What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5258520 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 5258520?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5258520?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5258520?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12000357-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5258520 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 5258520?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5258520?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5258520?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12000357-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5258520 — Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Reh Property Management Limited As Agent For Massey University Students Association $1,137.00 from the bond.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,500.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Reh Property Management Limited As Agent For Massey University Students Association: $1,137.00 [The tenant/s]: 1 $1,363.00 1 The tenants agreed that the bond could be paid to Ms A.

Reasons

The agent for the landlord attended the hearing. Four of the five tenants attended. Ms B did not.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 27 February 2025. The landlord provided rent records showing the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $560. In fact, the rent records did not properly reflect the payments made by the tenants. The rent summary shows payments of $700 per week rent in full each week until the last week. In fact, the bank summary shows that rent was paid in by the flatmates, not always at the same time in one lump sum. However, Ms Asum, who had been responsible for organising payments and communicating with the property manager agreed that the rent was short by $560 or $570.
Therefore the amount claimed of $560 is proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord seeks $550 being the insurance excess for decontamination of methamphetamine at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord produced evidence of methamphetamine contamination at the end of the tenancy.
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 confirmed: 2 ‘Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards’, 29 May 2018. 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 Eren Limited v Martin and Kukuruzsnak [2021] NZDC 15210, the Court accepted that the tenants had contaminated the premises with Methamphetamine with the maximum level found to be 9.9 μg/100 cm2. The Court noted that the level applied by insurers and the testing industry was 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 . The Court noted that the approach that has been taken by the Tenancy Tribunal was to apply the level as set in the Gluckman report, also noting the above mentioned Full Circle decision, with the Judge concluding: In this case there is no other evidence to counter the conclusions of the Gluckman Report. Thus it cannot be said that the Tribunal was wrong in the approach it adopted in dismissing the claim for compensation for these matters.
A third District Court decision of relevance is 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 cm2. The Court concluded that: ...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, 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
In the present case, the landlord provided a report from TDDA (The Drug Detection Agency) showing that on 4 March 2025, methamphetamine residue was present throughout the house. Testing of one of the bedrooms recorded 20 μg/100 cm.
I am satisfied that this room required decontamination.
With any claim before the Tribunal, the onus for establishing the claim sits with the applicant, in this case, the landlord. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities.
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.
The landlord has established that there was methamphetamine contamination at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord does not have any evidence of testing of the premises at the start of the tenancy.
In the District Court decision of Anthony James Brooking v Colin Imrie [2021] NZDC 16976, Judge Cameron considered a case where the Tenancy Tribunal accepted there was contamination caused by the tenants, in circumstances where there was no pre-tenancy testing performed. The Tribunal had accepted evidence from a witness, who worked in a childcare centre across the road from the Tenancy, who described the windows covered with a film, security cameras having been installed, and strong chemical odours arising from the premises. The witness also described gang members and other ”undesirable” people attending the premises regularly, with cars regularly driving in an out of the premises, as well as regular visits from the police.
The Court did not accept the evidence presented was sufficient to prove that methamphetamine had been used or manufactured on the premises, and concluded that: The difficulty with the landlords claim is that there was no methamphetamine test conducted at the beginning of the tenancy, and no actual proof of what occurred during the tenancy.
The District Court allowed the appeal, overturning the Tribunal’s decision. The Court considered that there was no evidence to support that the tenants in that case caused the contamination because there was no pre-tenancy testing undertaken.
That decision was similar to an earlier case from the District Court of Eren Limited v Louise Martin [2021] NZDC 15210, where the Tribunal had declined the claim for the contamination costs, on various grounds, including that the landlord had not established that the tenant contaminated the premises in the first instance.
The landlord reported finding evidence of drug use in rubbish left by the tenants, and also that the neighbours had reported the tenants using drugs at the premises. The District Court confirmed that was circumstantial evidence that could be considered by the Tribunal. However, the Court found that the circumstantial evidence was not sufficient to get over the problem of no pre- tenancy methamphetamine testing: However, the significant problem for this claim is that there is no evidence of any methamphetamine testing carried out at the start of this tenancy. If they had been such testing and it revealed no methamphetamine then clearly the methamphetamine residue that was found at the end of this tenancy could only have occurred during the tenancy and could only have occurred by either the tenants using methamphetamine or permitting others to use methamphetamine inside the house. The lack of methamphetamine testing at the start of the tenancy significantly weakened the circumstantial case against the tenants to the point where it is not possible to conclude on the balance of probabilities that it was the tenants who were responsible for the methamphetamine residue located at the premises at the end of the tenancy.
The tenants present at the hearing advised that one of their flatmates (who was not present at the hearing) was using methamphetamine, and that person’s associates were also in the flat. The tenants felt uncomfortable and intimidated by them.
The tenants have acknowledged that methamphetamine was used during the tenancy, and so it is possible that the level of over 20 μg/100 cm is as a result of the intentional or careless actions of one of the tenants and/or people at the premises with their consent. It is also possible that the readings were high before the start of the tenancy, and the contamination was not caused during the tenancy.
However, although there were no readings of the methamphetamine levels at the start of the tenancy, I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that the use during the tenancy caused the contamination. This case differs from the two referred to above, because in this case, the Tribunal has actual evidence of consumption, rather than circumstantial evidence.
The landlord seeks only the insurance excess of $550. That amount is ordered.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The students asked for the remaining bond to be paid to one named tenant who would distribute it in accordance with their wishes.
Because Reh Property Management Limited As Agent For Massey University Students Association has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
The landlord agreed that there should be name suppression for the tenants.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5258520 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5258520 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions