Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 5273105 — Cleanliness at 60A Deanwell Avenue, Deanwell, Hamilton 3206

Decided 1 Sept 2025 · Published 1 Sept 2025 · Application 5273105

Cleanliness
Property damage

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Location

Hamilton

Tribunal region

Adjudicator

J Robson

Dispute themes

Award balance

Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.

Gross award: $8,418.53
Bond payment as ordered: −$276.00
Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord: $8,142.53

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5273105 — net $8,142.53 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Replace furnishings	$1,875.37	Replace furnishings
Meth testing/Cleaning	$6,305.91	Meth testing/Cleaning
Repairs: toilet blockage	$210.25	Repairs: toilet blockage

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Linkpeople Limited $8,142.53 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $276.00 (3341726-015) to Linkpeople Limited immediately.

Reasons

A representative of Linkpeople attended the heraing which was conducted by phone. The tenant could not be contacted at the time of the hearing but I satisfied the Notice of Hearing was served at her email address for service.
The landlord has applied for refund of the bond, compensation for the cost methamphetamine testing and remediation and replacement furnishings as result of the contamination.
The landlord must prove that the tenant caused or permitted the contamination, or that it was caused by someone at the premises with the tenant’s consent. The landlord must also prove that, as a result of the contamination, the premises have been damaged or are not reasonably clean.
Section 138C Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides for regulations to be made prescribing the maximum acceptable level for contaminants, but as yet no regulations have been made in relation to methamphetamine.
There are currently two sources of guidance on the issue of a safe level of methamphetamine contamination in residential premises. In June 2017 Standards New Zealand published NZS 8510:2017. The standard recommended a maximum contamination level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 for high use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture. It recommended a higher level of 3.8μg/100cm 2 for limited use areas.
In May 2018 Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the then Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor, released a report "Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards”. The report noted that there is a lack of scientific evidence to prove that low-level third-hand methamphetamine exposure poses a health risk to humans. It stated that guidelines should be proportionate to risk and that exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm 2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect. It recommended retaining the level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 where contamination resulted from manufacture, due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the process.
The District Court has held that remediation should be carried out in accordance with the prevailing guidelines at the time (Diamond Real Estate Limited v Allan [2017] NZDC 833, Judge Kellar).
The Tribunal has generally applied the Gluckman recommendation. This approach was approved by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947, where the Court stated (at para [36]): 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.
More recently, 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.
Prior to the tenancy commencing methamphetamine testing was carried out and there was no sign of contamination.
At the end of the tenancy further testing was carried out and showed the following results: •Kitchen 2.57 •Lounge25.4 •Hallway15.6 •Bathroom 3.91 •Bedroom 1 24.2 •Bedroom 2 12.2 •Bedroom 3 15.2
I am satisfied the landlord has established that the tenant caused or permitted the contamination, or that it was caused by someone at the premises with the tenant’s consent.
As the majority of the rooms exceeded the level adopted by the District Court I am satisfied that as a result of the contamination, the premises have been damaged or are not reasonably clean and therefore the claim for decontamination is granted.
As a result of the decontamination the landlord also seeks reimbursement for the costs of replacement carpet, curtains and nets and blinds.
The landlord states that the chattels were not new at the start of the tenancy in October 2022, with the tenancy ending on 27 March 2025, however they were in good condition. It is estimated they were 5 years old.
In calculating the compensation to be awarded I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. The expected age of carpet is 15 years, curtains 8 years and blinds 3 years.
The landlord is also claiming the compensation for the plumbing costs of unblocking the toilet which had been blocked by the tenant. This claim is awarded.
Because Linkpeople Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Topics & place

Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).

Cleanliness Property damage Hamilton

Residential Tenancies Act sections

s138C, s15, s3, s8, s8510

Key findings

Dispute theme: cleaning
Dispute theme: property damage

Property management

LINKPEOPLE LIMITED (applicant)

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5273105 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Linkpeople Limited $8,142.53 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5273105?

Cleaning: $6,305.91 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Toilet Blockage: $210.25 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: $1,875.37 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5273105?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5273105?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12346042-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

For landlords & property managers

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Tenantcheck reports take minutes: a small step before a dispute ends up at tribunal.

Order a Tenantcheck →

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5273105 — net $8,142.53 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.

Claim

Landlord

Tenant

Reason

Filing fee reimbursement

$27.00

Filing fee reimbursement

Replace furnishings

$1,875.37

Replace furnishings

Meth testing/Cleaning

$6,305.91

Meth testing/Cleaning

Repairs: toilet blockage

$210.25

Repairs: toilet blockage

Reasons

A representative of Linkpeople attended the heraing which was conducted by phone. The tenant could not be contacted at the time of the hearing but I satisfied the Notice of Hearing was served at her email address for service.

The landlord has applied for refund of the bond, compensation for the cost methamphetamine testing and remediation and replacement furnishings as result of the contamination.

The landlord must prove that the tenant caused or permitted the contamination, or that it was caused by someone at the premises with the tenant’s consent. The landlord must also prove that, as a result of the contamination, the premises have been damaged or are not reasonably clean.

Section 138C Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides for regulations to be made prescribing the maximum acceptable level for contaminants, but as yet no regulations have been made in relation to methamphetamine.

There are currently two sources of guidance on the issue of a safe level of methamphetamine contamination in residential premises. In June 2017 Standards New Zealand published NZS 8510:2017. The standard recommended a maximum contamination level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 for high use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture. It recommended a higher level of 3.8μg/100cm 2 for limited use areas.

In May 2018 Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the then Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor, released a report "Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards”. The report noted that there is a lack of scientific evidence to prove that low-level third-hand methamphetamine exposure poses a health risk to humans. It stated that guidelines should be proportionate to risk and that exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm 2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect. It recommended retaining the level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 where contamination resulted from manufacture, due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the process.

The District Court has held that remediation should be carried out in accordance with the prevailing guidelines at the time (Diamond Real Estate Limited v Allan [2017] NZDC 833, Judge Kellar).

The Tribunal has generally applied the Gluckman recommendation. This approach was approved by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947, where the Court stated (at para [36]): 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.

More recently, 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.

Prior to the tenancy commencing methamphetamine testing was carried out and there was no sign of contamination.

At the end of the tenancy further testing was carried out and showed the following results: •Kitchen 2.57 •Lounge25.4 •Hallway15.6 •Bathroom 3.91 •Bedroom 1 24.2 •Bedroom 2 12.2 •Bedroom 3 15.2

I am satisfied the landlord has established that the tenant caused or permitted the contamination, or that it was caused by someone at the premises with the tenant’s consent.

As the majority of the rooms exceeded the level adopted by the District Court I am satisfied that as a result of the contamination, the premises have been damaged or are not reasonably clean and therefore the claim for decontamination is granted.

As a result of the decontamination the landlord also seeks reimbursement for the costs of replacement carpet, curtains and nets and blinds.

The landlord states that the chattels were not new at the start of the tenancy in October 2022, with the tenancy ending on 27 March 2025, however they were in good condition. It is estimated they were 5 years old.

In calculating the compensation to be awarded I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. The expected age of carpet is 15 years, curtains 8 years and blinds 3 years.

The landlord is also claiming the compensation for the plumbing costs of unblocking the toilet which had been blocked by the tenant. This claim is awarded.

Because Linkpeople Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.