What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5212753 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 5212753?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Methamphetamine Testing: $346.16 awarded to landlord; Plumbing Account: $98.04 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5193513 D…: $432.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,384.28 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5212753?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5212753?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11999952-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5212753 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 5212753?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Methamphetamine Testing: $346.16 awarded to landlord; Plumbing Account: $98.04 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5193513 D…: $432.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,384.28 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5212753?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5212753?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11999952-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5212753 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5212753 — net $7,287.48 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 1/6/2025	$4,384.28	Rent arrears to 1/6/2025
Previous order application 5193513 dated 25/03/2025	$432.00	Previous order application 5193513 dated 25/03/2025
Carpet replacement	$1,500.00	Carpet replacement
Cleaning & rubbish removal	$500.00	Cleaning & rubbish removal
Plumbing account	$98.04	Plumbing account
Methamphetamine testing	$346.16	Methamphetamine testing
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,287.48
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,287.48

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
James Richard Wilson must pay [The landlord/s] $7,287.48 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 25/3/2025 under application 5193513.
The claim for further compensation of $4,070.44 is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
Unfortunately, the tenant did not appear, and the Tribunal was unable to contact him on the telephone.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended by Order of the Tribunal on 25/3/2025.
However, because the tenancy was for a fixed term the landlord sought rent arrears to the date the premises were re-let.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing.
The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.

Did the tenant comply with his 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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claimed compensation of $98.04 for a plumbers account for unblocking a toilet.
In support of the claim the landlord provided the plumber’s invoice.
Based on the plumbers account an award has been made for the unblocking of the toilet.

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.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
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. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord claimed compensation of $6,416.60 as follows: a. $2,500.00 for carpet replacement due to staining, b. $3,100.00 for cleaning due to methamphetamine contamination and rubbish removal, c. $470.44 for methamphetamine testing for insurance purposes, d. $346.16 for methamphetamine testing.
In support of the claim for testing and cleaning costs the landlord provided the exit methamphetamine testing reports from TDDA and Jae Dunedin and a laboratory composite analysis report from Hill Labs.
Three screening samples were undertaken in the kitchen, bathroom and one bedroom to confirm if there was methamphetamine contamination.
The laboratory analysis confirmed that the three samples detected a “potential” combined methamphetamine level of 2.0ug/100cm2.
The screening report made 3 recommendations, one of which was to “Contact a decontamination organisation and they can recommend as to what type of (if any) decontamination is required”.
The landlord contacted Jae Dunedin who undertook further testing for the insurance company and provided a cleaning quote for $8,651.45.
Subsequently the landlord asked another cleaning company to undertake the work and submitted, without any supporting documentation that he paid $1,500.00 for cleaning.
The New Zealand Standard 8510:2017 Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine-contained properties (“NZS8510”) recommended an acceptable level of methamphetamine contamination in an affected property of
5ug/100cm2 for high use areas. Beyond that level a property was regarded as needing decontamination. If a property needed decontamination, then for the purposes of the Residential Tenancies Act the property is damaged.
On 29 May 2018 the Prime Minister’s then Chief Science Advisor Professor Sir Peter Gluckman released a report “Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposure, risk levels and interpretation of standards” (“the Gluckman Report”). This concluded that, in the case of third hand contact, exposure to methamphetamine levels below 15ug/100cm2 is unlikely to have an adverse effect.
Since the Gluckman Report many decisions by the Tribunal have found that applicants were unable to prove that methamphetamine contamination below 15ug/100cm2 posed a health risk and amounted to damage.
This position is consistent with the comments of the Court of Appeal in Smith v Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited [2019] NZCA 38. At paragraph [16] in reference to the Gluckman Report the Court stated, “We acknowledge that the testing in this case yielded results now considered not to raise any health issues and safety concerns.”
Moreover, the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947, when considering an appeal of the Tribunal which adopted the Gluckman Report stated at paragraph [36] “the best state of knowledge of risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination available to the adjudicator was the Gluckman report. It would have been bold for the adjudicator to have ignored that report in favour of the New Zealand Standard given that the Gluckman report represents the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination in dwellings”.
The District Court in Acme Realty Ltd v Alexander James Hogg, Tuitui Grace Polotu, Leigh Sharyn Coughlin [2021] NZDC 3231 considered the specific question of whether the New Zealand Standard NZS8510 had any force of law given it was the current New Zealand Standard around methamphetamine levels in residential dwellings. His Honour Judge Harrison confirmed there was no force of law with the New Zealand Standard.
The Gluckman Report and several District Court decisions have confirmed that methamphetamine levels below 15ug are not injurious to health and therefore I consider the extensive cleaning undertaken was not required to restore the premises to a safe habitable state.
I appreciate that this puts the landlord in a difficult position because of the TTDA and Hills Labs reports relying on the NZ Standard level of 1.5ug and the Tribunal and District Court finding that only if the level exceeds the 15ug as set out in the Gluckman report that the levels are potentially injurious to health and extensive decontamination is necessary.
This is especially so given the provisions of section 45(1AA)&(1AAB) which provide that where premises have been tested and found to be contaminated with methamphetamine, or any other prescribed contaminant, the landlord cannot provide the premises to a tenant until they have been decontaminated.
However, I must apply the reasoning of the District Court.
The contamination levels detected in the samples taken were significantly below those considered by the Gluckman report as likely to have any adverse effect.
Decontamination is not required for low level methamphetamine levels below 15ug/100cm2.
The claim for cleaning costs for decontamination therefore fails.
However, based on the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy a nominal award for general cleaning and rubbish removal of $500.00 has been made.
This is because the evidence supports that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy or remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy.
The claim for methamphetamine testing by TDDA is successful, but not the second claim for the Jae Dunedin testing costs, because the latter was requested for insurance purposes only.
The landlord was made aware by a neighbour that the tenant may have been using methamphetamine on the premises and I consider it reasonable that he undertook testing to determine if the premises were contaminated.
I am satisfied by the evidence that the carpets were damaged during the tenancy due to staining and the damage is more than fair wear and tear.
However, because there is no evidence about whether the damage was careless or intentional and the landlord confirmed that his insurance would have covered the replacement costs less $1,500.00 for the excesses, I have awarded an amount equivalent to the insurance excesses.
This has also taken into account depreciation, because the landlord confirmed the carpets were six years old.
As [The applicant/s] has largely succeeded with the claim I have awarded the filing fee.
Suppression is granted to the landlord under section 95A because he substantially succeeded in the proceedings.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5212753 — net $7,287.48 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 1/6/2025	$4,384.28	Rent arrears to 1/6/2025
Previous order application 5193513 dated 25/03/2025	$432.00	Previous order application 5193513 dated 25/03/2025
Carpet replacement	$1,500.00	Carpet replacement
Cleaning & rubbish removal	$500.00	Cleaning & rubbish removal
Plumbing account	$98.04	Plumbing account
Methamphetamine testing	$346.16	Methamphetamine testing
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,287.48
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,287.48

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
James Richard Wilson must pay [The landlord/s] $7,287.48 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 25/3/2025 under application 5193513.
The claim for further compensation of $4,070.44 is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
Unfortunately, the tenant did not appear, and the Tribunal was unable to contact him on the telephone.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended by Order of the Tribunal on 25/3/2025.
However, because the tenancy was for a fixed term the landlord sought rent arrears to the date the premises were re-let.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing.
The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.

Did the tenant comply with his 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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claimed compensation of $98.04 for a plumbers account for unblocking a toilet.
In support of the claim the landlord provided the plumber’s invoice.
Based on the plumbers account an award has been made for the unblocking of the toilet.

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.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
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. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord claimed compensation of $6,416.60 as follows: a. $2,500.00 for carpet replacement due to staining, b. $3,100.00 for cleaning due to methamphetamine contamination and rubbish removal, c. $470.44 for methamphetamine testing for insurance purposes, d. $346.16 for methamphetamine testing.
In support of the claim for testing and cleaning costs the landlord provided the exit methamphetamine testing reports from TDDA and Jae Dunedin and a laboratory composite analysis report from Hill Labs.
Three screening samples were undertaken in the kitchen, bathroom and one bedroom to confirm if there was methamphetamine contamination.
The laboratory analysis confirmed that the three samples detected a “potential” combined methamphetamine level of 2.0ug/100cm2.
The screening report made 3 recommendations, one of which was to “Contact a decontamination organisation and they can recommend as to what type of (if any) decontamination is required”.
The landlord contacted Jae Dunedin who undertook further testing for the insurance company and provided a cleaning quote for $8,651.45.
Subsequently the landlord asked another cleaning company to undertake the work and submitted, without any supporting documentation that he paid $1,500.00 for cleaning.
The New Zealand Standard 8510:2017 Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine-contained properties (“NZS8510”) recommended an acceptable level of methamphetamine contamination in an affected property of
5ug/100cm2 for high use areas. Beyond that level a property was regarded as needing decontamination. If a property needed decontamination, then for the purposes of the Residential Tenancies Act the property is damaged.
On 29 May 2018 the Prime Minister’s then Chief Science Advisor Professor Sir Peter Gluckman released a report “Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposure, risk levels and interpretation of standards” (“the Gluckman Report”). This concluded that, in the case of third hand contact, exposure to methamphetamine levels below 15ug/100cm2 is unlikely to have an adverse effect.
Since the Gluckman Report many decisions by the Tribunal have found that applicants were unable to prove that methamphetamine contamination below 15ug/100cm2 posed a health risk and amounted to damage.
This position is consistent with the comments of the Court of Appeal in Smith v Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited [2019] NZCA 38. At paragraph [16] in reference to the Gluckman Report the Court stated, “We acknowledge that the testing in this case yielded results now considered not to raise any health issues and safety concerns.”
Moreover, the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947, when considering an appeal of the Tribunal which adopted the Gluckman Report stated at paragraph [36] “the best state of knowledge of risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination available to the adjudicator was the Gluckman report. It would have been bold for the adjudicator to have ignored that report in favour of the New Zealand Standard given that the Gluckman report represents the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination in dwellings”.
The District Court in Acme Realty Ltd v Alexander James Hogg, Tuitui Grace Polotu, Leigh Sharyn Coughlin [2021] NZDC 3231 considered the specific question of whether the New Zealand Standard NZS8510 had any force of law given it was the current New Zealand Standard around methamphetamine levels in residential dwellings. His Honour Judge Harrison confirmed there was no force of law with the New Zealand Standard.
The Gluckman Report and several District Court decisions have confirmed that methamphetamine levels below 15ug are not injurious to health and therefore I consider the extensive cleaning undertaken was not required to restore the premises to a safe habitable state.
I appreciate that this puts the landlord in a difficult position because of the TTDA and Hills Labs reports relying on the NZ Standard level of 1.5ug and the Tribunal and District Court finding that only if the level exceeds the 15ug as set out in the Gluckman report that the levels are potentially injurious to health and extensive decontamination is necessary.
This is especially so given the provisions of section 45(1AA)&(1AAB) which provide that where premises have been tested and found to be contaminated with methamphetamine, or any other prescribed contaminant, the landlord cannot provide the premises to a tenant until they have been decontaminated.
However, I must apply the reasoning of the District Court.
The contamination levels detected in the samples taken were significantly below those considered by the Gluckman report as likely to have any adverse effect.
Decontamination is not required for low level methamphetamine levels below 15ug/100cm2.
The claim for cleaning costs for decontamination therefore fails.
However, based on the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy a nominal award for general cleaning and rubbish removal of $500.00 has been made.
This is because the evidence supports that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy or remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy.
The claim for methamphetamine testing by TDDA is successful, but not the second claim for the Jae Dunedin testing costs, because the latter was requested for insurance purposes only.
The landlord was made aware by a neighbour that the tenant may have been using methamphetamine on the premises and I consider it reasonable that he undertook testing to determine if the premises were contaminated.
I am satisfied by the evidence that the carpets were damaged during the tenancy due to staining and the damage is more than fair wear and tear.
However, because there is no evidence about whether the damage was careless or intentional and the landlord confirmed that his insurance would have covered the replacement costs less $1,500.00 for the excesses, I have awarded an amount equivalent to the insurance excesses.
This has also taken into account depreciation, because the landlord confirmed the carpets were six years old.
As [The applicant/s] has largely succeeded with the claim I have awarded the filing fee.
Suppression is granted to the landlord under section 95A because he substantially succeeded in the proceedings.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5212753 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5212753 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with his 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

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with his 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