What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5188152 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 5188152?

Cleaning: $992.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $150.00 awarded to landlord; patch paint stairwell and bathroom c…: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $3,118.23 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5188152?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5188152?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11921086-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5188152 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 5188152?

Cleaning: $992.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $150.00 awarded to landlord; patch paint stairwell and bathroom c…: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $3,118.23 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5188152?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5188152?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11921086-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5188152 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5188152 — net $4,537.23 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$3,118.23	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$992.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$150.00	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs: patch paint stairwell and bathroom ceiling	$250.00	Repairs: patch paint stairwell and bathroom ceiling
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,537.23
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,537.23

Both parties attended or were represented at the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation for costs incurred after the tenancy ended. Background

The tenant lived in the premises for about three and a half years. She moved out in November 2024 and her adult son continued to live at the house with the knowledge and consent of the landlords.

A previous Tribunal decision determined that the tenancy was not assigned to the tenant’s son which means she remains legally liable.

The tenancy ended on 17 February 2025. Removal of belongings and rubbish

The tenant agrees to pay the costs of removal of belongings and rubbish after the tenancy ended. An invoice was supplied. I award the $3,118.23 as claimed. Cleaning

The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that premises are left reasonably clean and tidy at the end of a tenancy; section 40(1)(e)(iii) RTA.

The landlord supplied photographs taken at the end of the tenancy and I agree that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord claims $2,829.00 for cleaning ($2,415 including gst), oven cleaning ($92), and additional rubbish removal ($322).

The tenant agrees to pay for cleaning and oven cleaning but does not agree that the full amount claimed is reasonable.

The landlord says that a “deep clean” was needed because the house was affected by methamphetamine residue. It says the tenant’s son admitted to the property manager that he smoked meth at the house and that a meth test shows “trace amounts”.

The landlord submits it is reasonable for the landlord to want to clean the house to remove these trace amounts and that the cleaning invoice is higher than usual because of this extra cleaning.

The landlord supplied the methamphetamine test results during the hearing. Neither the tenant nor the Tribunal had been given these earlier.

Was there methamphetamine residue in the premises?

The laboratory test results show that the premises were tested for methamphetamine on 25 February 2025. Twelve wipe samples (from 100cm 2 sample areas) were combined to give two composite results. Composite results give the average level of methamphetamine residue across combined samples.

The first composite result over six samples is 0.04 micrograms 1 of methamphetamine. The second composite result over six samples is 0.02 micrograms.

The written report from the methamphetamine testing company further explains the composite results saying that if all the methamphetamine was in just one of the sample locations, the highest level it could be is 0.23 micrograms. This is referred to as the “theoretical maximum”.

The report concludes that the levels of methamphetamine levels are “extremely low”, are consistent with “minor consumption” and that in the testing company’s opinion, no cleaning, disclosure, or further testing is required “for such minor readings”.

The landlord has proved there was methamphetamine residue present on the testing date (8 days after the tenancy ended) but at very low levels.

Is the tenant legally responsible for the methamphetamine residue?

The landlord said there was no methamphetamine testing done at the start of the tenancy. This usually means that a tenant cannot be held liable because any meth found later may have originated from before this tenancy.

This was emphasised in District Court appeals from Tenancy Tribunal cases in which there was no pre-tenancy testing done. See Eren Limited v Martin and Kukuruzsnayak [2021] NZDC 15210 and Brooking and Hodges v Imrie [2021] NZDC 16976.

In this case, the landlord’s representative says the tenant’s son admitted smoking methamphetamine in the house. I accept this oral evidence although with caution because there was no substantiating evidence.

A tenant is liable for anything done by someone who they have allowed to be at the premises; s41 RTA. So, if the tenant’s son used methamphetamine at the premises, then the tenant is liable for his actions. Do these levels of methamphetamine residue mean the premises are not reasonably clean?

The landlord says the tenant is liable for the deep cleaning of the methamphetamine residue because it is reasonable for the landlord to want to remove all the residue.

I understand the landlord’s point of view. If a house smelled like cigarette smoke, then a tenant may have to pay for extra cleaning of drapes and carpets to remove 1 One millionth of a gram. the smell. If a pet urinates on carpets, the tenant may be liable to remove the smell and sometimes even to replace the carpet.

The landlord must ensure the premises are provided to the next tenant “in a reasonable state of cleanliness”; s45(1)(a) RTA.

A landlord must also comply with any regulations about methamphetamine contamination; s45(1)(bd) RTA.

But there are currently no regulations about methamphetamine in tenancy premises in New Zealand. 2

This means that landlords and tenants and the Tenancy Tribunal must rely on and make decisions based on other sources. These other sources are not law.

The two most referred to sources of guidance are quite different in their recommendations. One says that methamphetamine residue of 1.5 micrograms or more should be removed 3 and the other says that ten times this amount, 15 micrograms, is more sensible and is still highly unlikely to cause adverse health effects. 4

The Tribunal has mostly followed the recommendation of the second report and the District Court has agreed that it is open to it to do this.

In this situation, the methamphetamine residue levels were much lower than even the 1.5 microgram level. The theoretical maximum was 0.23 micrograms which is more than 6 times lower than 1.5 micrograms and 65 times lower than 15 micrograms.

Put simply, methamphetamine residue of the levels in these premises is reasonably clean.

The landlord can choose to remove the residue, in this case by “deep cleaning”, but there was no legal need to do so, and it cannot claim this cost from the tenant.

What is a reasonable amount to award for cleaning?

My decision that the tenant does not have to pay to remove the methamphetamine residue means I must assess what is reasonable for cleaning the house but excluding the residue.

The tenant has supplied three quotes for move out cleaning of a house of the same size in the same area and with itemised amounts for carpet cleaning and interior window cleaning. 2 Section 138C RTA allows for regulations to be made and public consultation closed on proposed regulations on 10 March 2023 but no decision has yet been made by Parliament. 3 New Zealand Standard 8510:2017. 4 A 2018 report from the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor called “Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards.”

After taking these quotes into account, I award a total of $992.00 for cleaning including carpet cleaning, window cleaning and oven cleaning.

This was a long tenancy, and a dog was allowed so requiring the tenant to pay for carpet and interior window cleaning is reasonable. The tenant accepts oven cleaning. The landlord’s exit inspection report photos show the garage and carpets were very dirty and notes about the kitchen and bathrooms satisfy me that more than a standard end of tenancy clean was probably needed. That is why I have awarded more than the quotes supplied. Garden work

The landlord claims $345.00 for the cost of garden work. The invoice describes the work, and the landlord confirms it includes the cost to waterblast the pathway.

After viewing the photos, I award $150.00 for picking up leaves (a tenant responsibility in the tenancy agreement) and tidying and cleaning the rubbish bins.

The tenancy agreement does not say the tenant is responsible for trimming bushes and the path does not look unreasonably dirty, so this work is at the landlord’s cost. Painting stairwell and bathroom ceiling

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 landlord proved there was a small scratch or gouge which removed paint in one place on the stairwell wall and two other very small scratches. These are more than wear and tear but are minor. I assess the value of the damage as $100.00.

The landlord says that the tenant allowed mould to build up on the bathroom ceiling and that this must be due to poor ventilation practices by the tenant because there is a Healthy Homes compliant extraction fan. The tenant says that mould was always a problem in this room and notes there was no shower dome.

Mould is often an issue on a bathroom ceiling. My decision is that it is fairest to share responsibility for this between landlord and tenant. I award $150.00.

The total invoice is $667.00. The tenant must contribute $250.00. Suppression

The landlord does not seek suppression of name, but I award it to be consistent with the previous order.

The tenant seeks suppression of name as the costs and damage were caused by her son and when she was not living at the house. The landlord does not object to this. I suppress the tenant’s name and the tenancy address.

I award the filing fee to the landlord.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5188152 — net $4,537.23 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$3,118.23	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$992.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$150.00	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs: patch paint stairwell and bathroom ceiling	$250.00	Repairs: patch paint stairwell and bathroom ceiling
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,537.23
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,537.23