What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5345821 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 5345821?

Cleaning: $260.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $900.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing By NZ Healthy Homes: $1,265.00 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing By NZ Healthy Homes: $885.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $378.50 awarded to landlord; Rent: $974.29 awarded to landlord; Water Charges To End Of Tenancy: $907.82 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5345821?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5345821?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12711984-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5345821 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 5345821?

Cleaning: $260.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $900.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing By NZ Healthy Homes: $1,265.00 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing By NZ Healthy Homes: $885.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $378.50 awarded to landlord; Rent: $974.29 awarded to landlord; Water Charges To End Of Tenancy: $907.82 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5345821?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5345821?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12711984-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5345821 — Healthy homes

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5345821 — net $3,559.11 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent to 1 October 2025	$974.29	Rent to 1 October 2025
Water charges to end of tenancy	$907.82	Water charges to end of tenancy
Lock/key replacement	$378.50	Lock/key replacement
Carpet Cleaning	$260.00	Carpet Cleaning
Meth testing by NZ Healthy Homes	$1,265.00	Meth testing by NZ Healthy Homes
Meth testing by NZ Healthy Homes	$885.50	Meth testing by NZ Healthy Homes
Exemplary damages – unlawful purpose	$900.00	Exemplary damages – unlawful purpose
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,559.11
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,559.11

Both parties attended the hearing on 10 November 2025.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, outgoings, compensation, refund of the bond, exemplary damages, and reimbursement of the filing fee.

The tenancy started on 27 August 2016 and ended on 1 October 2025. Tenant Obligations

The landlord provided rent records and water invoices which show the amounts owed for rent and outgoings at the end of the tenancy. The tenants accepted these claims.

The tenants did not return all the keys. The landlord had to change the locks and replace remotes. The tenants accepted these claims. Contamination

Testing on 23 August 2016 found no traces of methamphetamine in a ten-sample composite (<0.02ug/100cm²). The tenancy started a few days later.

The premises were put on the market. A sale and purchase agreement was entered into between the owner and the purchaser in August 2025. The purchaser carried out their own methamphetamine test.

A Methamphetamine Sampling Report dated 2 September 2025 identified methamphetamine of 1.57ug/100cm² in a ten-sample composite. A detailed assessment identified levels above 1.5ug/100cm² in the garage (6.9ug/100cm²) and master ensuite (4.5ug/100cm²). The report stated that the distribution indicated the entire premises were affected. On receipt of these findings the purchaser cancelled the contract.

The landlord obtained a Methamphetamine Laboratory Analysis Sampling Report dated 6 October 2025. This found levels above 1.5ug/100cm² in the master bedroom (7.6ug/100cm²) ensuite (4.2ug/100cm²) bedroom 2 (6.3ug/100cm²) kitchen (6.9ug/100cm²) living room (4.7ug/100cm²) and the dining room (9.1ug/100cm²). Testing Costs

Section 40(2)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) provides that a tenant must not use the premises, or permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose.

It is an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 to manufacture, possess or use any controlled drug, or to knowingly permit any premises to be used for the purpose of consuming controlled drugs (sections 6, 7 and 12). It follows that methamphetamine use or manufacture at residential premises is a breach of section 40(2)(b) and an “unlawful act” for which exemplary damages may be awarded.

The tenants said they had taken great care looking after the premises. Both parties said the premises had otherwise been left in good condition by the tenants. The tenants did not know how the contamination could have happened. They did not use or see people use drugs in the premises. In response to a question from the Tribunal, they noted that there had been times when they were away and left other people to look after the house. Family members from overseas had also been to stay with them.

There is a discrepancy between the results of the testing done by the purchaser and the testing performed by the landlord. The testing performed by the purchaser identified elevated levels only in the garage and master ensuite. The landlord’s testing found low levels in the garage (0.22ug/100cm²) and similar levels to earlier testing in the master ensuite (4.2ug/100cm²). There were higher levels in other rooms not identified as contaminated by the purchaser. The significance of the later testing by the landlord is that it suggests more widespread use of methamphetamine than the initial testing.

The methamphetamine levels increased from “no trace” during the tenancy to levels above the NZ Standard 8510:2017 (the NZ Standard) recommended level of 1.5ug/100cm² by September 2025. Both providers of testing services recommended decontamination. They did not specifically comment on whether the findings were indicative of use. None of the reports identified anything suspicious, for example any drug-making apparatus or other visual indicia of drug use. However, based on the Gluckman report (discussed below) I consider the methamphetamine levels are consistent with use rather than manufacture.

I find on the balance of probabilities that the premises were used for an unlawful purpose during the tenancy. I am compelled to this conclusion based on the clear increase from “no trace” findings in 2016 to the testing results above the NZ Standard in 2025, in multiple high-use areas. It does not matter whether the tenants knew about such unlawful use. They breached section 40(2)(b) if the premises were used for an unlawful purpose by their visitors (section 41 of the Act). Accordingly, I find that they are liable for the initial testing costs incurred by the landlord. Decontamination Costs

In June 2017, Standards New Zealand published the NZ Standard for testing and decontamination of methamphetamine-contaminated properties. This adopted a standard of 1.5ug/100cm² for high use areas, for both manufacture and use. The foreword said that methamphetamine production and use can contaminate properties and expose occupants, particularly young children, to potential health risks. A post-contamination level of 1.5ug/100cm² or less was considered appropriate to minimize exposure risks, acknowledging “safety factors” already built into a risk assessment by Environmental Science and Research Limited in October 2016.

Professor Gluckman, at that time the government’s chief science advisor, authored a report dated 29 May 2018. This concluded that methamphetamine levels exceeding the NZ Standard level of 1.5ug/100cm² “...should not be regarded as signaling a health risk”. The report said that exposure to methamphetamine levels below 15ug/100cm² would be unlikely to give rise to any adverse effects. Remediation to the 1.5ug/100cm² standard was appropriate for former meth labs and properties with high levels of methamphetamine contamination from excessive use. The report said that manufacture in general results in greater methamphetamine residue levels than smoking alone and concluded that: “...levels around or exceeding 30ug/100cm² are regarded as strongly suggestive of manufacturing activity”.

In Full Circle Real Estate v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 the District Court had to determine whether the level of methamphetamine contamination would present a risk to human health. Where there is a risk to human health from such contamination, the property can be said to be damaged. The District Court said the Gluckman report constituted the best available knowledge of the risks to human health from methamphetamine contamination. The Tribunal has since applied the Gluckman report rather than the NZ Standard when determining whether there is damage. There are currently no regulations prescribing acceptable maximum levels for contaminants, although they are envisaged by section 138C of the Act.

I find that the premises were not damaged by methamphetamine contamination because the contamination was less than 15ug/100cm². Accordingly, the tenants are not liable for the decontamination costs (approximately $5,997.26) including post-decontamination testing. I do, however, award the carpet cleaning cost. The NZ Standard recommends that carpets, even in areas that are not contaminated, are cleaned to reduce the risk of future exposure. Exemplary Damages

A tenant who uses or permits the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose commits an “unlawful act” for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $1,800.00.

The tenants committed an unlawful act because they are deemed to be responsible for the actions of visitors. However, exemplary damages can only be awarded where the tenant has committed the unlawful act intentionally. The Tribunal must also be satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest.

If the contamination had been limited to one room, the tenants’ evidence that they had no knowledge of drug use at the premises would carry more weight. But as the testing reports noted, there was widespread contamination, with main living areas such as the living room and dining room recording quite high levels. The more extensive or widespread the contamination, in my view the less plausible it becomes that the premises were used for an unlawful purpose without the tenants’ knowledge.

The owner’s interests have been badly affected. They lost a sale, and I was told the premises have still not been sold due to disclosure obligations around methamphetamine. The owner has been put to the cost of decontaminating the premises, even though the contamination was less than 15ug/100cm². The landlord noted that the owner, attempting unsuccessfully to keep the sale of the property on foot, also paid the purchaser’s testing costs.

I consider it would be just to award exemplary damages. Objectively the contamination was of moderate seriousness, below the levels adopted by the Tribunal as reflecting potential harm to human health, but the effects on the owner go beyond the immediate cost of testing and decontamination. The public interest is engaged in terms of the availability and safety of residential housing. I award exemplary damages of $900.00. Filing Fee and Name Suppression

The landlord’s application has succeeded. I award the filing fee.

The landlord did not request suppression in the application. Given the landlord’s comments at the hearing, subsequently I sought confirmation whether suppression was claimed. There has been no response from the landlord.

The tenants requested suppression.

The premises have been decontaminated. The landlord’s privacy interest outweighs the public interest. Serious findings have been made against the tenants, but to the civil standard of proof only and essentially based on the test results. This could have implications for the tenants’ ability to rent homes in the future. Their privacy interest should also be recognised.

I grant suppression to both parties.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5345821 — net $3,559.11 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent to 1 October 2025	$974.29	Rent to 1 October 2025
Water charges to end of tenancy	$907.82	Water charges to end of tenancy
Lock/key replacement	$378.50	Lock/key replacement
Carpet Cleaning	$260.00	Carpet Cleaning
Meth testing by NZ Healthy Homes	$1,265.00	Meth testing by NZ Healthy Homes
Meth testing by NZ Healthy Homes	$885.50	Meth testing by NZ Healthy Homes
Exemplary damages – unlawful purpose	$900.00	Exemplary damages – unlawful purpose
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,559.11
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,559.11