What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5208276 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,300.00 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 5208276?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5208276?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5208276?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12060813-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5208276 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,300.00 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 5208276?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5208276?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5208276?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12060813-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5208276 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,300.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The Landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Representatives of the landlord and the tenant, [Tenant 1], attended in person. [Tenant 2]’s mother attended by telephone as his representative.
The landlord has applied for compensation for Methamphetamine testing and decontamination. The tenants have made cross-applications but those are defences to the landlord application and do not include claims other than refund of the bond. Neither tenant presented any other claims at the hearing.
The landlord claims that the premises were damaged by of methamphetamine contamination during the tenancy or need to be cleaned because of methamphetamine use during the tenancy.
The landlord has provided laboratory test results and reports which show: a. The premises were tested for methamphetamine on 10 December 2024 (when this tenancy began). There was a composite result from 11 samples which gave a reading of less than 0.02 micrograms. The reported potential maximum residue per sample was also less than 0.02 micrograms. This is referred to as a negative result. b. The premises were tested again on 24 February 2025 (when the tenancy ended). There was a composite result from 11 samples which gave a reading of less than 0.1 micrograms. The reported potential maximum residue per sample was 1.0 microgram.
The landlord claimed that the increased readings establishes that methamphetamine was used at the premises during the tenancy. There was no other evidence of drug use at the premises during the tenancy. Specifically, there was no evidence in relation to methamphetamine.
[Tenant 1] denied using Methamphetamine. She said that she had not witnessed drug use at the premises but has seen [Tenant 2] under the influence. She also said that she found small bags (typically used for drugs) at the premises. [Tenant 2]’s mother denied that he is a drug user. I treat her evidence on that issue with some caution.
While the increase in readings is indicative of drug use during the tenancy, I am not satisfied that the totality of evidence establishes that it is more likely than not that the tenants used methamphetamine at the premises during the tenancy.
Further, even if use was established, the residue readings are not at level considered to be “damage”.
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.
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 Gluckman report”)
The Gluckman report noted the lack of data on the effect of living in a house previously used for smoking methamphetamine (“third-hand” exposure). It stated that, where there is no evidence of manufacturing methamphetamine, exposure to levels below 15mcg/100 cm2 would be highly unlikely to give rise to any adverse effects.
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
In this instance, the landlord did not provide readings from individual samples. However, the maximum potential reading from any single sample is reported to be 1.0 microgram. That is below both NZS8510:2017 and the Gluckman Test. It follows from the authorities referred to above, that I must dismiss this application; there is no evidence of damage or residue that requires decontamination.
As the tenants were the successful party, I have granted their request for suppression of their details and awarded a refund of the bond.
[Tenant 2]’s mother claims that she paid the bond. However, this was a joint and several tenancy between [Tenant 2] and [Tenant 1], the bond is held for both of them. This tribunal does not have any jurisdiction over disputes between tenants as to the apportionment of bond money between them.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Representatives of the landlord and the tenant, [Tenant 1], attended in person. [Tenant 2]’s mother attended by telephone as his representative.

The landlord has applied for compensation for Methamphetamine testing and decontamination. The tenants have made cross-applications but those are defences to the landlord application and do not include claims other than refund of the bond. Neither tenant presented any other claims at the hearing.

The landlord claims that the premises were damaged by of methamphetamine contamination during the tenancy or need to be cleaned because of methamphetamine use during the tenancy.

The landlord has provided laboratory test results and reports which show: a. The premises were tested for methamphetamine on 10 December 2024 (when this tenancy began). There was a composite result from 11 samples which gave a reading of less than 0.02 micrograms. The reported potential maximum residue per sample was also less than 0.02 micrograms. This is referred to as a negative result. b. The premises were tested again on 24 February 2025 (when the tenancy ended). There was a composite result from 11 samples which gave a reading of less than 0.1 micrograms. The reported potential maximum residue per sample was 1.0 microgram.

The landlord claimed that the increased readings establishes that methamphetamine was used at the premises during the tenancy. There was no other evidence of drug use at the premises during the tenancy. Specifically, there was no evidence in relation to methamphetamine.

[Tenant 1] denied using Methamphetamine. She said that she had not witnessed drug use at the premises but has seen [Tenant 2] under the influence. She also said that she found small bags (typically used for drugs) at the premises. [Tenant 2]’s mother denied that he is a drug user. I treat her evidence on that issue with some caution.

While the increase in readings is indicative of drug use during the tenancy, I am not satisfied that the totality of evidence establishes that it is more likely than not that the tenants used methamphetamine at the premises during the tenancy.

Further, even if use was established, the residue readings are not at level considered to be “damage”.

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.

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 Gluckman report”)

The Gluckman report noted the lack of data on the effect of living in a house previously used for smoking methamphetamine (“third-hand” exposure). It stated that, where there is no evidence of manufacturing methamphetamine, exposure to levels below 15mcg/100 cm2 would be highly unlikely to give rise to any adverse effects.

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

In this instance, the landlord did not provide readings from individual samples. However, the maximum potential reading from any single sample is reported to be 1.0 microgram. That is below both NZS8510:2017 and the Gluckman Test. It follows from the authorities referred to above, that I must dismiss this application; there is no evidence of damage or residue that requires decontamination.

As the tenants were the successful party, I have granted their request for suppression of their details and awarded a refund of the bond.

[Tenant 2]’s mother claims that she paid the bond. However, this was a joint and several tenancy between [Tenant 2] and [Tenant 1], the bond is held for both of them. This tribunal does not have any jurisdiction over disputes between tenants as to the apportionment of bond money between them.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5208276 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5208276 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions