What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5250631 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 5250631?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5250631?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5250631?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12189948-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5250631 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 5250631?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5250631?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5250631?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12189948-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5250631 — Mould & damp

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
The landlords applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, which was conducted via video. The tenants were represented by Mr Roberts.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy which began on 13 February 2023 and ended on 14 February 2025.
The landlord seeks a contribution to the cost of replacement curtains and decontamination of methamphetamine.
The onus is on the landlord to establish their claim. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Methamphetamine and contamination
Under section 2 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), methamphetamine is a contaminant. Landlords have certain rights and responsibilities in relation to decontamination and inspections for contaminants. 1
Until a report of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman in May 2018, 2 (the Gluckman Report), the New Zealand Standard NZS 8510:2017 of 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 was accepted as evidence of methamphetamine contamination, requiring remediation. In the Gluckman report, it was considered that there was little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption. The report concluded that any levels below 15 μg/100 cm 2 were unlikely to present adverse effects.
Since the Gluckman report, in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947, the District Court needed to determine which level should be applied. The Court discussed the conflict between the New Zealand Standard and Chief Science Advisors report, and said: The Tenancy Tribunal was in a difficult position. 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 took a similar approach in Acme Realty Limited v Hogg and others [2021] NZDC 3231, 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.
In Barfoot and Thompson Limited v Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited [2021] NZTT Auckland 4276319, both parties presented scientific evidence at a hearing before the Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that there was no new scientific research to change the conclusions reached in the Gluckman Report.
In Acme Realty Limited v Hogg, Polotu and Coughlin [2021] NZDC 3231, Judge Harrison noted that “At issue is a short legal point, namely whether New Zealand Standard 8510:2017 has the force for law”. The appeal arose from a decision of the Tenancy Tribunal which applied the Gluckman report level of 15 μg/100 cm 2 . The Court concluded that: 1 See for example, sections 45 and 48. 2 ‘Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards’, 29 May 2018. ...for the reasons I have given that standard has not been passed into the law of this country and consequently the Adjudicator was not bound by the level it prescribes in reaching her conclusion.
Therefore, it is settled that the District Court has confirmed that the level to be applied is the level expressed by the Chief Science Advisor, which is that there is no risk when levels of contamination are below 15 μg/100 cm 2 . Intentional/careless damage
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.
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. Landlord’s claim
The landlord provided the following evidence to support their claim for methamphetamine contamination during the course of the tenancy which began on: a. A baseline test dated 13 February 2023 from samples taken on 10 February 2023, three days before the start of the tenancy, showing that methamphetamine or related compounds were not present, on the basis that the readings were below the lab testing capability threshold of 0.02 μg per 100cm 2 . b. A screening test dated 18 March 2025 from samples taken on 14 March 2025, showing and average result of 5.7 μg of methamphetamine over 7 samples. c. A report dated 19 March 2025 showing the individual results from the testing done on 14 March 2025. It showed the following readings of methamphetamine per μg/100m 2 : Living room door 0.51 Staircase bannister12.2 Bathroom window frame12.3 Bedroom 1 door 3.7 Bedroom 1 door frame 2.6 Kitchen door frame 9.8 Garage roller door <0.02 d. A “post-decontamination” methamphetamine test report dated 7 April 2025 of an assessment of 3 April 2025 showing that any methamphetamine present was below 1.5 μg/100m 2 .
The landlords said that when the tenants were told about this, they said that they had had a house sitter while they were away. Tenants’ response
For the tenants, Mr Roberts said: a. The tenants denied methamphetamine use and would have offered to have a test. b. The February 2023 test was not disclosed to the tenants. c. The test conducted on 14 March 2025 was done on the final day of the tenancy without notice to the tenants, and therefore should be excluded. d. The comprehensive report was done without consultation with the tenants. e. A result of less than 15μg/m 2 does not present a health risk unless there is evidence of manufacture of methamphetamine. See Full Circle v Piper CIV 20218/009 2490 and District Court DC4947. f. Clause 15 of the tenancy agreement says if a methamphetamine test result is more than 1.5 but less than 15 per room, that room is deemed habitable and the tenants must be given the option of making this tenancy agreement unconditional upon receipt of those results. The landlords never disclosed the results in of the February 2023 met text, therefore denying the tenants that contractual right. g. The inclusion of this cause also indicates that the property managers consider meth levels within this range to be habitable and not requiring remediation.
The landlord advised that the tenants had dropped the keys off on 13 March and there was a final inspection on 14 March.
They also said that given the high readings in two rooms, the owners felt that as a responsible landlord, the premises should be decontaminated. Discussion
Mr Roberts did not expand on the legal basis for arguing that the landlord should have provided the tenant with a copy of the pre-tenancy testing. Neither party filed a copy of the original tenancy agreement. The Tribunal had only a copy of the renewal of the tenancy for a fixed term, ending on 14 February 2025.
But even according to Mr Roberts’ summary of clause 15 of the tenancy agreement, it is difficult to understand how any contractual term has been breached. The clause appears to be relevant only if: a. The agreement is conditional on a methamphetamine test being undertaken; and b. A test result is more than 1.5 but less than 15 per room.
There is no evidence that there was a conditional agreement, and no evidence that the test at the start of the tenancy rendered results of more than 1.5 μg per 100cm 2 . Accordingly, the clause is not relevant.
Second, Mr Roberts submitted that the evidence of the methamphetamine testing should be excluded because the tenants were not given notice of the testing. He did not expand on this argument.
Section 48 of the RTA sets out the bases upon which a landlord may enter the residential premises. Entry for inspection or testing for contaminants requires 48 hours’ notice. Failure to comply those provisions will be an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be ordered, taking into account the factors in section 109 of the RTA.
In this case, tenants had handed over possession of the premises to the landlord. The tenants were obliged to continue to pay rent until the end of the fixed-term tenancy, which was 14 March, but they had relinquished possession by handing back the key. It was entirely reasonable that the landlords inspect the premises at their earliest convenience. The purpose of the various notice periods required under section 48 is to allow the landlord to ensure their property is not being damaged or does not require any maintenance or repairs, while at the same time not unreasonably imposing on the tenant’s privacy and quiet enjoyment. It allows the tenants an opportunity to tidy up or put private items away before an inspection. It is about a balance of rights and responsibilities for both parties.
A finding that a landlord has not complied with the provisions of section 48 may give rise to remedies under the RTA but does not invoke the provisions of section 30 of the Evidence Act 2006 which relates to improperly obtained evidence in the context of a criminal trial. These are not criminal proceedings, and it does not seem that the evidence was improperly obtained. The argument that the evidence should be excluded fails.
The tenants did not give evidence. The landlord’s evidence establishes on the balance of probabilities that methamphetamine was used at the premises during the tenancy. Ordinarily, the onus of proof would then shift to the tenant to prove that they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. As noted above, tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission.
Dealing first with the cost of comprehensive testing, there was no evidence that the landlords tested because they had reason to believe that the premises had been exposed to methamphetamine. Therefore there is no reason to order them to contribute to that cost.
Secondly, because the levels were all below 15 μg per 100cm 2 , the premises were not contaminated and did not require remediation. This is acknowledged in the reports provided. It also appears to be accepted in the landlord’s own contract (clause 15 referred to above); a reading of under 15 μg per 100cm 2 would not prevent them from renting out the premises. In any event, the case law has established that these readings do not amount to contamination. Accordingly, the landlord has not established that the premises were contaminated. Curtains
The landlord claimed compensation for damaged curtains. They provided a quote for replacement. They said that the curtains had got wet and mouldy. Two photos showed the presence of some mould on the back of two curtains.
The curtains have not been replaced because funds have been spent on the methamphetamine issues. The premises are currently rented out with the curtains in place.
The landlords have not established that the curtains are damaged through any careless or intentional act of the tenants or that they require replacement. The landlords have not incurred a loss.
The claims are dismissed.
The landlord agreed to name suppression for the tenants. Because they have been successful, I grant name suppression to them.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5250631 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5250631 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions