What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5414453 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 5414453?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5414453?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5414453?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13381804-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5414453 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 5414453?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5414453?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5414453?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13381804-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

22 Kathleen Reece Place, Waiuku, Waiuku 2123 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5414453 — Smoke alarms

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants name and identifying details.
The application by the Landlord is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
At the hearing the Landlord withdrew their claim for cleaning.

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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The Landlord claimed $356.50 for carpet cleaning, alleging the carpets were left stained and dirty, relying on the exit inspection report.
The Tenant disputed this, stating the carpets were already in a stained and unclean condition at the commencement of the tenancy. She notes the entry inspection report records pre-existing stains and that the previous tenant kept dogs, which likely contributed to the condition.
In considering the evidence, the entry inspection report documents stains in bedrooms 1–4 and the lounge, and the exit report records stains in those same areas. This indicates no material deterioration during the tenancy. The cleaning invoice provides no justification beyond a general heat-extraction service, and the exit photographs are insufficiently clear to substantiate the Landlord’s claims. In these circumstances.
The Landlords claim is dismissed. Methamphetamine contamination
The Landlord seeks compensation for methamphetamine testing and remediation. An initial test conducted on 18 December 2023 recorded methamphetamine levels below 0.02μg. A subsequent test at the end of the tenancy, on 27 May 2025 recorded 7.9μg. Further room-by-room testing occurred on 31 May 2025 and as the results exceeded the entry level, decontamination was undertaken on 4 September 2025. Follow-up testing identified residual contamination, requiring a second decontamination. The Landlord submitted the methamphetamine reports at the start of the tenancy and post-decontamination reports.
The Tenant disputed the claim, stating that neither she nor any occupant used methamphetamine. She submitted that methamphetamine contamination levels posed no health risk unless the levels exceed 15 μg and that testing is only warranted where heavy use or manufacture is suspected. She vacated the property on 24 May 2025, prior to the first testing on 27 May 2025 and is unaware of any intervening access. She denied hosting parties, stating the only visitors to her property when she was not home were pet sitters (middle-aged or elderly). She also raised concerns that prior contamination may have been concealed, noting discrepancies in wall colour from the original listing. The Tenant questioned the testing methodology, locations in the property tested, and the delay in conducting the decontamination four months later. She offered to undergo hair follicle and drug testing and stated that, given her employment in insurance and living in a small town, she would not risk engaging in illegal activity.
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.
In considering the evidence, the Landlord has not proved the property required decontamination given the level was below 15μg in accordance with the Gluckman report.
The Landlords claim is dismissed.
As the Landlord has not been substantially successful, the Landlord shall pay their own filing fee.
As the Tenant has been substantially successful, name suppression is granted to the Tenant.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants name and identifying details.
The application by the Landlord is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
At the hearing the Landlord withdrew their claim for cleaning.

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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The Landlord claimed $356.50 for carpet cleaning, alleging the carpets were left stained and dirty, relying on the exit inspection report.
The Tenant disputed this, stating the carpets were already in a stained and unclean condition at the commencement of the tenancy. She notes the entry inspection report records pre-existing stains and that the previous tenant kept dogs, which likely contributed to the condition.
In considering the evidence, the entry inspection report documents stains in bedrooms 1–4 and the lounge, and the exit report records stains in those same areas. This indicates no material deterioration during the tenancy. The cleaning invoice provides no justification beyond a general heat-extraction service, and the exit photographs are insufficiently clear to substantiate the Landlord’s claims. In these circumstances.
The Landlords claim is dismissed. Methamphetamine contamination
The Landlord seeks compensation for methamphetamine testing and remediation. An initial test conducted on 18 December 2023 recorded methamphetamine levels below 0.02μg. A subsequent test at the end of the tenancy, on 27 May 2025 recorded 7.9μg. Further room-by-room testing occurred on 31 May 2025 and as the results exceeded the entry level, decontamination was undertaken on 4 September 2025. Follow-up testing identified residual contamination, requiring a second decontamination. The Landlord submitted the methamphetamine reports at the start of the tenancy and post-decontamination reports.
The Tenant disputed the claim, stating that neither she nor any occupant used methamphetamine. She submitted that methamphetamine contamination levels posed no health risk unless the levels exceed 15 μg and that testing is only warranted where heavy use or manufacture is suspected. She vacated the property on 24 May 2025, prior to the first testing on 27 May 2025 and is unaware of any intervening access. She denied hosting parties, stating the only visitors to her property when she was not home were pet sitters (middle-aged or elderly). She also raised concerns that prior contamination may have been concealed, noting discrepancies in wall colour from the original listing. The Tenant questioned the testing methodology, locations in the property tested, and the delay in conducting the decontamination four months later. She offered to undergo hair follicle and drug testing and stated that, given her employment in insurance and living in a small town, she would not risk engaging in illegal activity.
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.
In considering the evidence, the Landlord has not proved the property required decontamination given the level was below 15μg in accordance with the Gluckman report.
The Landlords claim is dismissed.
As the Landlord has not been substantially successful, the Landlord shall pay their own filing fee.
As the Tenant has been substantially successful, name suppression is granted to the Tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5414453 — Smoke alarms at 22 Kathleen Reece Place, Waiuku, Waiuku 2123

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5414453 — Smoke alarms at 22 Kathleen Reece Place, Waiuku, Waiuku 2123

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions