What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5362428 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 5362428?

The Tenant/S] To Pay Sml Holdings 20…: $340.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5362428?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5362428?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12893067-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5362428 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 5362428?

The Tenant/S] To Pay Sml Holdings 20…: $340.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5362428?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5362428?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12893067-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5362428 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5362428. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
The tenant/s] to pay Sml Holdings 2024 Limited T/A Quinovic Rolleston As Agent For Nicholas Harrison And Shih-Yi Chang	$340.00		The tenant/s] to pay Sml Holdings 2024 Limited T/A Quinovic Rolleston As Agent For Nicholas Harrison And Shih-Yi Chang
Bond	$2,360.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Sml Holdings 2024 Limited T/A Quinovic Rolleston As Agent For Nicholas Harrison And Shih-Yi Chang $340.00 from the bond, for carpet cleaning and deodorising.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,360.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Sml Holdings 2024 Limited T/A Quinovic Rolleston As Agent For Nicholas Harrison And Shih-Yi Chang: $340.00 [The tenant/s]: $2,020.00
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The landlord claims carpet cleaning costs and Methamphetamine testing and decontamination.
The tenant has claimed a full rent refund for the duration of the tenancy of $65,880. She claims that the premises were contaminated with Methamphetamine throughout 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 landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean in that there was an odour of cat urine in the carpet. The tenant acknowledged that she has a cat but said that there was no smell during her tenancy. She said the odour may have been caused by neighbourhood cats going through the cat door in the four days between her moving out and the odour being identified. I find it more likely than not that the urine smell was caused by the tenant’s elderly cat and award cleaning and deodorising costs of $340.00. Methamphetamine Claims
The landlord says that premises were contaminated by Methamphetamine residue during the tenancy. The tenant denies using Methamphetamine and says that the premises were contaminated by Methamphetamine throughout her tenancy.
The landlord conducted pre-tenancy Meth testing on 1 August 2023 (three days before the tenancy started). The test results show that 8 samples were taken throughout the premises and returned a positive composite result of
11μg/100cm² with a possible maximum reading of 0.86μg/100cm² for one of the individual samples.
The landlord also conducted end of tenancy testing on 1 October 2025 (the day after the tenancy ended). Those results show that 9 samples were taken throughout the premises and returned a positive composite result. The report states that “the sum accumulation of methamphetamine found in the 9 samples obtained to be 2.9μg, meaning that of the 9 samples one may have a level of methamphetamine above the NZ Standard of 1.5μg/100cm².” That suggests a cumulative total reading of 2.9μg/100cm² compared to the 0.11μg/100cm² cumulative total in the pre-tenancy report. However, the laboratory Certificate of Analysis attached to the post tenancy report, records a positive composite result of 0.32μg/100cm² from the 9 samples with a Potential Maximum of
9μg/100cm² in a single sample.
The 9 swabs were then sample individually and returned results as follows: a. Kitchen/Living a – 0.12μg/100cm² b. Kitchen/Living b - 0.03μg/100cm² c. Bedroom 1 – 0.09μg/100cm² d. Ensuite – 0.21μg/100cm² e. WIR – 0.04μg/100cm² f. Bedroom 2 – 0.15μg/100cm² g. Bathroom 0.3μg/100cm² h. Bedroom 3 – 0.18μg/100cm² i. Garage 1.80μg/100cm²
I am not satisfied that it is more likely than not that the difference in composite test results at the start and end of the tenancy has been caused by methamphetamine use during this tenancy.
The pre-tenancy composite result was 0.11μg/100cm², the post-tenancy composite result was 0.86μg/100cm². The testing was done by different companies, the swabs were taken from different rooms and/or different surfaces (where the same room was swabbed). The first tester swabbed non-porous surfaces, whereas the second one swabbed a wider range of surfaces.
The landlord claims testing and cleaning costs. The tenant has claimed a full rent refund for the entire tenancy and says that the landlord should have told her the premises were contaminated. I am not satisfied that either party has shown that the premises have been “contaminated” or damaged by residual methamphetamine.
The pre- and post-tenancy testing in this case establishes that the levels are well below the level that is considered harmful to health (15 μg/100cm², as determined by Professor Sir Peter Gluckman in his report, Methamphetamine Contamination in Residential Properties: Exposures, Risk Levels, and Interpretation of Standards). The 15 μg/100cm² level has been consistently applied by the Tribunal when determining whether the premises require decontamination to make them safe. 1
Section 45(1)(bd) RTA requires landlords to comply with all requirements in respect of contaminants imposed on the landlord by regulations made under section 138C(3)(c). There are no current regulations that provide what that level of contamination is. Therefore the landlord cannot be in breach of s45(1)(bd) RTA.
New regulations governing methamphetamine decontamination in New Zealand rental properties will come into effect in 2026, establishing clear, health-based thresholds for contamination and mandatory procedures for testing and cleanup. The new regulations provide for a Maximum Acceptable Level (MAL): A property (or specific room) will be “contaminated” if methamphetamine residue levels exceed 15 micrograms per 100 square centimetres (15μg/100cm²). If levels are above this, decontamination is required. The new regulations are consistent with the levels applied by the Tribunal for some time.
That is, neither party has established that the other has breached any obligation in relation to the levels of methamphetamine recorded at the property. All claims in relation to methamphetamine are dismissed.
Having regard to the relative success of the parties, I have not awarded reimbursement of either Tribunal application fee. I have supressed the tenant’s details as she has successfully defended a claim that the methamphetamine use occurred at the premises during her tenancy.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5362428. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
The tenant/s] to pay Sml Holdings 2024 Limited T/A Quinovic Rolleston As Agent For Nicholas Harrison And Shih-Yi Chang	$340.00		The tenant/s] to pay Sml Holdings 2024 Limited T/A Quinovic Rolleston As Agent For Nicholas Harrison And Shih-Yi Chang
Bond	$2,360.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Sml Holdings 2024 Limited T/A Quinovic Rolleston As Agent For Nicholas Harrison And Shih-Yi Chang $340.00 from the bond, for carpet cleaning and deodorising.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,360.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Sml Holdings 2024 Limited T/A Quinovic Rolleston As Agent For Nicholas Harrison And Shih-Yi Chang: $340.00 [The tenant/s]: $2,020.00
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The landlord claims carpet cleaning costs and Methamphetamine testing and decontamination.
The tenant has claimed a full rent refund for the duration of the tenancy of $65,880. She claims that the premises were contaminated with Methamphetamine throughout 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 landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean in that there was an odour of cat urine in the carpet. The tenant acknowledged that she has a cat but said that there was no smell during her tenancy. She said the odour may have been caused by neighbourhood cats going through the cat door in the four days between her moving out and the odour being identified. I find it more likely than not that the urine smell was caused by the tenant’s elderly cat and award cleaning and deodorising costs of $340.00. Methamphetamine Claims
The landlord says that premises were contaminated by Methamphetamine residue during the tenancy. The tenant denies using Methamphetamine and says that the premises were contaminated by Methamphetamine throughout her tenancy.
The landlord conducted pre-tenancy Meth testing on 1 August 2023 (three days before the tenancy started). The test results show that 8 samples were taken throughout the premises and returned a positive composite result of
11μg/100cm² with a possible maximum reading of 0.86μg/100cm² for one of the individual samples.
The landlord also conducted end of tenancy testing on 1 October 2025 (the day after the tenancy ended). Those results show that 9 samples were taken throughout the premises and returned a positive composite result. The report states that “the sum accumulation of methamphetamine found in the 9 samples obtained to be 2.9μg, meaning that of the 9 samples one may have a level of methamphetamine above the NZ Standard of 1.5μg/100cm².” That suggests a cumulative total reading of 2.9μg/100cm² compared to the 0.11μg/100cm² cumulative total in the pre-tenancy report. However, the laboratory Certificate of Analysis attached to the post tenancy report, records a positive composite result of 0.32μg/100cm² from the 9 samples with a Potential Maximum of
9μg/100cm² in a single sample.
The 9 swabs were then sample individually and returned results as follows: a. Kitchen/Living a – 0.12μg/100cm² b. Kitchen/Living b - 0.03μg/100cm² c. Bedroom 1 – 0.09μg/100cm² d. Ensuite – 0.21μg/100cm² e. WIR – 0.04μg/100cm² f. Bedroom 2 – 0.15μg/100cm² g. Bathroom 0.3μg/100cm² h. Bedroom 3 – 0.18μg/100cm² i. Garage 1.80μg/100cm²
I am not satisfied that it is more likely than not that the difference in composite test results at the start and end of the tenancy has been caused by methamphetamine use during this tenancy.
The pre-tenancy composite result was 0.11μg/100cm², the post-tenancy composite result was 0.86μg/100cm². The testing was done by different companies, the swabs were taken from different rooms and/or different surfaces (where the same room was swabbed). The first tester swabbed non-porous surfaces, whereas the second one swabbed a wider range of surfaces.
The landlord claims testing and cleaning costs. The tenant has claimed a full rent refund for the entire tenancy and says that the landlord should have told her the premises were contaminated. I am not satisfied that either party has shown that the premises have been “contaminated” or damaged by residual methamphetamine.
The pre- and post-tenancy testing in this case establishes that the levels are well below the level that is considered harmful to health (15 μg/100cm², as determined by Professor Sir Peter Gluckman in his report, Methamphetamine Contamination in Residential Properties: Exposures, Risk Levels, and Interpretation of Standards). The 15 μg/100cm² level has been consistently applied by the Tribunal when determining whether the premises require decontamination to make them safe. 1
Section 45(1)(bd) RTA requires landlords to comply with all requirements in respect of contaminants imposed on the landlord by regulations made under section 138C(3)(c). There are no current regulations that provide what that level of contamination is. Therefore the landlord cannot be in breach of s45(1)(bd) RTA.
New regulations governing methamphetamine decontamination in New Zealand rental properties will come into effect in 2026, establishing clear, health-based thresholds for contamination and mandatory procedures for testing and cleanup. The new regulations provide for a Maximum Acceptable Level (MAL): A property (or specific room) will be “contaminated” if methamphetamine residue levels exceed 15 micrograms per 100 square centimetres (15μg/100cm²). If levels are above this, decontamination is required. The new regulations are consistent with the levels applied by the Tribunal for some time.
That is, neither party has established that the other has breached any obligation in relation to the levels of methamphetamine recorded at the property. All claims in relation to methamphetamine are dismissed.
Having regard to the relative success of the parties, I have not awarded reimbursement of either Tribunal application fee. I have supressed the tenant’s details as she has successfully defended a claim that the methamphetamine use occurred at the premises during her tenancy.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5362428 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5362428 — Cleanliness

At a glance

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

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