What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5338261 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 5338261?

Cleaning: $125.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $715.13 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $241.50 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $25.82 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5338261?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5338261?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12776310-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5338261 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 5338261?

Cleaning: $125.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $715.13 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $241.50 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $25.82 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5338261?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5338261?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12776310-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5338261 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5338261 — Cleanliness | 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 5338261 — net $1,083.81 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$125.00		Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: Compensation - wall damage	$241.50		Repairs: Compensation - wall damage
Meth testing/Cleaning	$715.13		Meth testing/Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Water rates credit		$25.82	Water rates credit
Total award	$1,109.63	$25.82
Net award	$1,083.81
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,083.81

Claims and awards for application 5338261 — net $1,083.81 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $125.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Repairs: Compensation - wall damage

Amount: $241.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Compensation - wall damage

Meth testing/Cleaning

Amount: $715.13
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Meth testing/Cleaning

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Water rates credit

Amount: $25.82
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Water rates credit

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Water Rates

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,083.81 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,083.81 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,236.19 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing. [tenant] attended on behalf of [tenant].
The landlord has applied for compensation, payment of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
I note that the landlord advised that there was a water rates credit which I have reflected in the order. 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 applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, 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. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy 1 , 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.”
The more serious the claims made the greater the evidential burden on the applicant will be. 2
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities under the RTA. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety. 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02 2 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must remove all his or her goods from the premises, leave the premises (including the land provided with the premises) reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. 3
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The carpet was stained and required cleaning. By consent I make an order for the tenant to pay the carpet cleaning costs.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A tenant must not intentionally or carelessly cause damage or permit any other person to damage the premises. 4 Where a landlord is claiming compensation for damage 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. 5
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. 6
Where the 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). 7
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). 8 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 9
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 3 See section 40(1)(e) of the RTA. 4 See s 40 (2)(a) of the RTA. 5 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 6 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA). 7 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 8 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 9 See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA. applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. 10
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. 11
In assessing a claim for compensation, I must take into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

METHAMPHETAMINE CONTAMINATION

The landlord has claimed methamphetamine testing costs and cleaning costs.
The landlord says the premises was contaminated with methamphetamine during the tenancy. The Law – Methamphetamine contamination
For context it is necessary to first set out the law relating to methamphetamine that the Tribunal follows.
Methamphetamine contamination, at levels that require de-contamination, constitutes damage to the premises.
Section 138C of the RTA provides for regulations to be made prescribing the maximum acceptable level for contaminants. There is currently no level specified for de-contamination for methamphetamine.
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
5 μg/100 cm 2 . While that related to laboratories, it is the case that the 0.5 level became the de facto level at which premises were considered to require decontamination in New Zealand.
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: 10 See section 49B(1) RTA. 11 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. 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 .
However, in 2018 the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman reported 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. There are therefore the two sources of guidance on the issue of a safe level of methamphetamine contamination in residential premises.
The Tenancy Tribunal has adopted the recommendations of the Gluckman report, which concluded that de-contamination is required if contamination is present at levels of 15 μg/100 cm 2 or above. This approach has been approved by the District Court and continues to be applied in Tenancy Tribunal decisions. 12 This case 12 Full Circle Real Estate Ltd v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947, Acme Realty Ltd v Alexander James Hogg, Tuitui Grace Polotu, Leigh Sharyn Coughlin [2021] NZDC 3231 and Eren Limited v Martin and Kukuruzsnayak [2021] NZDC 15210.
The tenancy commenced on 25 October 2023 and ended on 19 June 2025.
The landlord must establish that methamphetamine contamination is likely to have occurred during the tenancy. This would need to be by way of pre-tenancy methamphetamine testing being undertaken.
On 19 October 2023 composite testing of the kitchen cabinet door, lounge wall, bedroom one and two wardrobe doors and the bathroom wall detected methamphetamine at a level of 1.15 μg/100 cm 2.
A composite test of samples taken on 23 June 2025 of the kitchen cabinet door, lounge wall, bedroom one and two wardrobe doors, bathroom wall detected methamphetamine at a level of 4.8 μg/100 cm 2.
Discrete testing from samples taken on 26 June 2025 detected methamphetamine at a level of 3.7 μg/100 cm 2 in bedroom 2 (the master bedroom) and results below this in the other locations tested.
The landlord has established there was methamphetamine contamination during this tenancy.
The tenant strongly disputed using methamphetamine during the tenancy. While I accept that the tenant is unlikely herself to have used methamphetamine, the landlord has proven, on the balance of probabilities, by way of the methamphetamine testing results that someone has likely used methamphetamine in the premises during this tenancy.
As there is evidence of methamphetamine contamination during this tenancy, I consider that the landlord should be compensated for the cost of the detailed testing, as claimed. I consider the tenant (or more likely someone at the premises with the tenant’s permission) used the premises for an unlawful purpose 13 and it was prudent for the landlord to undertake a detailed test once contamination was found. The tenant is ordered to pay the cost of the detailed testing of $715.13.
However, I decline the cleaning costs and post-cleaning testing costs as these costs relate to decontamination of the premises and as the locations tested did not exceed the Gluckman standard and cleaning and decontamination was not required, I find the tenant is not liable for these costs.

OTHER DAMAGE

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. The walls were damaged by the installation of a fly screen. The tenant consented to compensating the landlord for this damage. 13 In breach of the tenant’s responsibilities – see section 40(2)(b) RTA.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Filing Fee
As the landlord has succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee. 14 Bond
The bond is to be distributed in accordance with amounts set out in the order. Suppression
Section 95A of the RTA relates to suppression orders. The relevant provisions state: (1)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.... ...(4) 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. (5) An order under subsection (4) may be made subject to any conditions that the Tribunal considers appropriate.
The landlord applied for name suppression and as they have been substantially successful with the claim, name suppression is ordered for the landlord.
The tenant applied for name suppression, which was supported by the landlord. I will allow name suppression for the tenant as the amount ordered does not exceed the bond and it is in the tenant’s interests to have their name suppressed.

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 5338261 — net $1,083.81 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$125.00		Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: Compensation - wall damage	$241.50		Repairs: Compensation - wall damage
Meth testing/Cleaning	$715.13		Meth testing/Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Water rates credit		$25.82	Water rates credit
Total award	$1,109.63	$25.82
Net award	$1,083.81
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,083.81

Claims and awards for application 5338261 — net $1,083.81 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $125.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Repairs: Compensation - wall damage

Amount: $241.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Compensation - wall damage

Meth testing/Cleaning

Amount: $715.13
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Meth testing/Cleaning

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Water rates credit

Amount: $25.82
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Water rates credit

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Water Rates

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,083.81 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,083.81 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,236.19 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing. [tenant] attended on behalf of [tenant].
The landlord has applied for compensation, payment of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
I note that the landlord advised that there was a water rates credit which I have reflected in the order. 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 applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, 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. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy 1 , 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.”
The more serious the claims made the greater the evidential burden on the applicant will be. 2
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities under the RTA. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety. 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02 2 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must remove all his or her goods from the premises, leave the premises (including the land provided with the premises) reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. 3
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The carpet was stained and required cleaning. By consent I make an order for the tenant to pay the carpet cleaning costs.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A tenant must not intentionally or carelessly cause damage or permit any other person to damage the premises. 4 Where a landlord is claiming compensation for damage 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. 5
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. 6
Where the 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). 7
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). 8 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 9
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 3 See section 40(1)(e) of the RTA. 4 See s 40 (2)(a) of the RTA. 5 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 6 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA). 7 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 8 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 9 See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA. applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. 10
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. 11
In assessing a claim for compensation, I must take into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

METHAMPHETAMINE CONTAMINATION

The landlord has claimed methamphetamine testing costs and cleaning costs.
The landlord says the premises was contaminated with methamphetamine during the tenancy. The Law – Methamphetamine contamination
For context it is necessary to first set out the law relating to methamphetamine that the Tribunal follows.
Methamphetamine contamination, at levels that require de-contamination, constitutes damage to the premises.
Section 138C of the RTA provides for regulations to be made prescribing the maximum acceptable level for contaminants. There is currently no level specified for de-contamination for methamphetamine.
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
5 μg/100 cm 2 . While that related to laboratories, it is the case that the 0.5 level became the de facto level at which premises were considered to require decontamination in New Zealand.
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: 10 See section 49B(1) RTA. 11 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. 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 .
However, in 2018 the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman reported 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. There are therefore the two sources of guidance on the issue of a safe level of methamphetamine contamination in residential premises.
The Tenancy Tribunal has adopted the recommendations of the Gluckman report, which concluded that de-contamination is required if contamination is present at levels of 15 μg/100 cm 2 or above. This approach has been approved by the District Court and continues to be applied in Tenancy Tribunal decisions. 12 This case 12 Full Circle Real Estate Ltd v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947, Acme Realty Ltd v Alexander James Hogg, Tuitui Grace Polotu, Leigh Sharyn Coughlin [2021] NZDC 3231 and Eren Limited v Martin and Kukuruzsnayak [2021] NZDC 15210.
The tenancy commenced on 25 October 2023 and ended on 19 June 2025.
The landlord must establish that methamphetamine contamination is likely to have occurred during the tenancy. This would need to be by way of pre-tenancy methamphetamine testing being undertaken.
On 19 October 2023 composite testing of the kitchen cabinet door, lounge wall, bedroom one and two wardrobe doors and the bathroom wall detected methamphetamine at a level of 1.15 μg/100 cm 2.
A composite test of samples taken on 23 June 2025 of the kitchen cabinet door, lounge wall, bedroom one and two wardrobe doors, bathroom wall detected methamphetamine at a level of 4.8 μg/100 cm 2.
Discrete testing from samples taken on 26 June 2025 detected methamphetamine at a level of 3.7 μg/100 cm 2 in bedroom 2 (the master bedroom) and results below this in the other locations tested.
The landlord has established there was methamphetamine contamination during this tenancy.
The tenant strongly disputed using methamphetamine during the tenancy. While I accept that the tenant is unlikely herself to have used methamphetamine, the landlord has proven, on the balance of probabilities, by way of the methamphetamine testing results that someone has likely used methamphetamine in the premises during this tenancy.
As there is evidence of methamphetamine contamination during this tenancy, I consider that the landlord should be compensated for the cost of the detailed testing, as claimed. I consider the tenant (or more likely someone at the premises with the tenant’s permission) used the premises for an unlawful purpose 13 and it was prudent for the landlord to undertake a detailed test once contamination was found. The tenant is ordered to pay the cost of the detailed testing of $715.13.
However, I decline the cleaning costs and post-cleaning testing costs as these costs relate to decontamination of the premises and as the locations tested did not exceed the Gluckman standard and cleaning and decontamination was not required, I find the tenant is not liable for these costs.

OTHER DAMAGE

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. The walls were damaged by the installation of a fly screen. The tenant consented to compensating the landlord for this damage. 13 In breach of the tenant’s responsibilities – see section 40(2)(b) RTA.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Filing Fee
As the landlord has succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee. 14 Bond
The bond is to be distributed in accordance with amounts set out in the order. Suppression
Section 95A of the RTA relates to suppression orders. The relevant provisions state: (1)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.... ...(4) 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. (5) An order under subsection (4) may be made subject to any conditions that the Tribunal considers appropriate.
The landlord applied for name suppression and as they have been substantially successful with the claim, name suppression is ordered for the landlord.
The tenant applied for name suppression, which was supported by the landlord. I will allow name suppression for the tenant as the amount ordered does not exceed the bond and it is in the tenant’s interests to have their name suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5338261 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5338261 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

METHAMPHETAMINE CONTAMINATION

OTHER DAMAGE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

METHAMPHETAMINE CONTAMINATION

OTHER DAMAGE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions