What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5254039 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 5254039?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $899.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5254039?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5254039?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12094305-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5254039 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 5254039?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $899.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5254039?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5254039?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12094305-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

[Event location suppressed] Tenancy Tribunal Case 5254039 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5254039 — net $926.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$899.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	ccessful in their application. I will award the landlord the application fee of $27.00 1 and grant name suppression to the landlords 2 .
Net award	$926.00
Bond	$1,100.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$926.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Amy Moana Young to pay [The landlord/s] $926.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,100.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $926.00 Amy Moana Young: $174.00

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 4 April 2022 and ended on 2 March 2025. Ms Young is the sole named tenant.
The landlords carried out a methamphetamine test at the end of the tenancy. The result was positive.
The landlords’ claim seeks compensation for methamphetamine de- contamination, exemplary damages, and rubbish removal costs.
The first hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 13 June.
The landlords provided evidence establishing that methamphetamine contamination occurred during Ms Young’s tenancy.
The hearing was adjourned to allow the landlord to provide further evidence in respect of their claim for rubbish removal costs, and to clarify a comment in the [Property investigator] methamphetamine report.
The second hearing took place by phone on 9 July 2025. [The landlord/s] participated in the hearing. [Property investigator] gave evidence by phone. Ms Young could not be contacted on the phone number provided. Rubbish removal
[The landlord/s] provided a breakdown of their claim for rubbish removal costs as follows: Removal of flexi-bin $204.00 Hire of 9m3 skip bin$455.00 Labour (8 hours at $30/hr) $240.00
The costs claimed are consistent with the landlords’ photographs showing the rubbish left behind at the end of the tenancy.
The claim is proven. Methamphetamine de-contamination (insurance excess) and loss of rent
The landlords hold insurance cover for methamphetamine de-contamination and testing costs.
The ‘trigger level’ for de-contamination in the insurance policy is 1.5 micrograms of methamphetamine per 100cm2.
The end of tenancy methamphetamine tests show that methamphetamine was present on 14 of the 15 samples taken from the property, at levels ranging from
48 micrograms to 10.9 micrograms per 100cm2.
The level of 1.5 micrograms was exceeded on 12 of the 14 positive samples.
The landlords’ insurer arranged for de-contamination of the premises.
As detailed in the previous order, the Tenancy Tribunal applies the principles set out in the Gluckman Report when considering claims for methamphetamine de-contamination. In brief, the Report concluded that: a. Contamination at levels below 15 micrograms per 100cm2 does not pose any threat to human health and does not necessitate de-contamination. b. De-contamination down to the 1.5 level “may be prudent if there is also a sound reason to suspect previous meth lab activities”.
In this instance, there is no evidence of contamination above 15 micrograms.
Therefore, de-contamination was not necessary, and the tenant is not liable for de-contamination and associated costs, unless there is sound reason to suspect meth lab activities at the premises during this tenancy.
Section 9 of the [Property investigator] report, under the heading “Interpretation”, comments: The levels of meth identified in the property are consistent with Significant levels of meth related activity. The presence of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine in a number of the samples along with levels of methamphetamine contamination are reason to suspect attempts at manufacture have been made.
I noted in the previous order that some aspects of these comments required clarification.
[Property investigator] gave evidence at the 9 July hearing. [Property investigator] said that: a. The wording “reason to suspect attempts a manufacture have been made” is an error. The wording that should have been used, and that is used in an earlier part of the report (section 1(k)) is that the presence of pseudoephedrine and ephedrine in some of the samples “increases the likelihood attempts at manufacture have been made”. b. What constitutes ‘significant levels’ of meth activity is ultimately subjective, but the Gluckman report notes that levels around or exceeding 30 micrograms per 100cm2 are strongly suggestive of manufacturing activity. c. The presence of pseudoephedrine or ephedrine at any detectable level indicates the possibility that manufacture has occurred.
I asked [Property investigator] whether the presence of detectable amounts pseudoephedrine and ephedrine could be explained by anything other than manufacture. [Property investigator] said that it can be present if there was an impurity in the methamphetamine.
There is no other evidence of methamphetamine manufacture at the premises in this instance.
My finding is that: a. Applying the Gluckman recommendations, the test is whether there is a “sound reason to suspect previous meth lab activities”. b. In this instance, the level of methamphetamine contamination is not an indicator of meth lab activities. The level is consistent with methamphetamine use. c. There is no other (physical) evidence of methamphetamine manufacture. d. The only arguable evidence of methamphetamine manufacture is the presence of pseudoephedrine and ephedrine. e. The detailed testing results in the [Property investigator] do not disclose the amounts of pseudoephedrine and ephedrine found on the 15 samples. The composite results, per the Certificate of Analysis dated 12 March 2025 show: i. No detectable amounts (levels above 0.04 micrograms) of pseudoephedrine and ephedrine on composite sample A. ii. No detectable amount of pseudoephedrine on composite sample B. iii. The presence of ephedrine on composite sample B at 0.05 micrograms. This is 0.01 micrograms (a hundred millionth of a gram) above the minimum detectable level. f. The presence of ephedrine means that the possibility of manufacture cannot be eliminated, but (as noted above) that is not the test. The test is whether there is sound reason to suspect meth lab activities. g. The evidence available to me does not establish a sound reason to suspect meth lab activities.
Therefore: a. The claim for methamphetamine de-contamination costs must be dismissed. b. The related claim for loss of rent while the premises were being de- contaminated must also be dismissed. Filing fee, bond, name suppression
The landlords have been substantially successful in their application. I will award the landlord the application fee of $27.00 1 and grant name suppression to the landlords 2 . 1 Section 102(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 2 Section 95A(1) RTA
The landlord will receive $926.00 from the remaining bond of $1,100.00. The balance will be released to the tenant.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5254039 — net $926.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$899.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	ccessful in their application. I will award the landlord the application fee of $27.00 1 and grant name suppression to the landlords 2 .
Net award	$926.00
Bond	$1,100.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$926.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Amy Moana Young to pay [The landlord/s] $926.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,100.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $926.00 Amy Moana Young: $174.00

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 4 April 2022 and ended on 2 March 2025. Ms Young is the sole named tenant.
The landlords carried out a methamphetamine test at the end of the tenancy. The result was positive.
The landlords’ claim seeks compensation for methamphetamine de- contamination, exemplary damages, and rubbish removal costs.
The first hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 13 June.
The landlords provided evidence establishing that methamphetamine contamination occurred during Ms Young’s tenancy.
The hearing was adjourned to allow the landlord to provide further evidence in respect of their claim for rubbish removal costs, and to clarify a comment in the [Property investigator] methamphetamine report.
The second hearing took place by phone on 9 July 2025. [The landlord/s] participated in the hearing. [Property investigator] gave evidence by phone. Ms Young could not be contacted on the phone number provided. Rubbish removal
[The landlord/s] provided a breakdown of their claim for rubbish removal costs as follows: Removal of flexi-bin $204.00 Hire of 9m3 skip bin$455.00 Labour (8 hours at $30/hr) $240.00
The costs claimed are consistent with the landlords’ photographs showing the rubbish left behind at the end of the tenancy.
The claim is proven. Methamphetamine de-contamination (insurance excess) and loss of rent
The landlords hold insurance cover for methamphetamine de-contamination and testing costs.
The ‘trigger level’ for de-contamination in the insurance policy is 1.5 micrograms of methamphetamine per 100cm2.
The end of tenancy methamphetamine tests show that methamphetamine was present on 14 of the 15 samples taken from the property, at levels ranging from
48 micrograms to 10.9 micrograms per 100cm2.
The level of 1.5 micrograms was exceeded on 12 of the 14 positive samples.
The landlords’ insurer arranged for de-contamination of the premises.
As detailed in the previous order, the Tenancy Tribunal applies the principles set out in the Gluckman Report when considering claims for methamphetamine de-contamination. In brief, the Report concluded that: a. Contamination at levels below 15 micrograms per 100cm2 does not pose any threat to human health and does not necessitate de-contamination. b. De-contamination down to the 1.5 level “may be prudent if there is also a sound reason to suspect previous meth lab activities”.
In this instance, there is no evidence of contamination above 15 micrograms.
Therefore, de-contamination was not necessary, and the tenant is not liable for de-contamination and associated costs, unless there is sound reason to suspect meth lab activities at the premises during this tenancy.
Section 9 of the [Property investigator] report, under the heading “Interpretation”, comments: The levels of meth identified in the property are consistent with Significant levels of meth related activity. The presence of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine in a number of the samples along with levels of methamphetamine contamination are reason to suspect attempts at manufacture have been made.
I noted in the previous order that some aspects of these comments required clarification.
[Property investigator] gave evidence at the 9 July hearing. [Property investigator] said that: a. The wording “reason to suspect attempts a manufacture have been made” is an error. The wording that should have been used, and that is used in an earlier part of the report (section 1(k)) is that the presence of pseudoephedrine and ephedrine in some of the samples “increases the likelihood attempts at manufacture have been made”. b. What constitutes ‘significant levels’ of meth activity is ultimately subjective, but the Gluckman report notes that levels around or exceeding 30 micrograms per 100cm2 are strongly suggestive of manufacturing activity. c. The presence of pseudoephedrine or ephedrine at any detectable level indicates the possibility that manufacture has occurred.
I asked [Property investigator] whether the presence of detectable amounts pseudoephedrine and ephedrine could be explained by anything other than manufacture. [Property investigator] said that it can be present if there was an impurity in the methamphetamine.
There is no other evidence of methamphetamine manufacture at the premises in this instance.
My finding is that: a. Applying the Gluckman recommendations, the test is whether there is a “sound reason to suspect previous meth lab activities”. b. In this instance, the level of methamphetamine contamination is not an indicator of meth lab activities. The level is consistent with methamphetamine use. c. There is no other (physical) evidence of methamphetamine manufacture. d. The only arguable evidence of methamphetamine manufacture is the presence of pseudoephedrine and ephedrine. e. The detailed testing results in the [Property investigator] do not disclose the amounts of pseudoephedrine and ephedrine found on the 15 samples. The composite results, per the Certificate of Analysis dated 12 March 2025 show: i. No detectable amounts (levels above 0.04 micrograms) of pseudoephedrine and ephedrine on composite sample A. ii. No detectable amount of pseudoephedrine on composite sample B. iii. The presence of ephedrine on composite sample B at 0.05 micrograms. This is 0.01 micrograms (a hundred millionth of a gram) above the minimum detectable level. f. The presence of ephedrine means that the possibility of manufacture cannot be eliminated, but (as noted above) that is not the test. The test is whether there is sound reason to suspect meth lab activities. g. The evidence available to me does not establish a sound reason to suspect meth lab activities.
Therefore: a. The claim for methamphetamine de-contamination costs must be dismissed. b. The related claim for loss of rent while the premises were being de- contaminated must also be dismissed. Filing fee, bond, name suppression
The landlords have been substantially successful in their application. I will award the landlord the application fee of $27.00 1 and grant name suppression to the landlords 2 . 1 Section 102(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 2 Section 95A(1) RTA
The landlord will receive $926.00 from the remaining bond of $1,100.00. The balance will be released to the tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5254039 — Tenancy dispute at [Event location suppressed]

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5254039 — Tenancy dispute at [Event location suppressed]

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions