What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5359241 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 5359241?

Cleaning: $3,818.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,052.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5359241?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5359241?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12741343-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5359241 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 5359241?

Cleaning: $3,818.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,052.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5359241?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5359241?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12741343-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5359241 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5359241 — net $5,898.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Meth testing/Cleaning	$3,818.00	Meth testing/Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$2,052.75	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,898.75
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,898.75

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Amellia Liddall must pay [The landlord/s] $5,898.75 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Meth testing/Cleaning$3,818.00 Rubbish removal$2,052.75 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$5,898.75 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$5,898.75
The landlord’s other claims are dismissed

Reasons

A representative of the landlord attended the hearing by telephone.
The tenant did not attend. I called her mobile number twice during the hearing. Both calls went to voicemail.
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. The landlord provided photographs and an invoice for rubbish removal costs. The landlord established this aspect of its claim. Methamphetamine Claims
The landlord seeks compensation for the costs of testing the premises for methamphetamine (and related compounds) and for decontamination of the premises.
The landlord must satisfy me that it is more probable than not that the premises were damaged by methamphetamine and/or other contaminants during the tenancy.
The landlord has provided laboratory test results which show that: a. The premises tested negative for methamphetamine on 6 November 2023, a few days before this tenancy began. b. The premises were tested again on 21 August 2025, when this tenancy ended. A composite sample from 20 swabs at the premises provided a theoretical maximum reading of 58 μg/100cm 2 c. The individual swabs were tested on 28 August 2025 and returned results between 0.13 μg/100cm 2 and 12.00 μg/100cm 2 . Of those samples half were between 1.68 μg/100cm 2 and 12.00 μg/100cm 2 .
I am satisfied that the substantial increase in the composite test results proves that methamphetamine was used at the premises during the tenancy. It was prudent, and necessary for the landlord to obtain the detailed testing after the composite result. I award the cost of the detailed testing of $3,818.00
I did not award the composite testing cost as this was a routine end of tenancy cost which the landlord would have incurred. There was no evidence of any indication or suspicion of drug use before the composite test was done.
I must now decide whether the levels of methamphetamine determined in the individual test results constitute “damage”.
There was uncertainty as to what level of methamphetamine residue may be considered to be harmful to those living in premises where it has been detected and what level might constitute “damage” for the purposes of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Until Regulations come into force 1 , there are 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 Tribunal has generally applied the Gluckman recommendation. This approach was approved by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947, where the Court stated (at para [36]): 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.
The District Court took a similar approach in Acme Realty Limited v Hogg and others [2021] NZDC 3231, 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.
More recently, in Barfoot and Thompson Limited v Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited [2021] NZTT Auckland 4276319, both parties presented scientific evidence at a hearing before the Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that there was no new scientific research to change the conclusions reached in the Gluckman Report. 1 Expected to be mid-2026, see Government announces new methamphetamine contamination regulations » Tenancy Services
Applying those decisions, the landlord has not established that the Methamphetamine use at these premises has caused damage. All of the residual readings are lower than the Gluckman recommendation of 15 μg/100cm 2 . The claim for decontamination costs is dismissed.
As the landlord was partially successful, I have awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee and granted its request for suppression of its details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5359241 — net $5,898.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Meth testing/Cleaning	$3,818.00	Meth testing/Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$2,052.75	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,898.75
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,898.75

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Amellia Liddall must pay [The landlord/s] $5,898.75 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Meth testing/Cleaning$3,818.00 Rubbish removal$2,052.75 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$5,898.75 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$5,898.75
The landlord’s other claims are dismissed

Reasons

A representative of the landlord attended the hearing by telephone.
The tenant did not attend. I called her mobile number twice during the hearing. Both calls went to voicemail.
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. The landlord provided photographs and an invoice for rubbish removal costs. The landlord established this aspect of its claim. Methamphetamine Claims
The landlord seeks compensation for the costs of testing the premises for methamphetamine (and related compounds) and for decontamination of the premises.
The landlord must satisfy me that it is more probable than not that the premises were damaged by methamphetamine and/or other contaminants during the tenancy.
The landlord has provided laboratory test results which show that: a. The premises tested negative for methamphetamine on 6 November 2023, a few days before this tenancy began. b. The premises were tested again on 21 August 2025, when this tenancy ended. A composite sample from 20 swabs at the premises provided a theoretical maximum reading of 58 μg/100cm 2 c. The individual swabs were tested on 28 August 2025 and returned results between 0.13 μg/100cm 2 and 12.00 μg/100cm 2 . Of those samples half were between 1.68 μg/100cm 2 and 12.00 μg/100cm 2 .
I am satisfied that the substantial increase in the composite test results proves that methamphetamine was used at the premises during the tenancy. It was prudent, and necessary for the landlord to obtain the detailed testing after the composite result. I award the cost of the detailed testing of $3,818.00
I did not award the composite testing cost as this was a routine end of tenancy cost which the landlord would have incurred. There was no evidence of any indication or suspicion of drug use before the composite test was done.
I must now decide whether the levels of methamphetamine determined in the individual test results constitute “damage”.
There was uncertainty as to what level of methamphetamine residue may be considered to be harmful to those living in premises where it has been detected and what level might constitute “damage” for the purposes of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Until Regulations come into force 1 , there are 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 Tribunal has generally applied the Gluckman recommendation. This approach was approved by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947, where the Court stated (at para [36]): 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.
The District Court took a similar approach in Acme Realty Limited v Hogg and others [2021] NZDC 3231, 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.
More recently, in Barfoot and Thompson Limited v Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited [2021] NZTT Auckland 4276319, both parties presented scientific evidence at a hearing before the Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that there was no new scientific research to change the conclusions reached in the Gluckman Report. 1 Expected to be mid-2026, see Government announces new methamphetamine contamination regulations » Tenancy Services
Applying those decisions, the landlord has not established that the Methamphetamine use at these premises has caused damage. All of the residual readings are lower than the Gluckman recommendation of 15 μg/100cm 2 . The claim for decontamination costs is dismissed.
As the landlord was partially successful, I have awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee and granted its request for suppression of its details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5359241 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5359241 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions