What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5346343 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 5346343?

Cleaning: $644.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpet: $1,839.80 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,552.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5346343?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5346343?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12805566-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5346343 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 5346343?

Cleaning: $644.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpet: $1,839.80 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,552.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5346343?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5346343?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12805566-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5346343 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5346343 — net $4,064.30 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$1,552.50	Rubbish removal
Replace furnishings: Carpet	$1,839.80	Replace furnishings: Carpet
Cleaning	$644.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,064.30
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,064.30

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Charles Sandana Nathan must pay [The landlord/s] $4,064.30 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, set down to be conducted via video conference. There was no entry into the conference by the tenant, nor any prior contact with the Registry. A call to the tenant was attempted but unsuccessful. I was satisfied adequate service had completed and I continued with the hearing after the call went unanswered.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. There was a complication in the final methamphetamine test results that indicated a level of contamination that required remediation (see blow).
The landlord provided invoices and photos that supported the claims and amounts as ordered.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
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). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
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). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) 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.
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. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The carpet was badly stained during the tenancy. Comparison with entry photos confirm this. The carpet was replaced for the additional reason of methamphetamine contamination (see below) and the landlord claim of $1,839.80 is a part-claim only for its loss after agency funding towards remediation. The carpet damage was such that an order for replacement cost would have followed regardless of any separate need as part of a decontamination. The claim is awarded in full.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
There were also claims for a crack in the ceramic hob and missing window stays. Having further considered the submissions of the landlord and the limited evidence I do not consider these have been established as tenant liability and both claims are dismissed. This was foreshadowed at the hearing.
I have taken into account depreciation in considering the carpet claim. 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 Housing and Urban Development explanation here). Regulations are expected to be in force in 2026, but an exact date has not been set yet. Essentially, when methamphetamine residue levels are above 15μg/100cm2 (micrograms per hundred square centimetres), the property is considered contaminated and needs to be decontaminated.
The property 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 (10 November 2023), some seven months into the tenancy. No significant methamphetamine was detected at that time (sample composite of 1.24μg/100cm² and a theoretical maximum of
45μg/100cm²).
A composite test was conducted on 7 November 2024 after the tenancy ended. This composite identified a sample composite of 6.62μg/100cm² and a theoretical maximum of 39.7μg/100cm² based on the samples taken. The landlord conducted a follow up comprehensive test the samples. This found contamination over 15μg/100cm² in the lounge and kitchen areas.
Given this result, there was a need to decontaminate.
As the landlord is a social housing provider, the bulk of the remediation costs were covered by a separate agency fund, hence no formal claim for remediation here. The large cost of rubbish and contents to be disposed did include some of the removed furnishing like carpet. Filing fee
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. 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 been substantially successful, suppression is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5346343 — net $4,064.30 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$1,552.50	Rubbish removal
Replace furnishings: Carpet	$1,839.80	Replace furnishings: Carpet
Cleaning	$644.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,064.30
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,064.30

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Charles Sandana Nathan must pay [The landlord/s] $4,064.30 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, set down to be conducted via video conference. There was no entry into the conference by the tenant, nor any prior contact with the Registry. A call to the tenant was attempted but unsuccessful. I was satisfied adequate service had completed and I continued with the hearing after the call went unanswered.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. There was a complication in the final methamphetamine test results that indicated a level of contamination that required remediation (see blow).
The landlord provided invoices and photos that supported the claims and amounts as ordered.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
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). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
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). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) 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.
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. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The carpet was badly stained during the tenancy. Comparison with entry photos confirm this. The carpet was replaced for the additional reason of methamphetamine contamination (see below) and the landlord claim of $1,839.80 is a part-claim only for its loss after agency funding towards remediation. The carpet damage was such that an order for replacement cost would have followed regardless of any separate need as part of a decontamination. The claim is awarded in full.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
There were also claims for a crack in the ceramic hob and missing window stays. Having further considered the submissions of the landlord and the limited evidence I do not consider these have been established as tenant liability and both claims are dismissed. This was foreshadowed at the hearing.
I have taken into account depreciation in considering the carpet claim. 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 Housing and Urban Development explanation here). Regulations are expected to be in force in 2026, but an exact date has not been set yet. Essentially, when methamphetamine residue levels are above 15μg/100cm2 (micrograms per hundred square centimetres), the property is considered contaminated and needs to be decontaminated.
The property 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 (10 November 2023), some seven months into the tenancy. No significant methamphetamine was detected at that time (sample composite of 1.24μg/100cm² and a theoretical maximum of
45μg/100cm²).
A composite test was conducted on 7 November 2024 after the tenancy ended. This composite identified a sample composite of 6.62μg/100cm² and a theoretical maximum of 39.7μg/100cm² based on the samples taken. The landlord conducted a follow up comprehensive test the samples. This found contamination over 15μg/100cm² in the lounge and kitchen areas.
Given this result, there was a need to decontaminate.
As the landlord is a social housing provider, the bulk of the remediation costs were covered by a separate agency fund, hence no formal claim for remediation here. The large cost of rubbish and contents to be disposed did include some of the removed furnishing like carpet. Filing fee
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. 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 been substantially successful, suppression is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5346343 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5346343 — 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?

Was there a need to decontaminate/clean?

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?

Was there a need to decontaminate/clean?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions