What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5261519 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the name and identifying details of all parties

How much money was awarded in case 5261519?

Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing: $3,241.31 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $834.28 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $334.41 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5261519?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5261519?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13438512-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5261519 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the name and identifying details of all parties

How much money was awarded in case 5261519?

Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing: $3,241.31 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $834.28 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $334.41 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5261519?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5261519?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13438512-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5261519 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5261519 — net $2,797.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$834.28	Rent arrears
Water rates	$334.41	Water rates
Meth testing	$3,241.31	Meth testing
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages	$600.00	Exemplary damages
Net award	$2,797.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,797.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5261519 — net $2,797.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$834.28	Rent arrears
Water rates	$334.41	Water rates
Meth testing	$3,241.31	Meth testing
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages	$600.00	Exemplary damages
Net award	$2,797.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,797.00

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the name and identifying details of all parties and the Landlord’s witnesses.
The Tenants must pay $2,797.00 to the Landlord, as set out in the table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,240 to the Landlord.

Reasons

Background

This tenancy started on 18 September 2020 and ended on 30 April 2025. The Landlord now seeks compensation for unpaid rent, water arrears, methamphetamine contamination testing and decontamination costs and the insurance excess it paid for those repairs. The Landlord also seeks exemplary damages, alleging that the Tenants have intentionally engaged in unlawful conduct by consuming or manufacturing methamphetamine or allowing the premises to be used for such purposes.
The Tenants agree that they owe $834.28 in rent arrears and that they owe some water rates arrears – although they were uncertain as to whether they owed the full amount claimed for water. The Tenants resolutely deny liability for the methamphetamine testing and decontamination costs. They deny using or manufacturing methamphetamine or allowing the premises to be used for those purposes. In support of their defence, the Tenants say: (a)the Landlord’s methamphetamine testing is unreliable and did not comply with the relevant standard – NZLS 8510:2017; (b)a site map showing where the methamphetamine testing occurred was inaccurate; and (c)the Landlord has not proven that the methamphetamine contamination was caused by the Tenants. The issues
I heard evidence across three hearing days and received submissions from the Tenants after the hearings. I have distilled the issues that require determination down to: (a)Do the Tenants owe rent and water rates? (b)Were the premises contaminated with methamphetamine at the start of the tenancy? (c)Were the premises contaminated with methamphetamine at the end of the tenancy? (d)Did that contamination occur during the tenancy? (e)Did the Landlord’s late disclosure of the methamphetamine test results cause injustice? (f)What compensation is the Landlord entitled to? (g)Should I award exemplary damages?

Do the Tenants owe rent and water rates?

The Landlord has produced a rent summary, which shows its trust account records for this tenancy. The rent summary show rent arrears of $834.28. The Tenants challenged the accuracy of the rent summary, on the grounds that the Landlord has in the past produced inaccurate rent records.
I have interrogated the Landlord’s rent summary. It appears accurate. It records the correct start and end dates, all changes in the rent payable and all payments made by the Tenants. I therefore find that the Landlord has proven the rent arrears, and order that the Tenants must pay $834.28.
The Landlord also claims unpaid water rates of $334.41. The Landlord has provided invoices to prove that amount. I order accordingly. Were the premises contaminated with methamphetamine at the start of the tenancy?
The Landlord has presented a methamphetamine testing report from the start of the Tenancy. That report was prepared by All Clear on 17 September 2020 – the day before the tenancy started. That report shows that there was no methamphetamine detected in the premises.
I accept that report and find that the premises were not contaminated with methamphetamine at the start of the tenancy. Were the premises contaminated with methamphetamine at the end of the tenancy?
The Tenancy ended on 30 April 2025. The Tenants say they moved out of the premises on that day, leaving the keys on the bench. [Property manager 1], went to inspect the premises on 1 May 2025.
She says that she read the water meter and performed a partial inspection of the premises on that day and found that the premises were spotless. She did not complete the inspection because she began to feel unwell. She says attributes her illness to a strong smell, akin to stale cigarette smoke, throughout the premises.
Someone then broke into the premises. The Landlord says that on 5 May 2025, [Property Manager 2], went to the premises to perform the final inspection. [Property manager 2] discovered that the premises had been vandalised. She says that the premises were flooded because someone had plugged the kitchen, and bathroom sinks and then left the water running. Vandals had also spraypainted profanities and Nazi symbols on the walls.
I also heard evidence from [Property manager 1] about the damage to the premises. [Property manager 1] says that aside from the water damage and graffiti, there was no evidence of any person having spent any amount of time in the premises. There was no rubbish, and no paraphernalia associated with the consumption or manufacture of methamphetamine.
The Landlord has presented two post tenancy methamphetamine testing reports from All Clear. The initial testing was performed on 6 May 2025, and the results of that testing are in a report dated 12 May 2025.
The results of that testing were:
Further testing – to ensure that all the areas tested in September 2020 were also tested at the end of the tenancy – was conducted on 12 May 2025. The results of that further testing are set out in a report dated 14 May 2025.
The results of that testing were:
That testing demonstrates significant methamphetamine contamination, well above the levels requiring remediation. The Tribunal and District Court 1 have followed the advice set out in a report by Sir Peter Gluckman, 2 who was then the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, and have routinely taken the view that 1 See, for example, Acme Realty Ltd v Alexander James Hogg, Tuitui Grace Polotu, Leigh Sharyn Coughlin [2021] NZDC 3231 2 Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards, 29 May 2018 premises will be contaminated to the point that remediation is required where test results exceed 15 μg per 100 square centimetres.
The All Clear test results show that the methamphetamine readings exceeded that 15 μg per 100 square centimetre threshold in several locations throughout the three levels of the premises. The highest readings of 62 and 64 μg per 100 square centimetres were found in the open plan living room and kitchen. Readings exceeding 15 μg per 100 square centimetres were also present in bedroom 1, an ensuite, a toilet, bedroom 2, the bathroom, bedroom 3 and the hallway.
The Tenants query the methodology used by All Clear, particularly the fact that separate tests were performed on 6 and 12 May 2025. They say that the testing evidence is unreliable due to non-compliance with NZS 8510:2017, including failures in sampling integrity, reporting and clear documentation of material handling.
The Tenants say that the sampling events from 6 May and 12 May are separate events, conducted under different condition yet presented as a single comparable dataset. The Tenants also say that the baseline comparisons between the 2020 and 2025 samples are invalid, due to the substitution of sampling locations.
I heard evidence from [The specialist] of All Clear. [The specialist] has a Bachelor of Science and 10 years’ experience in methamphetamine testing and was involved in the testing of these premises.
[The specialist] explained that the two tests were performed using the methodology set out in the relevant standard. [The specialist] also advised that All Clear performed two tests to ensure that all areas tested in the 2020 pre- tenancy test were also tested at the end of the tenancy.
Ultimately, I do not need to find whether the testing performed complied strictly with NZS 8510:2017. Instead, what I need to determine is whether the testing demonstrates the presence of methamphetamine in the premises. I am satisfied that the testing performed by All Clear does demonstrate significant methamphetamine contamination in the premises at the dates of testing, and that the high levels of methamphetamine contamination required remediation.
For completeness, I note that even if I was satisfied that there were methodology deficiencies in the 6 and 12 May 2025 tests identified by the Tenants, that would not affect the finding that there was significant methamphetamine contamination in the premises. All Clear performed four tests after the tenancy ended, 3 that each demonstrated methamphetamine present in the premises at that time. That methamphetamine was in the premises and must have come from somewhere. There was no methamphetamine present at the start of the tenancy. 3 The 6 and 12 May 2025 tests and the first two post-decontamination tests.

Did that contamination occur during the tenancy?

The Tenants denied using or manufacturing methamphetamine or allowing the premises to be used for the consumption or manufacture of methamphetamine. They submitted that, if there was contamination, that must have occurred after they moved out, in the window between 1 May 2025, when [Property manager 1] first inspected the premises, and 5 May 2025, when [Property manager 2] found the premises had been broken into, flooded, and vandalised. I understood the Tenants to say that the methamphetamine contamination may have occurred at this time, perhaps that whoever broke into the premises manufactured methamphetamine while they were there.
[The specialist] gave evidence about the cause of the methamphetamine contamination and the possible timing of that contamination. She says that the methamphetamine readings in the premises are consistent with heavy usage and/or manufacture and that it is unlikely that the methamphetamine contamination could have occurred between 30 April 2025, when the tenancy ended, and 6 May 2025, when the first test was conducted.
[The specialist] says that it is highly unlikely that contamination could have occurred during that period due to methamphetamine consumption. She considers it unlikely that the amount of methamphetamine required to produce those high readings could have been consumed in that time.
I understood [The specialist] to therefore conclude that the only possible way the premises could have been contaminated in that short period of time was through manufacture. But she then considered it unlikely that methamphetamine was manufactured in the premises over that period.
In support of this view, [The specialist] points to the test results for the samples taken in the open plan living and kitchen area, which is where the highest methamphetamine readings were and therefore the most likely sight of any recent manufacture. [The specialist] considers that, if manufacture had recently occurred, the methamphetamine readings in that space would have been consistently high. They were not. The readings on the kitchen and dining room doors were high, but the readings in other places, including the heat pump and extractor fan, were much lower and well below the levels at which remediation was required.
The Tenants suggested that the low readings in parts of the living area (such as the heat pump and extractor fan exterior) may have been due to those areas being washed clean when the premises were flooded. I find that unlikely. [Property manager 2]’s evidence was that the living areas were not significantly damaged by the flooding. The ceiling in the living area was removed, but it appears that happened to ventilate the damp ceiling space rather than due to the water damage in that space.
The Tenants also queried the reliability of the All Clear test results, given that the premises had been damaged between the tenancy end date and the date of testing. Photographs provided by the Landlord shows that gib had been removed from walls and ceilings and the carpet had been removed before the testing was done. The Tenants say that doors and other materials were also moved between rooms, creating what they considered to be clear cross-contamination pathways.
The Tenants also suggested that the widespread contamination throughout the premises may have been due to the residue being spread by people performing repair work after the premises were damaged and disturbing residue and touching other surfaces. The Tenants say that the damage to the premises, the removal of gib and carpets and the movement of doors has compromised the test results.
The Landlord says that only hard surfaces were tested, so the results remain reliable. [The specialist]’s view was that any movement of residue may lead to a small level of contamination in previously non-contaminated areas, but the readings throughout the house is much higher than can be explained by the movement of residue.
Weighing the evidence presented by both sides, I find that the methamphetamine contamination was most likely caused during the tenancy. In concluding that the contamination is unlikely to have occur after the tenancy, I note that there are high methamphetamine readings throughout the house, including in areas such as the doorway to the ensuite in bedroom 1 that are not directly open to the living area, which is more consistent with use of methamphetamine throughout the house than manufacture. Use to that extent throughout the house can only have occurred during the tenancy.
I also give weight to [The specialist]’s view that the methamphetamine readings were too high to have been caused by recent consumption and that it was unlikely that methamphetamine was manufactured in the premises post tenancy due to the low readings in parts of the living area, where the highest readings were also present.
The Tenants also questioned the reliability of the site maps that showed the locations of the methamphetamine tests provided by All Clear and suggested that the opinion evidence I heard from [The specialist] was potentially undermined by inaccurate site maps. The Tenants have provided a site map, which they say more accurately shows the testing sites, particularly in bedroom 1. The Tenants also say that some of the post-tenancy testing occurred in slightly different areas from the pre-tenancy testing.
Even if the site maps provided were in some ways inaccurate and if some of the testing areas were slightly different, the evidence that I rely upon to determine that the methamphetamine contamination occurred during the tenancy is unaffected. The premises were uncontaminated at the start of the tenancy. The premises were heavily contaminated when the premises were tested following the end of the tenancy. It is unlikely that the contamination occurred in the days between 1 May and 5 May, as the evidence does not show recent manufacture, and it is highly unlikely that such high levels of contamination could be caused by consumption over that short period.
I therefore find that the methamphetamine contamination occurred during the tenancy. Accordingly, I find that the Tenants have breached their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by using or permitting the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. 4 Consumption and/or manufacture of methamphetamine is unlawful.
In reaching this view, I acknowledge the Tenant’s evidence that they have no criminal convictions. The Tenant’s rely on this absence of criminal convictions as evidence that they would not engage in unlawful conduct. Whether or not the Tenants have criminal convictions is not decisive. Instead, I must weigh all the evidence presented, and my conclusion that the Tenants have breached their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act is based upon the assessment of that evidence. Did the Landlord’s late disclosure of the methamphetamine tests cause injustice?
The Tenants say that they were disadvantaged by the Landlord not providing the All Clear methamphetamine test results within a reasonable time. They say that the Landlord’s failure to promptly disclose that information meant that they were unable to perform their own testing.
I agree that the Landlord was slow in providing the methamphetamine testing results to the Tenants. The Tenants only received those test results on the morning of the first hearing on 28 October 2025 – more than five months after the testing had been conducted.
The Tenants say that the delayed disclosure of this evidence led to procedural and financial prejudice. The Tenants say that the delay deprived them of the “ONLY practical opportunity to obtain contemporaneous third-party evidence covering our tenancy”. The say that hair follicle testing has a limited detection window. They say that by the time they received the testing results, it was too late to conduct the standard three-month (3 centimetre) head hair test. More expensive testing could have been performed, but only on the female tenant, who has long hair. The male tenant apparently has short hair, so no head hair follicle testing could be performed. The Tenants say that had the methamphetamine testing reports been provided in May or June 2025, they could have arranged a 4 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(2)(b). much more affordable 90-day head hair test. They say that this was their only opportunity to obtain contemporaneous forensic evidence.
Although I have sympathy for the Tenants’ argument, I note that the Tenants ought to have known from early on that the Landlord had alleged that methamphetamine had been used in the premises and that the Landlord was seeking significant compensation and exemplary damages from then as a result. They may not have known the precise details, but they knew of the allegations.
The application form dated 18 June 2025 clearly says this. Although the testing results were not provided, at that time the Tenants ought reasonably to have known that the Landlord was alleging that they, or someone with their consent, had used methamphetamine in the premises. The Tenants had adequate notice to enable them to perform the hair follicle and other tests.
To mitigate any procedural unfairness, I also adjourned the hearing on 28 October 2025 to enable the Tenants to review their evidence and present any evidence they wanted to provide in response. I also allowed the Tenants further time after the last hearing to provide further information in response to the Landlord’s evidence. I have taken all that further information into account in this decision.
Consequently, although the Landlord’s late disclosure was sub-optimal and has led to significant delays in this matter being resolved, I am not satisfied that the Tenants have been denied an opportunity to adequately prepare their defence.

What compensation is the Landlord entitled to?

Rent arrears and water rates

The Landlord has proven the rent arrears and water rates. The Landlord is therefore entitled to recover the claimed rent arrears and water rates. The insurance excess
The Landlord seeks to recover the $1,000 insurance excess it paid for the post tenancy repairs. I have seen the deed of settlement between the insurance company and the Landlord’s body corporate relating to the repairs to the premises. The deed of settlement states that the insurance claim related to the damage resulting from the break in, not from methamphetamine contamination.
I acknowledge that methamphetamine decontamination and remediation work was also included in this claim. But the deed of settlement shows that the excess was payable only for the break in repairs. The Tenants are not liable for those repairs, so they cannot be liable for the insurance excess. Methamphetamine testing costs
The Landlord has proven that the methamphetamine contamination occurred during the tenancy and that the Tenants have breached their obligation not to use the premises, or permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose. The Tenants are therefore liable for the Landlord’s reasonable methamphetamine contamination and the post decontamination testing costs.
The Landlord seeks to recover the following amounts it paid to All Clear: (a)$1,344.75 – invoice dated 13 May 2025 for contamination testing on 6 and 12 May 2025. (b)$1,896.58 – invoice dated 5 June 2025 for post decontamination testing. (c)$1,091.98 – invoice dated 12 June 2025 for post decontamination testing. (d)$344.82 – invoice dated 18 June 2025 for further post decontamination testing. (e)$344.82 – invoice dated 25 June 2025 for further post decontamination testing.
The Landlord is entitled to recover the first two of these invoices. The 13 May invoice related to the testing that demonstrated the methamphetamine contamination. Testing was then required to determine whether the premises were decontaminated, so the Landlord is entitled to recover the cost of the first decontamination testing. I therefore order that the Tenants must pay $3,241.31 for methamphetamine testing.
But the Landlord is not entitled to recover the cost of any of the other decontamination testing. As set out in the table below, the first decontamination test demonstrated that the methamphetamine contamination in the premises was well below 15 μg per 100 square centimetres in all tested areas. Further testing was not therefore necessary or required to demonstrate that the premises were decontaminated below the level requiring remediation.

Should I award exemplary damages?

A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. 5 Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. 6
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. 7
Given my finding that it is most likely that the methamphetamine contamination occurred during the tenancy, and given the high readings throughout the premises, I find that the Tenants have allowed the premises to be used for either the consumption or manufacture of methamphetamine.
The Landlord argues that the premises have been used for manufacture. The evidence does not prove that the methamphetamine was due to manufacture. It may have been, but I cannot exclude the possibility that the methamphetamine readings were due to consumption. Either way – whether there has been consumption or manufacture – the Tenants have committed an unlawful act and done so intentionally. Given the level of the methamphetamine readings, I cannot reasonably conclude that the contamination was accidental or careless. Methamphetamine was intentionally consumed or manufactured at the premises.
The methamphetamine contamination has had a severe impact on the Landlord. Significant remediation was required. It is also in the public interest that residential tenancies should not be used for methamphetamine consumption or manufacture.
On balance, I consider that exemplary damages of $600 are appropriate. That is one third of the maximum and adequately balances the need for punishment against the Tenants’ circumstances. Filing fee and name suppression
The Landlord has been largely successful in its claim. It is entitled to recover the filing fee and to have its name, the names of all property managers involved, and all identifying details suppressed.
The Tenants also seek name suppression. The female tenant has been the victim of significant and horrific domestic violence in the past, for which her ex-partner imprisoned. She lives in constant fear that her abusive ex-partner will find her. She is concerned that publication of her name will provide that ex-partner with clues to assist in tracking her down. 5 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(2)(b) 6 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 109(3).
There are competing public interests here. There is an obvious public interest in the naming of parties who have used premises for an unlawful purpose. Prospective landlords are entitled to know such things. On the other hand, there is a public interest in protecting victims of domestic violence from the risk of future harm, including by ensuring that the Tribunal does not act in a way that unnecessarily increases the apprehension of the risk of future violence.
Weighing those competing interests, I am satisfied that granting name suppression to the Tenants is appropriate. But on one condition. The Landlord may provide details of this decision to any landlord or accommodation provider who seeks a reference for the Tenant, including by identifying the Tenant.
In doing so, the Landlord must advise that landlord or accommodation provider that the Tenant’s name and identifying details are otherwise suppressed and must not be published or shared. The Landlord is not to disclose the name of the Tenants in any other circumstance.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5261519 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5261519 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Do the Tenants owe rent and water rates?

Did that contamination occur during the tenancy?

What compensation is the Landlord entitled to?

Should I award exemplary damages?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Do the Tenants owe rent and water rates?

Did that contamination occur during the tenancy?

What compensation is the Landlord entitled to?

Should I award exemplary damages?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions