How much money was awarded in case 5354527?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5354527?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5354527?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12876816-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5354527?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5354527?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5354527?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12876816-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

19 Boucher Avenue, Te Puke 3119 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5354527 — Exemplary damages

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5354527 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Eves Realty Group Limited As Agent For Stepanie

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Eves Realty Group Limited As Agent For Stepanie Towers $6,654.25 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for water rates, compensation, exemplary damages, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for water?

The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at 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.
The tenant did not return the keys.
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.
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 landlord claims that during this tenancy, the tenant has caused or permitted others living at the premises to have caused the property to be contaminated by methamphetamine use and/or manufacture on the premises which damaged the property.
The landlord incurred methamphetamine testing and cleaning costs, limited to insurance excess.
Baseline testing for methamphetamine prior to the start of the tenancy had been undertaken; no methamphetamine was detected in the premises prior to the tenancy.
At the end of the tenancy, the composite test undertaken on 8 August 2025 recorded 8.3μg (micrograms) of methamphetamine residue and a potential/theoretical maximum of 16.6μg of methamphetamine residue.
Discreet methamphetamine testing was done whereby 14.2μg of methamphetamine residue was found in bedroom 3. That was the highest recorded methamphetamine reading found in the premises.
I find on the balance of probabilities that there had been methamphetamine use (which is unlawful) in the premises during the tenancy.
Accordingly, I am satisfied that the tenant is liable to pay the landlord the cost of the composite and detailed methamphetamine tests undertaken.
I consider the methamphetamine testing costs were reasonably undertaken and incurred by the landlord in the circumstances given my finding that it is more likely than not that methamphetamine use has occurred at the premises during the tenancy.
I am satisfied that the premises have been used for an unlawful purpose, namely drug use during this tenancy.
The tenant had used or permitted the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose.
Breaching the obligation under section 40(2)(b) RTA is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Having regard to the factors under section 109(3) RTA, I find it just to award exemplary damages on the highest end of the scale of $1,800.00.
Along with the exemplary damages, I also award general damages of $700.00 to the landlord for the tenant using the premises for an unlawful purpose. The tenant’s drug use caused stress and additional efforts in reletting the premises.
The landlord’s remaining claim for methamphetamine decontamination costs rest on whether the premises required remediation and cleaning based on the methamphetamine test results.
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
5μg/100cm2. 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 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: 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
5μg/100cm2 after decontamination. While this level is greater than the Ministry of Health 2010 guideline value of 0.5μg/100cm2 for properties used as clandestine laboratories, there are a number of reasons why the committee decided to adopt the single value of 1.5μg/100cm2 in this standard.
In short, this standard confirmed that the level at which habitation of residential premises was considered safe, was a level of 1.5μg/100cm2. The expectation on landlords arising from this Standard, was to remediate premises contaminated with methamphetamine, to a level of less than 1.5μg/100cm2.
In more recent times, the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman determined 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 15μg/100cm2 were unlikely to present adverse effects: Taken together, these factors indicate that methamphetamine levels that exceed the NZS 8510:2017 clean-up standard of 1.5μg/100cm2 should not be regarded as signalling a health risk. Indeed, exposure to methamphetamine levels below 15μg/100cm2 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.
In the District Court judgment of Diamond Real Estate Limited v Allan [2017] NZDC 833, Judge Kellar considered a case in which remediation was undertaken in reliance on the 2010 Ministry of Health level of 0.5μg/100cm2. It is the case that following the remediation work the Standard NZS 8510:2017 was released, which as noted above increased the acceptable level to
5μg/100cm2. Judge Kellar records that when the premises were tested, the highest level recorded was in the toilet at 1.4μg/100cm2 that “exceeded the Ministry of Health guidelines at the time.” The Court confirmed that any consideration as to whether the premises had been damaged, must be based on the prevailing guidelines at that time.
At this time, there remains a current New Zealand Standard of 1.5μg/100cm2, and also a current opinion from the Chief Science Advisor that there is no evidence of risk below 15μg/100cm2.
This matter has been considered recently by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947. Judge Kellar needed to determine which level should be applied. The Court discussed the conflict between the New Zealand Standard and Chief Science Advisors report, and confirmed: The Tenancy Tribunal was in a difficult position. The best state of knowledge of risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination available to the adjudicator was the Gluckman Report. It would have been bold for the adjudicator to have ignored that report in favour of the New Zealand Standard given that the Gluckman report represents the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination in dwellings.
In my assessment, the decisions of the District Court confirmed that the level to be applied is the level expressed by the Chief Science Advisor, which is that there is no risk when levels of contamination are below 15μg/100cm2.
Here, the recorded levels of contamination on the detailed testings are above the threshold set by current New Zealand Standard of 1.5μg/100cm2 but below the risk level expressed by the Chief Science Advisor of 15μg/100cm2; objectively, the property did not require remediation or decontamination.
The premises have not been returned to the landlord in an unacceptable state of cleanliness in terms of methamphetamine presence.
There is no cogent evidence before me to indicate that the premises are not ‘safe’ in terms of the prevailing Ministry of Health guidelines at the time of testing.
There is also no evidence to indicate the premises have been ‘damaged’ by methamphetamine at the end of the tenancy.
That being the case, the landlord’s claims for methamphetamine decontamination costs up to the amount of insurance excess must fail.
Only the amounts ordered are proved.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5354527 — Exemplary damages at 19 Boucher Avenue, Te Puke 3119

Tenancy Tribunal case 5354527 — Exemplary damages at 19 Boucher Avenue, Te Puke 3119

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Property management

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Property management

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.