What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5257860 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay

How much money was awarded in case 5257860?

Cleaning: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing Costs: $3,162.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5257860?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5257860?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12475984-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5257860 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay

How much money was awarded in case 5257860?

Cleaning: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing Costs: $3,162.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5257860?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5257860?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12475984-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

21 Loloma Drive, Half Moon Bay, Auckland 2012 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5257860 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5257860 — net $571.79 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Loss of rent of one week to test premises and meth cleaning of bathroom	$800.00	Loss of rent of one week to test premises and meth cleaning of bathroom
Meth testing costs	$3,162.50	Meth testing costs
Meth decontamination: replacement of bathroom fan	$300.00	Meth decontamination: replacement of bathroom fan
Meth cleaning: cleaning of ensuite bathroom	$400.00	Meth cleaning: cleaning of ensuite bathroom
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$571.79
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$571.79

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.

The tenancy commenced on 28 June 2024 and ended on 14 April 2025.

Under previous application numbers 5168591 and 5171691, the landlord has applied for rent arrears and water rates whereas the tenant counterclaimed for the landlord’s breach of their obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 in respect of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS) on the healthy homes heating, ventilation, draught stopping, moisture ingress and drainage standards.

On 8 May 2025, I largely upheld the tenant’s claims and awarded compensation and exemplary damages in the sum of $15,714.29 which was set off against the rent arrears and water rates owed to the landlord totalling $16,396.58.

From the above set-off of monies payable to the landlord against monies payable to the tenant, I directed a portion of the bond of $682.29 to be refunded to the landlord and the balance of the bond of $4,117.71 to remain at the Bond Centre.

The tenant has now sought the refund of the remaining bond in the claim filed herein under application 5315408. The tenant also seek reimbursement/rebate for a further 12 weeks rent @ $400 per week on grounds of an alleged rebate due to change in the law/legislation on “time frame being extended from 6 months (original time frame in 1st Tribunal) to 12 months.”

I consider that any issues to do with the sufficiency or insufficiency of my earlier award of compensation and exemplary damages in the sum of $15,714.29 in favour of the tenants must be addressed by way of appeal or rehearing of my order of 8 May 2025 under application numbers 5168591 and 5171691.

Having issued the final determination on application numbers 5168591 and 5171691 on 8 May 2025, I am functus officio and without jurisdiction to deal further with the landlord’s breach of their obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 in respect of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS) on the healthy homes heating, ventilation, draught stopping, moisture ingress and drainage standards.

That said, the tenant are also unable to point to what change in the law/legislation on “time frame being extended from 6 months (original time frame in 1st Tribunal) to 12 months,” which might result in reimbursement/rebate for a further 12 weeks’ rent @ $400 per week.

For those reasons, the tenant’s counterclaim filed herein must fail.

The bond of $4,117.71 will disbursed following my consideration of the landlord’s current claims in respect of methamphetamine contamination below. Is the tenant responsible for damage and/or methamphetamine testing costs 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.

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 claims that during the period of this tenancy, the tenant has caused or permitted others living at the premises to have caused the property to be contaminated by methamphetamine use and/or manufacture on the premises which damaged the property.

The landlord incurred methamphetamine testing and cleaning costs and lost rent while the premises is being cleaned and decontaminated.

I accept the landlord’s evidence that baseline testing of methamphetamine prior to the start of the tenancy had been collected on 27 June 2024, a day before the start of the tenancy. The composite samples were collected by API Property Service Ltd on 27 June and received and analysed by Labtec laboratory on 1 and 2 July respectively. No methamphetamine was detected in the premises, as recorded in Labtec laboratory’s analytical report dated 3 July 2024.

At the end of the tenancy, the composite test undertaken on 16 April 2025 recorded 61.6μg (micrograms) of methamphetamine residue.

Discreet methamphetamine testing was done on 2 May 2025 whereby 6.3μg of methamphetamine residue was found in the kitchen, 3.0μg of methamphetamine residue was found in the family room, 3.3μg of methamphetamine residue was found in bedroom 1, 7.9μg of methamphetamine residue was found in bedroom 3, 3.0μg of methamphetamine residue was found in bedroom 4, 27.2μg of methamphetamine residue was found in the ensuite bathroom, 6.6μg of methamphetamine residue was found in bathroom 2, 1.6μg of methamphetamine residue was found in conservatory, 5.3μg of methamphetamine residue was found in the hallway and 3.8μg of methamphetamine residue was found in the laundry.

I find on the balance of probabilities that there had been methamphetamine use (which is unlawful) in the premises during the tenancy.

Accordingly, I am satisfied that the tenant is liable to pay the landlord the cost of the composite and detailed methamphetamine tests undertaken.

I consider the methamphetamine testing costs were reasonably undertaken and incurred by the landlord in the circumstances given my finding that it is more likely than not that methamphetamine use has occurred at the premises during the tenancy.

The landlord’s remaining claims for lost rent and methamphetamine decontamination costs rest on whether the premises required remediation, cleaning and replacement of chattels based on the methamphetamine test results.

In 2010 the New Zealand Ministry of Health produced guidelines for the remediation of clandestine methamphetamine laboratories, and determined that remediation was required if the environmental level of methamphetamine was

5μg/100cm2. While that related to laboratories, it is the case that the 0.5 level became the de facto level at which premises were considered 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”. At that time, this standard set the definitive levels at which properties which had methamphetamine contamination, required remediation. The Standard confirmed that: After seeking expert advice on exposure risk from Environmental Science and Research Ltd (ESR) and the Ministry of Health, and reviewing a large number of public comments on a draft of this standard, the committee has decided to set the maximum acceptable level of methamphetamine in an affected property at

5μg/100cm2 after decontamination. While this level is greater than the Ministry of Health 2010 guideline value of 0.5μg/100cm2 for properties used as clandestine laboratories, there are a number of reasons why the committee decided to adopt the single value of 1.5μg/100cm2 in this standard.

In short, this standard confirmed that the level at which habitation of residential premises was considered safe, was a level of 1.5μg/100cm2. The expectation on landlords arising from this Standard, was to remediate premises contaminated with methamphetamine, to a level of less than 1.5μg/100cm2.

In more recent times, the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman determined that there was little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption (Report entitled ‘Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards’, 29 May 2018). The 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.

In the District Court judgment of Diamond Real Estate Limited v Allan [2017] NZDC 833, Judge Kellar considered a case in which remediation was undertaken in reliance on the 2010 Ministry of Health level of 0.5μg/100cm2. It is the case that following the remediation work the Standard NZS 8510:2017 was released, which as noted above increased the acceptable level to

5μg/100cm2. Judge Kellar records that when the premises were tested, the highest level recorded was in the toilet at 1.4μg/100cm2 that “exceeded the Ministry of Health guidelines at the time.” The Court confirmed that any consideration as to whether the premises had been damaged, must be based on the prevailing guidelines at that time.

At this time, there remains a current New Zealand Standard of 1.5μg/100cm2, and also a current opinion from the Chief Science Advisor that there is no evidence of risk below 15μg/100cm2.

This matter has been considered recently by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947. Judge Kellar needed to determine which level should be applied. The Court discussed the conflict between the New Zealand Standard and Chief Science Advisors report, and confirmed: 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.

In my assessment, this decisions of the District Court 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 15μg/100cm2.

Here, only the ensuite bathroom recorded a figure which is higher than 15μg of methamphetamine residue. The remaining areas discreetly sampled recorded levels of contamination which are above the threshold set by current New Zealand Standard of 1.5μg/100cm2 but below the risk level expressed by the Chief Science Advisor of 15μg/100cm2.

Objectively therefore, only the ensuite bathroom required remediation or decontamination.

There is therefore no basis for the landlord to seek full decontamination and cleaning costs, and damages in the form of lost rent and replacement of chattels against the tenant, totalling over $30,000.

Only the ensuite bathroom have been returned to the landlord in an unacceptable state of cleanliness in terms of methamphetamine presence.

There is no cogent evidence before me to indicate that the other areas in the premises apart from the ensuite bathroom are not ‘safe’ at the time of testing.

There is also no evidence to indicate the other areas in the premises apart from the ensuite bathroom have been ‘damaged’ by methamphetamine nor do any chattels apart from the ensuite bathroom fan warrant replacement at the end of the tenancy.

That being the case, the landlord’s claims for full methamphetamine decontamination costs and 8 weeks’ lost rent while methamphetamine cleaning and painting of the entire premises is being undertaken must fail.

Only the amounts ordered are proved.

I am satisfied that the ensuite bathroom fan had to be replaced due to 27.2μg of methamphetamine residue recorded there. The costs to clean the ensuite bathroom is also proved in the sum of $400.00. I also allow the claim for loss of rent of one week to test the premises and clean the bathroom.

In light of the part success of the landlord’s claims as set out in the table above, the remaining bond and the filing fee to be paid to the landlord accordingly.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5257860 — net $571.79 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Loss of rent of one week to test premises and meth cleaning of bathroom	$800.00	Loss of rent of one week to test premises and meth cleaning of bathroom
Meth testing costs	$3,162.50	Meth testing costs
Meth decontamination: replacement of bathroom fan	$300.00	Meth decontamination: replacement of bathroom fan
Meth cleaning: cleaning of ensuite bathroom	$400.00	Meth cleaning: cleaning of ensuite bathroom
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$571.79
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$571.79