What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5399592 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5399592?

Cleaning: $920.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5399592?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5399592?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13610409-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5399592 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5399592?

Cleaning: $920.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5399592?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5399592?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13610409-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5399592 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5399592 — net $1,448.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Refund of methamphetamine cleaning cost	$920.00	Refund of methamphetamine cleaning cost
Exemplary damages: Breach of HHS for heating	$500.00	Breach of HHS for heating
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,448.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,448.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5399592 — net $1,448.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Refund of methamphetamine cleaning cost	$920.00	Refund of methamphetamine cleaning cost
Exemplary damages: Breach of HHS for heating	$500.00	Breach of HHS for heating
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,448.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,448.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Riverlands Real Estate Limited As Agent For Cvd Holdings must pay [The tenant/s] $1,448.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

On 26 November 2025, the tenant filed an application seeking refund of the bond, compensation and exemplary damages following the end of the tenancy.
The hearing proceeded in person. The tenant appeared. Ms Lisa Kyle, Property Manager, appeared on behalf of the landlord.
At the commencement of the hearing the tenant confirmed their claims are as follows: a. Reimbursement of the methamphetamine cleaning costs totalling $920.00. b. Breach of the Healthy Homes Standards for heating. c. A finding the landlord failed to disclose the electricity and internet suppliers was mandated by the Body Corporate – no compensation was sought. d. Compensation for failure to maintain the locks to ensure the ongoing security of the property. e. Compensation and exemplary damaged for breach of quiet enjoyment due to excess noise from Hampton Downs race track. Background to the tenancy
The tenancy commenced on 22 August 2025 and was periodic.
The tenancy ended on 7 November 2025.

Was the landlord entitled to deduct methamphetamine cleaning costs from the bond?

The tenant seeks reimbursement of $920.00, paid to the landlord from the bond, for methamphetamine cleaning costs.
The tenant stated that they did not smoke or allow other persons to smoke methamphetamine inside the property, and were not responsible for methamphetamine residue detected at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant said they only agreed to pay the methamphetamine cleaning costs, on a without prejudice basis, because they were concerned a delay in resolving the dispute could have resulted in claim against them for lost rent (if the property was not re-tenanted).
The landlord said they never implied the tenant used methamphetamine, only that methamphetamine was detected inside the property as the end of the tenancy. The landlord relied on their pre-tenancy and end of tenancy methamphetamine screening test to evidence this.
The landlord said that while their end of tenancy methamphetamine screening report said no cleaning or decontamination of the premises was required, they determined it was appropriate due to the cumulative effect of methamphetamine residue over time.
The tenant has provided copies of the landlord’s pre-tenancy methamphetamine assessment report from “All Clear” which relates to sampling from 18 August 2025. The samples were sent to Hill Laboratories for testing, and that report has been provided. The Hill Laboratories report confirms that five samples taken from: a. Bedroom one – window frame. b. Living room – door. c. Living room – window frame. d. Bathroom – door; and e. Bedroom two – window frame. The samples were tested as one composite sample (that means a number of individual swabs were combined so that only one test is then undertaken). The composite sample recorded that there was less than 0.02μg in the sample, which is the default test level, in effect meaning that the laboratory could not confirm with its technology that any methamphetamine was present in the property. But, if there was methamphetamine at that level in the swab, the laboratory confirmed that the theoretical maximum would be 0.10μg.
At the end of the tenancy the landlord had the premises tested again, using ‘All Clear’, and that testing occurred on 13 November 2025. A certificate of analysis was provided from Hills Laboratories which records that six samples were taken for testing from: a. Bedroom one – door. b. Living room – door. c. Living room – window frame. d. Bathroom – door. e. Bedroom two – window frame; and f. Kitchen – extraction fan. Samples a – e were tested using composite analysis and sample f was tested using discrete analysis. The composite samples returned a result of 0.19ug, with a theoretical maximum of 0.95μg. The discrete test returned a result of 0.41μg.
In 2010 the New Zealand Ministry of Health produced guidelines for the remediation of clandestine methamphetamine laboratories and determined that remediation was required if the environmental level of methamphetamine was 0.5 μg/100 cm 2 . While that related to laboratories, it is the case that the 0.5 level became the de facto level at which premises were considered to require decontamination.
In 2017 the level was increased when Standards New Zealand released Standard NZS 8510:2017 “Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine- contaminated properties”. At that time, this standard set the definitive levels at which properties which had methamphetamine contamination, required remediation. The Standard confirmed that: After seeking expert advice on exposure risk from Environmental Science and Research Ltd (ESR) and the Ministry of Health, and reviewing a large number of public comments on a draft of this standard, the committee has decided to set the maximum acceptable level of methamphetamine in an affected property at 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 after decontamination. While this level is greater than the Ministry of Health 2010 guideline value of 0.5 μg/100 cm 2 for properties used as clandestine laboratories, there are a number of reasons why the committee decided to adopt the single value of 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 in this standard.
In short, this standard confirmed that the level at which habitation of residential premises was considered safe, was a level of 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 . The expectation on landlords arising from this Standard, was to remediate premises contaminated with methamphetamine, to a level of less than 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 .
In more recent times, the Prime Minister’s then Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman determined that there was little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption (Report entitled ‘Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards,’ 29 May 2018). The report concluded that any levels below 15 μg/100 cm 2 were unlikely to present adverse effects: Taken together, these factors indicate that methamphetamine levels that exceed the NZS 8510:2017 clean-up standard of 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 should not be regarded as signalling a health risk. Indeed, exposure to methamphetamine levels below 15 μg/100 cm 2 would be unlikely to give rise to any adverse effects. This level still incorporates a 30-fold safety buffer on a conservative estimate of risk.
In the District Court judgment of Diamond Real Estate Limited v Allan [2017] NZDC 833, Judge Kellar considered a case in which remediation was undertaken in reliance on the 2010 Ministry of Health level of 0.5 μg/100 cm 2 . It is the case that following the remediation work the Standard NZS 8510:2017 was released, which as noted above increased the acceptable level to 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 . Judge Kellar records that when the premises were tested, the highest level recorded was in the toilet at 1.4 μg/100 cm 2 that “exceeded the Ministry of Health guidelines at the time.”
Currently there remains a New Zealand Standard of 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 , and also a current opinion from the former Chief Science Advisor that there is no evidence of risk below 15 μg/100 cm 2.
This matter has been considered by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947. Judge Kellar needed to determine which level should be applied. The Court discussed the conflict between the New Zealand Standard and Chief Science Advisors 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 contamination in dwellings.
I also note the more recent District Court decision of Eren Limited v Martin and Kukuruzsnak [2021] NZDC 15210, of Judge de Ridder. In that case the Court accepted that the tenants had contaminated the premises with Methamphetamine with the maximum level found to be 9.9 μg/100 cm 2 . The Court noted that the level applied by insurers and the testing industry was 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 . The Court noted that the approach that has been taken by the Tenancy Tribunal was to apply the level as set in the Gluckman report, also noting the above-mentioned Full Circle decision, with the Judge concluding: In this case there is no other evidence to counter the conclusions of the Gluckman Report. Thus it cannot be said that the Tribunal was wrong in the approach it adopted in dismissing the claim for compensation for these matters.
A third District Court decision of relevance is Acme Realty Limited v Hogg, Polotu and Coughlin [2021] NZDC 3231. Judge Harrison noted that “At issue is a short legal point, namely whether New Zealand Standard 8510:2017 has the force for law”. The appeal arose from a decision of the Tenancy Tribunal which applied the Gluckman report level of 15 μg/100 cm 2 . The Court concluded that: ...for the reasons I have given that standard has not been passed into the law of this country and consequently the Adjudicator was not bound by the level it prescribes in reaching her conclusion.
We have set out the relevant history, and the approach taken by the Tribunal and courts in order to demonstrate the prevailing level at which premises are deemed to be uninhabitable, which is currently 15 μg/100 cm 2.
For the Tribunal to award costs for methamphetamine cleaning or decontamination the landlord must provide sufficient evidence to prove to the balance of probabilities, that methamphetamine was used in the premises by the tenant, or some person in the premises with the tenant’s consent. The balance of probabilities means that what is alleged, is likely to be just over 50% likely to have occurred.
While the evidence shows methamphetamine residue was detected in the property it was in very low levels, close to the margin of error, and did not require specialist decontamination or cleaning.
In addition, the Tribunal is not satisfied the contamination was likely to have occurred during the tenancy. That is because the landlord has failed to prove that the sites swabbed and tested at the beginning of the tenancy were the same sites swabbed and tested at the end of the tenancy. Without evidence proving the same areas were swabbed and tested, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenant is responsible for the methamphetamine residue detected in the property.
The kitchen extractor fan was not swabbed and tested at the beginning of the tenancy. Without pre-tenancy testing there is no evidence to support the landlord’s claim the tenant is responsible for the end of tenancy contamination.
Section 11 of the Act provides that any agreement between a landlord and a tenant that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act is of no effect unless the inconsistency is expressly permitted by the Act or the Tribunal finds it should be permitted. Section 11 goes on to state that a landlord is able to voluntarily waive any or all rights they have, or to voluntarily incur more extensive obligations they have as a landlord under the Act 1 , but any purported waiver by a tenant of any right or power conferred by the tenants is of no effect 2 .
While the tenant agreed to pay for methamphetamine cleaning costs, this agreement was inconsistent with section 11. This is because the landlord could not prove the tenant was responsible for the methamphetamine residue detected at the end of the tenancy as their reports failed to properly and accurately disclose the sites from where the swabs were taken. The Tribunal finds the tenant was not liable to pay the methamphetamine cleaning charges and the amount of $920.00 is awarded.

Did the landlord comply with the Healthy Homes Standard for heating?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 11(2). 2 Ibid at section 11(3). with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
The tenant said that prior to moving into the property he was advised the property was without a permanent heater and was told one would be installed “shortly”.
The tenant provided a copy of their email to the landlord dated 21 August 2025 stating: “I am happy to proceed with the move in date of 22 August 2025. I can confirm I read and understood the information provided in the letter regarding the heat pump would be installed at a later date and I accept this”.
The heat pump was installed on 30 September 2025, five weeks and four days after the tenancy commenced.
The landlord told the Tribunal the tenant was fully informed about the heating issue prior to the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord provided the Tribunal with a copy of their letter to the tenant dated 21 August 2025 which states: ”We are in the progress of having a Healthy Homes compliant heat pump installed... Unfortunately, the install have been delayed due to waiting for confirmation from the Hampton Downs Strata Body Corp for their approved contractor to proceed with the work and has not worked in well with your tenancy start date... ...we understand that you need to move into the property as soon as possible. We can allow you to start your tenancy on 22/08/2025 as planned, provided you’re aware that the property will not have a working heat pump straight away.”
The landlord’s position is that tenant was fully informed about the lack of heat pump, issues with its installation, but still choose to move in.
In this case I have determined that landlord has breached the HHS heating standard because at the commencement of the tenancy the landlord failed to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The landlord was aware of the requirements of the Act and attempted to mitigate their liability by requiring the tenant to agree to the unlawful HHS heating conditions in their letter of 21 August 2025. This agreement by the tenant was inconsistent with section 11 as the tenant cannot waive their rights under the Act. The Tribunal finds the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) of the Act.
The Tribunal considers that the most important of these factors is the public interest, in insisting that landlords comply strictly with time frames set out in legislation. The tenant was without a ‘qualifying heater’ for 39 days over the winter period. The delay in installing the heatpump was primarily due to inefficiencies between the landlord and Body Corporate. The tenant has no leverage over a Body Corporate and should not have to bear the consequences of their conduct.
Considering these factors, the Tribunal has determined that exemplary damages are appropriate for this breach, but the award should be at the lower end of the scale. The amount of $500.00 is ordered.

Did the landlord fail to disclose electricity and internet supplier charges?

The tenant states that at the commencement of the tenancy the landlord failed to disclose that the power and internet suppliers were mandated by the Body Corporate. As a result of this he was unable to secure the most appropriate and cost-effective power and internet plan to suit his needs.
The Property Manager accepted they failed to inform the tenant the Body Corporate billed for power and internet supplied to each unit. The Property Manager said they were only made aware of this after it was raised by the tenant and following their subsequent discussion with the landlord.
Under section 39(3) of the Act, the tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributed to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities.
The Tribunal finds the landlord breached their obligation to fully disclose all costs associated with the property prior to the commencement of the tenancy. The tenant should have been made aware that the supplier of electricity and internet to the property was mandated by the Body Corporate. The tenant should have also made aware that the body Corporate bills each property for electricity and internet used and the rate at which those costs are charged. The tenant was entitled to this information in order to make a fully informed decision about the likely costs associated with renting the property prior to moving in.
The tenant did not seek compensation for this breach.

Did the landlord maintain the locks?

The tenant alleges that the coded lock system for the property was inadequate and access to the property was readily gained due to the easily guessable pin number. The tenant said that on two occasions, towards the end of the tenancy, he discovered unknown persons inside the property. He believes those persons gained access after entering the units pin number into the key pad entry. The tenant also alleges the pin number for the property was widely known as it had previously been used as a short-term Air B’nB rental.
The landlord disputes any issue with the properties security or key pad entry system saying the pin number was not widely known and the property had never been used as a short term rental. The landlord said access to the property is via a locked gate (which has its own five-digit pin number). The apartment has its own four-digit pin number. The landlord said the tenant never raised any security concerns with them, never asked for the pin numbers for the doors to be changed and they were unaware of the tenant’s concerns until after the tenancy ended.
Under section 46 of the Act landlords are required to provide and maintain locks and other similar devices as are necessary to ensure the premises are reasonably secure.
In this case the Tribunal is not satisfied the tenant has proved the landlord failed to maintain the locks to ensure the premises was reasonably secure for the following reasons: a. The tenant failed to notify the landlord of unlawful entry into the property or request a change in pin number(s). b. The landlord was unaware of any potential issue with the locks during the tenancy and was not given an opportunity to resolve it. c. There was no evidence to corroborate the tenants claims of unauthorised entry such as a Police report, complaint to the landlord, or complaint to the Body Corporate; and d. No corroborative evidence was provided to prove the pin number for the property was widely known.
The claim is dismissed. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the property?
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord breached their quiet enjoyment by failing to provide adequate sound proofing in the property and failing to disclose the level of noise associated with living at a race track.
The tenant said the property is located at Hampton Downs race track, with a direct line of site to the track which is approximately 30-40 meters to the living room.
The tenant took several decibel readings inside the property using an app downloaded onto his phone. The Tribunal heard average decibel readings were between 80-90 decibels with a maximum reading recorded of 120 decibels. The readings were taken in the lounge with the door and windows shut. The tenant said the noise started at about 8:00am and went to 5:00pm on weekend and between 9;00 – 10:00am and 5:00 pm on week days.
The tenant described the noise as being clinically unsafe and above the World Health Organisations 30-40 decibels recommended for indoor comfort.
The landlord states that property was built to code and designed to view the race track with the start/finish line in front of the lounge window. The Tribunal heard the race track is used by high powered vehicles. These vehicles have restricted races times and are prohibited from starting their engines before 9:30am. The Property Manager said the tenant was warned about the potential noise prior to moving in.
Section 38(2) of the Act confirms that the landlord “shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.”
Compensation may be awarded if the tenant’s right to use and enjoy the premises has been substantially interfered with by excessive or unreasonable noise. The Tribunal must consider whether the noise is beyond what would be expected in normal residential living.
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the tenant has proved the noise complained of for the following reasons: a. The property was built to code and no defect or disrepair issues were identified with the property. b. The tenant failed to provide any corroborate evidence of their decibel readings or prove that the app they used was properly installed, accurately calibrated and working correctly, or that the readings were properly taken. c. No corroborative evidence was provided by an independent third party to prove the decibel readings, the noise complained of or the unsafe effects of living in a noisy environment.
The Tribunal is not satisfied the tenant’s evidence has met the threshold to show the race track noise caused substantial interference with his use and enjoyment of the property and the claim is dismissed. Other matters
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenant seeks name suppression. Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5399592 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5399592 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was the landlord entitled to deduct methamphetamine cleaning costs from the bond?

Did the landlord comply with the Healthy Homes Standard for heating?

Did the landlord fail to disclose electricity and internet supplier charges?

Did the landlord maintain the locks?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was the landlord entitled to deduct methamphetamine cleaning costs from the bond?

Did the landlord comply with the Healthy Homes Standard for heating?

Did the landlord fail to disclose electricity and internet supplier charges?

Did the landlord maintain the locks?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions