What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5341641 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 5341641?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Owing To 6/07/2025: $471.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5341641?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5341641?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12810271-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5341641 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 5341641?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Owing To 6/07/2025: $471.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5341641?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5341641?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12810271-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 19, 6A Gregg Street, Alexandra, Otago 9320 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5341641 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5341641 — net $499.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent owing to 6/07/2025	$471.43	Rent owing to 6/07/2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	14. I award the filing fee as the rent claim is proven.
Net award	$499.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$499.43

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord and Tenant names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $499.43 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay $499.43 from the bond of $900.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The balance of the bond of $400.57 is to remain at the Bond Centre.
The landlord’s application for compensation is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord’s representatives attended the hearing held by videoconference. I telephoned the tenant however his phone went to voicemail. I continued with the hearing as the tenant has been emailed notice of the hearing date and time to his address for service.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy started on 21 December 2019 and ended after the tenant gave notice.
I award rent to the end of the notice period which is to 6 July 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing is $471.43.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that any 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (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.
The landlord claims the premises were damaged by methamphetamine residue during this tenancy.
An applicant is required to establish their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
In support of that claim, the following evidence was produced:- a. A report from a company that tests properties for methamphetamine residue containing “laboratory results” from ten samples sent to the lab on 11 July 2025. b. Oral evidence from one of the landlord’s representatives who said she was present at the tenancy premises when “a drug pipe” was found in the garden in the midst of ash residue. c. Three photographs showing:- i. A garden box containing ash residue, potting mix, and weeds; ii. A close-up of the above showing what looks to be a glass pipe amongst the ash residue; iii. Another even closer photo of the glass pipe object.
The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that methamphetamine residue detected inside the tenancy premises originated during this tenancy.
The reasons for my decision are:- a. The landlord confirms there was no methamphetamine testing done at the start of this tenancy. District Court appeals from Tenancy Tribunal decisions confirm it is difficult to prove that alleged contamination occurred during the tenancy if there is no pre-tenancy testing done. See Eren Limited v Martin and Kukuruzsnayak [2021] NZDC 15210 and Brooking and Hodges v Imrie [2021] NZDC 16976. b. I accept the landlord’s evidence that a glass pipe was discovered outside at the premises soon after the tenancy ended. However, this item was not tested for the presence of methamphetamine so is not strong evidence on its own. c. The landlord told me they had a conversation with the local police after finding the glass pipe but there is no evidence available to link the tenant to methamphetamine.
Even if the landlord had proved that methamphetamine residue came about in the premises during this tenancy, the testing evidence provided would not have satisfied me that damage had been proven. In brief, this is because:- a. The report from the testing company appears to be the results of “field composite screening”. 1 Composite testing results do not give methamphetamine residue levels in individual samples and cannot be used to prove damage. b. I note that “field composite screening” is not an accepted method of testing. 2 c. The landlord did provide an invoice indicating that individual sample testing has been done but did not provide the report (testing or laboratory) of the individual sample results. d. Individual sample results of 15 micrograms or less of methamphetamine residue in a 100cm 2 sample area will not usually be considered by the Tribunal to be damaged. 3 Section 138C of the RTA provides for regulations to be made to set “maximum acceptable levels” and “maximum 1 At page 8 of “Your Meth Report”, ID 151851, Thursday, July 10, 2025 as supplied in evidence. 2 See “Regulation of methamphetamine contamination in rental housing”, Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, 8 October 2025, at www.hud.govt.nz/our-work/methamphetamine-regulations. 3 See several years of Tenancy Tribunal decisions searchable on the Ministry of Justice website. inhabitable levels” for methamphetamine and other contaminants and the levels to be set have now been agreed by Cabinet. 4
The application for compensation related to methamphetamine testing and cleaning is dismissed. Filing fee and other claims
I award the filing fee as the rent claim is proven.
The landlord says there was other non-methamphetamine-related damage at the premises. The tenant was notified of this by the landlord when the tenancy ended. The landlord may choose to make a new application relating to other damage.
I refund $499.43 to the landlord from the bond for the amounts awarded and order the balance remains at the Bond Centre pending any new application. Suppression of names
I suppress the landlord’s name/s as, although the compensation application is unsuccessful, I am satisfied it was made in good faith and that its interests in privacy outweigh the public interest.
The landlord has not proved the tenant was responsible for the methamphetamine residue. I suppress the tenant’s name because the stigma of having his name associated with methamphetamine outweighs the public interest in his identity.
I do not suppress the tenancy address. The landlord says the premises have been cleaned of methamphetamine residue and can provide this information to any prospective tenant or other interested person.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5341641 — net $499.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent owing to 6/07/2025	$471.43	Rent owing to 6/07/2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	14. I award the filing fee as the rent claim is proven.
Net award	$499.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$499.43

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord and Tenant names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $499.43 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay $499.43 from the bond of $900.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The balance of the bond of $400.57 is to remain at the Bond Centre.
The landlord’s application for compensation is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord’s representatives attended the hearing held by videoconference. I telephoned the tenant however his phone went to voicemail. I continued with the hearing as the tenant has been emailed notice of the hearing date and time to his address for service.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy started on 21 December 2019 and ended after the tenant gave notice.
I award rent to the end of the notice period which is to 6 July 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing is $471.43.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that any 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (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.
The landlord claims the premises were damaged by methamphetamine residue during this tenancy.
An applicant is required to establish their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
In support of that claim, the following evidence was produced:- a. A report from a company that tests properties for methamphetamine residue containing “laboratory results” from ten samples sent to the lab on 11 July 2025. b. Oral evidence from one of the landlord’s representatives who said she was present at the tenancy premises when “a drug pipe” was found in the garden in the midst of ash residue. c. Three photographs showing:- i. A garden box containing ash residue, potting mix, and weeds; ii. A close-up of the above showing what looks to be a glass pipe amongst the ash residue; iii. Another even closer photo of the glass pipe object.
The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that methamphetamine residue detected inside the tenancy premises originated during this tenancy.
The reasons for my decision are:- a. The landlord confirms there was no methamphetamine testing done at the start of this tenancy. District Court appeals from Tenancy Tribunal decisions confirm it is difficult to prove that alleged contamination occurred during the tenancy if there is no pre-tenancy testing done. See Eren Limited v Martin and Kukuruzsnayak [2021] NZDC 15210 and Brooking and Hodges v Imrie [2021] NZDC 16976. b. I accept the landlord’s evidence that a glass pipe was discovered outside at the premises soon after the tenancy ended. However, this item was not tested for the presence of methamphetamine so is not strong evidence on its own. c. The landlord told me they had a conversation with the local police after finding the glass pipe but there is no evidence available to link the tenant to methamphetamine.
Even if the landlord had proved that methamphetamine residue came about in the premises during this tenancy, the testing evidence provided would not have satisfied me that damage had been proven. In brief, this is because:- a. The report from the testing company appears to be the results of “field composite screening”. 1 Composite testing results do not give methamphetamine residue levels in individual samples and cannot be used to prove damage. b. I note that “field composite screening” is not an accepted method of testing. 2 c. The landlord did provide an invoice indicating that individual sample testing has been done but did not provide the report (testing or laboratory) of the individual sample results. d. Individual sample results of 15 micrograms or less of methamphetamine residue in a 100cm 2 sample area will not usually be considered by the Tribunal to be damaged. 3 Section 138C of the RTA provides for regulations to be made to set “maximum acceptable levels” and “maximum 1 At page 8 of “Your Meth Report”, ID 151851, Thursday, July 10, 2025 as supplied in evidence. 2 See “Regulation of methamphetamine contamination in rental housing”, Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, 8 October 2025, at www.hud.govt.nz/our-work/methamphetamine-regulations. 3 See several years of Tenancy Tribunal decisions searchable on the Ministry of Justice website. inhabitable levels” for methamphetamine and other contaminants and the levels to be set have now been agreed by Cabinet. 4
The application for compensation related to methamphetamine testing and cleaning is dismissed. Filing fee and other claims
I award the filing fee as the rent claim is proven.
The landlord says there was other non-methamphetamine-related damage at the premises. The tenant was notified of this by the landlord when the tenancy ended. The landlord may choose to make a new application relating to other damage.
I refund $499.43 to the landlord from the bond for the amounts awarded and order the balance remains at the Bond Centre pending any new application. Suppression of names
I suppress the landlord’s name/s as, although the compensation application is unsuccessful, I am satisfied it was made in good faith and that its interests in privacy outweigh the public interest.
The landlord has not proved the tenant was responsible for the methamphetamine residue. I suppress the tenant’s name because the stigma of having his name associated with methamphetamine outweighs the public interest in his identity.
I do not suppress the tenancy address. The landlord says the premises have been cleaned of methamphetamine residue and can provide this information to any prospective tenant or other interested person.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5341641 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 19, 6A Gregg Street, Alexandra, Otago 9320

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5341641 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 19, 6A Gregg Street, Alexandra, Otago 9320

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions