What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5317699 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 5317699?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5317699?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5317699?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13093060-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5317699 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 5317699?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5317699?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5317699?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13093060-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5317699 — Cleanliness

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s and tenant’s names and identifying details.
The landlord’s claims for the balance of the insurance excess and exemplary damages are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing, with [The landlord’s representative] representing the landlord. There have been two hearings, with the first hearing being adjourned part-heard, for the landlord to provide further evidence regarding the testing undertaken at the premises prior to the start of the tenancy. A further hearing was held, and concluded on the papers. The Tribunal acknowledges the length of time taken to finalise matters in this case and apologises for the delays. Background
This tenancy began on 3 February 2023 and ended on 12 June 2025. The landlord has applied for compensation and exemplary damages arising from methamphetamine contamination.
The landlord has received the bond of $2,480.00 and seeks an additional $999.01 from the tenant, to cover the balance of the insurance excess of $2,500.00, for decontamination work undertaken at the premises. The landlord also claims exemplary damages for alleged unlawful activity. The landlord relies on two reports completed by [Tester], dated 11 November 2022 and 30 June 2025. First hearing
At the first hearing, the landlord explained that testing for methamphetamine (meth) was done before and after the tenancy. Due to the levels of meth found following testing at the end of the tenancy, the landlord had to undertake cleaning and decontamination. All testing was professionally done.
The tenant denies responsibility for the meth contamination. She states that she has not used meth in the house, and no one else in her household has used it. She lived at the premises with her 8 year old granddaughter and 19 year old son. She had other grandchildren staying, and her daughter stayed there occasionally. She could not understand the result at all. She believes that prior to her moving in, methamphetamine was being manufactured at the premises.
The tenant also challenges the accuracy of the initial testing conducted by the landlord prior to the start of her tenancy. She notes that not all areas were tested and believes there were traces of meth from the previous tenancy, which had shown up in the current testing. She therefore denies liability for the decontamination work the landlord undertook.
The tenant further states that she was not aware the bond had been released. She had not signed the bond release form. She had agreed to the claim for water charges, but not the rent. In response, the landlord states the tenant was aware of what was happening. She was informed that if the bond refund form was not signed, a “one party claim” would be submitted. There had been no communication from the tenant in reply, despite multiple emails and calls. Second hearing
At the second hearing, the landlord stated that the testing was completed by [Tester], a recognised company, and not by the owner. The areas that were shown to be positive were decontaminated by a professional company and cleared. The premises was decontaminated before the tenant moved in. The landlord acknowledges that it only has the testing results, and states the tenant was not the only one living at the premises, and other people were there. Every room was tested individually, and multiple areas came back positive for meth.
The tenant re-iterated that she had issues with the baseline testing, and explained her reasons, noting [Tester] said a full assessment was not conducted and only selected areas were tested. She felt she was being blamed for something that was not her fault. She notes extensive painting was done, which may reduce or mask the presence of meth on the surface, so it was difficult to determine the subsurface contamination.
In response, the landlord notes there was no paint odour when the testing was undertaken, and areas that were not re-tested were shown to be low, and the composite 2 samples showed high readings. Final written submissions
The tenant, in her written submissions, notes there was a three month period between the post decontamination assessment and her tenancy starting, and in that time, renovation work occurred. Contamination could have occurred at any point prior to the start of her tenancy. The testing did not fully comply with NZS8510 since a detailed site assessment was not conducted prior to decontamination, and additional samples that would have been required were not collected. Her notice to vacate was due to overcrowding, when her daughter and young children became homeless after not qualifying for emergency housing. She has never taken drugs and would not condone drug use in her house or around her grandchildren.
The landlord states the results provided by the third-party company confirm that in October 2022, the property was below the NZS 8510:2017 decontamination level of 1.5 μg/100 cm². The testing was done prior to the renovations and would not have been affected by the subsequent work. The tradespeople involved in the renovations were reputable contractors who were on site for short periods of time. At the conclusion of the tenancy, significant high levels of methamphetamine were detected across the kitchen, dining room, living room, bedroom 1, bedroom 2, laundry, and toilet, which required full decontamination. The landlord does not accuse the tenant personally of drug use. However, there were individuals not listed on the tenancy agreement living in the house, as well as guests. General legal principles
In this jurisdiction, it is the party making the claim that has the onus of proving their claim to the required civil standard of proof, which is on the balance of probabilities. This means that the party must establish, with evidence, that their claim is “more likely than not.”
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. In general, when awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach.
Exemplary damages are penalties and can only be awarded for an unlawful act, as set out in various sections of the RTA and as listed in Schedule 1A of the Act. They are different from compensation and are designed to punish and deter, more like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the RTA.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court said this: In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is sought. As the Tribunal in Chief Executive, ex parte Edmondson v Walls TT548/92 said: Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: (a) The intention of the person; (b) The effect of the unlawful act; (c) The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d) The public interest Methamphetamine contamination Legal principles regarding liability for methamphetamine contamination
Methamphetamine contamination is regarded as damage. This is because it is a physical alteration (not necessarily permanent or irreparable), which impairs the value or usefulness of the item or property damaged, and which cannot be removed by normal cleaning. 1
In the District Court decision of Full Circle Real Estate v Piper 2 Judge Kellar noted, at para [20], that where the concentration of methamphetamine exceeds any prescribed maximum acceptable level, there is “damage” to the premises in terms of section 40(2)(a) of the RTA because there is a risk to human health.
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises by methamphetamine contamination occurred during the tenancy. 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 3 .
Section 40(2)(b) of the RTA prohibits the tenant from using the premises or permitting the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose.
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) of the 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.
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.
In May 2018 Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, who at the time was the Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor, released a report "Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation 1 Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand S. Benson, 6.16. 2 [2019] NZDC 4947 3 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA of standards”. This report states that contamination at levels above 15μg/100cm 2 presents a health risk and requires remediation.
The Tribunal has generally applied the Gluckman recommendation. This approach was approved by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper, 4 and Acme Realty Limited v Hogg and others. 5
In Full Circle Real Estate v Piper Judge Kellar confirmed that the landlord needed to prove not only that the premises were contaminated by methamphetamine beyond “safe” levels but also that any damage through methamphetamine contamination occurred during the tenancy.
In this case, there are two key issues to be determined: a. Has the landlord established, on the balance of probabilities (i.e. that it is more probable than not), that the tenant used, or allowed the use of, methamphetamine in the premises during this tenancy? b. Was the level of methamphetamine contamination at the premises beyond “safe” levels, therefore causing “damage” to the premises in terms of s.40(2)(a) of the RTA?

Is it likely that methamphetamine was used in the premises during this tenancy?

To answer this question, it is important to consider what the methamphetamine testing shows, and take into account any other relevant evidence. On the issue of methamphetamine contamination, the landlord relies primarily on testing conducted by [Tester]. The reports are dated 11 November 2022 and 30 June 2025. A further report, dated 13 October 2022, has subsequently been produced.
The November 2022 report is a post decontamination assessment, which indicates that the meth levels detected in the individual samples, in bedroom 3 (door inside the cupboard) and hallway door (inside the cupboard) were all below the level of 1.5 μg/100cm. 2
The tenant has pointed out that it was not a detailed site assessment, and that not all areas were tested, since it was conducted in selected areas. As the tenant has noted, the [Tester] email of November 2025 describes the limitations. Therefore, the limited scope of this test does raise issues of whether it can be regarded as a reliable baseline test.
However, the testing needs to be considered in its context. Prior to the November 2022 testing, a meth test conducted on 13 October 2022 by [Tester], involving re- analysis of 5 samples from a composite sample, showed the presence of meth residue at the following locations: bedroom 3 door (29 μg/100cm 2 ), hallway door 4 [2019] NZDC 4947 5 [2021] NZDC 3231 (6.8) , bedroom 2 doorframe (0.46), kitchen shelf (0.05) and garage roller door (0.02). This testing showed a high reading in bedroom 3 door, above the Gluckman standard. The hallway door was below the Gluckman level but above the NZS 8510:2017 standard. The other areas individually tested (bedroom 2, kitchen shelf, garage roller door) returned low levels of meth residue.
A composite test conducted earlier, involving testing of the areas that were not later individually tested, had shown a result of 0.04 μg/100cm. 2 As the report’s authors note, if all residue were in one sample location, the highest reading would be 0.4 μg per 100cm 2 of methamphetamine. So, the fact that not all areas were individually tested, and then re-tested in the November 2022 post-contamination test, can be partly explained by the very low levels detected in the other areas.
The October 2022 [Tester] report also states that it was “highly unlikely the manufacture of methamphetamine has occurred at the property, ” and the levels were much more likely to be the result of consumption. Therefore, the October 2022 report does not support the tenant’s assertion that methamphetamine was being manufactured at the property prior to her moving in.
The tenant has also raised the issue of whether meth contamination occurred during the three month gap between the testing in November 2022 and the start of her tenancy in February 2023. She notes there was renovation work that occurred during this period and therefore, contamination could have occurred in this time. While this raises a possibility, I also note the landlord’s response that the tradespeople involved in the renovations were reputable contractors who were on site for short periods. Therefore, on this issue, in the absence of further persuasive evidence in support, I accept that the November 2022 testing conducted by [Tester] can relied upon as a baseline test.
In the June 2025 report, the results show that the methamphetamine concentration levels from the 15 samples collected ranged from 27 μg/100cm 2 in the toilet, being the highest reading, to 0.02 μg/100cm 2 in the dining room. The report highlights that 7 of the 15 sampled areas were above 1.5 μg/100cm. 2 The areas above this level were as follows: kitchen (door frame: 3.6 and shelf: 2.8), laundry (5.8), bedroom 1 (15.4), toilet (27), bedroom 2 (door: 6.4 and door frame:
1).
The [Tester] report also states that it was highly unlikely that manufacture had occurred, and the levels were more likely to be the result of consumption in the property, combined with impurities in the product consumed. Decontamination of the property was recommended.
On balance, I find the landlord has established, with sufficient evidence, that it is likely there was methamphetamine use at the premises during this tenancy. The key evidence comprises the meth tests completed by [Tester], an independent testing company. [Tester] has confirmed, in email correspondence dated 30 October 2025, that all samples were collected by a [Tester] consultant.
In making this finding, I acknowledge the more limited scope of the testing in November 2022. However, accepting that the scope of the baseline testing had some limitations, [Tester] has confirmed, in the November 2022 report, that post- decontamination, the levels of methamphetamine were below 1.5 μg/100cm, 2 and no further testing or decontamination was required at the property. The November 2022 report sets out the method of sampling, how samples are stored, and the fact that the samples were then sent to Hill Laboratories, an accredited laboratory, for analysis. The Hill Laboratories Certificate of Analysis has also been provided.
The June 2025 testing, completed soon after the tenancy ended, shows methamphetamine was detected in multiple areas throughout the premises. Furthermore, in the areas that were tested in November 2022, there has been an increase in the level of meth detected. For example, the reading for the bedroom 3 door increased from 0.02 (being the limit of detection) to 1.33 μg/100cm 2 .
On the available evidence, it appears likely that methamphetamine was used at the premises by a person who was at the premises with the tenant’s permission. I accept that the tenant may not have been aware of its use, and it is unfortunate that this has occurred during her tenancy. The landlord has been clear that it is not asserting that the tenant was using meth. I accept the tenant’s oral evidence that she has never used meth. However, it seems likely that, during this tenancy, a person who has been in the premises with the tenant’s permission, has used methamphetamine. Under the RTA, tenants are responsible for the actions of those at the premises with their permission.

Has the level of methamphetamine contamination caused damage?

In this case, testing conducted following the end of the tenancy shows that two of the areas had readings above the Gluckman standard of 15 μg/100cm. 2 These areas were the toilet and bedroom 1. Five areas were below the Gluckman standard but above 1.5 μg/100cm 2 (the NZS8510:2017 standard), and the other eight areas were below 1.5 μg/100cm 2 .
As the cases referred to above have shown, where the level of methamphetamine is detected at a level below 15 μg/100cm, 2 unless there is evidence of manufacture, there is no risk to human health and therefore, does not constitute damage. There is no suggestion that methamphetamine was manufactured at the premises. In this case, most of the areas tested were below the Gluckman standard, so it is likely that any damage from meth contamination is limited to the toilet and bedroom 1.

Is the tenant liable for the decontamination work?

The landlord claims $999.01, to cover the balance of the insurance excess of $2,500.00, for costs incurred following meth contamination, including decontamination work undertaken at the premises. It is acknowledged, from the email correspondence the landlord provided from [Decontamination company] (the company that carried out the decontamination work), that the scope of work involved decontamination of all areas identified as being above the NZS8510:2017 standard of 1.5 μg/100cm. 2
However, as only two areas have been identified as having methamphetamine above the Gluckman level of 15ug/100cm, 2 the tenant will not be liable for the decontamination of all rooms, and it is appropriate that she is only liable for a portion of the remediation costs. This is consistent with the approach of the District Court and the Tribunal 6 . The landlord confirms that it has already received, $1,500.99 from the bond to cover the insurance excess. Therefore, I decline to award the landlord any additional costs.

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

In terms of the landlord’s claim for exemplary damages arising from the use of methamphetamine at the premises, section 40(2)(b) of the RTA prohibits the tenant from using the premises or permitting the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose. 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 of the RTA.
In this case, it has been established that methamphetamine contamination occurred during this tenancy, with limited areas reaching levels that can be regarded as resulting in damage when applying the Gluckman standard.
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) of the RTA.
Applying the statutory test, and noting the principles set out in Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust (above) I consider there to be insufficient evidence of intent in this case for the Tribunal to award exemplary damages, since it has not been shown that the tenant deliberately turned her mind to the act and set out to commit it. 6 For example, in Talk Property Limited v Thomas [2021] NZTT 4306118
In making this finding, I acknowledge the effect for the landlord and owner of the premises. However, in the absence of the required intent being established, I decline to award exemplary damages. Filing fee and name suppression
As the landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful, there is no order for reimbursement of the filing fee.
Both parties seek name suppression, and each has had some measure of success. The Tribunal, having had regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s names and identifying details.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing, with [The landlord’s representative] representing the landlord. There have been two hearings, with the first hearing being adjourned part-heard, for the landlord to provide further evidence regarding the testing undertaken at the premises prior to the start of the tenancy. A further hearing was held, and concluded on the papers. The Tribunal acknowledges the length of time taken to finalise matters in this case and apologises for the delays. Background

This tenancy began on 3 February 2023 and ended on 12 June 2025. The landlord has applied for compensation and exemplary damages arising from methamphetamine contamination.

The landlord has received the bond of $2,480.00 and seeks an additional $999.01 from the tenant, to cover the balance of the insurance excess of $2,500.00, for decontamination work undertaken at the premises. The landlord also claims exemplary damages for alleged unlawful activity. The landlord relies on two reports completed by [Tester], dated 11 November 2022 and 30 June 2025. First hearing

At the first hearing, the landlord explained that testing for methamphetamine (meth) was done before and after the tenancy. Due to the levels of meth found following testing at the end of the tenancy, the landlord had to undertake cleaning and decontamination. All testing was professionally done.

The tenant denies responsibility for the meth contamination. She states that she has not used meth in the house, and no one else in her household has used it. She lived at the premises with her 8 year old granddaughter and 19 year old son. She had other grandchildren staying, and her daughter stayed there occasionally. She could not understand the result at all. She believes that prior to her moving in, methamphetamine was being manufactured at the premises.

The tenant also challenges the accuracy of the initial testing conducted by the landlord prior to the start of her tenancy. She notes that not all areas were tested and believes there were traces of meth from the previous tenancy, which had shown up in the current testing. She therefore denies liability for the decontamination work the landlord undertook.

The tenant further states that she was not aware the bond had been released. She had not signed the bond release form. She had agreed to the claim for water charges, but not the rent. In response, the landlord states the tenant was aware of what was happening. She was informed that if the bond refund form was not signed, a “one party claim” would be submitted. There had been no communication from the tenant in reply, despite multiple emails and calls. Second hearing

At the second hearing, the landlord stated that the testing was completed by [Tester], a recognised company, and not by the owner. The areas that were shown to be positive were decontaminated by a professional company and cleared. The premises was decontaminated before the tenant moved in. The landlord acknowledges that it only has the testing results, and states the tenant was not the only one living at the premises, and other people were there. Every room was tested individually, and multiple areas came back positive for meth.

The tenant re-iterated that she had issues with the baseline testing, and explained her reasons, noting [Tester] said a full assessment was not conducted and only selected areas were tested. She felt she was being blamed for something that was not her fault. She notes extensive painting was done, which may reduce or mask the presence of meth on the surface, so it was difficult to determine the subsurface contamination.

In response, the landlord notes there was no paint odour when the testing was undertaken, and areas that were not re-tested were shown to be low, and the composite 2 samples showed high readings. Final written submissions

The tenant, in her written submissions, notes there was a three month period between the post decontamination assessment and her tenancy starting, and in that time, renovation work occurred. Contamination could have occurred at any point prior to the start of her tenancy. The testing did not fully comply with NZS8510 since a detailed site assessment was not conducted prior to decontamination, and additional samples that would have been required were not collected. Her notice to vacate was due to overcrowding, when her daughter and young children became homeless after not qualifying for emergency housing. She has never taken drugs and would not condone drug use in her house or around her grandchildren.

The landlord states the results provided by the third-party company confirm that in October 2022, the property was below the NZS 8510:2017 decontamination level of 1.5 μg/100 cm². The testing was done prior to the renovations and would not have been affected by the subsequent work. The tradespeople involved in the renovations were reputable contractors who were on site for short periods of time. At the conclusion of the tenancy, significant high levels of methamphetamine were detected across the kitchen, dining room, living room, bedroom 1, bedroom 2, laundry, and toilet, which required full decontamination. The landlord does not accuse the tenant personally of drug use. However, there were individuals not listed on the tenancy agreement living in the house, as well as guests. General legal principles

In this jurisdiction, it is the party making the claim that has the onus of proving their claim to the required civil standard of proof, which is on the balance of probabilities. This means that the party must establish, with evidence, that their claim is “more likely than not.”

The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. In general, when awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach.

Exemplary damages are penalties and can only be awarded for an unlawful act, as set out in various sections of the RTA and as listed in Schedule 1A of the Act. They are different from compensation and are designed to punish and deter, more like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.

Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the RTA.

In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court said this: In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is sought. As the Tribunal in Chief Executive, ex parte Edmondson v Walls TT548/92 said: Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: (a) The intention of the person; (b) The effect of the unlawful act; (c) The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d) The public interest Methamphetamine contamination Legal principles regarding liability for methamphetamine contamination

Methamphetamine contamination is regarded as damage. This is because it is a physical alteration (not necessarily permanent or irreparable), which impairs the value or usefulness of the item or property damaged, and which cannot be removed by normal cleaning. 1

In the District Court decision of Full Circle Real Estate v Piper 2 Judge Kellar noted, at para [20], that where the concentration of methamphetamine exceeds any prescribed maximum acceptable level, there is “damage” to the premises in terms of section 40(2)(a) of the RTA because there is a risk to human health.

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises by methamphetamine contamination occurred during the tenancy. 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 3 .

Section 40(2)(b) of the RTA prohibits the tenant from using the premises or permitting the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose.

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) of the 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.

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.

In May 2018 Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, who at the time was the Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor, released a report "Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation 1 Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand S. Benson, 6.16. 2 [2019] NZDC 4947 3 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA of standards”. This report states that contamination at levels above 15μg/100cm 2 presents a health risk and requires remediation.

The Tribunal has generally applied the Gluckman recommendation. This approach was approved by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper, 4 and Acme Realty Limited v Hogg and others. 5

In Full Circle Real Estate v Piper Judge Kellar confirmed that the landlord needed to prove not only that the premises were contaminated by methamphetamine beyond “safe” levels but also that any damage through methamphetamine contamination occurred during the tenancy.

In this case, there are two key issues to be determined: a. Has the landlord established, on the balance of probabilities (i.e. that it is more probable than not), that the tenant used, or allowed the use of, methamphetamine in the premises during this tenancy? b. Was the level of methamphetamine contamination at the premises beyond “safe” levels, therefore causing “damage” to the premises in terms of s.40(2)(a) of the RTA?

Is it likely that methamphetamine was used in the premises during this tenancy?

To answer this question, it is important to consider what the methamphetamine testing shows, and take into account any other relevant evidence. On the issue of methamphetamine contamination, the landlord relies primarily on testing conducted by [Tester]. The reports are dated 11 November 2022 and 30 June 2025. A further report, dated 13 October 2022, has subsequently been produced.

The November 2022 report is a post decontamination assessment, which indicates that the meth levels detected in the individual samples, in bedroom 3 (door inside the cupboard) and hallway door (inside the cupboard) were all below the level of 1.5 μg/100cm. 2

The tenant has pointed out that it was not a detailed site assessment, and that not all areas were tested, since it was conducted in selected areas. As the tenant has noted, the [Tester] email of November 2025 describes the limitations. Therefore, the limited scope of this test does raise issues of whether it can be regarded as a reliable baseline test.

However, the testing needs to be considered in its context. Prior to the November 2022 testing, a meth test conducted on 13 October 2022 by [Tester], involving re- analysis of 5 samples from a composite sample, showed the presence of meth residue at the following locations: bedroom 3 door (29 μg/100cm 2 ), hallway door 4 [2019] NZDC 4947 5 [2021] NZDC 3231 (6.8) , bedroom 2 doorframe (0.46), kitchen shelf (0.05) and garage roller door (0.02). This testing showed a high reading in bedroom 3 door, above the Gluckman standard. The hallway door was below the Gluckman level but above the NZS 8510:2017 standard. The other areas individually tested (bedroom 2, kitchen shelf, garage roller door) returned low levels of meth residue.

A composite test conducted earlier, involving testing of the areas that were not later individually tested, had shown a result of 0.04 μg/100cm. 2 As the report’s authors note, if all residue were in one sample location, the highest reading would be 0.4 μg per 100cm 2 of methamphetamine. So, the fact that not all areas were individually tested, and then re-tested in the November 2022 post-contamination test, can be partly explained by the very low levels detected in the other areas.

The October 2022 [Tester] report also states that it was “highly unlikely the manufacture of methamphetamine has occurred at the property, ” and the levels were much more likely to be the result of consumption. Therefore, the October 2022 report does not support the tenant’s assertion that methamphetamine was being manufactured at the property prior to her moving in.

The tenant has also raised the issue of whether meth contamination occurred during the three month gap between the testing in November 2022 and the start of her tenancy in February 2023. She notes there was renovation work that occurred during this period and therefore, contamination could have occurred in this time. While this raises a possibility, I also note the landlord’s response that the tradespeople involved in the renovations were reputable contractors who were on site for short periods. Therefore, on this issue, in the absence of further persuasive evidence in support, I accept that the November 2022 testing conducted by [Tester] can relied upon as a baseline test.

In the June 2025 report, the results show that the methamphetamine concentration levels from the 15 samples collected ranged from 27 μg/100cm 2 in the toilet, being the highest reading, to 0.02 μg/100cm 2 in the dining room. The report highlights that 7 of the 15 sampled areas were above 1.5 μg/100cm. 2 The areas above this level were as follows: kitchen (door frame: 3.6 and shelf: 2.8), laundry (5.8), bedroom 1 (15.4), toilet (27), bedroom 2 (door: 6.4 and door frame:

1).

The [Tester] report also states that it was highly unlikely that manufacture had occurred, and the levels were more likely to be the result of consumption in the property, combined with impurities in the product consumed. Decontamination of the property was recommended.

On balance, I find the landlord has established, with sufficient evidence, that it is likely there was methamphetamine use at the premises during this tenancy. The key evidence comprises the meth tests completed by [Tester], an independent testing company. [Tester] has confirmed, in email correspondence dated 30 October 2025, that all samples were collected by a [Tester] consultant.

In making this finding, I acknowledge the more limited scope of the testing in November 2022. However, accepting that the scope of the baseline testing had some limitations, [Tester] has confirmed, in the November 2022 report, that post- decontamination, the levels of methamphetamine were below 1.5 μg/100cm, 2 and no further testing or decontamination was required at the property. The November 2022 report sets out the method of sampling, how samples are stored, and the fact that the samples were then sent to Hill Laboratories, an accredited laboratory, for analysis. The Hill Laboratories Certificate of Analysis has also been provided.

The June 2025 testing, completed soon after the tenancy ended, shows methamphetamine was detected in multiple areas throughout the premises. Furthermore, in the areas that were tested in November 2022, there has been an increase in the level of meth detected. For example, the reading for the bedroom 3 door increased from 0.02 (being the limit of detection) to 1.33 μg/100cm 2 .

On the available evidence, it appears likely that methamphetamine was used at the premises by a person who was at the premises with the tenant’s permission. I accept that the tenant may not have been aware of its use, and it is unfortunate that this has occurred during her tenancy. The landlord has been clear that it is not asserting that the tenant was using meth. I accept the tenant’s oral evidence that she has never used meth. However, it seems likely that, during this tenancy, a person who has been in the premises with the tenant’s permission, has used methamphetamine. Under the RTA, tenants are responsible for the actions of those at the premises with their permission.

Has the level of methamphetamine contamination caused damage?

In this case, testing conducted following the end of the tenancy shows that two of the areas had readings above the Gluckman standard of 15 μg/100cm. 2 These areas were the toilet and bedroom 1. Five areas were below the Gluckman standard but above 1.5 μg/100cm 2 (the NZS8510:2017 standard), and the other eight areas were below 1.5 μg/100cm 2 .

As the cases referred to above have shown, where the level of methamphetamine is detected at a level below 15 μg/100cm, 2 unless there is evidence of manufacture, there is no risk to human health and therefore, does not constitute damage. There is no suggestion that methamphetamine was manufactured at the premises. In this case, most of the areas tested were below the Gluckman standard, so it is likely that any damage from meth contamination is limited to the toilet and bedroom 1.

Is the tenant liable for the decontamination work?

The landlord claims $999.01, to cover the balance of the insurance excess of $2,500.00, for costs incurred following meth contamination, including decontamination work undertaken at the premises. It is acknowledged, from the email correspondence the landlord provided from [Decontamination company] (the company that carried out the decontamination work), that the scope of work involved decontamination of all areas identified as being above the NZS8510:2017 standard of 1.5 μg/100cm. 2

However, as only two areas have been identified as having methamphetamine above the Gluckman level of 15ug/100cm, 2 the tenant will not be liable for the decontamination of all rooms, and it is appropriate that she is only liable for a portion of the remediation costs. This is consistent with the approach of the District Court and the Tribunal 6 . The landlord confirms that it has already received, $1,500.99 from the bond to cover the insurance excess. Therefore, I decline to award the landlord any additional costs.

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

In terms of the landlord’s claim for exemplary damages arising from the use of methamphetamine at the premises, section 40(2)(b) of the RTA prohibits the tenant from using the premises or permitting the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose. 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 of the RTA.

In this case, it has been established that methamphetamine contamination occurred during this tenancy, with limited areas reaching levels that can be regarded as resulting in damage when applying the Gluckman standard.

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) of the RTA.

Applying the statutory test, and noting the principles set out in Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust (above) I consider there to be insufficient evidence of intent in this case for the Tribunal to award exemplary damages, since it has not been shown that the tenant deliberately turned her mind to the act and set out to commit it. 6 For example, in Talk Property Limited v Thomas [2021] NZTT 4306118

In making this finding, I acknowledge the effect for the landlord and owner of the premises. However, in the absence of the required intent being established, I decline to award exemplary damages. Filing fee and name suppression

As the landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful, there is no order for reimbursement of the filing fee.

Both parties seek name suppression, and each has had some measure of success. The Tribunal, having had regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s names and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5317699 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5317699 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is it likely that methamphetamine was used in the premises during this tenancy?

Has the level of methamphetamine contamination caused damage?

Is the tenant liable for the decontamination work?

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Is it likely that methamphetamine was used in the premises during this tenancy?

Has the level of methamphetamine contamination caused damage?

Is the tenant liable for the decontamination work?

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions