What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5252360 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5252360?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5252360?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5252360?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12582201-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5252360 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5252360?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5252360?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5252360?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12582201-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

8 Crofts Lane, Parklands, Christchurch 8083 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5252360 — State of repair

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The applicant claimed: a. Immediate release from the tenancy agreement; b. Full rent refund over the term of the tenancy ($57,850.00); c. Full refund of the bond ($2,600.00); d. Compensation for replaced furnishings and other belongings (80% of total contents – total sum insured $61,624.00 - claim reduced before the hearing to $16,050.00); e. Exemplary damages for alleged breach of the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS); f. Costs relating to clothing and supplies ($2,500.00) and relocation and emergency accommodation ($1,300.00); g. General damages for distress, emotional harm and health impacts on their family.
The tenancy had ended by agreement and the bond had been refunded in full prior to the hearing and there is no decision required in relation to either of those matters.
The tenant had also been compensated by the landlord for all costs relating to methamphetamine testing and there was no claim in relation to that expense.
The tenant withdrew a claim for exemplary damages for an alleged breach of the Healthy Homes Standards at the hearing.
The remaining claims arise from the tenant’s assertion that the tenancy premises were uninhabitable due to methamphetamine contamination and that the landlord was in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) in relation to that contamination. Background
The tenancy began on 17 August 2023 and seemed to progress smoothly until April 2025 when it came to the tenants’ attention (through an unrelated avenue) that the tenancy property may have been contaminated with methamphetamine.
The tenant obtained a home testing kit which gave a positive result for methamphetamine.
The tenant left the property on 17 April, after the home testing kit result as they said they felt it was unsafe for them and their family to remain.
The tenant then arranged a methamphetamine batch test through a reputable methamphetamine testing company. This report was completed on 24 April 2025 and showed that it was likely that at least one individual sample was over the New Zealand Standard level of 1.5μg/100cm².
On 27 April 2025, the tenant sent the landlord an email headed, “Notice of vacating and demand for compensation – Methamphetamine contamination at 8 Crofts Land, Christchurch”.
In this letter the tenants claimed that the landlord had breached his obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and sought compensation including full refund of all rent paid; compensation for costs associated with obtaining alternative accommodation; medical expenses; personal items disposed of and emotional distress. The letter asked for a response within seven days and if no response was received the landlord was notified that an application would be made to this Tribunal.
The landlord was not provided with the assessment report at this time.
A screening assessment was then competed by the same company on 29 April 2025 testing 10 individual sites throughout the property. This showed results over the NZ Standard of 1.5μg/100cm² in five of the ten sample areas. The highest recording was inside the kitchen range hood and this level was 24μg/100cm².
The tenant did not provide a copy of this report to the landlord either. A clear explanation for this was not provided with the parties disagreeing as to why the tenant’s reports were not made immediately available to the landlord.
In any case, the landlord was obliged to pay for further testing of his own, which he did. This testing showed much lower levels of methamphetamine, but some samples were not taken from the more usual “high risk” sites. Many samples were taken on gib walls which had been repainted at the beginning of the tenancy.
The tenants then provided the landlord with their report and explanations as to the different in results were obtained from both testing companies and provided to the Tribunal.
All parties acknowledged that the tenant’s results are accurate, and the landlord based his subsequent response to the presence of methamphetamine in the tenancy premises on that report after discussion with his own tester.
The tenants moved their possessions out of the property on 14 May 2025 and had paid rent to 7 May 2025 according to the landlord’s records (provided). The landlord made no claim for the unpaid rent.
The landlord provided evidence that the property had not been cleaned prior to the tenant’s leaving and was left in a state well below that usually required at the end of the tenancy. The photographs supplied support this assertion. Nevertheless, in the circumstances, the landlord signed a bond refund form returning the full bond to the tenants and made no claim for cleaning costs.
The landlord had the property fully decontaminated for methamphetamine on 22 May 2025 at a cost of over $4,500.00.

Was the property uninhabitable?

Sections 59, 59A and 59B of the Act cover situations where a tenancy premise is “so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable” (emphasis added).
S59B applies where the level of contamination in a tenancy premises exceeds the relevant regulations. There are currently no regulations in force therefore this section is not applicable.
S59 and 59A relate to premises becoming uninhabitable either through the breach of one party or through no breach. Either way, rent abates and a tenant (who is not in breach) can give 2 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy.
In 2010, the New Zealand Ministry of Health produced guidelines for the remediation of methamphetamine laboratories which determined that remediation was required if the environmental level of methamphetamine was over 0.5μg/100cm². This became the level at which premises were deemed to require decontamination.
In 2017 the level was increased when Standards New Zealand released Standard NZS 8510:2017 “Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine- contaminated properties”. This Standard confirmed that the level at which habitation of residential premises was considered safe was 1.5μg/100cm². At that time, this Standard set the definitive levels at which properties required decontamination.
In 2018, the then Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, reported that there was little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption. 1 This report concluded that any levels below 15μg/100cm² were unlikely to present adverse effects.
Taken together these factors indicate that methamphetamine levels that exceed the NZS 8510:2017 clean-up standard of 1.5μg/100cm² should not be regarded as signalling a health risk. Indeed, exposure to methamphetamine levels below 15μg/100cm² would be unlikely to give rise to any adverse effects. This level still incorporates a 30-fold safety buffer on a conservative estimate of risk.
The matter was considered by the District Court, in relation to a Tenancy Tribunal order, in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 where Judge Keller stated that; “the Gluckman Report represents the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination in dwellings.”
This decision of the District Court has confirmed that the level to be applied by this Tribunal is that expressed by Professor Gluckman which is that there is no risk when levels of contamination are below 15μg/100cm².
The High Court discussed the matter in some detail earlier this year in Nisbet v Te Ähuru Möwai Partnership where, at paragraph 45, the Court refers to proposals from the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development in relation to the “maximum inhabitable level” for methamphetamine where the suggestion is that this level should be set at 30μg/100cm². The Ministry had obtained advice from the Institute of Environmental Science and Research which said that the level 1 Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards, 29 May 2018 was unable to be defined as “no evidence is available of severe health effects associated with third-hand methamphetamine exposure”. 2
In the present case, the highest level recorded was 24μg/100cm². This level was recorded in a sample taken by removing the filters covering the internal workings of the extractor fan above the kitchen hob and taking a sample inside the fan. This is the only reading above the risk level in the Gluckman Report.
Later in the High Court decision referred to above, the Court says; In assessing whether or not premises are uninhabitable, in the absence of regulations concerning the levels of contamination which are deemed to make the premises uninhabitable, the proper approach is to undertake a fact specific inquiry under either ss 59 or 59A in accordance with the District Court authorities. Whether or not a premises is uninhabitable will depend on the nature of the damage, the safety risks presented by it, the nature of the property itself and its occupants. Also relevant to the assessment is the extent to which the relevant damage interferes with the functionality and use of the property. In addition, it may also be appropriate to take into account the kind of occupant of the property. For instance, elderly, disabled or child tenants may be more affected by contamination than others might be. 3 (footnotes omitted)
The inside of the range hood cannot be seen as a high use area (being neither easily accessed or regularly used 4 ). It is unlikely that the tenants ever accessed this area themselves.
The level in this particular place is very unlikely to pose any risk to the tenant’s children as they would never be near such a difficult space to access (right above the kitchen hob and behind the rangehood filters).
The presence of a contaminant in this place does not interfere in any way with the functionality or use of the premises.
Objectively, the premises were not uninhabitable.
The landlord could have been given the opportunity to decontaminate (by cleaning or other decontamination method) this one area, or to replace the rangehood and safely dispose of the existing one.
Sections of the Act relevant to decontamination under the regulations (if they were to exist) clearly anticipate situations where decontamination can take effect while tenants remain in the premises (see section 45 (1AAB)(b) of the Act.
The tenants vacated the premises before any professional testing had commenced. 2 Nisbet v Te Ähuru Möwai Ltd Partnership [2025] NZHC 2467 3 At [46] 4 NZS 8510:2017 Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine-contaminated properties.
Their decision to remain away from the property and to seek an end to the tenancy may be understandable but it was objectively unnecessary.
The landlord responded by agreeing to release the tenants from the tenancy and refunding the bond in full, despite the property not being left reasonably clean and tidy and despite his records showing that rent was not completely up to date.
The landlord also decontaminated the premises at a significant cost.
Although the landlord chose to decontaminate the premises entirely, objectively, the premise did not require full decontamination as it was not contaminated throughout.
The tenant claim for rent abatement due to the property being uninhabitable is dismissed.

Did the landlord breach obligations under the Act?

The tenant also referred to other sections of the Act where they thought relief may be available.
Under section 45, a landlord must (amongst other obligations) provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness; and provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00 under section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
Both parties gave evidence about the beginning of the tenancy where the tenants completed work themselves to the tenancy property with the approval of the landlord. At this time the property was redecorated including repainting and some new carpeting. The tenant also cleaned the property for the landlord as agreed.
There is no disagreement that the property was not clean prior to this; that is why this arrangement was made.
The tenant suggested that the landlord should have known that the property was likely contaminated with methamphetamine and, therefore, “not clean”.
The tenant said there were signs of possible methamphetamine use (security cameras and taped windows) prior to the tenancy beginning. The tenant acknowledged that they themselves were unaware that these signs suggested methamphetamine use prior to this being brought to their attention in an unrelated setting.
The landlord said he was unaware that contaminants may have been present at the tenancy premises.
The tenant also said they had found other material suggesting drug use during the tenancy, but no evidence was provided to the Tribunal to confirm this or to suggest that this information had been shared with the landlord.
The tenant provided a message chain with a previous tenant of the property. The tenant contacted this prior occupant to obtain additional information and to reduce the possibility that they themselves might have been accused of introducing contaminants to the property.
This previous tenant accepted that he and other occupants had used illegal drugs at the property but when pressed by the tenant as to the level of knowledge of the landlord, he wrote, “Nar he’s completely unaware”.
There is no evidence that the landlord knowingly rented contaminated premises or was, or should have been, aware that the premises might be “unclean” in any way.
As soon as the issue was brought to the landlord’s attention he responded in an entirely appropriate and timely way. There was no unreasonable delay in remediating the issue once he was aware of it and any such delay would have had no impact on these tenants, in any case, as they had already vacated the property.
The tenant confirmed they stayed with friends on leaving the premises and no evidence was provided to support any claim for compensation for costs relating to relocating or emergency accommodation.
No evidence was provided to support the claim for costs associated with health issues for any family members.
An article was provided which detailed 25 cases studies conducted in Australia into effects of methamphetamine exposure on later occupants of a property with at least some level of methamphetamine detection. 5
The tenant gave evidence that their child had been accepted as a participant in a future case study, but no specific evidence was available in relation to the tenants or any family members’ health concerns, or any costs associated with the same.
The tenants disposed of many of their possessions as a result of these matters but no evidence before the Tribunal supports their contention that this was necessary for health and safety or any reason why the landlord should be liable for replacement costs. No contents were tested for methamphetamine residue.
Whilst it is clear that the tenant has suffered stress as a consequence of these events, that is not due to any breach on the part of the landlord. Additionally, I 5 Environmental Methamphetamine Exposures and Health Effects in 25 Case Studies, Wright, Kenneally and Walker 20 August 2020 MDPI have found that the property was not uninhabitable so some of the actions taken by the tenant were, objectively, unnecessary.
I cannot find that there is any breach of the Act by the landlord in relation to the matters before the Tribunal so no exemplary or other damages can or should be awarded.
All tenant claims for compensation, exemplary and general damages are dismissed.
As the applicant has not been successful, no suppression of identifying details can be ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5252360 — State of repair at 8 Crofts Lane, Parklands, Christchurch 8083

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5252360 — State of repair at 8 Crofts Lane, Parklands, Christchurch 8083

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was the property uninhabitable?

Did the landlord breach obligations under the Act?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was the property uninhabitable?

Did the landlord breach obligations under the Act?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions