What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5318114 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 5318114?

Property Damage: $900.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $195.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $4,960.19 awarded to landlord; General Building: $708.40 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,495.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $40.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5318114?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5318114?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12782429-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5318114 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 5318114?

Property Damage: $900.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $195.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $4,960.19 awarded to landlord; General Building: $708.40 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,495.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $40.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5318114?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5318114?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12782429-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5318114 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5318114 — net $8,326.59 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: general building	$708.40	Repairs: general building
Lock/key replacement: garage remotes	$195.00	Lock/key replacement: garage remotes
Replace smoke alarms	$40.00	Replace smoke alarms
Repairs: plaster and paint wall damage	$1,495.00	Repairs: plaster and paint wall damage
Compensation for methamphetamine damage	$4,960.19	Compensation for methamphetamine damage
Exemplary damages using premises for an unlawful purpose	$900.00	Exemplary damages using premises for an unlawful purpose
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$8,326.59
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,326.59

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord names and identifying details.
Amanda Leanne Clara Bond must pay [The landlord/s] $8,326.59 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlords’ representative attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend. I continued the hearing in her absence as she has been emailed notice of the hearing to her address for service.
The landlord has applied for compensation for damage and other costs, and for exemplary damages, following the end of the tenancy. Summary
The tenancy started on 20 October 2023 and ended on 5 May 2025.
The premises tested negative for methamphetamine residue on 5 October 2023.
The premises tested positive for methamphetamine on 17 January 2025. In- depth testing on 9 May 2025 confirmed high levels of methamphetamine residue.
A decontamination clearance certificate was issued by the decontamination contractor on 25 June 2025 certifying that final samples taken from the property record levels of methamphetamine below 1.5 micrograms (per 100cm 3 sample area). The application
The original claim was for $4,035.00 and exemplary damages (a maximum of $1,800.00 applies). The landlord emailed additional invoices ($616.00+GST, and $195.00) and evidence to the Tribunal and the tenant on 3 November 2025.
I accepted additional new evidence from the landlord during the hearing. This proves the amount covered by insurance for methamphetamine damage is $27,500.00 and that additional costs of $4,960.19 have been incurred by the landlord. Total proven costs are $32,460.19 (decontamination work, new carpet, curtains and blinds, heatpumps, and for interior painting).
The tenant was not provided with this new evidence before the hearing. If she disagrees or disputes the new evidence of costs incurred, she may apply for a rehearing on the amount awarded for methamphetamine damage and a second hearing will be scheduled so that she can attend and give her views on that issue. A rehearing must be applied for within 5 working days of the date of this decision and using the form at the link on the back page of this order. Missing smoke alarm and garage remotes
A tenant has end of tenancy obligations to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord has proved that one smoke alarm was missing, and the garage remotes were not returned. I award compensation for the costs to replace these, as invoiced. General repairs
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The landlord claims compensation for costs for general repairs. Photographs from before and after the tenancy prove each claim, as below:- a. One small hole (about 5cm diameter) in the exterior plaster cladding of the house; b. The sliding door in the lounge was off its runners (rail) and the top runners were bent; c. A cut through the laundry bench (as if from a circular saw); d. A missing strip of veneer from the front of kitchen cabinet (beside stove); e. A black spray paint mark on laundry wall (about 4cm long, 2cm wide); f. A scorch mark on the lounge wall near the remote control (about 4cm long, 2cm wide); g. Adhesive mirrors were left on a wall and ceiling in bedroom one and had to be removed; h. Four areas of wall damage from fixtures in bedroom one; i. Damage to the paint surface along top skirtings from adhesive LED light strips in bedrooms two and three; j. Chips off paint and a small hole in the door to bedroom three; k. One large hole in the wall in bedroom three; l. A missing door handle; m. Dismantled shelving units in bedroom wardrobe.
The tenant has not disproved liability so is responsible for the costs to repair or make good the damage.
An invoice proves costs of $708.40 ($616.00+gst) for general building repairs and reinstatement. A second invoice of $1,495.00 proves costs to plaster, repair, undercoat and match paint on damaged walls, ceiling, and doors. The invoices are reasonable and are awarded.

Was methamphetamine used at the premises during this tenancy?

The landlord claims compensation for costs incurred to remediate damage to the premises caused by methamphetamine residue.
The first question is whether it is proven that methamphetamine was used at the premises during this tenancy.
My finding is that the methamphetamine tests done at the start (negative result) and in January 2025 (positive result) prove that methamphetamine was used in the premises during this tenancy (see the ‘Summary’ paragraphs above).

What were the methamphetamine results?

Twenty-eight individual samples were taken from rooms throughout the premises on 8 May 2025. The “Detailed Assessment Report Pre- Decontamination” issued on 12 May 2025 (“the testing report”) was provided in evidence, and, in the absence of any objection or challenge to this, I accept its reliability. 1
The testing report says that “The sampling strategy is designed to meet the minimum requirements of NZS8510.” Samples are taken using methanol-soaked cotton gauze wipes supplied by an independent and IANZ accredited laboratory which then undertakes the analysis and reporting of the results.
NZS8510 refers to the New Zealand Standard NZS 8510:2017 Testing and Decontamination of Methamphetamine Contaminated Properties, which provides industry guidance on good practice methods in the testing and clean- up of methamphetamine contamination in houses.
The laboratory results were provided in evidence; ‘Certificate of Analysis’, Lab reference: 25- 13603, ALS Food & Environmental NZ, 12 May 2025.
The laboratory results are:- a. Ten samples from a variety of locations throughout the house contained methamphetamine residue of 15 micrograms (mcg) or more per sample 1 I note that the testing report does not give the qualifications or experience of the technician who did the sampling and I did not hear oral evidence from that person or the report writer or reviewer. area of 100cm 2 . 2 Five of these samples contained residue of more than 30mcg/100cm 2 . b. Seventeen samples contained methamphetamine residue of more than
5mcg/100cm 2 . c. One sample contained methamphetamine residue of less than
5mcg/100cm 2 .

Were the premises damaged by methamphetamine residue during this tenancy?

There is some uncertainty in New Zealand as to what level of third-hand methamphetamine residue in residential tenancy premises constitutes damage for the purposes of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The RTA provides for regulations to be made to set “maximum acceptable levels” and “maximum inhabitable levels” for methamphetamine and other contaminants. 3
Cabinet has now agreed 4 on the levels to be set in regulations. These are:- a. A “maximum acceptable level” of methamphetamine residue of 15 micrograms per 100cm 2 sample area. Individually sampled and professionally tested samples with residue results above this, will result in the premises being deemed “contaminated” 5 and must be cleaned to reduce residue to 15mcg or less; b. A “maximum inhabitable level” of 30 micrograms per 100cm 2 sample area. Individually sampled and professionally tested samples with residue results above this will result in the whole of the premises being considered “uninhabitable”, unless the only part contaminated is a remote and inconsequential part of the premises. 6
The regulations have not yet been made. In their absence, the Tenancy Tribunal has in recent years referred mostly to two non-legislative sources of guidance which are quite different in their recommendations.
NZS8510 recommends that methamphetamine residue levels be no more than
5mcg/100cm 2 whereas a report by Professor Sir Peter Gluckman 7 (the Gluckman Report) concludes that exposure to methamphetamine residue below 2 Two samples from kitchen dining 31.5mcg and 21.4mcg; Three samples from lounge 55.7mcg, 28.5mcg,
2mcg; ensuite 18.5mcg; master bedroom 33.8mcg and walk-in wardrobe 27.8mcg; bedroom 4 41.8mcg; Office/study 17.2mcg. 3 Section 138C Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 4 SOU-25-MIN-0120 Minute REDACTED. 5 See definition in s2 RTA. 6 Section 59B Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 7 Peter Gluckman, “Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards”, May 2018. 15mcg/100cm 2 is unlikely to cause adverse health effects where there is no evidence of manufacture.
The Gluckman report does however recommend a remediation level of
5mcg/100cm 2 be retained where methamphetamine residue is detected at levels greater than 30mcg/100cm 2 or where there is other evidence of manufacturing activity. This is “a precautionary measure to remove other toxicants that may be present but not measured.”; at page 27.
The test results in this case prove that methamphetamine residue of more than 30mcg/100cm 2 was detected in the kitchen/dining, lounge, master bedroom and bedroom four of the premises.
The test results are also positive for amphetamine, ephedrine, and pseudoephedrine.
I take account of the Cabinet decision, the Gluckman Report and NZS8510:2017 to decide that the whole of the tenancy premises was damaged by methamphetamine residue because residue levels in multiple areas of the premises were above 15mcg per sample. Methamphetamine damage and costs
The landlord claims compensation for costs to decontaminate the premises to below 1.5mcg/100cm 2 .
The Gluckman report says, at page 27:- Remediation is certainly warranted if high levels of methamphetamine are present that are indicative of manufacturing activity or excessive smoking. Levels >30 μg/100 cm2 are considered by forensic experts to signify that manufacture is likely to have taken place [10]. Testing for lower levels that still suggest relatively high levels of smoking (e.g. >15 μg/100 cm2) could be used to identify specific areas of contamination that warrant remediation. Remediation includes removal of all potentially contaminated porous materials or items (furnishings, carpets) and cleaning of the contaminated surfaces, using the NZS 8510:2017 standard as a guide.
I adopt the Gluckman Report recommendation that remediation to reduce methamphetamine residue levels to below 1.5mcg/100cm 2 is reasonable and justified in this case because residue levels were above 30mcg per sample in the main living areas and two bedrooms.
The landlord has proved the following costs were incurred related to the methamphetamine damage:- a. Decontamination and cleaning costs of $11,431.00. b. Replacement curtains and blinds $4,186.10 c. Replacement carpet $6,061.39 d. Interior painting of walls and doors $7,500.00 e. Replacement heatpumps $3,281.70
The invoiced costs total $32,460.19.
The decontamination invoice ($11,431.00) was paid by the landlord’s insurer.
The landlord paid the rest of the invoices which total $21,029.19 and has received a cash settlement of $16,069.00 from the insurer.
This means the total cost to the landlord after allowing for the insurance is $4,960.19. 8
Where damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
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) RTA.
Damage from methamphetamine use or manufacture is both intentional and an activity that is an imprisonable offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
This means the tenant is liable to compensate the landlord for the landlord’s loss and this is not limited to the amount of the insurance excess.
I award compensation to the landlord for remediation of methamphetamine damage of $4,960.19. Using the premises for an unlawful purpose
[The landlord/s] claims exemplary damages as the tenant has used the premises for an unlawful purpose.
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.
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 possession or use of methamphetamine is an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 and is therefore a breach of s40(2)(b) RTA. 8 Invoices paid by the landlord of $21,029.19 minus insurance settlement $16,069.00 = $4,960.19.
The evidence establishes that the tenant used or permitted the use of methamphetamine in the premises. 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 or allowing the use of methamphetamine is intentional. The intent behind unlawful drug use is complex. Allowing this to take place within rental premises disregards the possible impact of residue on the property. The landlord says the time, expense and stress caused by the contamination has been considerable necessitating an insurance claim, decontamination, and re- testing. The contamination was noted on the Land Information Memorandum and although now remediated, carries ongoing stigma. The landlords have the property on the market for sale and are concerned the sale price may be affected. A landlord’s interests are that premises are not used for an unlawful purpose and there is a public interest in deterring this. I award $900.00 in exemplary damages which is 50% of the maximum amount. Filing fee and suppression of name
The landlord has succeeded with the application so I must award the filing fee.
The landlord seeks suppression of name from the published order, and this is granted. A party that is wholly or substantially successful in proceedings is entitled to suppression of name on application unless publication is in the public interest or justified because of the party’s conduct or other circumstances of the case; s95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5318114 — net $8,326.59 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: general building	$708.40	Repairs: general building
Lock/key replacement: garage remotes	$195.00	Lock/key replacement: garage remotes
Replace smoke alarms	$40.00	Replace smoke alarms
Repairs: plaster and paint wall damage	$1,495.00	Repairs: plaster and paint wall damage
Compensation for methamphetamine damage	$4,960.19	Compensation for methamphetamine damage
Exemplary damages using premises for an unlawful purpose	$900.00	Exemplary damages using premises for an unlawful purpose
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$8,326.59
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,326.59

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord names and identifying details.
Amanda Leanne Clara Bond must pay [The landlord/s] $8,326.59 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlords’ representative attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend. I continued the hearing in her absence as she has been emailed notice of the hearing to her address for service.
The landlord has applied for compensation for damage and other costs, and for exemplary damages, following the end of the tenancy. Summary
The tenancy started on 20 October 2023 and ended on 5 May 2025.
The premises tested negative for methamphetamine residue on 5 October 2023.
The premises tested positive for methamphetamine on 17 January 2025. In- depth testing on 9 May 2025 confirmed high levels of methamphetamine residue.
A decontamination clearance certificate was issued by the decontamination contractor on 25 June 2025 certifying that final samples taken from the property record levels of methamphetamine below 1.5 micrograms (per 100cm 3 sample area). The application
The original claim was for $4,035.00 and exemplary damages (a maximum of $1,800.00 applies). The landlord emailed additional invoices ($616.00+GST, and $195.00) and evidence to the Tribunal and the tenant on 3 November 2025.
I accepted additional new evidence from the landlord during the hearing. This proves the amount covered by insurance for methamphetamine damage is $27,500.00 and that additional costs of $4,960.19 have been incurred by the landlord. Total proven costs are $32,460.19 (decontamination work, new carpet, curtains and blinds, heatpumps, and for interior painting).
The tenant was not provided with this new evidence before the hearing. If she disagrees or disputes the new evidence of costs incurred, she may apply for a rehearing on the amount awarded for methamphetamine damage and a second hearing will be scheduled so that she can attend and give her views on that issue. A rehearing must be applied for within 5 working days of the date of this decision and using the form at the link on the back page of this order. Missing smoke alarm and garage remotes
A tenant has end of tenancy obligations to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord has proved that one smoke alarm was missing, and the garage remotes were not returned. I award compensation for the costs to replace these, as invoiced. General repairs
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The landlord claims compensation for costs for general repairs. Photographs from before and after the tenancy prove each claim, as below:- a. One small hole (about 5cm diameter) in the exterior plaster cladding of the house; b. The sliding door in the lounge was off its runners (rail) and the top runners were bent; c. A cut through the laundry bench (as if from a circular saw); d. A missing strip of veneer from the front of kitchen cabinet (beside stove); e. A black spray paint mark on laundry wall (about 4cm long, 2cm wide); f. A scorch mark on the lounge wall near the remote control (about 4cm long, 2cm wide); g. Adhesive mirrors were left on a wall and ceiling in bedroom one and had to be removed; h. Four areas of wall damage from fixtures in bedroom one; i. Damage to the paint surface along top skirtings from adhesive LED light strips in bedrooms two and three; j. Chips off paint and a small hole in the door to bedroom three; k. One large hole in the wall in bedroom three; l. A missing door handle; m. Dismantled shelving units in bedroom wardrobe.
The tenant has not disproved liability so is responsible for the costs to repair or make good the damage.
An invoice proves costs of $708.40 ($616.00+gst) for general building repairs and reinstatement. A second invoice of $1,495.00 proves costs to plaster, repair, undercoat and match paint on damaged walls, ceiling, and doors. The invoices are reasonable and are awarded.

Was methamphetamine used at the premises during this tenancy?

The landlord claims compensation for costs incurred to remediate damage to the premises caused by methamphetamine residue.
The first question is whether it is proven that methamphetamine was used at the premises during this tenancy.
My finding is that the methamphetamine tests done at the start (negative result) and in January 2025 (positive result) prove that methamphetamine was used in the premises during this tenancy (see the ‘Summary’ paragraphs above).

What were the methamphetamine results?

Twenty-eight individual samples were taken from rooms throughout the premises on 8 May 2025. The “Detailed Assessment Report Pre- Decontamination” issued on 12 May 2025 (“the testing report”) was provided in evidence, and, in the absence of any objection or challenge to this, I accept its reliability. 1
The testing report says that “The sampling strategy is designed to meet the minimum requirements of NZS8510.” Samples are taken using methanol-soaked cotton gauze wipes supplied by an independent and IANZ accredited laboratory which then undertakes the analysis and reporting of the results.
NZS8510 refers to the New Zealand Standard NZS 8510:2017 Testing and Decontamination of Methamphetamine Contaminated Properties, which provides industry guidance on good practice methods in the testing and clean- up of methamphetamine contamination in houses.
The laboratory results were provided in evidence; ‘Certificate of Analysis’, Lab reference: 25- 13603, ALS Food & Environmental NZ, 12 May 2025.
The laboratory results are:- a. Ten samples from a variety of locations throughout the house contained methamphetamine residue of 15 micrograms (mcg) or more per sample 1 I note that the testing report does not give the qualifications or experience of the technician who did the sampling and I did not hear oral evidence from that person or the report writer or reviewer. area of 100cm 2 . 2 Five of these samples contained residue of more than 30mcg/100cm 2 . b. Seventeen samples contained methamphetamine residue of more than
5mcg/100cm 2 . c. One sample contained methamphetamine residue of less than
5mcg/100cm 2 .

Were the premises damaged by methamphetamine residue during this tenancy?

There is some uncertainty in New Zealand as to what level of third-hand methamphetamine residue in residential tenancy premises constitutes damage for the purposes of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The RTA provides for regulations to be made to set “maximum acceptable levels” and “maximum inhabitable levels” for methamphetamine and other contaminants. 3
Cabinet has now agreed 4 on the levels to be set in regulations. These are:- a. A “maximum acceptable level” of methamphetamine residue of 15 micrograms per 100cm 2 sample area. Individually sampled and professionally tested samples with residue results above this, will result in the premises being deemed “contaminated” 5 and must be cleaned to reduce residue to 15mcg or less; b. A “maximum inhabitable level” of 30 micrograms per 100cm 2 sample area. Individually sampled and professionally tested samples with residue results above this will result in the whole of the premises being considered “uninhabitable”, unless the only part contaminated is a remote and inconsequential part of the premises. 6
The regulations have not yet been made. In their absence, the Tenancy Tribunal has in recent years referred mostly to two non-legislative sources of guidance which are quite different in their recommendations.
NZS8510 recommends that methamphetamine residue levels be no more than
5mcg/100cm 2 whereas a report by Professor Sir Peter Gluckman 7 (the Gluckman Report) concludes that exposure to methamphetamine residue below 2 Two samples from kitchen dining 31.5mcg and 21.4mcg; Three samples from lounge 55.7mcg, 28.5mcg,
2mcg; ensuite 18.5mcg; master bedroom 33.8mcg and walk-in wardrobe 27.8mcg; bedroom 4 41.8mcg; Office/study 17.2mcg. 3 Section 138C Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 4 SOU-25-MIN-0120 Minute REDACTED. 5 See definition in s2 RTA. 6 Section 59B Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 7 Peter Gluckman, “Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards”, May 2018. 15mcg/100cm 2 is unlikely to cause adverse health effects where there is no evidence of manufacture.
The Gluckman report does however recommend a remediation level of
5mcg/100cm 2 be retained where methamphetamine residue is detected at levels greater than 30mcg/100cm 2 or where there is other evidence of manufacturing activity. This is “a precautionary measure to remove other toxicants that may be present but not measured.”; at page 27.
The test results in this case prove that methamphetamine residue of more than 30mcg/100cm 2 was detected in the kitchen/dining, lounge, master bedroom and bedroom four of the premises.
The test results are also positive for amphetamine, ephedrine, and pseudoephedrine.
I take account of the Cabinet decision, the Gluckman Report and NZS8510:2017 to decide that the whole of the tenancy premises was damaged by methamphetamine residue because residue levels in multiple areas of the premises were above 15mcg per sample. Methamphetamine damage and costs
The landlord claims compensation for costs to decontaminate the premises to below 1.5mcg/100cm 2 .
The Gluckman report says, at page 27:- Remediation is certainly warranted if high levels of methamphetamine are present that are indicative of manufacturing activity or excessive smoking. Levels >30 μg/100 cm2 are considered by forensic experts to signify that manufacture is likely to have taken place [10]. Testing for lower levels that still suggest relatively high levels of smoking (e.g. >15 μg/100 cm2) could be used to identify specific areas of contamination that warrant remediation. Remediation includes removal of all potentially contaminated porous materials or items (furnishings, carpets) and cleaning of the contaminated surfaces, using the NZS 8510:2017 standard as a guide.
I adopt the Gluckman Report recommendation that remediation to reduce methamphetamine residue levels to below 1.5mcg/100cm 2 is reasonable and justified in this case because residue levels were above 30mcg per sample in the main living areas and two bedrooms.
The landlord has proved the following costs were incurred related to the methamphetamine damage:- a. Decontamination and cleaning costs of $11,431.00. b. Replacement curtains and blinds $4,186.10 c. Replacement carpet $6,061.39 d. Interior painting of walls and doors $7,500.00 e. Replacement heatpumps $3,281.70
The invoiced costs total $32,460.19.
The decontamination invoice ($11,431.00) was paid by the landlord’s insurer.
The landlord paid the rest of the invoices which total $21,029.19 and has received a cash settlement of $16,069.00 from the insurer.
This means the total cost to the landlord after allowing for the insurance is $4,960.19. 8
Where damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
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) RTA.
Damage from methamphetamine use or manufacture is both intentional and an activity that is an imprisonable offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
This means the tenant is liable to compensate the landlord for the landlord’s loss and this is not limited to the amount of the insurance excess.
I award compensation to the landlord for remediation of methamphetamine damage of $4,960.19. Using the premises for an unlawful purpose
[The landlord/s] claims exemplary damages as the tenant has used the premises for an unlawful purpose.
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.
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 possession or use of methamphetamine is an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 and is therefore a breach of s40(2)(b) RTA. 8 Invoices paid by the landlord of $21,029.19 minus insurance settlement $16,069.00 = $4,960.19.
The evidence establishes that the tenant used or permitted the use of methamphetamine in the premises. 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 or allowing the use of methamphetamine is intentional. The intent behind unlawful drug use is complex. Allowing this to take place within rental premises disregards the possible impact of residue on the property. The landlord says the time, expense and stress caused by the contamination has been considerable necessitating an insurance claim, decontamination, and re- testing. The contamination was noted on the Land Information Memorandum and although now remediated, carries ongoing stigma. The landlords have the property on the market for sale and are concerned the sale price may be affected. A landlord’s interests are that premises are not used for an unlawful purpose and there is a public interest in deterring this. I award $900.00 in exemplary damages which is 50% of the maximum amount. Filing fee and suppression of name
The landlord has succeeded with the application so I must award the filing fee.
The landlord seeks suppression of name from the published order, and this is granted. A party that is wholly or substantially successful in proceedings is entitled to suppression of name on application unless publication is in the public interest or justified because of the party’s conduct or other circumstances of the case; s95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5318114 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5318114 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was methamphetamine used at the premises during this tenancy?

What were the methamphetamine results?

Were the premises damaged by methamphetamine residue during this tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was methamphetamine used at the premises during this tenancy?

What were the methamphetamine results?

Were the premises damaged by methamphetamine residue during this tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions