What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5411534 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 5411534?

Cleaning: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $143.75 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,760.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $687.13 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $59.91 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5411534?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5411534?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13512788-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5411534 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 5411534?

Cleaning: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $143.75 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,760.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $687.13 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $59.91 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5411534?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5411534?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13512788-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5411534 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5411534 — net $3,898.79 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 24.10.2025	$2,760.00	Rent arrears to 24.10.2025
Water rates	$59.91	Water rates
Cleaning, carpet cleaning & rubbish removal	$687.13	Cleaning, carpet cleaning & rubbish removal
Lawns and garden work	$143.75	Lawns and garden work
Meth testing/Cleaning	$2,500.00	Meth testing/Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,898.79
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,898.79

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay 360 Property Management Limited as agent for Richard and Jan Loo $3,898.79 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,280.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to 360 Property Management Limited as agent for Richard and Jan Loo immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, with Ms Dale representing the landlord.
This tenancy began on 30 November 2019. In the tenancy agreement, there are three named tenants. Two of the tenants, who are daughters of the remaining tenant, have since moved out. The landlord has brought the application against the remaining tenant. The tenant states her daughters moved out in 2024.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water charges, compensation, payment from the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Exemplary damages are no longer sought.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 24 October 2025. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices to establish the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant accepts the rent arrears and water charges sought by the landlord, which are awarded 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 cleaning, carpet cleaning and rubbish removal costs. While noting the tenant’s evidence that she tried to clean the property, the landlord has provided evidence, including inspection reports, with photographs showing the condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy, and prior to the tenancy commencing. This evidence establishes that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and removal all rubbish, at the end of the tenancy. One invoice for $687.13 covers the cleaning, carpet cleaning and rubbish removal costs.
The landlord also incurred $143.75 for lawnmowing and gardening costs, which the tenant accepts.
The amounts ordered are proved. Methamphetamine contamination
The landlord seeks the insurance excess of $2,500.00 for costs arising from methamphetamine contamination. 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 guidelines should be proportionate to risk and that exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm 2 was unlikely to have an adverse 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 effect. Therefore, contamination at levels above 15 μg/100cm 2 presents a health risk and requires remediation. The Gluckman report recommended retaining the level of 1.5 μg/100cm 2 where contamination resulted from manufacture, due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the process.
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 claims the insurance excess of $2,500.00 for costs arising from methamphetamine contamination, involving decontamination work. The landlord states the decontamination has now been completed, with the full cost noted to be above $30,000.00. Insurance covered all testing/report costs. The landlord does not believe the tenant has been using meth, and suspects a flatmate, who later moved out, was responsible.
The landlord explained the results of testing, noting that the owner, who was proactive, had arranged for a baseline test. They were shocked at the high readings at the end of the tenancy. The landlord referred to the testing completed by [Meth testing company]. 4 [2019] NZDC 4947 5 [2021] NZDC 3231 6 Diamond Real Estate Limited v Allan [2017] NZDC 833, Judge Kellar
The tenant states she had no idea about meth use at the property. Her son’s friend occupied bedroom 3, and she never suspected he had been using meth. If she had been aware of it, she would not have allowed him to stay. He was living at the property for 5 months. She accepts liability for the insurance excess sought by the landlord. In response, the landlord states that it accepts the tenant was misled by the flatmate.
In this case, baseline testing conducted immediately prior to the tenancy, on 14 November 2019, shows methamphetamine was not detected at the premises. At the end of the tenancy, the [Meth testing company] report of 10 November 2025 shows there was methamphetamine use at the premises. The levels detected in 9 of the 10 sampled areas were above the NZS 8510:2017 decontamination level of 1.5 μg/100cm. 2 There were particularly high readings in bedroom 3 (55 μg/100cm 2 ), laundry (17.5 μg/100cm 2 ) and garage (29 μg/100cm 2 ). Furthermore, the [Meth testing company] report states that the composition of the individual samples indicated the property was used for manufacturing. This means that, due to the levels of methamphetamine detected at the premises, and the evidence of likely manufacture, the landlord had to decontaminate the premises. Further testing was then required to confirm the levels were safe.
While the tenant states she was not aware of the meth use, she will be responsible for the actions of others on the premises with her permission. In any event, the tenant has accepted responsibility. Therefore, the insurance excess of $2,500.00 is awarded to the landlord, as noted above. Filing fee and name suppression
As the landlord has been successful, the tenant is to pay the landlord’s filing fee.
The tenant seeks name suppression. While the tenant is the unsuccessful party, having had regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest, due to the particular circumstances in this case, and with the landlord’s consent, the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The landlord does not seek name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5411534 — net $3,898.79 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 24.10.2025	$2,760.00	Rent arrears to 24.10.2025
Water rates	$59.91	Water rates
Cleaning, carpet cleaning & rubbish removal	$687.13	Cleaning, carpet cleaning & rubbish removal
Lawns and garden work	$143.75	Lawns and garden work
Meth testing/Cleaning	$2,500.00	Meth testing/Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,898.79
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,898.79

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay 360 Property Management Limited as agent for Richard and Jan Loo $3,898.79 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,280.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to 360 Property Management Limited as agent for Richard and Jan Loo immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, with Ms Dale representing the landlord.
This tenancy began on 30 November 2019. In the tenancy agreement, there are three named tenants. Two of the tenants, who are daughters of the remaining tenant, have since moved out. The landlord has brought the application against the remaining tenant. The tenant states her daughters moved out in 2024.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water charges, compensation, payment from the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Exemplary damages are no longer sought.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 24 October 2025. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices to establish the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant accepts the rent arrears and water charges sought by the landlord, which are awarded 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 cleaning, carpet cleaning and rubbish removal costs. While noting the tenant’s evidence that she tried to clean the property, the landlord has provided evidence, including inspection reports, with photographs showing the condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy, and prior to the tenancy commencing. This evidence establishes that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and removal all rubbish, at the end of the tenancy. One invoice for $687.13 covers the cleaning, carpet cleaning and rubbish removal costs.
The landlord also incurred $143.75 for lawnmowing and gardening costs, which the tenant accepts.
The amounts ordered are proved. Methamphetamine contamination
The landlord seeks the insurance excess of $2,500.00 for costs arising from methamphetamine contamination. 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 guidelines should be proportionate to risk and that exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm 2 was unlikely to have an adverse 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 effect. Therefore, contamination at levels above 15 μg/100cm 2 presents a health risk and requires remediation. The Gluckman report recommended retaining the level of 1.5 μg/100cm 2 where contamination resulted from manufacture, due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the process.
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 claims the insurance excess of $2,500.00 for costs arising from methamphetamine contamination, involving decontamination work. The landlord states the decontamination has now been completed, with the full cost noted to be above $30,000.00. Insurance covered all testing/report costs. The landlord does not believe the tenant has been using meth, and suspects a flatmate, who later moved out, was responsible.
The landlord explained the results of testing, noting that the owner, who was proactive, had arranged for a baseline test. They were shocked at the high readings at the end of the tenancy. The landlord referred to the testing completed by [Meth testing company]. 4 [2019] NZDC 4947 5 [2021] NZDC 3231 6 Diamond Real Estate Limited v Allan [2017] NZDC 833, Judge Kellar
The tenant states she had no idea about meth use at the property. Her son’s friend occupied bedroom 3, and she never suspected he had been using meth. If she had been aware of it, she would not have allowed him to stay. He was living at the property for 5 months. She accepts liability for the insurance excess sought by the landlord. In response, the landlord states that it accepts the tenant was misled by the flatmate.
In this case, baseline testing conducted immediately prior to the tenancy, on 14 November 2019, shows methamphetamine was not detected at the premises. At the end of the tenancy, the [Meth testing company] report of 10 November 2025 shows there was methamphetamine use at the premises. The levels detected in 9 of the 10 sampled areas were above the NZS 8510:2017 decontamination level of 1.5 μg/100cm. 2 There were particularly high readings in bedroom 3 (55 μg/100cm 2 ), laundry (17.5 μg/100cm 2 ) and garage (29 μg/100cm 2 ). Furthermore, the [Meth testing company] report states that the composition of the individual samples indicated the property was used for manufacturing. This means that, due to the levels of methamphetamine detected at the premises, and the evidence of likely manufacture, the landlord had to decontaminate the premises. Further testing was then required to confirm the levels were safe.
While the tenant states she was not aware of the meth use, she will be responsible for the actions of others on the premises with her permission. In any event, the tenant has accepted responsibility. Therefore, the insurance excess of $2,500.00 is awarded to the landlord, as noted above. Filing fee and name suppression
As the landlord has been successful, the tenant is to pay the landlord’s filing fee.
The tenant seeks name suppression. While the tenant is the unsuccessful party, having had regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest, due to the particular circumstances in this case, and with the landlord’s consent, the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The landlord does not seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5411534 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5411534 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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