What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5330720 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5330720?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5330720?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5330720?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12654988-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5330720 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5330720?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5330720?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5330720?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12654988-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

27 Arapeta Place, Takaka 7110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5330720 — Cleanliness

Order

The application is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $700.00 (5688623-004) to Olivia Ma'a immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing; the tenant via teleconference.
The landlord sought compensation and exemplary damages.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.” Background
This tenancy has been before the Tribunal before under tenant application 5255761 and landlord counter-claim 5291795, dated 1 August 2025.
The tenancy ended via a 90-day landlord notice to terminate. A possession order was made after the tenant remained at the premises.
That possession order discussed a methamphetamine issue at the premises as it pertained to the tenant claim of invalid notice but no specific landlord claim relating to methamphetamine was considered, nor part of that order. That adjudicator did highlight at:
Prior tenancies at this property involved the tenant and a partner, and before that, her mother.
This landlord application had two parts: a. The first sought compensation for vacated issues, specifically garden maintenance and the removal of rubbish and abandoned items. The tenant disputed the items were abandoned and she should make an appropriate application to the Tribunal for any of the issues she raised. b. The second part formed after premises were found to contain methamphetamine residue in March 2025 testing and again at exit.
The landlord withdrew the compensation claims for rubbish removal and gardens at the hearing as these costs were recovered in the insurance funded remediation.
The landlord was left seeking the $2,500.00 insurance excess for methamphetamine remediation, and exemplary damages for unlawful activities at the premises. Methamphetamine
The New Zealand Standard 8510:2017 Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine-contaminated properties (“NZS8510:2017”) provides industry guidance on good practice methods in the testing and clean-up of methamphetamine contamination in houses. NZS8510:2017 was released on 29 June 2017. The standard adopts a single level of 1.5μg/100cm² (1.5 micrograms of methamphetamine per 100 square centimetres of surface sampled) that ‘high use areas’ of affected properties should be decontaminated to, regardless of whether the properties were involved in the production or use of methamphetamine. Consider high use areas as those areas that can be easily accessed by the occupants.
On 29 May 2018, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman (the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor at that time) determined that there was little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption (See ‘Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards’, 29 May 2018.
His report concluded that in the absence of other evidence of manufacture, any levels below 15μg/100cm² are highly unlikely to present adverse effects therefore there should be no need for remediation. Where there is evidence of manufacture the NZS8510:2017 standard is appropriate (noting there is no suggestion of manufacturing during this tenancy).
In 2019 there was a judgement in the District Court which dismissed an appeal after the Tribunal adopted the Gluckman Report to determine whether the tenant had caused damage to the premises or permitted any other person to do so (Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947).
Finally, I consider further validating are the 2019 comments of the Court of Appeal in Smith v Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited [2019] NZCA 38 where, in paragraph [16], with reference to the Gluckman Report, the decision stated: “We acknowledge that the testing in this case yielded results now considered not to raise any health and safety concerns.”
Just recently, the government has confirmed the Gluckman levels to apply (see the Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) explanation here). Regulations are expected to be in force in 2026, but an exact date has yet to be set. Essentially, the government has indicated that when methamphetamine residue levels are above 15μg/100cm2, the property will be considered contaminated and need to be decontaminated.
A property, if contaminated, must be decontaminated until methamphetamine residue levels are no longer above 15μg/100cm2 (until they are 15μg/100cm2 or less).
Contamination will be determined on a room-by-room basis. An example given by HUD is if the bedroom is above 15μg/100cm2 but the kitchen is below 15μg/100cm2, only the bedroom needs to be decontaminated.

Was there a need to decontaminate/clean?

The premises was tested for methamphetamine during the tenancy after the landlord observed signs of activity consistent with methamphetamine use prior and became concerned. No baseline test was conducted prior to this tenancy. This composite test was made on or around 18 March 2025 and confirmed a a theoretical maximum contamination of 11.8μg/100cm² based on the samples taken. This is below the levels considered unsafe in the Gluckman Report, and by this Tribunal but greater than the lower NZS8510:2017 standard of 1.5μg minimum. The landlord conducted a further composite test on or around 13 August 2025 after the tenancy ended. A theoretical maximum contamination of 26μg/100cm² was concluded based on those samples.
In the absence of a baseline test, the landlord suggested the increase in the theoretical maximums between the first and second composite tests established continued use. Given the method of a composite test and the variability of results even within the same room (for example, the comprehensive testing included two tests in both the kitchen and bedroom 3, in the kitchen the variation was 74% between the two samples, in the bedroom it was 35%).
The landlord then arranged a comprehensive test and that returned a number of individual levels between the lower NZS and higher “Gluckman” minimums. The highest was 7.7μg. An insurance claim was lodged by the ownwe, accepted, and a full remediation undertaken.
Section 40(1)(e) (iii) of the RTA requires the tenant to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. Section 41 assigns the tenant the responsibility for the actions of others.
The landlord faces a challenge in arguing “cleanliness” has not been met in this situation as the residues do not exceed the level currently adopted as safe. The residue itself is an unseen chemical, not that dissimilar to other possible residual contaminants like nicotine or chemicals from harsh cleaning products.
I find the landlord has not been able to prove the cost of decontamination, nor establish through any baseline testing that the contamination occurred during this tenancy, can be assigned to the tenant and I decline the compensation claim for the $2,500.00 excess. Given the caution expressed in the first order regarding the direction of the District Court in Erin Limited regarding liability where no baseline exists, as well as the below 15μg individual results in the comprehensive test, a less invasive approach to remediation might have been considered – especially given the landlord submission that the remediation left permanent damage to the Lockwood home wooden internal walls and the costs exceed the $30,000 insurance cap on the claim.

Were the premises used unlawfully?

The landlord claimed the tenants have used the premises unlawfully, by using an unlawful drug, namely methamphetamine or allowing someone else to use methamphetamine on the premises. See the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
If proven, this is in breach of s 40(2)(b), RTA as it is unlawful to use premises, or allow them to be used, for the purpose of consuming methamphetamine which is a class A controlled drug (s 3A, 7(1)(a) and Schedule 1 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975). Section 40(3A)(c) of the Act provides that failure to comply with this is an unlawful act.
Schedule 1A of the Act provides that the maximum award of exemplary damages for such an act is $1,800.
From the evidence presented it is difficult to make a finding that the tenant knew, or should have known, methamphetamine was being used in the premises and allowed that to continue. There is no pre-tenancy baseline to eliminate the pre-existence of methamphetamine residue and the only evidence suggesting more recent use was a photo of a glass object that looked very much like a “meth pipe”. That was discovered during the removal of items from under the house by the cleaners. A photo was taken and provided. The challenge here is the apparent continued use of that area for storage before this tenancy, as well as clear linkage to any intentional allowance by the tenant of such an implements use. The landlord acknowledged she did not suspect the tenant was consuming methamphetamine, it being more likely another person resident and known to the landlord.
The evidential challenge for the landlord to establish the methamphetamine contamination more than likely occurred during this tenancy is not met here. The same applies to evidence of use.
For the reasons outlined above, I dismiss the claim for unlawful use of the premises. Bond
The bond remains at the Bond Centre. Given the landlord claim against the bond is dismissed, the bond must be returned to the tenant (see s 22B(2) RTA). Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The landlord requested suppression in its application. As it has not been wholly successful, suppression is not ordered. Given the previous order was public, I continue that in this order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5330720 — Cleanliness at 27 Arapeta Place, Takaka 7110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5330720 — Cleanliness at 27 Arapeta Place, Takaka 7110

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was there a need to decontaminate/clean?

Were the premises used unlawfully?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was there a need to decontaminate/clean?

Were the premises used unlawfully?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions