What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5391401 about?

The tribunal order states: Maddison Lynne Shaw must pay [The landlord/s] $328.57 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5391401?

Cleaning: $563.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing Individual/Discrete: $2,599.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $213.90 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $328.57 awarded to landlord; Storage Costs: $354.68 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5391401?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5391401?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13529557-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5391401 about?

The tribunal order states: Maddison Lynne Shaw must pay [The landlord/s] $328.57 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5391401?

Cleaning: $563.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing Individual/Discrete: $2,599.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $213.90 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $328.57 awarded to landlord; Storage Costs: $354.68 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5391401?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5391401?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13529557-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 4, 440 Barbadoes Street, Edgeware, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5391401 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5391401 — net $4,087.15 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$328.57	Rent arrears
Meth testing individual/discrete	$2,599.00	Meth testing individual/discrete
Cleaning	$563.00	Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$213.90	Lock/key replacement
Storage costs	$354.68	Storage costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,087.15
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,087.15

Order

ORDER

Maddison Lynne Shaw must pay [The landlord/s] $328.57 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by video conference.The tenant did not attend. A notice of hearing was sent on 6 March 2026 and reminders about the hearing were sent by text on 23 and 27 April 2026.
The application was filed more than 2 months after the tenancy had ended. The landlord provided the tenants email address in the application form, and they said that this was provided to the landlords in the tenancy agreement as an address for service and used for communications throughout the tenancy.
Where any notice or other document is required or authorised by the RTA to be given to or served on a landlord or a tenant, it shall be sufficient if it is transmitted to the electronic address given by the landlord or the tenant as an address for service, see section 136(1)(d) RTA.I find that the tenant has had notice of the hearing.
The landlord confirmed that they had already received the full bond which was used to cover tenant invoices during the tenancy and no credit balance was held.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 20 August 2025. The landlord provided up to date rent records, and which prove the amount owing at 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. Evidence was provided of cleaning required in the kitchen, bathroom and walls. There was a claim for floor cleaning but little evidence to support this. The amount awarded reflects this.
The tenant did not return the keys.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the cost to test for methamphetamine?

The landlord must prove that the tenant caused or permitted the contamination, or that it was caused by someone at the premises with the tenant’s consent. The landlord must also prove that, as a result of the contamination, the premises have been damaged or are not reasonably clean.
Section 138C Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides for regulations to be made prescribing the maximum acceptable level for contaminants, but as yet no regulations have been made in relation to methamphetamine.
There are currently 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 District Court has held that remediation should be carried out in accordance with the prevailing guidelines at the time (Diamond Real Estate Limited v Allan [2017] NZDC 833, Judge Kellar).
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.
The tenancy ended on 20 August 2025 and was tested for the presence of methamphetamine on 10 September 2025. A composite swipe test returned a result of 24 μg/100cm² .
An individual/discrete test was conducted on 16 September 2025 which returned results ranging from 9.3 to 0.22μg/100cm².
There was no pre tenancy testing for methamphetamine.
The landlord sought costs for decontamination but in the hearing said that they understood the recorded methamphetamine levels were low and changed their claim to recovery of testing costs.
The landlord stated that a new smoke alarm was installed during the tenancy on 20 November 2024.This was noted as location 3 on the testing site map for the individual testing on 16 September 2025, and returned a result of 2.8 μg/100cm².
The landlords said that this established that methamphetamine was used at the premises during the tenancy.
In support of this a copy of the receipt was provided from ‘Property and Grounds’ dated 30 November 2025 ,which contained a copy of the work order asking for a faulty smoke alarm to be replaced and confirmation that they ’used one photo electric smoke alarm -Expiry 2034’.
As the smoke alarm was not present in the premises prior to the start of the tenancy, it is reasonable to infer that any contamination found on this item must have occurred during the tenancy. This supports the conclusion that methamphetamine was used or present in the premises while the tenants were in occupation. There was no credible evidence to suggest otherwise.
The landlord sought reimbursement of Methamphetamine testing costs. I find that the initial post tenancy test is a standard cost landlords incur at the end of a tenancy.
However, when methamphetamine was discovered at the premises the next step required is to have individual/discrete testing to investigate further. This cost I find should be reimbursed to the landlord as it was a cost an extra cost incurred, and the tenant is liable for this. Storage costs
The landlord sought compensation for the cost of storing the items that the tenant left at the premises after the tenancy had ended. The landlord provided photographs of the items which included a couch, a trike, a vacuum cleaner and a few boxes.
The tenancy ended on 20 August 2025 and the tenant had not collected them by 20 February 2025. The landlord sought the costs for storage, and this is awarded a claimed, see section 62A(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5391401 — net $4,087.15 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$328.57	Rent arrears
Meth testing individual/discrete	$2,599.00	Meth testing individual/discrete
Cleaning	$563.00	Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$213.90	Lock/key replacement
Storage costs	$354.68	Storage costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,087.15
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,087.15

Order

ORDER

Maddison Lynne Shaw must pay [The landlord/s] $328.57 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by video conference.The tenant did not attend. A notice of hearing was sent on 6 March 2026 and reminders about the hearing were sent by text on 23 and 27 April 2026.
The application was filed more than 2 months after the tenancy had ended. The landlord provided the tenants email address in the application form, and they said that this was provided to the landlords in the tenancy agreement as an address for service and used for communications throughout the tenancy.
Where any notice or other document is required or authorised by the RTA to be given to or served on a landlord or a tenant, it shall be sufficient if it is transmitted to the electronic address given by the landlord or the tenant as an address for service, see section 136(1)(d) RTA.I find that the tenant has had notice of the hearing.
The landlord confirmed that they had already received the full bond which was used to cover tenant invoices during the tenancy and no credit balance was held.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 20 August 2025. The landlord provided up to date rent records, and which prove the amount owing at 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. Evidence was provided of cleaning required in the kitchen, bathroom and walls. There was a claim for floor cleaning but little evidence to support this. The amount awarded reflects this.
The tenant did not return the keys.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the cost to test for methamphetamine?

The landlord must prove that the tenant caused or permitted the contamination, or that it was caused by someone at the premises with the tenant’s consent. The landlord must also prove that, as a result of the contamination, the premises have been damaged or are not reasonably clean.
Section 138C Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides for regulations to be made prescribing the maximum acceptable level for contaminants, but as yet no regulations have been made in relation to methamphetamine.
There are currently 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 District Court has held that remediation should be carried out in accordance with the prevailing guidelines at the time (Diamond Real Estate Limited v Allan [2017] NZDC 833, Judge Kellar).
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.
The tenancy ended on 20 August 2025 and was tested for the presence of methamphetamine on 10 September 2025. A composite swipe test returned a result of 24 μg/100cm² .
An individual/discrete test was conducted on 16 September 2025 which returned results ranging from 9.3 to 0.22μg/100cm².
There was no pre tenancy testing for methamphetamine.
The landlord sought costs for decontamination but in the hearing said that they understood the recorded methamphetamine levels were low and changed their claim to recovery of testing costs.
The landlord stated that a new smoke alarm was installed during the tenancy on 20 November 2024.This was noted as location 3 on the testing site map for the individual testing on 16 September 2025, and returned a result of 2.8 μg/100cm².
The landlords said that this established that methamphetamine was used at the premises during the tenancy.
In support of this a copy of the receipt was provided from ‘Property and Grounds’ dated 30 November 2025 ,which contained a copy of the work order asking for a faulty smoke alarm to be replaced and confirmation that they ’used one photo electric smoke alarm -Expiry 2034’.
As the smoke alarm was not present in the premises prior to the start of the tenancy, it is reasonable to infer that any contamination found on this item must have occurred during the tenancy. This supports the conclusion that methamphetamine was used or present in the premises while the tenants were in occupation. There was no credible evidence to suggest otherwise.
The landlord sought reimbursement of Methamphetamine testing costs. I find that the initial post tenancy test is a standard cost landlords incur at the end of a tenancy.
However, when methamphetamine was discovered at the premises the next step required is to have individual/discrete testing to investigate further. This cost I find should be reimbursed to the landlord as it was a cost an extra cost incurred, and the tenant is liable for this. Storage costs
The landlord sought compensation for the cost of storing the items that the tenant left at the premises after the tenancy had ended. The landlord provided photographs of the items which included a couch, a trike, a vacuum cleaner and a few boxes.
The tenancy ended on 20 August 2025 and the tenant had not collected them by 20 February 2025. The landlord sought the costs for storage, and this is awarded a claimed, see section 62A(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5391401 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat Flat 4, 440 Barbadoes Street, Edgeware,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5391401 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat Flat 4, 440 Barbadoes Street, Edgeware,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

ORDER

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the cost to test for methamphetamine?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

ORDER

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the cost to test for methamphetamine?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions