What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5317128 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5317128?

Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $984.20 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Curtains: $239.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5317128?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5317128?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13063877-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5317128 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5317128?

Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $984.20 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Curtains: $239.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5317128?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5317128?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13063877-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

68 Kelso Street, Tokoroa, Tokoroa 3420 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5317128 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5317128 — net $2,251.20 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Loss of rent during repairs and reinstatement (following decontamination	$984.20	Loss of rent during repairs and reinstatement (following decontamination
Meth testing/Cleaning: Insurance excess	$750.00	Meth testing/Cleaning: Insurance excess
Replace furnishings: Curtains	$239.00	Replace furnishings: Curtains
Exemplary damages (unlawful use	$250.00	Exemplary damages (unlawful use
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,251.20
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,251.20

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s] $2,251.20 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

This hearing was the continuation of an earlier hearing held on 6 October 2025. At that hearing the Tribunal made orders as follows:
The landlord’s claim for compensation for methamphetamine contamination was adjourned for hearing today by video conference. The landlord seeks: a. The cost of testing and remediation (insurance excess) - $750.00 b. Loss of rent not covered by insurance - $1,514.20 c. Replacing curtains - $239.00 d. Exemplary damages (unlawful use) - $1,000.00
[The landlord/s] appeared on behalf of himself and Sara Grieg. There was no appearance by [The tenant/s]. I am satisfied that she has been sent a notice of hearing advising of the hearing today (with instructions for joining the hearing) and so that hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence. I note that the tenant had not filed an evidence in advance of the hearing today.

Is the landlord entitled to compensation for methamphetamine contamination?

The landlord has applied for compensation for the cost methamphetamine testing and remediation.
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 during the tenancy 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.
The landlord said that they had methamphetamine testing done at the start of the tenancy which was clear (copy of confirmation produced in evidence) but testing at the end of the tenancy revealed that methamphetamine had been used at the property during the tenancy.
The landlord explained that the first composite testing indicated possible levels above the Gluckman standards (15 micrograms μg/100cm2). The landlord then had discrete testing done which returned results as follows: Area sampledPos/Neg for methamphetamineLevel μg /100cm2 Kitchen/DiningPositive9.51 Lounge (sample 1)Positive9.59 Lounge (sample 2)Positive5.91 Bedroom One (sample 1)Positive3.40 Bedroom One (sample 2)Positive3.40 Bedroom TwoPositive16.30 Bedroom Three Positive 7.01 Bedroom FourPositive1.87 BathroomPositive6.09 HallwayPositive4.06 Garage (sample 1)Negative (under 1.5) Garage (sample 2)Negative (under 1.5) Garage (sample 3)Negative (under 1.5) Ceiling cavityNegative (under 1.5)
The landlord provided documentation from their insurer confirming that the total to remediate the property (including loss of rent to 13 November 2025) was $31,296.44. Deep cleaning, repairs and reinstatement and further tests took place over multiple weeks. The landlord seeks the insurance excess of $750.00.
The landlord explained that bedroom 2 was very difficult to remediate and required multiple attempts and tests at a total cost of $3,608.69.
The landlord said that the insurer would not cover the cost of replacement curtains and so seeks to recover that amount ($239.00)
The landlord said that the insurer would only pay for loss of rent until the post- decontamination testing in bedroom 2 was complete, but the work was not complete as the bedroom then had to be painted and restored. The landlord seeks therefore seeks loss of rent from that date until the date that the property was completed and ready to re-advertise (3 December 2025). New tenants moved in on 11 December 2025. Insurance excess
It is not uncommon for methamphetamine test results to show that the levels in some areas are above the Gluckman standard and some are below. In some instances it will be appropriate to order compensation for some areas and not others.
In this case however I consider that the landlord is entitled to recover the entire excess amount. While only bedroom 2 was contaminated at a level higher than the Gluckman standard, the cost of remediating this room alone was well over the insurance excess. The same excess would have been applied even if the contamination had only been in this room. Curtains
The landlord is also entitled to the cost of replacement curtains. These appear to have been excluded from the insurance cover but have had to be replaced due to the contamination. I consider that such loss was foreseeable and it is reasonable for the tenant to compensate the landlord for this amount. Loss of rent
The landlord said that the tenancy ended on 30 August 2025 but they could not re-tenant the property until the property had been both decontaminated and reinstated. They confirmed in written evidence that they had a tenant ready to move in but had to turn them away. The landlord’s insurance covered loss of rent until 13 November 2025, which was the date that testing revealed the decontamination to be successful. However bedroom 2 still had to be reinstated and painted and so the property was not finally repaired and ready to be advertised until 3 December 2025.
The landlord seeks the additional loss of rent for that period (20 days), which totals $1,514.20.
I consider that the landlord should be compensated for loss of rent in the amount of $984.20 on the basis that a landlord would usually allow for a week before advertising after a tenancy of this duration to do general repairs and maintenance, so I have deducted one week from the amount sought. Exemplary damages
[The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s] say that the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by using the premises for the consumption of methamphetamine.
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Methamphetamine is class A controlled drug and consumption is unlawful under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord has proved that the contamination occurred during the tenancy. The tenant has either used the premises for an unlawful purpose or has permitted another person to do so. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The use of methamphetamine is an intentional act. I have very little information about the tenant’s intent. It may have been that another person at the property used methamphetamine. However there is a public interest in ensuring that tenants do not use rental properties for an unlawful purpose.
In the circumstances I consider that it is appropriate to make an award of exemplary damages for a fairly nominal amount, which I set at $250.00 (less than 1/6 th of the maximum amount). Filing fee and name suppression
As the landlord is the substantially successful party overall (including previous orders) I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord did not seek an order for name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5317128 — net $2,251.20 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Loss of rent during repairs and reinstatement (following decontamination	$984.20	Loss of rent during repairs and reinstatement (following decontamination
Meth testing/Cleaning: Insurance excess	$750.00	Meth testing/Cleaning: Insurance excess
Replace furnishings: Curtains	$239.00	Replace furnishings: Curtains
Exemplary damages (unlawful use	$250.00	Exemplary damages (unlawful use
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,251.20
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,251.20

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s] $2,251.20 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

This hearing was the continuation of an earlier hearing held on 6 October 2025. At that hearing the Tribunal made orders as follows:
The landlord’s claim for compensation for methamphetamine contamination was adjourned for hearing today by video conference. The landlord seeks: a. The cost of testing and remediation (insurance excess) - $750.00 b. Loss of rent not covered by insurance - $1,514.20 c. Replacing curtains - $239.00 d. Exemplary damages (unlawful use) - $1,000.00
[The landlord/s] appeared on behalf of himself and Sara Grieg. There was no appearance by [The tenant/s]. I am satisfied that she has been sent a notice of hearing advising of the hearing today (with instructions for joining the hearing) and so that hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence. I note that the tenant had not filed an evidence in advance of the hearing today.

Is the landlord entitled to compensation for methamphetamine contamination?

The landlord has applied for compensation for the cost methamphetamine testing and remediation.
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 during the tenancy 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.
The landlord said that they had methamphetamine testing done at the start of the tenancy which was clear (copy of confirmation produced in evidence) but testing at the end of the tenancy revealed that methamphetamine had been used at the property during the tenancy.
The landlord explained that the first composite testing indicated possible levels above the Gluckman standards (15 micrograms μg/100cm2). The landlord then had discrete testing done which returned results as follows: Area sampledPos/Neg for methamphetamineLevel μg /100cm2 Kitchen/DiningPositive9.51 Lounge (sample 1)Positive9.59 Lounge (sample 2)Positive5.91 Bedroom One (sample 1)Positive3.40 Bedroom One (sample 2)Positive3.40 Bedroom TwoPositive16.30 Bedroom Three Positive 7.01 Bedroom FourPositive1.87 BathroomPositive6.09 HallwayPositive4.06 Garage (sample 1)Negative (under 1.5) Garage (sample 2)Negative (under 1.5) Garage (sample 3)Negative (under 1.5) Ceiling cavityNegative (under 1.5)
The landlord provided documentation from their insurer confirming that the total to remediate the property (including loss of rent to 13 November 2025) was $31,296.44. Deep cleaning, repairs and reinstatement and further tests took place over multiple weeks. The landlord seeks the insurance excess of $750.00.
The landlord explained that bedroom 2 was very difficult to remediate and required multiple attempts and tests at a total cost of $3,608.69.
The landlord said that the insurer would not cover the cost of replacement curtains and so seeks to recover that amount ($239.00)
The landlord said that the insurer would only pay for loss of rent until the post- decontamination testing in bedroom 2 was complete, but the work was not complete as the bedroom then had to be painted and restored. The landlord seeks therefore seeks loss of rent from that date until the date that the property was completed and ready to re-advertise (3 December 2025). New tenants moved in on 11 December 2025. Insurance excess
It is not uncommon for methamphetamine test results to show that the levels in some areas are above the Gluckman standard and some are below. In some instances it will be appropriate to order compensation for some areas and not others.
In this case however I consider that the landlord is entitled to recover the entire excess amount. While only bedroom 2 was contaminated at a level higher than the Gluckman standard, the cost of remediating this room alone was well over the insurance excess. The same excess would have been applied even if the contamination had only been in this room. Curtains
The landlord is also entitled to the cost of replacement curtains. These appear to have been excluded from the insurance cover but have had to be replaced due to the contamination. I consider that such loss was foreseeable and it is reasonable for the tenant to compensate the landlord for this amount. Loss of rent
The landlord said that the tenancy ended on 30 August 2025 but they could not re-tenant the property until the property had been both decontaminated and reinstated. They confirmed in written evidence that they had a tenant ready to move in but had to turn them away. The landlord’s insurance covered loss of rent until 13 November 2025, which was the date that testing revealed the decontamination to be successful. However bedroom 2 still had to be reinstated and painted and so the property was not finally repaired and ready to be advertised until 3 December 2025.
The landlord seeks the additional loss of rent for that period (20 days), which totals $1,514.20.
I consider that the landlord should be compensated for loss of rent in the amount of $984.20 on the basis that a landlord would usually allow for a week before advertising after a tenancy of this duration to do general repairs and maintenance, so I have deducted one week from the amount sought. Exemplary damages
[The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s] say that the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by using the premises for the consumption of methamphetamine.
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Methamphetamine is class A controlled drug and consumption is unlawful under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord has proved that the contamination occurred during the tenancy. The tenant has either used the premises for an unlawful purpose or has permitted another person to do so. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The use of methamphetamine is an intentional act. I have very little information about the tenant’s intent. It may have been that another person at the property used methamphetamine. However there is a public interest in ensuring that tenants do not use rental properties for an unlawful purpose.
In the circumstances I consider that it is appropriate to make an award of exemplary damages for a fairly nominal amount, which I set at $250.00 (less than 1/6 th of the maximum amount). Filing fee and name suppression
As the landlord is the substantially successful party overall (including previous orders) I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord did not seek an order for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5317128 — Property damage at 68 Kelso Street, Tokoroa, Tokoroa 3420

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5317128 — Property damage at 68 Kelso Street, Tokoroa, Tokoroa 3420

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the landlord entitled to compensation for methamphetamine contamination?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the landlord entitled to compensation for methamphetamine contamination?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions