What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5195678 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 5195678?

Cleaning: $943.00 awarded to landlord; Drain Unblocking: 20.12.2024: $606.05 awarded to landlord; Drain Unblocking: 22.5.2025: $1,138.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing Report: $1,035.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order (5195678) Dated 2.7.2…: $2,741.90 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5195678?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5195678?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12391442-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5195678 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 5195678?

Cleaning: $943.00 awarded to landlord; Drain Unblocking: 20.12.2024: $606.05 awarded to landlord; Drain Unblocking: 22.5.2025: $1,138.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing Report: $1,035.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order (5195678) Dated 2.7.2…: $2,741.90 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5195678?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5195678?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12391442-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5195678 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5195678 — net $3,971.45 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order (5195678) dated 2.7.2025	$2,741.90	Previous order (5195678) dated 2.7.2025
Meth testing report	$1,035.00	Meth testing report
Meth cleaning	$943.00	Meth cleaning
Drain unblocking: 20.12.2024	$606.05	Drain unblocking: 20.12.2024
Drain unblocking: 22.5.2025	$1,138.50	Drain unblocking: 22.5.2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,971.45
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,971.45

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Georgina Peni must pay [The landlord/s] $3,971.45 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,520.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord, represented by [the landlord’s representative], attended the hearing. This is the second hearing for this application. There was no appearance by the tenant at the scheduled time. The start of the hearing was delayed, and the matter was called again. The tenant still did not attend. As the tenant has been notified, the hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation for costs incurred in unblocking drains at the premises, methamphetamine testing, and cleaning. Other claims noted in the original application are no longer sought.
Following the first hearing, which was attended by both parties, the landlord was awarded compensation for drain unblocking and the initial methamphetamine testing costs. The hearing was adjourned part-heard, since more detailed testing and the decontamination work had not been completed. A further hearing was scheduled to consider the balance of the landlord’s claim.
The tenancy has since come to an end, with the landlord stating that the tenancy ended on 29 June 2025. Drain unblocking costs
The landlord seeks compensation for additional drain unblocking costs, as follows:
Invoice dated 20 December 2024, [the plumbers], for $606.05: The landlord confirmed that this invoice was sent to the tenant during the tenancy. The invoice from [the plumbers] indicates the technician found there were wet wipes at the bottom inlet of the pump. As previously noted, where it is shown that a drain blockage is caused by items being put into the toilet, such repair costs during a tenancy will be the responsibility of a tenant. In this case, it seems likely that either the tenant, or someone else at the premises with her permission, has caused the drain to become blocked. Therefore, the tenant will be liable for this cost, which is awarded above.
Invoice dated 22 May 2025, [the plumber company], for $1,138.50. The drain blockage was found to be caused by items placed in the toilet, as recorded in the invoice. From the evidence, it seems likely that either the tenant, or someone else at the premises with her permission, has caused the drain to become blocked. Therefore, the tenant will be liable for this cost, which is awarded above. Legal framework: methamphetamine contamination
Methamphetamine contamination is regarded as damage. This is because it is a physical alteration (not necessarily permanent or irreparable), which impairs the value or usefulness of the item or property damaged, and which cannot be removed by normal cleaning. 1
Section 138C of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) 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.
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.
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.
The District Court has held that remediation should be carried out in accordance with the prevailing guidelines at the time. 2
The Tribunal has generally applied the Gluckman recommendation. This approach was approved by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper. 3 The District Court took a similar approach in Acme Realty Limited v Hogg and others 4 , where the Court referred to the Full Circle case and held that, because NZS 8510:2017 has not been adopted into law, the Tribunal was not bound to apply the 1.5μg standard.
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises by methamphetamine contamination occurred during the tenancy. 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 5 . 1 Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand S. Benson, 6.16. 2 Diamond Real Estate Limited v Allan [2017] NZDC 833, Judge Kellar 3 [2019] NZDC 4947 4 [2021] NZDC 3231 5 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA
Section 40(2)(b) of the RTA prohibits the tenant from using the premises or permitting the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose.
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. 6

Is the tenant liable for methamphetamine testing and decontamination?

Both parties accept that the premises was brand new, and that the tenant was the first tenant to occupy the premises.
At the first hearing, the landlord provided evidence explaining why testing for methamphetamine was undertaken at the premises. As noted in the earlier order, the landlord was alerted by neighbours, who were concerned about activity at the premises. The police had attended and there were various other issues raised, which were detailed. The tenant denied using methamphetamine. She explained why the police had attended in February 2025, noting it involved a disagreement with her daughter.
Following the first hearing, it was found that the landlord had a sufficient basis for arranging the initial testing, and the testing cost was awarded.
The landlord then arranged for more comprehensive testing, and incurred the cost of $1,035.00, as shown in the invoice from [testing company]. Testing was conducted on 21 February 2025, with swab sampling for methamphetamine residue being undertaken. These were then sent to [Laboratories] for analysis The methamphetamine testing report dated 19 March 2025 showed levels of methamphetamine contamination in nine different sample areas. In two of these areas, both in the lounge, the level of contamination was above the Gluckman recommended level of 15μg/100cm. 2
In this case, while there was no pre-tenancy test for methamphetamine, I note the fact that the premises is brand new, and the tenant was the first to occupy it. Furthermore, in view of the evidence of the presence of methamphetamine at the premises following comprehensive testing, together with the levels shown in the samples, I am satisfied that the landlord has established, with sufficient evidence, that damage to the premises by methamphetamine contamination occurred during this tenancy.
As this has been established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove that she did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. As previously noted, 6 See section 49B(1) of the RTA tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. 7 In this case, while noting the tenant’s denial of using methamphetamine, she has not proved, with sufficient evidence, that she did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage.
Accordingly, the landlord is to be compensated for the comprehensive methamphetamine testing costs of $1,035.00, as shown in the invoice.
The landlord also undertook remedial work, and the invoice for deep cleaning has been provided. The amount sought is $943.00, which is awarded above. Filing fee and name suppression
Because [The landlord/s] has been successful, the tenant is to pay the landlord’s filing fee.
The landlord’s request for name suppression is also granted, in view of the landlord being successful in the proceedings. The tenant did not seek name suppression when asked at the first hearing.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5195678 — net $3,971.45 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order (5195678) dated 2.7.2025	$2,741.90	Previous order (5195678) dated 2.7.2025
Meth testing report	$1,035.00	Meth testing report
Meth cleaning	$943.00	Meth cleaning
Drain unblocking: 20.12.2024	$606.05	Drain unblocking: 20.12.2024
Drain unblocking: 22.5.2025	$1,138.50	Drain unblocking: 22.5.2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,971.45
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,971.45

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Georgina Peni must pay [The landlord/s] $3,971.45 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,520.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord, represented by [the landlord’s representative], attended the hearing. This is the second hearing for this application. There was no appearance by the tenant at the scheduled time. The start of the hearing was delayed, and the matter was called again. The tenant still did not attend. As the tenant has been notified, the hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation for costs incurred in unblocking drains at the premises, methamphetamine testing, and cleaning. Other claims noted in the original application are no longer sought.
Following the first hearing, which was attended by both parties, the landlord was awarded compensation for drain unblocking and the initial methamphetamine testing costs. The hearing was adjourned part-heard, since more detailed testing and the decontamination work had not been completed. A further hearing was scheduled to consider the balance of the landlord’s claim.
The tenancy has since come to an end, with the landlord stating that the tenancy ended on 29 June 2025. Drain unblocking costs
The landlord seeks compensation for additional drain unblocking costs, as follows:
Invoice dated 20 December 2024, [the plumbers], for $606.05: The landlord confirmed that this invoice was sent to the tenant during the tenancy. The invoice from [the plumbers] indicates the technician found there were wet wipes at the bottom inlet of the pump. As previously noted, where it is shown that a drain blockage is caused by items being put into the toilet, such repair costs during a tenancy will be the responsibility of a tenant. In this case, it seems likely that either the tenant, or someone else at the premises with her permission, has caused the drain to become blocked. Therefore, the tenant will be liable for this cost, which is awarded above.
Invoice dated 22 May 2025, [the plumber company], for $1,138.50. The drain blockage was found to be caused by items placed in the toilet, as recorded in the invoice. From the evidence, it seems likely that either the tenant, or someone else at the premises with her permission, has caused the drain to become blocked. Therefore, the tenant will be liable for this cost, which is awarded above. Legal framework: methamphetamine contamination
Methamphetamine contamination is regarded as damage. This is because it is a physical alteration (not necessarily permanent or irreparable), which impairs the value or usefulness of the item or property damaged, and which cannot be removed by normal cleaning. 1
Section 138C of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) 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.
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.
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.
The District Court has held that remediation should be carried out in accordance with the prevailing guidelines at the time. 2
The Tribunal has generally applied the Gluckman recommendation. This approach was approved by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper. 3 The District Court took a similar approach in Acme Realty Limited v Hogg and others 4 , where the Court referred to the Full Circle case and held that, because NZS 8510:2017 has not been adopted into law, the Tribunal was not bound to apply the 1.5μg standard.
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises by methamphetamine contamination occurred during the tenancy. 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 5 . 1 Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand S. Benson, 6.16. 2 Diamond Real Estate Limited v Allan [2017] NZDC 833, Judge Kellar 3 [2019] NZDC 4947 4 [2021] NZDC 3231 5 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA
Section 40(2)(b) of the RTA prohibits the tenant from using the premises or permitting the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose.
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. 6

Is the tenant liable for methamphetamine testing and decontamination?

Both parties accept that the premises was brand new, and that the tenant was the first tenant to occupy the premises.
At the first hearing, the landlord provided evidence explaining why testing for methamphetamine was undertaken at the premises. As noted in the earlier order, the landlord was alerted by neighbours, who were concerned about activity at the premises. The police had attended and there were various other issues raised, which were detailed. The tenant denied using methamphetamine. She explained why the police had attended in February 2025, noting it involved a disagreement with her daughter.
Following the first hearing, it was found that the landlord had a sufficient basis for arranging the initial testing, and the testing cost was awarded.
The landlord then arranged for more comprehensive testing, and incurred the cost of $1,035.00, as shown in the invoice from [testing company]. Testing was conducted on 21 February 2025, with swab sampling for methamphetamine residue being undertaken. These were then sent to [Laboratories] for analysis The methamphetamine testing report dated 19 March 2025 showed levels of methamphetamine contamination in nine different sample areas. In two of these areas, both in the lounge, the level of contamination was above the Gluckman recommended level of 15μg/100cm. 2
In this case, while there was no pre-tenancy test for methamphetamine, I note the fact that the premises is brand new, and the tenant was the first to occupy it. Furthermore, in view of the evidence of the presence of methamphetamine at the premises following comprehensive testing, together with the levels shown in the samples, I am satisfied that the landlord has established, with sufficient evidence, that damage to the premises by methamphetamine contamination occurred during this tenancy.
As this has been established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove that she did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. As previously noted, 6 See section 49B(1) of the RTA tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. 7 In this case, while noting the tenant’s denial of using methamphetamine, she has not proved, with sufficient evidence, that she did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage.
Accordingly, the landlord is to be compensated for the comprehensive methamphetamine testing costs of $1,035.00, as shown in the invoice.
The landlord also undertook remedial work, and the invoice for deep cleaning has been provided. The amount sought is $943.00, which is awarded above. Filing fee and name suppression
Because [The landlord/s] has been successful, the tenant is to pay the landlord’s filing fee.
The landlord’s request for name suppression is also granted, in view of the landlord being successful in the proceedings. The tenant did not seek name suppression when asked at the first hearing.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5195678 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5195678 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant liable for methamphetamine testing and decontamination?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant liable for methamphetamine testing and decontamination?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions