How much money was awarded in case 5398168?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5398168?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5398168?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13654344-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5398168?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5398168?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5398168?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13654344-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5398168 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5398168 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the balance of the entire bond held relating to this tenancy ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 29 April 2026 via videoconference.
The tenancy was from 9 May 2024 until 9 November 2025. At the end of the tenancy, the landlord applied for compensation for methamphetamine testing costs of $1,062.43. The tenant opposed the application and applied for full refund of the bond.
On 3 May 2024, the premises was tested for methamphetamine. Ten samples were taken involving swabs taken from ten different sites and were placed in one vial for testing. This is what was called a “composite test”. The composite test returned a result of less than 0.02 micrograms per 100cm 2 which was regarded as a negative result for the presence of methamphetamine.
Shortly before the tenancy ended, the premises was tested again for methamphetamine. The contractor conducted the same composite test and 5398168, 54008492 obtained ten samples. This time, the result found 0.26 micrograms per 100cm 2 which was regarded as a positive test for the presence of methamphetamine.
The contractor calculated that from the result of the composite test, that the theoretical maximum in this instance was 2.6 micrograms per 100cm 2 at one of the ten sites.
The landlord had insurance to carry out methamphetamine decontamination if the premises had a methamphetamine reading of higher than 1.5 micrograms per 100cm 2 . To obtain the actual discrete reading of 1.5 micrograms per 100cm 2 , the landlord commissioned another testing in November 2025. However, none of the samples were above 1.5 micrograms and no decontamination was undertaken by the landlord or the insurance company.
The landlord claimed that the tenant should be liable for the testing costs of $1,062.43 as the composite tests from before and after the tenancy was evidence that someone used methamphetamine in the property during the tenancy.
Under section 40(2)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), the tenant must not use or, or permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose. Smoking methamphetamine is an unlawful act.
The tenant claimed that the methamphetamine could have been smoked by a contractor sent by the landlord when work was being done during the tenancy.
The landlord claimed that the tenant’s flatmates or the tenant’s house sitter could have smoked methamphetamine at the premises. The tenant rebutted this by saying that the flatmates had a job that required random drug testing and that those tests had been negative.
I find on the balance of probabilities that the methamphetamine is more likely to have been consumed by the tenant’s flatmates or her guests.
I base my finding on the evidence given by the methamphetamine testing company employee. The methamphetamine level was such that it would not be likely that it was due to smoking by a contractor in a short period of time.
However, I do not grant the testing fees sought by the landlord for the following reasons.
If the discrete testing found methamphetamine level of above 1.5 micrograms per 100cm 2 in any of the sites, I would have found that the premises was not reasonably clean to the point of requiring decontamination. The landlord would have been granted the methamphetamine testing costs and methamphetamine decontamination costs.
The landlord’s reliance on clause 3 of the tenancy agreement also does not persuade me to grant compensation. Clause 3 of the tenancy agreement, ‘Dangerous substances’ states that “the tenant agrees not to do anything that 5398168, 54008493 would render the property uninsurable, or cause the insurance premium to be increased.”
The owner’s rental insurance defined methamphetamine contamination as any level of methamphetamine exceeding 1.5 micrograms per 100cm 2 in accordance with the New Zealand Standard NZS 8510:2017 “Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine-contaminated properties”.
Since 2018, the Tribunal and the District Court adopted the Gluckman report which concluded that any levels below 15 micrograms per 100 cm 2 were unlikely to present adverse effects. This was officially adopted as the standard from 16 April 2026.
I do not find that the tenant did anything that would render the property uninsurable or cause the insurance premium to be increased because the discrete testing did not find that the premises was contaminated exceeding 1.5 micrograms per 100cm 2 .
Although composite testing was required to confirm that the premises was not contaminated, because the premises was not contaminated the landlord cannot claim the testing costs. I do not find that the tenant has consumed methamphetamine or has allowed any other occupants, or guests, or invitees to consume methamphetamine.
The tenant is responsible for any damage caused by anyone at the premises with the tenant’s permission. But as the level was less than the legally enforceable threshold, the tenant cannot be liable. I find that any clauses in tenancy agreement that imposes an obligation on the tenant to reimburse the testing fees when the methamphetamine result ultimately obtained was less than the allowable standard is in breach of section 11 RTA and is not enforceable. Therefore, the landlord’s application is dismissed.
The entire bond of $2,800.00 is to be returned to the tenant. As $1,737.57 was ordered to be released to the tenant on 13 April 2026, the remaining $1062.43 is to be paid to the tenant immediately.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details.

The landlord’s application is dismissed.

The Bond Centre is to pay the balance of the entire bond held relating to this tenancy ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 29 April 2026 via videoconference.

The tenancy was from 9 May 2024 until 9 November 2025. At the end of the tenancy, the landlord applied for compensation for methamphetamine testing costs of $1,062.43. The tenant opposed the application and applied for full refund of the bond.

On 3 May 2024, the premises was tested for methamphetamine. Ten samples were taken involving swabs taken from ten different sites and were placed in one vial for testing. This is what was called a “composite test”. The composite test returned a result of less than 0.02 micrograms per 100cm 2 which was regarded as a negative result for the presence of methamphetamine.

Shortly before the tenancy ended, the premises was tested again for methamphetamine. The contractor conducted the same composite test and 5398168, 54008492 obtained ten samples. This time, the result found 0.26 micrograms per 100cm 2 which was regarded as a positive test for the presence of methamphetamine.

The contractor calculated that from the result of the composite test, that the theoretical maximum in this instance was 2.6 micrograms per 100cm 2 at one of the ten sites.

The landlord had insurance to carry out methamphetamine decontamination if the premises had a methamphetamine reading of higher than 1.5 micrograms per 100cm 2 . To obtain the actual discrete reading of 1.5 micrograms per 100cm 2 , the landlord commissioned another testing in November 2025. However, none of the samples were above 1.5 micrograms and no decontamination was undertaken by the landlord or the insurance company.

The landlord claimed that the tenant should be liable for the testing costs of $1,062.43 as the composite tests from before and after the tenancy was evidence that someone used methamphetamine in the property during the tenancy.

Under section 40(2)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), the tenant must not use or, or permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose. Smoking methamphetamine is an unlawful act.

The tenant claimed that the methamphetamine could have been smoked by a contractor sent by the landlord when work was being done during the tenancy.

The landlord claimed that the tenant’s flatmates or the tenant’s house sitter could have smoked methamphetamine at the premises. The tenant rebutted this by saying that the flatmates had a job that required random drug testing and that those tests had been negative.

I find on the balance of probabilities that the methamphetamine is more likely to have been consumed by the tenant’s flatmates or her guests.

I base my finding on the evidence given by the methamphetamine testing company employee. The methamphetamine level was such that it would not be likely that it was due to smoking by a contractor in a short period of time.

However, I do not grant the testing fees sought by the landlord for the following reasons.

If the discrete testing found methamphetamine level of above 1.5 micrograms per 100cm 2 in any of the sites, I would have found that the premises was not reasonably clean to the point of requiring decontamination. The landlord would have been granted the methamphetamine testing costs and methamphetamine decontamination costs.

The landlord’s reliance on clause 3 of the tenancy agreement also does not persuade me to grant compensation. Clause 3 of the tenancy agreement, ‘Dangerous substances’ states that “the tenant agrees not to do anything that 5398168, 54008493 would render the property uninsurable, or cause the insurance premium to be increased.”

The owner’s rental insurance defined methamphetamine contamination as any level of methamphetamine exceeding 1.5 micrograms per 100cm 2 in accordance with the New Zealand Standard NZS 8510:2017 “Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine-contaminated properties”.

Since 2018, the Tribunal and the District Court adopted the Gluckman report which concluded that any levels below 15 micrograms per 100 cm 2 were unlikely to present adverse effects. This was officially adopted as the standard from 16 April 2026.

I do not find that the tenant did anything that would render the property uninsurable or cause the insurance premium to be increased because the discrete testing did not find that the premises was contaminated exceeding 1.5 micrograms per 100cm 2 .

Although composite testing was required to confirm that the premises was not contaminated, because the premises was not contaminated the landlord cannot claim the testing costs. I do not find that the tenant has consumed methamphetamine or has allowed any other occupants, or guests, or invitees to consume methamphetamine.

The tenant is responsible for any damage caused by anyone at the premises with the tenant’s permission. But as the level was less than the legally enforceable threshold, the tenant cannot be liable. I find that any clauses in tenancy agreement that imposes an obligation on the tenant to reimburse the testing fees when the methamphetamine result ultimately obtained was less than the allowable standard is in breach of section 11 RTA and is not enforceable. Therefore, the landlord’s application is dismissed.

The entire bond of $2,800.00 is to be returned to the tenant. As $1,737.57 was ordered to be released to the tenant on 13 April 2026, the remaining $1062.43 is to be paid to the tenant immediately.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5398168 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5398168 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions