What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5361782 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Arrow Property Management Limited As Agent

How much money was awarded in case 5361782?

Cleaning: $281.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $231.00 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $189.75 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $417.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,191.43 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Curtains: $466.96 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5361782?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5361782?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12784603-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5361782 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Arrow Property Management Limited As Agent

How much money was awarded in case 5361782?

Cleaning: $281.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $231.00 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $189.75 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $417.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,191.43 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Curtains: $466.96 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5361782?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5361782?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12784603-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

12 Harlock Place, Huntly 3700 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5361782 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5361782 — net $1,854.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 22/09/2025	$1,191.43	Rent arrears to 22/09/2025
Carpet Cleaning	$281.75	Carpet Cleaning
Pest control	$189.75	Pest control
Lock/key replacement	$417.50	Lock/key replacement
Lock/key replacement: 2 x garage remotes	$231.00	Lock/key replacement: 2 x garage remotes
Replace furnishings: curtains	$466.96	Replace furnishings: curtains
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,854.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,854.43

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Arrow Property Management Limited As Agent For The Owners $1,854.43 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $951.96 (6495379-002) to Arrow Property Management Limited As Agent For The Owners immediately.
The claim for compensation for damage caused by methamphetamine residue is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by video conference today. The tenant has contacted the Tribunal to advise she is unable to attend. She was offered the opportunity to request an adjournment if she wished to participate but did not do so. I telephoned her number at the hearing time, just to make sure, however the phone went to voicemail. I continued with the hearing in her absence. The tenant was emailed all evidence at least 72 hours before the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Rent owing
The tenancy ended on 22 September 2025 pursuant to a previous order of the Tribunal. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy is $1,191.43. I award this amount. End of tenancy costs
A tenant has legal obligations to 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 (RTA).
The parties signed a pet agreement part-way through the tenancy which allowed a cat on condition the carpets were professionally cleaned and treated for fleas and mites at the end of the tenancy. These are reasonable conditions, and I award the invoiced costs to have this work done.
The tenant did not return the keys, and two garage remotes were missing. The landlord was concerned about security as unknown people had been known to come to the property. I award the invoiced costs to replace the remotes and have the locks changed. Compensation for damage to the premises
The law says that 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 damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability can be no more than the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (whichever is lesser). See section 49B(3)(a) 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.
The landlord claims for damage:- a. Blinds: several window blinds were missing the chain mechanism which meant they couldn’t be pulled up and down correctly. Some of the blinds had become dented (probably from being pulled up and down without a chain) and the hem and edges on other blinds had become unstitched and frayed. b. Methamphetamine residue: a composite test result from the start of the tenancy (12 November 2024) detected no methamphetamine. A composite test result from during the tenancy (26 August 2025) detected methamphetamine residue. Decision on damage to blinds
I find damage to the window blinds from missing chain mechanisms, dents, and where stitching was damaged, to be proven from photographs supplied. I accept this is more than normal wear and tear because the chains were missing, and this probably caused the dents and greater than usual wear. The tenant has not disproved liability. The tenant is liable for the reasonable cost to remediate the damage.
The landlord obtained a quote to replace all blinds at a cost of $2,122.40. The tenant would not have been liable for this amount because the blinds were not new at the start of the tenancy and some normal wear and tear is to be expected.
The landlord decided against replacing the blinds and instead chose to replace the blinds with curtains and curtain rails. The total cost is $466.96, and all invoices were supplied.
My decision is that the amount claimed is reasonable compensation. The landlord has mitigated his loss by choosing a more economic option. I award the claim. Decision on whether the methamphetamine residue damaged the premises
The composite methamphetamine test results from the start and during the tenancy prove that methamphetamine was used in the premises during the tenancy.
This was established in the previous proceedings 1 and the landlord was awarded compensation for the cost of the methamphetamine test and exemplary damages on the grounds the tenant had used or permitted the use of the premises for an unlawful purpose; s40(2)(b) RTA.
This application seeks compensation for the cost to clean the premises of methamphetamine residue ($2,386.25) and for the cost to re-test after cleaning.
The Tribunal can only award compensation if it accepts the premises were damaged by the methamphetamine residue.
There has historically been uncertainty in New Zealand as to what level of third- hand methamphetamine residue in residential tenancy premises constitutes damage for the purposes of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The RTA provides for regulations to be made to set “maximum acceptable levels” and “maximum inhabitable levels” for methamphetamine and other contaminants. 2
Cabinet has now agreed 3 on the levels to be set in regulations. These are:- a. A “maximum acceptable level” of methamphetamine residue of 15 micrograms (mcg) per 100cm 2 sample area. Individually sampled and professionally tested samples with residue results above this, will result in the premises being deemed “contaminated” 4 and must be cleaned to reduce residue to 15mcg or less; b. A “maximum inhabitable level” of 30 mcg per 100cm 2 sample area. Individually sampled and professionally tested samples with residue results above this will result in the whole of the premises being considered “uninhabitable”, unless the only part contaminated is a remote and inconsequential part of the premises. 5
The regulations are expected to be in force in 2026, but an exact date has not yet been set.
The regulations are not yet law which means some sections of the RTA are not yet applicable; for example, sections 45A and 59B. However, the Cabinet 1 [2025] NZTT 5341142 2 Section 138C Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 3 SOU-25-MIN-0120 Minute REDACTED. 4 See definition in s2 RTA. 5 Section 59B Residential Tenancies Act 1986. decision is public, and the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has released information about the coming regulations. 6 This information is relevant to my decision.
For completeness, I note that the Tenancy Tribunal has in recent years referred mostly to two non-legislative sources of guidance which are quite different in their recommendations.
New Zealand Standard 8510:2017 7 recommends that methamphetamine residue levels be no more than 1.5mcg/100cm 2 whereas a report by Professor Sir Peter Gluckman 8 (the Gluckman Report) concludes that exposure to methamphetamine residue below 15mcg/100cm 2 is unlikely to cause adverse health effects where there is no evidence of manufacture.
The Gluckman report does recommend a remediation level of 1.5mcg/100cm 2 be retained where methamphetamine residue in individual samples is detected at levels greater than 30mcg/100cm 2 or where there is other evidence of manufacturing activity. This is “a precautionary measure to remove other toxicants that may be present but not measured.”; at page 27.
The Cabinet decision, HUD guidance and the Gluckman Report recommendations persuade me that premises are not “damaged” by methamphetamine residue unless individual testing of separate samples proves there to be residue of more than 15mcg in a sample.
This has not been proven in this case.
The evidence presented by the landlord is a “field composite” test result from samples taken during the tenancy (26 August 2025). The laboratory certificate 9 explains that five surface wipe samples taken from the premises were combined into a single container by the sampler. This was then tested at the laboratory.
The test result obtained is “the total residue from all areas sampled”. This result is
70mcg. What this means is that one of the five samples may have had residue of 9.70mcg and the other four samples had none. Or there may be any lesser combination of residue amounts that add up to 9.70. For example, 3mcg in one sample, 3mcg in a second sample, 3.70mcg in a third sample and zero methamphetamine in the other two samples. 6 https://www.hud.govt.nz/our-work/methamphetamine-regulations 7 The New Zealand Standard NZS 8510:2017 Testing and Decontamination of Methamphetamine Contaminated Properties, provides industry guidance on good practice methods in the testing and clean-up of methamphetamine contamination in houses. 8 Peter Gluckman, “Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards”, May 2018. 9 ALS Food & Environmental NZ, Certificate of Analysis, Lab reference 25-23063, Date completed 27/08/2025.
The landlord decided not to undertake individual testing of samples in this case. 10
A composite test result cannot prove the amount of residue in an individual sample because all samples have been combined.
I also note that field composite tests (where the samples are combined by the sampler) will not be permitted under the new regulations. 11 Laboratory composite testing (where the samples are combined by the laboratory) will be permitted.
There is no evidence of methamphetamine residue of more than 15mcg per sample in these premises.
My decision is that the premises were not damaged by the methamphetamine residue which means the tenant is not liable to compensate the landlord for costs incurred to remove that residue. This application is dismissed.
A landlord is free to choose to clean or otherwise remediate methamphetamine residue at levels below 15mcg per sample. However, the Gluckman Report and the Cabinet decision support a view that this is not necessary from a health or risk perspective.
This does not mean that tenants can use or permit the use of methamphetamine in tenancy premises without consequence. To do so is a breach of section 40(2)(b) RTA which means a landlord can apply to the Tribunal to terminate the tenancy and can apply for exemplary damages. Filing fee and suppression of name
The landlord has substantially succeeded in the application, so I award the filing fee.
No suppression orders were sought, and none apply.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5361782 — net $1,854.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 22/09/2025	$1,191.43	Rent arrears to 22/09/2025
Carpet Cleaning	$281.75	Carpet Cleaning
Pest control	$189.75	Pest control
Lock/key replacement	$417.50	Lock/key replacement
Lock/key replacement: 2 x garage remotes	$231.00	Lock/key replacement: 2 x garage remotes
Replace furnishings: curtains	$466.96	Replace furnishings: curtains
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,854.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,854.43

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Arrow Property Management Limited As Agent For The Owners $1,854.43 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $951.96 (6495379-002) to Arrow Property Management Limited As Agent For The Owners immediately.
The claim for compensation for damage caused by methamphetamine residue is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by video conference today. The tenant has contacted the Tribunal to advise she is unable to attend. She was offered the opportunity to request an adjournment if she wished to participate but did not do so. I telephoned her number at the hearing time, just to make sure, however the phone went to voicemail. I continued with the hearing in her absence. The tenant was emailed all evidence at least 72 hours before the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Rent owing
The tenancy ended on 22 September 2025 pursuant to a previous order of the Tribunal. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy is $1,191.43. I award this amount. End of tenancy costs
A tenant has legal obligations to 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 (RTA).
The parties signed a pet agreement part-way through the tenancy which allowed a cat on condition the carpets were professionally cleaned and treated for fleas and mites at the end of the tenancy. These are reasonable conditions, and I award the invoiced costs to have this work done.
The tenant did not return the keys, and two garage remotes were missing. The landlord was concerned about security as unknown people had been known to come to the property. I award the invoiced costs to replace the remotes and have the locks changed. Compensation for damage to the premises
The law says that 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 damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability can be no more than the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (whichever is lesser). See section 49B(3)(a) 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.
The landlord claims for damage:- a. Blinds: several window blinds were missing the chain mechanism which meant they couldn’t be pulled up and down correctly. Some of the blinds had become dented (probably from being pulled up and down without a chain) and the hem and edges on other blinds had become unstitched and frayed. b. Methamphetamine residue: a composite test result from the start of the tenancy (12 November 2024) detected no methamphetamine. A composite test result from during the tenancy (26 August 2025) detected methamphetamine residue. Decision on damage to blinds
I find damage to the window blinds from missing chain mechanisms, dents, and where stitching was damaged, to be proven from photographs supplied. I accept this is more than normal wear and tear because the chains were missing, and this probably caused the dents and greater than usual wear. The tenant has not disproved liability. The tenant is liable for the reasonable cost to remediate the damage.
The landlord obtained a quote to replace all blinds at a cost of $2,122.40. The tenant would not have been liable for this amount because the blinds were not new at the start of the tenancy and some normal wear and tear is to be expected.
The landlord decided against replacing the blinds and instead chose to replace the blinds with curtains and curtain rails. The total cost is $466.96, and all invoices were supplied.
My decision is that the amount claimed is reasonable compensation. The landlord has mitigated his loss by choosing a more economic option. I award the claim. Decision on whether the methamphetamine residue damaged the premises
The composite methamphetamine test results from the start and during the tenancy prove that methamphetamine was used in the premises during the tenancy.
This was established in the previous proceedings 1 and the landlord was awarded compensation for the cost of the methamphetamine test and exemplary damages on the grounds the tenant had used or permitted the use of the premises for an unlawful purpose; s40(2)(b) RTA.
This application seeks compensation for the cost to clean the premises of methamphetamine residue ($2,386.25) and for the cost to re-test after cleaning.
The Tribunal can only award compensation if it accepts the premises were damaged by the methamphetamine residue.
There has historically been uncertainty in New Zealand as to what level of third- hand methamphetamine residue in residential tenancy premises constitutes damage for the purposes of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The RTA provides for regulations to be made to set “maximum acceptable levels” and “maximum inhabitable levels” for methamphetamine and other contaminants. 2
Cabinet has now agreed 3 on the levels to be set in regulations. These are:- a. A “maximum acceptable level” of methamphetamine residue of 15 micrograms (mcg) per 100cm 2 sample area. Individually sampled and professionally tested samples with residue results above this, will result in the premises being deemed “contaminated” 4 and must be cleaned to reduce residue to 15mcg or less; b. A “maximum inhabitable level” of 30 mcg per 100cm 2 sample area. Individually sampled and professionally tested samples with residue results above this will result in the whole of the premises being considered “uninhabitable”, unless the only part contaminated is a remote and inconsequential part of the premises. 5
The regulations are expected to be in force in 2026, but an exact date has not yet been set.
The regulations are not yet law which means some sections of the RTA are not yet applicable; for example, sections 45A and 59B. However, the Cabinet 1 [2025] NZTT 5341142 2 Section 138C Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 3 SOU-25-MIN-0120 Minute REDACTED. 4 See definition in s2 RTA. 5 Section 59B Residential Tenancies Act 1986. decision is public, and the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has released information about the coming regulations. 6 This information is relevant to my decision.
For completeness, I note that the Tenancy Tribunal has in recent years referred mostly to two non-legislative sources of guidance which are quite different in their recommendations.
New Zealand Standard 8510:2017 7 recommends that methamphetamine residue levels be no more than 1.5mcg/100cm 2 whereas a report by Professor Sir Peter Gluckman 8 (the Gluckman Report) concludes that exposure to methamphetamine residue below 15mcg/100cm 2 is unlikely to cause adverse health effects where there is no evidence of manufacture.
The Gluckman report does recommend a remediation level of 1.5mcg/100cm 2 be retained where methamphetamine residue in individual samples is detected at levels greater than 30mcg/100cm 2 or where there is other evidence of manufacturing activity. This is “a precautionary measure to remove other toxicants that may be present but not measured.”; at page 27.
The Cabinet decision, HUD guidance and the Gluckman Report recommendations persuade me that premises are not “damaged” by methamphetamine residue unless individual testing of separate samples proves there to be residue of more than 15mcg in a sample.
This has not been proven in this case.
The evidence presented by the landlord is a “field composite” test result from samples taken during the tenancy (26 August 2025). The laboratory certificate 9 explains that five surface wipe samples taken from the premises were combined into a single container by the sampler. This was then tested at the laboratory.
The test result obtained is “the total residue from all areas sampled”. This result is
70mcg. What this means is that one of the five samples may have had residue of 9.70mcg and the other four samples had none. Or there may be any lesser combination of residue amounts that add up to 9.70. For example, 3mcg in one sample, 3mcg in a second sample, 3.70mcg in a third sample and zero methamphetamine in the other two samples. 6 https://www.hud.govt.nz/our-work/methamphetamine-regulations 7 The New Zealand Standard NZS 8510:2017 Testing and Decontamination of Methamphetamine Contaminated Properties, provides industry guidance on good practice methods in the testing and clean-up of methamphetamine contamination in houses. 8 Peter Gluckman, “Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards”, May 2018. 9 ALS Food & Environmental NZ, Certificate of Analysis, Lab reference 25-23063, Date completed 27/08/2025.
The landlord decided not to undertake individual testing of samples in this case. 10
A composite test result cannot prove the amount of residue in an individual sample because all samples have been combined.
I also note that field composite tests (where the samples are combined by the sampler) will not be permitted under the new regulations. 11 Laboratory composite testing (where the samples are combined by the laboratory) will be permitted.
There is no evidence of methamphetamine residue of more than 15mcg per sample in these premises.
My decision is that the premises were not damaged by the methamphetamine residue which means the tenant is not liable to compensate the landlord for costs incurred to remove that residue. This application is dismissed.
A landlord is free to choose to clean or otherwise remediate methamphetamine residue at levels below 15mcg per sample. However, the Gluckman Report and the Cabinet decision support a view that this is not necessary from a health or risk perspective.
This does not mean that tenants can use or permit the use of methamphetamine in tenancy premises without consequence. To do so is a breach of section 40(2)(b) RTA which means a landlord can apply to the Tribunal to terminate the tenancy and can apply for exemplary damages. Filing fee and suppression of name
The landlord has substantially succeeded in the application, so I award the filing fee.
No suppression orders were sought, and none apply.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5361782 — Rent arrears at 12 Harlock Place, Huntly 3700

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5361782 — Rent arrears at 12 Harlock Place, Huntly 3700

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions