What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5374681 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 5374681?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Meth testing: individual analysis -…: $1,394.64 awarded to landlord; Meth testing: initial test - invoice…: $243.49 awarded to landlord; Power: $215.82 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $379.50 awarded to landlord; Walls, Door, Etc: $6,261.75 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $572.10 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5374681?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5374681?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13489478-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5374681 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 5374681?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Meth testing: individual analysis -…: $1,394.64 awarded to landlord; Meth testing: initial test - invoice…: $243.49 awarded to landlord; Power: $215.82 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $379.50 awarded to landlord; Walls, Door, Etc: $6,261.75 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $572.10 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5374681?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5374681?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13489478-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5374681 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5374681 — net $6,935.30 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Power	$215.82	Power
Rubbish removal	$572.10	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$379.50	Lock/key replacement
Meth testing: initial test - invoice 1	$243.49	Meth testing: initial test - invoice 1
Meth testing: individual analysis - invoice 2	$1,394.64	Meth testing: individual analysis - invoice 2
Repairs: walls, door, etc	$6,261.75	Repairs: walls, door, etc
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,935.30
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,935.30

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5374681 — net $6,935.30 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Power	$215.82	Power
Rubbish removal	$572.10	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$379.50	Lock/key replacement
Meth testing: initial test - invoice 1	$243.49	Meth testing: initial test - invoice 1
Meth testing: individual analysis - invoice 2	$1,394.64	Meth testing: individual analysis - invoice 2
Repairs: walls, door, etc	$6,261.75	Repairs: walls, door, etc
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,935.30
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,935.30

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Nikki White must pay [The landlord/s] $6,935.30 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Only the landlord, represented by [The property manager/s], attended the hearing, which was conducted by videoconference. The tenant did not join the video meeting at the scheduled time, either by video or telephone. The start of the hearing was delayed, but the tenant still did not attend. As the tenant has been notified, the hearing proceeded.
This tenancy began on 14 April 2022 and ended on 30 June 2025.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The bond has been paid to the landlord, being received on 27 August 2025. However, the landlord has not revised its initial claim to include a credit for the bond, so this is noted in the table above.

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) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA).
The landlord claims rubbish removal costs. The landlord’s evidence includes an invoice, and photographs showing the condition of the premises at the start and end of the tenancy. This evidence establishes that the tenant did not remove all rubbish. The landlord states there was a significant amount of rubbish, which included large items, broken furniture and other belongings.
The tenant did not return the keys, so locksmith’s charges were incurred to secure the premises.
The repairs (set out below) and remediation work resulted in the landlord incurring power charges, as shown in the invoices from the power company.
Being satisfied that these claims have been established, the amounts sought are ordered above. Methamphetamine contamination
The landlord seeks the insurance excess of $2,500.00 for the costs arising from methamphetamine contamination, which includes the testing costs and decontamination work. The testing costs were noted to be $243.49 for the first test; $1,394.64 for the individual analysis/testing; and the final test (after the decontamination work was completed) of $566.64.
This part of the landlord’s claim is considered below. Legal framework
Methamphetamine contamination is regarded as damage. This is because it is a physical alteration (not necessarily permanent or irreparable), which impairs the value or usefulness of the item or property damaged, and which cannot be removed by normal cleaning. 1
In the District Court decision of Full Circle Real Estate v Piper 2 Judge Kellar noted, at para [20], that where the concentration of methamphetamine exceeds any prescribed maximum acceptable level, there is “damage” to the premises in terms of section 40(2)(a) of the RTA because there is a risk to human health.
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises by methamphetamine contamination occurred during the tenancy. 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 3 .
Section 40(2)(b) of the RTA prohibits the tenant from using the premises or permitting the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose.
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 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.
At the time the tenancy ended, there were 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 1.5 μg/100cm 2 for high use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture.
In May 2018 Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, who at the time was the Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor, released a report "Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards”. This report states that contamination at levels above 15 μg/100cm 2 presents a health risk and requires remediation. 1 Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand S. Benson (2018), 6.16. 2 [2019] NZDC 4947 3 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA
The Tribunal has generally applied the Gluckman recommendation. This approach was approved by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper, 4 and Acme Realty Limited v Hogg and others. 5
The Residential Tenancies (Managing Methamphetamine Contamination) Regulations 2026, which came into force on 16 April 2026, states, under Regulation 5, that the maximum acceptable level of methamphetamine for premises (for the purposes of the definition of contaminated) is 15 μg/100cm. 2
In Full Circle Real Estate v Piper Judge Kellar confirmed that the landlord needed to prove not only that the premises were contaminated by methamphetamine beyond “safe” levels but also that any damage through methamphetamine contamination occurred during the tenancy.
The District Court has held that remediation should be carried out in accordance with the prevailing guidelines at the time. 6
In summary, under the RTA, and as interpreted by cases such as Full Circle Real Estate Ltd v Piper, methamphetamine contamination is treated as damage if it exceeds the current regulatory or scientific standards. Tenant liability requires proof that contamination occurred during the tenancy and exceeded these thresholds. Responsibility is extended to the actions of others who are permitted by the tenant to be on the premises.

Is the tenant liable for costs arising from methamphetamine contamination?

The landlord has explained that screening was done in 2016, and they had no concerns regarding the previous tenant. The report provided shows no methamphetamine was detected at the premises in 2016. The landlord states it became concerned when an individual known to the tenant moved in. The tenant had confirmed to them that there was meth use during the tenancy. The landlord was unable to provide any written evidence in support or oral evidence from the staff who were informed.
The landlord states that testing in the upstairs area, where the tenant resided, had the highest results. The landlord had tried to help the tenant. Due to the emotional and financial toll on the owner, they had to decontaminate the premises. Hence the request for the full insurance excess of $2,500.00.
In this case, while there was no baseline testing conducted immediately prior to the current tenancy, which began in April 2022, taking into account the overall 4 [2019] NZDC 4947 5 [2021] NZDC 3231 6 Diamond Real Estate Limited v Allan [2017] NZDC 833, Judge Kellar evidence provided, I find that, on balance, it is likely there was methamphetamine use at the premises during this tenancy.
In this case the landlord arranged for an initial test, which was completed by The Drug Detection Agency (TDDA) on 4 July 2025. This was a composite test which showed the presence of methamphetamine. The detected level was at 20μg/100cm. 2 In view of the findings in this test, I consider it reasonable for the tenant to be liable for it. The testing costs were noted to be $243.49 for the first test, which is awarded above.
I am also satisfied that it was reasonable for the landlord to arrange for the subsequent, more detailed individual analysis, at a cost of $1,394.64. This testing, with sampling conducted on 11 July 2025, showed that methamphetamine was detected in concentrations greater than 1.5 μg/100cm 2 in four areas, namely the kitchen/conservatory (2.5 μg/100cm 2 ), upstairs bedroom (8.6 μg/100cm 2 ), upstairs bathroom (6.8 μg/100cm 2 ) and garage (2.0 μg/100cm 2 ).
In the other areas that were sampled, being the lounge, downstairs bedrooms 1 and 2, downstairs hallway, kitchen, and downstairs bathroom, the levels were less than1.5 μg/100cm 2 . The recommendation, in the TDDA report, was that decontamination work be carried out.
While the analysis of the individual samples showed there were levels of methamphetamine at above 1.5 μg/100cm, 2 being the NZS 8510:2017 standard, none reached the 15 μg/100cm 2 level under the Gluckman standard to be considered injurious to human health and therefore cause damage to the premises. As the cases referred to above have shown, where the level of methamphetamine is detected at a level below 15 μg/100cm, 2 unless there is evidence of manufacture, there is no risk to human health and therefore, does not constitute damage. There is no suggestion that methamphetamine was manufactured at the premises. For this reason, the tenant will not be liable for costs arising from the need to decontaminate the premises
Furthermore, while it was reasonable to arrange for a subsequent test, after the decontamination work, this third test is also not one that can be met by the tenant, since it was arranged as a consequence of the decontamination work.
Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, the landlord is to be compensated for the cost of the first and second methamphetamine tests, conducted on 4 July and 11 July 2025, which is awarded above. While noting the reasons for the landlord undertaking the decontamination work, the full amount of the insurance excess is not awarded, since that includes the decontamination and all testing costs. Compensation for other damage General principles regarding responsibility for damage
The landlord seeks compensation for tenant damage. To be successful, 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 of the RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) of the RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) 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) of the 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 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.
When determining the quantum of compensation, betterment and depreciation must be taken into account. Applying the principle of betterment, the landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan must be considered. Repairs arising from damage to the premises
The landlord has provided a quotation, totalling $6,261.75, for the extensive repairs which were subsequently undertaken after the tenancy ended. There is also photographic evidence of the condition of the premises, along with entry and exit inspection reports. The landlord’s evidence establishes that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: • Damage to multiple walls throughout the house, including in the hallway, master bedroom, other bedrooms, lounge, sunroom, bathroom, and garage. The landlord states that walls throughout the house had large areas of damage, multiple patches, and virtually every wall was affected. • Door in the upstairs bedroom had to be replaced due to the extent of damage. • Ensuite bathroom vanity was stained. • Multiple light shades were missing and needed to be replaced. • Shower curtain installation was required. • Stairway handrail was damaged and had to be replaced.
I am satisfied that the above damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amount ordered above has been proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Filing fee and name suppression
As the landlord has been successful, the tenant is to pay the landlord’s filing fee.
The landlord’s request for name suppression is also granted, in view of the landlord being substantially successful in the proceedings.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5374681 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5374681 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant liable for costs arising from methamphetamine contamination?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant liable for costs arising from methamphetamine contamination?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions