Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5363383 — Property damage at 76 Farquhars Road, Redwood, Christchurch 8051
Decided 20 Jan 2026 · Published 20 Jan 2026 · Application 5363383
- Property damage
Order
- [The tenant/s] must pay Braziers Limited $673.00 immediately, as calculated in the table below:
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,305.00 (number unknown) to Braziers Limited immediately.
Reasons
- The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend and did not respond despite being telephoned on the number ending in 166.
- The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Claims for methamphetamine damage
- The landlord claims for methamphetamine damage to the property. They have been able to obtain insurance for the damage and accordingly only seek the insurance excess of $2,500.00.
- The tenancy commenced in 2017 and ended on 10 August 2025.
- Methamphetamine testing was carried out on 13 August 2025 and a composite sample came back with a contamination level of 240μg/100cm 2 .
- As a result, detailed methamphetamine testing was carried out that found the following results: LoungeWalls19μg/100cm 2 LoungeFrame24 μg/100cm 2 KitchenExtraction fan14μg/100cm 2 LaundryCeiling82μg/100cm 2 LandryDoors31μg/100cm 2 ToiletDoor19μg/100cm 2 BathroomCeiling29μg/100cm 2 Bathroom Cabinet59μg/100cm 2 Bedroom 1Window frame41μg/100cm 2 Bedroom 2Walls40μg/100cm 2 Bedroom 2Door21μg/100cm 2 Bedroom 3Wardrobe frame24μg/100cm 2 The law on damage and methamphetamine levels
- A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more that 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 also liable for the actions of other people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (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) of the RTA.
- Damage is intentional where a person intended to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve at 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. 1
- The use or possession of methamphetamine is an imprisonable offence. See the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
- Generally, the more serious the claim, the stronger the evidence that is required. 2 This is an allegation of criminal behaviour and so the evidence must be strong.
- For a landlord to succeed in a claim for costs involved in methamphetamine contamination there are two main aspects that must be proved: a. First, that the contamination was caused during the tenancy (and so the tenant(s) are liable). b. Secondly, that the level of methamphetamine detected is likely to constitute a health hazard and therefore would entitle the landlord to claim the costs of decontaminating the premises.
- It has been well recognised for years, that methamphetamine contamination presents risks for people living in dwellings, when the level of that contamination is high. The difficulty has been determining what the tolerable level should be, above which the premises would be considered contaminated.
- In 2017 Standards New Zealand released Standard NZS8519:2017 “Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine-contaminated properties”. In short, this standard confirmed that the level at which habitation of residential premises was considered safe, was a level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 . The expectation arising from this standard was to remediate premises contaminated with methamphetamine, to a level of less than 1.5μg/100cm 2 .
- However, in more recent times, the (former) Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman determined there was little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine 1 Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. 2 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55. consumption. 3 The report concluded that any levels below 15 μg/100cm 2 were unlikely to present adverse effects and therefore there should be no need for remediation.
- The matter has been considered by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate v Danielle Piper, 4 where Judge Kellar needed to determine the level that should be applied. The court discussed the conflict between the New Zealand Standard and the Chief Science Advisor’s 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 in dwellings.
- In my view, this decision of the District Court has 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/100cm 2 .
- This view is further endorsed by the Court of Appeal decision, Smith v Accessible Properties Limited, 5 where in reference to the Gluckman Report it states, “[w]e acknowledge that the testing in this case yielded results now considered not to raise any health and safety concerns”. Discussion
- The standard of proof that applies is the civil standard “on the balance of probabilities”. This means that I do not have to be completely certain, but I must be satisfied that what is alleged is “more probable than not”.
- The evidence here is that there was no methamphetamine test done before the tenant moved into the premises. The absence of a pre-tenancy methamphetamine test means that other evidence is particularly important and must be strong. 6 3 Report, Methamphetamine Contamination in Residential Properties: Exposures, Risk Levels, and Interpretation of Standards, 29 May 2018. 4 Full Circle Real Estate v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947. 5 Smith v Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited [2019] NZCA 38, at [16]. 6 Eren Limited v Martin and Kukuruzsnayak [2021] NZDC 15210; Brooking and Hodges v Imrie [2021] NZDC 16976.
- Although there was no methamphetamine testing conducted at the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord has provided other evidence to support the claim that the contamination occurred during the tenancy.
- The tenancy commenced in 2017. In 2021 there was a kitchen fire at the premises. An email from the tenant and several photographs have been provided to prove this occurred. The kitchen extractor fan is shown in the photographs to have been damaged in the fire, and a new extractor fan was installed during the tenancy. A receipt has been provided to prove this together with an installation invoice.
- The methamphetamine testing results detailed above show very high levels, well above 15μg/100cm 2 in several rooms of the property. It also shows a positive methamphetamine reading on the kitchen extractor fan that was installed after the commencement of the tenancy.
- On that basis, I consider that the landlord has proven that it is more likely than not that: a. The methamphetamine contamination was caused during the tenancy. b. The level of methamphetamine detected is likely to constitute a health hazard and therefore entitles the landlord to claim the cost of decontaminating the premises.
- The landlord claims for the insurance excess of $2,500.00 for the cost to decontaminate the property and the amount ordered is proved.
- There was a rent credit of $550.00 on the tenant’s account due to overpaid rent, and this has been deducted from the total amount awarded.
- Because Braziers Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must also reimburse the filing fee. R Harvey-Lane 20 January 2026