What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5346321 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 5346321?

Cleaning: $129.37 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5346321?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5346321?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13140416-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5346321 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 5346321?

Cleaning: $129.37 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5346321?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5346321?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13140416-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5346321 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5346321 — net $309.37 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$80.00	Cleaning
Carpet cleaning	$129.37	Carpet cleaning
Gardening/rubbish removal	$100.00	Gardening/rubbish removal
Net award	$309.37
Bond	$1,590.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$309.37

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5346321 — net $309.37 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$80.00	Cleaning
Carpet cleaning	$129.37	Carpet cleaning
Gardening/rubbish removal	$100.00	Gardening/rubbish removal
Net award	$309.37
Bond	$1,590.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$309.37

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] is to pay The Property Managers Limited $309.37 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,590.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: The Property Managers Limited: $309.37 [The tenant/s]: $1,280.63
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, with Ms Merritt and Mr Ryder representing the landlord.
This tenancy began on 5 August 2022 and ended on 29 July 2025. The landlord has applied for payment from the bond, compensation and exemplary damages following the end of the tenancy. This is application number 5346321. Compensation is sought for costs incurred for cleaning, carpet cleaning, gardening/rubbish removal, and additional testing for methamphetamine (meth). Exemplary damages are sought on the basis of alleged unlawful activity.
The tenant has filed a cross application (number 5397728), claiming a return of her bond in full, and denies any unlawful activity. She seeks a withdrawal of the landlord’s claims against her regarding the alleged use of meth.
The parties provided oral, photographic and documentary evidence, along with oral submissions. The tenant also completed written submissions. General legal framework
In this jurisdiction, the party making the claim has the onus of proving their claim to the required civil standard of proof, which is on the balance of probabilities. This means they must establish, with evidence, that their claim is “more likely than not.”
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. In general, when awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach.
Exemplary damages are penalties and can only be awarded for an unlawful act, as set out in various sections of the RTA and as listed in Schedule 1A of the Act. They are different from compensation and are designed to punish and deter, more like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion. Where one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act, before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the RTA. Tenant’s obligations at the end of the tenancy Legal framework
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA).
The tenant’s obligation is to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. This is not necessarily pristine, or to the standard a landlord considers acceptable for a new tenant. 1 The standard does not equate to being commercially clean 2 , spotless 3 , or hotel/motel standard of cleanliness. 4 Therefore, a landlord may have some additional work to bring the premises up to standard for a new tenant 5 and cannot claim excessive time to clean and tidy the premises. 6
The landlord claims cleaning ($310.00), carpet cleaning ($258.75), gardening/ rubbish removal costs ($713.00). The landlord has provided evidence, including invoices, a quotation, and inspection reports, with photographs showing the condition of the premises at the start and end of the tenancy. The rubbish removal costs are based on a quotation. The tenant has produced an invoice showing that she arranged for the premises to be professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord’s claims are considered below. Cleaning
Having considered the evidence overall, I find that, for the most part, the tenant did leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition at the end of the tenancy. However, despite the tenant arranging professional cleaning, it appears the oven required further work. For this additional cleaning, the landlord is to be compensated, in the amount of $80.00. The balance of the cleaning cost is not the responsibility of the tenant. 1 Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV-2008-085-1441, 17 Dec 2008. 2 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd TT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009 3 Reardon v Fahey Property Management Ltd [2016] NZTT Auckland 3149 at 6. 4 Richards v Scally TT Christchurch TT 2043/98, 21 July 1998 5 Richards v Scally (above) 6 Falwasser v Armstrong [2011] NZTT Whakatane 523. Carpet cleaning
In terms of the carpet cleaning, I acknowledge the tenant’s submissions on the likely source of the marks on the carpet. Having viewed the photographs, and taken into account the oral evidence, I consider it reasonable for the tenant to contribute to some of the professional cleaning of the carpet.
The landlord’s evidence is that the photographs of the carpet were taken on 30 July 2025, which is one day after the tenancy ended. While it is acknowledged that some renovation work occurred in the bathroom, based on the landlord’s evidence at the hearing, the photographs were taken before this work was undertaken. So, the photographic evidence reflects the condition of the carpet at the end of the tenancy.
However, it is evident that the carpet cleaning work was undertaken after the renovation work, and almost one month after the end of the tenancy. Therefore, the tenant cannot be liable for carpet cleaning costs that may have arisen after the tenancy ended. For this reason, and taking into account all the circumstances, a 50% contribution is considered reasonable. Therefore, the tenant is to pay the landlord $129.37 for carpet cleaning. Gardening and rubbish removal
The landlord states that an estimate for the gardening and rubbish removal costs was obtained, but the owners then did the work themselves, spending a full day. Invoices for the disposal fees were provided. There are two receipts, for $156.00 and $100.00. A photograph of the rubbish removed was also produced. The landlord states, in response to the tenant’s evidence, that they had responded to requests for garden maintenance.
The tenant states that when she moved in, she found broken furniture and other items in the garden. She struggled to maintain the courtyard, and felt the garden needed better mulching, which she had suggested to the landlord in her email. She had removed most of her items, although the odd item was left behind.
Having considered the evidence and submissions, I find that most of the gardening and rubbish removal costs are not payable by the tenant, although there is some responsibility for removal of a portion of the weeds and rubbish left in the garden. The ingoing inspection report shows the garden was in an average condition, with photographs showing weeds growing between the pavers at the start of the tenancy. The evidence regarding removal of the other items left behind is conflicting, therefore, the landlord is not entitled to recover the full cost. Taking the overall evidence into account, I consider it reasonable for the tenant to contribute $100.00 for the gardening/rubbish removal costs.
The amounts ordered are proved. Methamphetamine: compensation and exemplary damages
The landlord seeks compensation for methamphetamine testing costs and exemplary damages for alleged unlawful activity. This part of the landlord’s claim is considered below. Legal framework
Methamphetamine contamination is regarded as damage. This is because it is a physical alteration (not necessarily permanent or irreparable), which impairs the value or usefulness of the item or property damaged, and which cannot be removed by normal cleaning. 7
Section 138C of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) provides for regulations to be made prescribing the maximum acceptable level for contaminants, but as yet no regulations have been made in relation to methamphetamine.
There are currently two sources of guidance on the issue of a safe level of methamphetamine contamination in residential premises. In June 2017 Standards New Zealand published NZS 8510:2017. The standard recommended a maximum contamination level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 for high use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture. It recommended a higher level of 3.8μg/100cm 2 for limited use areas.
In May 2018 Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the then Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor, released a report "Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards”. The report noted that there is a lack of scientific evidence to prove that low-level third-hand methamphetamine exposure poses a health risk to humans. It stated that guidelines should be proportionate to risk and that exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm 2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect. It recommended retaining the level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 where contamination resulted from manufacture, due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the process.
The District Court has held that remediation should be carried out in accordance with the prevailing guidelines at the time. 8 7 Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand S. Benson, 6.16. 8 Diamond Real Estate Limited v Allan [2017] NZDC 833, Judge Kellar
The Tribunal has generally applied the Gluckman recommendation. This approach was approved by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper. 9 The District Court took a similar approach in Acme Realty Limited v Hogg and others 10 , where the Court referred to the Full Circle case and held that, because NZS 8510:2017 has not been adopted into law, the Tribunal was not bound to apply the 1.5μg standard.
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises by methamphetamine contamination occurred during the tenancy. 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 11 .
Section 40(2)(b) of the RTA prohibits the tenant from using the premises or permitting the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose.
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. 12

Is the tenant liable for the methamphetamine testing?

The landlord relies on testing conducted before the tenancy began, and at the end of the tenancy. The landlord submits that this testing established that methamphetamine was consumed in the premises during the tenancy. The landlord accepts that further testing revealed the contamination was at a level low, and was not enough to require specialised cleaning. However, it states the owner had suffered financial loss in having to order additional tests. The landlord seeks $864.80 for the additional meth testing cost.
At the hearing, the landlord discussed the results of testing conducted on 25 July 2022 and 30 July 2025. The landlord also referred to earlier testing conducted on 20 May 2021 and 28 October 2020. The landlord explained that back in 2018, the property tested positive for methamphetamine contamination. It was then cleaned and following testing on three occasions, was clear of meth contamination. The landlord states it was not alleging that the tenant was using meth. However, it sought compensation based on the results of testing, since meth was an illegal substance. The landlord noted the samples were sent to an independent 9 [2019] NZDC 4947 10 [2021] NZDC 3231 11 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA 12 See section 49B(1) of the RTA laboratory. The landlord maintains it was following the usual and appropriate pathway, relying on the facts from testing.
The tenant, in her comprehensive oral and written submissions, explained in detail why she refuted the landlord’s claims. She questioned the validity of the testing, and noted the property had a history of meth contamination. She stated in her evidence that she is not a drug user, has never used drugs, and has never been charged or convicted of any criminal offence. In her employment, which she disclosed, she had to undergo regular police checks, with her most recent check finding no issues. She found the landlord’s accusation extremely distressing and stressful. Such a charge would have extremely serious implications for her employment and professional reputation. Issues to be determined
Some of the key issues are as follows: a. Has the landlord established, on the balance of probabilities (i.e. that it is more probable than not), that the tenant used, or allowed the use of, methamphetamine in the premises during this tenancy? b. Was the level of methamphetamine contamination at the premises beyond “safe” levels, therefore causing “damage” to the premises in terms of s.40(2)(a) of the RTA?
In this case, the landlord accepts that the level of methamphetamine contamination at the premises was below the level required to establish that there was damage to the premises. The landlord states no specialised cleaning costs were incurred. However, it seeks the testing cost on the basis that it considers methamphetamine was used at the premises.

What does the testing show?

The Healthy Homes New Zealand (HHNZ) test conducted on 25 July 2022, before the tenancy began, was reported to show that there were no traces of methamphetamine residue present. The recorded result was for a level less than
08μg. The areas tested were the open plan kitchen/ dining/ lounge, staircase, bathroom and bedrooms 1 and 2.
The landlord also provided earlier test results conducted in October 2020 and May 2021. It may be noted that the October 2020 testing showed trace levels of methamphetamine, with a result of 0.38μg. As this was at a level below
5μg/100cm, 2 no further action was required. The testing in May 2021 found no traces of methamphetamine residue present, with the result being less than
08μg.
The testing conducted on 30 July 2025, after the tenancy had ended, returned a result showing traces of methamphetamine above the NZS 8510:2017 standard of 1.5μg/100cm. 2 The combined test result was 4.81μg/100cm. 2 This was a screening assessment. It was recommended that the property undergo a full detailed assessment, which the landlord then arranged.
A comprehensive test was completed on 21 August 2025. The results of this testing were that there were trace levels of methamphetamine, but at levels below the NZ8510:2017 standard of 1.5μg/100cm. 2 The report states that as the result was below this level, no further action was required. In terms of the individual results, these are as follows: open plan kitchen/dining/lounge (0.02μg), staircase (0.48μg), bathroom 1 (0.30μg), bedroom 1 (0.12μg), and bedroom 2 (1.11μg).
Overall, while noting the testing results, when the evidence is considered as a whole, I find the landlord has not established, with sufficient evidence, that the tenant used, or allowed the use of, methamphetamine in the premises during this tenancy. Apart from the testing results, the landlord has not provided any further evidence to support the claim that methamphetamine was used during this tenancy.
In the July 2025 report, it was noted that no odours were identified, no possible signs of meth use, or manufacture were observed, and there were no signs of other drug use. Furthermore, the comprehensive testing showed all areas were below 1.5μg/100cm. 2 There was only one area that returned a result above
0μg, being bedroom 2. Therefore, despite the earlier testing returning a result indicating traces of methamphetamine, as the tenant has noted in her submissions, the individual test results show a lower level of contamination in the downstairs spaces (0.02μg), and a level varying from 0.012μg to 1.11μg in the upstairs areas.
There is also the oral evidence of the tenant, which I accept, that she has never used methamphetamine, and she denies any drug use. She states she lives at the premises on her own, and has had visitors from time to time, who would not use drugs in the house. I also accept her evidence regarding her employment requirements. She has provided comprehensive reasons in this regard, including the regular testing required for employment purposes.
It may be noted that the testing results show very low levels of meth residue which were below the NZS 8510:2017 standard of 1.5μg/100cm. 2 These results were also well below the Gluckman standard of 15μg/100cm, 2 and therefore unlikely to have an adverse effect on human health.
There is also a history in this case of previous methamphetamine contamination at the premises, and the levels found prior to any decontamination work is unclear. The landlord has provided some of the results of previous testing. These were also conducted by HHNZ. The previous testing has shown variable results. The testing in October 2020 showed there were traces of meth at the premises, while in the following year, testing showed no traces of meth residue.
In this case, the landlord’s reasons for arranging the individual testing at the end of the tenancy are understandable, particularly in view of HHNZ’s recommendation. However, for the reasons set out above, I am not persuaded that the tenant ought to be liable for this additional testing. Therefore, this claim is dismissed. Exemplary damages
In view of the findings above, the landlord’s claim for exemplary damages is also dismissed, since the landlord has not established that the tenant used the premises, or permitted the premises to be used, for an unlawful purpose. Name suppression and filing fee
The tenant seeks name suppression, the landlord does not. The Tribunal, having had regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
As each party has had some success, there is no order for reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5346321 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5346321 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant liable for the methamphetamine testing?

What does the testing show?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant liable for the methamphetamine testing?

What does the testing show?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions