What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5325191?

The tribunal order states: Leeann Brash must pay Rodney Property Management Limited $19,455.86

How much money was awarded in case 5325191?

Cleaning: $839.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Methamphetamine Testing: $1,758.52 awarded to landlord; Miscellanous Charges: $628.52 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,018.29 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $896.09 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $4,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $8,850.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $3,701.85 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $95.09 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5325191?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5325191?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13251804-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5325191?

The tribunal order states: Leeann Brash must pay Rodney Property Management Limited $19,455.86

How much money was awarded in case 5325191?

Cleaning: $839.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Methamphetamine Testing: $1,758.52 awarded to landlord; Miscellanous Charges: $628.52 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,018.29 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $896.09 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $4,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $8,850.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $3,701.85 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $95.09 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5325191?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5325191?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13251804-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

27 Davies Road, Wellsford, Wellsford 0900 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5325191 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

27 Davies Road, Wellsford, Wellsford 0900 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5325191 — Rent arrears | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

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

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5325191 — net $19,455.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$8,850.00	Rent arrears
Water rates	$95.09	Water rates
Miscellanous charges	$628.52	Miscellanous charges
Methamphetamine testing	$1,758.52	Methamphetamine testing
Cleaning	$839.50	Cleaning
Lock and key replacement / work	$1,018.29	Lock and key replacement / work
Window repairs	$896.09	Window repairs
Insurance excess	$4,000.00	Insurance excess
Rubbish removal / skip bin	$3,701.85	Rubbish removal / skip bin
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$19,455.86
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$19,455.86

Claims and awards for application 5325191 — net $19,455.86 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $8,850.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Water rates

Amount: $95.09
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Miscellanous charges

Amount: $628.52
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Miscellanous charges

Methamphetamine testing

Amount: $1,758.52
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Methamphetamine testing

Cleaning

Amount: $839.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Lock and key replacement / work

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears Rubbish Removal Water Rates

Order

Leeann Brash must pay Rodney Property Management Limited $19,455.86 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,360.00 (6222531-013) to Rodney Property Management Limited immediately. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$8,850.00 Water rates$95.09 Miscellanous charges$628.52 Methamphetamine testing$1,758.52 Cleaning$839.50 Lock and key replacement / work$1,018.29 Window repairs$896.09 Insurance excess$4,000.00 Rubbish removal / skip bin$3,701.85 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$21,815.86 Minus bond-$2,360.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$19,455.86

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord against the tenant.
Only the landlord appeared at the hearing today. I have no reason to believe that the tenant has not been notified of this hearing, so I will proceed to hear the application in her absence. I note that the hearing notice was served on the tenant, at the email address she recorded as her email address for service in the tenancy agreement.

BACKGROUND

Immediately prior to the tenancy commencing, the landlord had the premises methamphetamine tested, and it was negative.
The tenancy commenced on 6 September 2023. The tenancy was a fixed term tenancy until 5 September 2024, but after that date, the tenancy rolled into a periodic tenancy.
On 5 August 2025, the tenant emailed the landlord, advising that she had vacated the premises.
On taking back possession of the premises, the landlord found the premises to be significantly damaged, with extensive rubbish and tenant belongings, the premises were extremely dirty. I note at this juncture, the landlord has provided pre-let photographs which show a very clean and tidy, well- presented property, and extensive photographs at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord had the premises tested for methamphetamine, which returned a positive result, and then discreet methamphetamine testing was undertaken on individual samples. I will discuss that further below.
Claim was made to the insurer, which has accepted the claim for damage to the premises and methamphetamine contamination. The landlord now claims the excess from the tenant, as well as other damage not covered by the insurance.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

ANALYSIS

I will now consider the claims in return. Claim 1 Rent arrears
The landlord claims rent arrears. At the hearing, the landlord explained that the methamphetamine decontamination was completed on 6 October 2025, and from that date they were able to get in and undertake the remediation work. That work was completed on or around 14 February 2026. Taking into account the Christmas break, I accept that the work would have taken about 15 weeks for the landlord to complete.
Taking him into account the photographs provided, and the overall evidence, I accept that it would be reasonable to compensate the landlord for 15 weeks of rent during the remediation period.
Given the weekly rental of $590 per week, a reasonable level of rent arrears for the remediation period would be $8,850.00 and that is ordered to be paid by the tenant. Claim 2 – Water rate
The landlord claims water rates of $95.09 as of the end of the tenancy. This claim is established and ordered in full. Claim 3 – Methamphetamine testing
The landlord seeks costs for methamphetamine test. The landlord had screening tests undertaken at the start of the tenancy which showed no methamphetamine present. At the end of the tenancy, testing for methamphetamine was positive, so further discrete testing was undertaken. The total cost of this testing was $1,758.52.
This claim is ordered in full. The landlord had undertaken pre-tenancy screening which did not show methamphetamine, but the composite test undertaken at the end of the tenancy was positive. The landlord acted responsibly in then undertaking discreet testing on the individual samples, and so the tenant must be responsible for that testing cost. This claim is ordered in full. Claim 4 - Cleaning
The landlord claims cleaning costs of $839.50, comprising general cleaning and gardening work.
The premises were left by the tenant in a very unclean state, there was extensive tenant belongings and rubbish left on the premises. Gardening was needed.
At the end of the tenancy, the tenant must return the premises reasonably clean and tidy, I am satisfied that she did not, so the tenant must be liable for the cleaning and garden work undertaken. Claim 5 – Lock and key replacement
The landlord states that when the premises were returned, the premises were not secure because keys were not returned, the garage door was broken and windows were broken / missing. The landlord incurred costs of $1,018.29 to have the premises secured and the locks and keys replaced.
At the end of the tenancy, the tenant must return all keys to the landlord, I am satisfied that the tenant did not in this case. I am also satisfied that the work undertaken to secure the premises was a result of a breach on the part of the tenant, so she must be liable for this full claim. Claim 6 - Reglazing
The landlord confirmed that windows were broken when the premises were returned. The landlord needed to have the broken windows boarded up and later replaced. The total reglazing cost was $896.09.
With any claim for damage, the landlord must prove that the damage was not fair wear and tear, and that it occurred during the tenancy. Once that is established, the onus shifts to the tenant to prove that the damage was not careless or intentional damage. I am sure that the broken windows were not fair wear and tear, the tenant has not proven that it was anything other than intentional damage, so she must be liable for the reglazing cost. This claim is ordered in full. Claim 7 – Insurance excess
The landlord seeks the insurance excess for 8 separate excesses, which totals $4,000.00.
I am satisfied that these claims do not relate to methamphetamine damage, but rather physical damage to the property.
Again I find that this claimed damage is not fair wear and tear, the tenant has not proven that the damage is anything other than careless or intentional damage. In short, this is a claim for $4000 that the insurer did not pay to repair the premises; the tenant is liable for that amount in full. Claim 8 – Methamphetamine excess.
The landlord has claimed the methamphetamine excess that the insurer applied.
In 2010 the New Zealand Ministry of Health produced guidelines for the remediation of clandestine methamphetamine laboratories, and determined that remediation was required if the environmental level of methamphetamine was 0.5 μg/100 cm 2 . While that related to laboratories, it is the case that the
5 level became the de facto level at which premises were considered to require decontamination.
In 2017 the level was increased when Standards New Zealand released Standard NZS 8510:2017 “Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine- contaminated properties”. At that time, this standard set the definitive levels at which properties which had methamphetamine contamination, required remediation. The Standard confirmed that: After seeking expert advice on exposure risk from Environmental Science and Research Ltd (ESR) and the Ministry of Health, and reviewing a large number of public comments on a draft of this standard, the committee has decided to set the maximum acceptable level of methamphetamine in an affected property at 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 after decontamination. While this level is greater than the Ministry of Health 2010 guideline value of 0.5 μg/100 cm 2 for properties used as clandestine laboratories, there are a number of reasons why the committee decided to adopt the single value of 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 in this standard.
In short, this standard confirmed that the level at which habitation of residential premises was considered safe, was a level of 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 . The expectation on landlords arising from this Standard, was to remediate premises contaminated with methamphetamine, to a level of less than 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 .
Later still, the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman determined that there was little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption (Report entitled ‘Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards’, 29 May 2018). The report concluded that any levels below 15 μg/100 cm 2 were unlikely to present adverse effects: Taken together, these factors indicate that methamphetamine levels that exceed the NZS 8510:2017 clean-up standard of 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 should not be regarded as signalling a health risk. Indeed, exposure to methamphetamine levels below 15 μg/100 cm 2 would be unlikely to give rise to any adverse effects. This level still incorporates a 30-fold safety buffer on a conservative estimate of risk.
At this time there remains a current New Zealand Standard of 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 , and also a current opinion from the Chief Science Advisor that there is no evidence of risk below 15 μg/100 cm 2
This matter has been considered recently by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947. Judge Kellar needed to determine which level should be applied. The Court discussed the conflict between the New Zealand Standard and Chief Science Advisors report, and confirmed: 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.
I also note the more recent District Court decision of Eren Limited v Martin and Kukuruzsnak [2021] NZDC 15210, in which Judge de Ridder. In that case the Court accepted that the tenants had contaminated the premises with Methamphetamine with the maximum level found to be 9.9 μg/100 cm 2 . The Court noted that the level applied by insurers and the testing industry was 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 . The Court noted that the approach that has been taken by the Tenancy Tribunal was to apply the level as set in the Gluckman report, also noting the above-mentioned Full Circle decision, with the Judge concluding: In this case there is no other evidence to counter the conclusions of the Gluckmant Report. Thus it cannot be said that the Tribunal was wrong in the approach it adopted in dismissing the claim for compensation for these matters.
A third District Court decision of relevance is Acme Realty Limited v Hogg, Polotu and Coughlin [2021] NZDC 3231. Judge Harrison noted that “At issue is a short legal point, namely whether New Zealand Standard 8510:2017 has the force for law”. The appeal arose from a decision of the Tenancy Tribunal which applied the Gluckman report level of 15 μg/100 cm 2 . The Court concluded that: ...for the reasons I have given that standard has not been passed into the law of this country and consequently the Adjudicator was not bound by the level it prescribes in reaching her conclusion.
In my assessment, these decisions of the Court have confirmed that the level to be applied is the level expressed by the Chief Science Advisor, which is that there is no risk when levels of contamination are below 15 μg/100 cm 2
In the circumstances of this tenancy, when the premises were returned to the landlord, and discrete testing undertaken, the reported levels of methamphetamine ranged from 2.1 to 6.3 μg/100 cm 2. That level is well below the 15 μg/100 cm 2 that the Tribunal applies, and because of that, I must decline this claim.
I conclude by noting that I have no reservation in accepting the landlord acted in good faith, they acted based on the instructions of the insurer. The insurer applies a lower level when determining if premises are methamphetamine contaminated than does the Tribunal, but I must be guided by the approach endorsed by the courts, and find this claim has not been established. Claim 9 – Skip bin and rubbish removal.
The landlord has incurred skip bin and rubbish removal charges of $3,701.85. The photographs confirmed that the premises had extensive rubbish and tenant goods left at the end of the tenancy. While this claim is on the higher end, it is not unreasonable considering the volume of material left on the premises. This claim is ordered in full. Claim 10 – Lawn mowing, skip bin locks and debt recovery fee
The landlord has claimed additional costs for lawnmowing, skip and hire, lock damage, and debt recovery cost. I note that there was an extensive remediation process. Overall, I am satisfied that those costs have reasonably been incurred from the tenant’s breach, so that is ordered in full, an aggregated amount of $628.52.

FILING FEE

Because the applicant has been wholly successful in their application, I must award the filing paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal.

Claims & awards

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

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5325191 — net $19,455.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$8,850.00	Rent arrears
Water rates	$95.09	Water rates
Miscellanous charges	$628.52	Miscellanous charges
Methamphetamine testing	$1,758.52	Methamphetamine testing
Cleaning	$839.50	Cleaning
Lock and key replacement / work	$1,018.29	Lock and key replacement / work
Window repairs	$896.09	Window repairs
Insurance excess	$4,000.00	Insurance excess
Rubbish removal / skip bin	$3,701.85	Rubbish removal / skip bin
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$19,455.86
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$19,455.86

Claims and awards for application 5325191 — net $19,455.86 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $8,850.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Water rates

Amount: $95.09
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Miscellanous charges

Amount: $628.52
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Miscellanous charges

Methamphetamine testing

Amount: $1,758.52
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Methamphetamine testing

Cleaning

Amount: $839.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Lock and key replacement / work

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears Rubbish Removal Water Rates

Order

Leeann Brash must pay Rodney Property Management Limited $19,455.86 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,360.00 (6222531-013) to Rodney Property Management Limited immediately. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$8,850.00 Water rates$95.09 Miscellanous charges$628.52 Methamphetamine testing$1,758.52 Cleaning$839.50 Lock and key replacement / work$1,018.29 Window repairs$896.09 Insurance excess$4,000.00 Rubbish removal / skip bin$3,701.85 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$21,815.86 Minus bond-$2,360.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$19,455.86

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord against the tenant.
Only the landlord appeared at the hearing today. I have no reason to believe that the tenant has not been notified of this hearing, so I will proceed to hear the application in her absence. I note that the hearing notice was served on the tenant, at the email address she recorded as her email address for service in the tenancy agreement.

BACKGROUND

Immediately prior to the tenancy commencing, the landlord had the premises methamphetamine tested, and it was negative.
The tenancy commenced on 6 September 2023. The tenancy was a fixed term tenancy until 5 September 2024, but after that date, the tenancy rolled into a periodic tenancy.
On 5 August 2025, the tenant emailed the landlord, advising that she had vacated the premises.
On taking back possession of the premises, the landlord found the premises to be significantly damaged, with extensive rubbish and tenant belongings, the premises were extremely dirty. I note at this juncture, the landlord has provided pre-let photographs which show a very clean and tidy, well- presented property, and extensive photographs at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord had the premises tested for methamphetamine, which returned a positive result, and then discreet methamphetamine testing was undertaken on individual samples. I will discuss that further below.
Claim was made to the insurer, which has accepted the claim for damage to the premises and methamphetamine contamination. The landlord now claims the excess from the tenant, as well as other damage not covered by the insurance.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

ANALYSIS

I will now consider the claims in return. Claim 1 Rent arrears
The landlord claims rent arrears. At the hearing, the landlord explained that the methamphetamine decontamination was completed on 6 October 2025, and from that date they were able to get in and undertake the remediation work. That work was completed on or around 14 February 2026. Taking into account the Christmas break, I accept that the work would have taken about 15 weeks for the landlord to complete.
Taking him into account the photographs provided, and the overall evidence, I accept that it would be reasonable to compensate the landlord for 15 weeks of rent during the remediation period.
Given the weekly rental of $590 per week, a reasonable level of rent arrears for the remediation period would be $8,850.00 and that is ordered to be paid by the tenant. Claim 2 – Water rate
The landlord claims water rates of $95.09 as of the end of the tenancy. This claim is established and ordered in full. Claim 3 – Methamphetamine testing
The landlord seeks costs for methamphetamine test. The landlord had screening tests undertaken at the start of the tenancy which showed no methamphetamine present. At the end of the tenancy, testing for methamphetamine was positive, so further discrete testing was undertaken. The total cost of this testing was $1,758.52.
This claim is ordered in full. The landlord had undertaken pre-tenancy screening which did not show methamphetamine, but the composite test undertaken at the end of the tenancy was positive. The landlord acted responsibly in then undertaking discreet testing on the individual samples, and so the tenant must be responsible for that testing cost. This claim is ordered in full. Claim 4 - Cleaning
The landlord claims cleaning costs of $839.50, comprising general cleaning and gardening work.
The premises were left by the tenant in a very unclean state, there was extensive tenant belongings and rubbish left on the premises. Gardening was needed.
At the end of the tenancy, the tenant must return the premises reasonably clean and tidy, I am satisfied that she did not, so the tenant must be liable for the cleaning and garden work undertaken. Claim 5 – Lock and key replacement
The landlord states that when the premises were returned, the premises were not secure because keys were not returned, the garage door was broken and windows were broken / missing. The landlord incurred costs of $1,018.29 to have the premises secured and the locks and keys replaced.
At the end of the tenancy, the tenant must return all keys to the landlord, I am satisfied that the tenant did not in this case. I am also satisfied that the work undertaken to secure the premises was a result of a breach on the part of the tenant, so she must be liable for this full claim. Claim 6 - Reglazing
The landlord confirmed that windows were broken when the premises were returned. The landlord needed to have the broken windows boarded up and later replaced. The total reglazing cost was $896.09.
With any claim for damage, the landlord must prove that the damage was not fair wear and tear, and that it occurred during the tenancy. Once that is established, the onus shifts to the tenant to prove that the damage was not careless or intentional damage. I am sure that the broken windows were not fair wear and tear, the tenant has not proven that it was anything other than intentional damage, so she must be liable for the reglazing cost. This claim is ordered in full. Claim 7 – Insurance excess
The landlord seeks the insurance excess for 8 separate excesses, which totals $4,000.00.
I am satisfied that these claims do not relate to methamphetamine damage, but rather physical damage to the property.
Again I find that this claimed damage is not fair wear and tear, the tenant has not proven that the damage is anything other than careless or intentional damage. In short, this is a claim for $4000 that the insurer did not pay to repair the premises; the tenant is liable for that amount in full. Claim 8 – Methamphetamine excess.
The landlord has claimed the methamphetamine excess that the insurer applied.
In 2010 the New Zealand Ministry of Health produced guidelines for the remediation of clandestine methamphetamine laboratories, and determined that remediation was required if the environmental level of methamphetamine was 0.5 μg/100 cm 2 . While that related to laboratories, it is the case that the
5 level became the de facto level at which premises were considered to require decontamination.
In 2017 the level was increased when Standards New Zealand released Standard NZS 8510:2017 “Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine- contaminated properties”. At that time, this standard set the definitive levels at which properties which had methamphetamine contamination, required remediation. The Standard confirmed that: After seeking expert advice on exposure risk from Environmental Science and Research Ltd (ESR) and the Ministry of Health, and reviewing a large number of public comments on a draft of this standard, the committee has decided to set the maximum acceptable level of methamphetamine in an affected property at 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 after decontamination. While this level is greater than the Ministry of Health 2010 guideline value of 0.5 μg/100 cm 2 for properties used as clandestine laboratories, there are a number of reasons why the committee decided to adopt the single value of 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 in this standard.
In short, this standard confirmed that the level at which habitation of residential premises was considered safe, was a level of 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 . The expectation on landlords arising from this Standard, was to remediate premises contaminated with methamphetamine, to a level of less than 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 .
Later still, the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman determined that there was little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption (Report entitled ‘Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards’, 29 May 2018). The report concluded that any levels below 15 μg/100 cm 2 were unlikely to present adverse effects: Taken together, these factors indicate that methamphetamine levels that exceed the NZS 8510:2017 clean-up standard of 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 should not be regarded as signalling a health risk. Indeed, exposure to methamphetamine levels below 15 μg/100 cm 2 would be unlikely to give rise to any adverse effects. This level still incorporates a 30-fold safety buffer on a conservative estimate of risk.
At this time there remains a current New Zealand Standard of 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 , and also a current opinion from the Chief Science Advisor that there is no evidence of risk below 15 μg/100 cm 2
This matter has been considered recently by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947. Judge Kellar needed to determine which level should be applied. The Court discussed the conflict between the New Zealand Standard and Chief Science Advisors report, and confirmed: 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.
I also note the more recent District Court decision of Eren Limited v Martin and Kukuruzsnak [2021] NZDC 15210, in which Judge de Ridder. In that case the Court accepted that the tenants had contaminated the premises with Methamphetamine with the maximum level found to be 9.9 μg/100 cm 2 . The Court noted that the level applied by insurers and the testing industry was 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 . The Court noted that the approach that has been taken by the Tenancy Tribunal was to apply the level as set in the Gluckman report, also noting the above-mentioned Full Circle decision, with the Judge concluding: In this case there is no other evidence to counter the conclusions of the Gluckmant Report. Thus it cannot be said that the Tribunal was wrong in the approach it adopted in dismissing the claim for compensation for these matters.
A third District Court decision of relevance is Acme Realty Limited v Hogg, Polotu and Coughlin [2021] NZDC 3231. Judge Harrison noted that “At issue is a short legal point, namely whether New Zealand Standard 8510:2017 has the force for law”. The appeal arose from a decision of the Tenancy Tribunal which applied the Gluckman report level of 15 μg/100 cm 2 . The Court concluded that: ...for the reasons I have given that standard has not been passed into the law of this country and consequently the Adjudicator was not bound by the level it prescribes in reaching her conclusion.
In my assessment, these decisions of the Court have confirmed that the level to be applied is the level expressed by the Chief Science Advisor, which is that there is no risk when levels of contamination are below 15 μg/100 cm 2
In the circumstances of this tenancy, when the premises were returned to the landlord, and discrete testing undertaken, the reported levels of methamphetamine ranged from 2.1 to 6.3 μg/100 cm 2. That level is well below the 15 μg/100 cm 2 that the Tribunal applies, and because of that, I must decline this claim.
I conclude by noting that I have no reservation in accepting the landlord acted in good faith, they acted based on the instructions of the insurer. The insurer applies a lower level when determining if premises are methamphetamine contaminated than does the Tribunal, but I must be guided by the approach endorsed by the courts, and find this claim has not been established. Claim 9 – Skip bin and rubbish removal.
The landlord has incurred skip bin and rubbish removal charges of $3,701.85. The photographs confirmed that the premises had extensive rubbish and tenant goods left at the end of the tenancy. While this claim is on the higher end, it is not unreasonable considering the volume of material left on the premises. This claim is ordered in full. Claim 10 – Lawn mowing, skip bin locks and debt recovery fee
The landlord has claimed additional costs for lawnmowing, skip and hire, lock damage, and debt recovery cost. I note that there was an extensive remediation process. Overall, I am satisfied that those costs have reasonably been incurred from the tenant’s breach, so that is ordered in full, an aggregated amount of $628.52.

FILING FEE

Because the applicant has been wholly successful in their application, I must award the filing paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5325191 — Rent arrears at 27 Davies Road, Wellsford, Wellsford 0900

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5325191 — Rent arrears at 27 Davies Road, Wellsford, Wellsford 0900

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions