaged mantlepiece. Unlawful use Law

A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) of the Act.

It is unlawful to use methamphetamine or permit any premises to used for the consumption of methamphetamine.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00.

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) of the Act.

Section 41 of the Act, states that the tenant shall be responsible for anything done or omitted to be done by any person who is in the premises with the tenant’s permission if the act or omission would have constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement or provisions of the Act. Decision

The tenant claims they do not personally use methamphetamine but accepts that the contamination was more likely than not caused by their sister, who was using the property with the tenant’s permission, and the sister’s partner.

The landlord challenges the tenant’s denial of personal use, noting that the highest, and only reading constituting damage, was located on the mantlepiece in a room used by the tenant as their bedroom.

The tenant responded that the living room had been used both as their bedroom and a lounge.

There is no other evidence concerning the consumption of methamphetamine.

In this case the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant has breached their obligations and has committed and unlawful act by permitting the property to be used for an unlawful purpose.

It is in the interests of the parties and in the public interest to discourage methamphetamine use and to ensure that properties are not used for its consumption. The landlord stated that they had provided a contamination free property and expected it to be returned in the same condition. It had not, which caused them stress and anxiety. Taking these factors into account the Tribunal awards the landlord exemplary damages of $600.00. Testing costs

As contamination occurred during the tenancy and the tenant is in breach of their obligations, the Tribunal also awards the post tenancy discrete testing costs of $2,298.90. Costs

Under section 102 of the Act, the Tribunal must order reimbursement of the filing fee to a party who has been wholly successful and may do so where a party has been partly successful. In this case, the landlord has been partially successful with their claim, and the Tribunal orders reimbursement of the filing fee. Name Suppression

Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.

Both parties seek name suppression. Globally assessed, the Tribunal finds that both parties have been sufficiently successful in these proceedings, and accordingly both are entitled to name suppression.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5149171 — net $1,805.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Meth testing end of tenancy	$2,298.00	Meth testing end of tenancy
Exemplary damages unlawful use	$600.00	Exemplary damages unlawful use
Mantel piece replacement	$500.00	Mantel piece replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,805.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,805.00