What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5422028 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5422028?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5422028?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5422028?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13427370-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5422028 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5422028?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5422028?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5422028?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13427370-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

33 Ross Street, Onerahi, Whangarei 0110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5422028 — Cleanliness

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The applicant claimed compensation for methamphetamine testing and sought exemplary damages for an unlawful activity at the premises.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” Background
This tenancy commenced 18 June 2021 and ended on 13 November 2025. The tenant is a provider of housing and several sub-tenancies existed during this tenancy period.
At the end of the tenancy the landlord conducted a composite methamphetamine test and the results of that led to subsequent actions, costs, and this application.
The premises has since been sold.

Is the tenant liable for methamphetamine testing costs?

The New Zealand Standard 8510:2017 Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine-contaminated properties (“NZS8510:2017”) provides industry guidance on good practice methods in the testing and clean-up of methamphetamine contamination in houses. NZS8510:2017 was released on 29 June 2017. The standard adopts a single level of 1.5μg/100cm² (1.5 micrograms of methamphetamine per 100 square centimetres of surface sampled) that ‘high use areas’ of affected properties should be decontaminated to, regardless of whether the properties were involved in the production or use of methamphetamine. Consider high use areas as those areas that can be easily accessed by the occupants.
On 29 May 2018, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman (the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor at that time) determined that there was little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption (See ‘Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards’, 29 May 2018.
His report concluded that in the absence of other evidence of manufacture, any levels below 15μg/100cm² are highly unlikely to present adverse effects therefore there should be no need for remediation. Where there is evidence of manufacture the NZS8510:2017 standard is appropriate (noting there is no suggestion of manufacturing during this tenancy).
In 2019 there was a judgement in the District Court which dismissed an appeal after the Tribunal adopted the Gluckman Report to determine whether the tenant had caused damage to the premises or permitted any other person to do so (Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947).
Finally, I consider further validating are the 2019 comments of the Court of Appeal in Smith v Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited [2019] NZCA 38 where, in paragraph [16], with reference to the Gluckman Report, the decision stated: “We acknowledge that the testing in this case yielded results now considered not to raise any health and safety concerns.”
From 16 April 2026, the statutory contamination levels to apply come into effective 1 (see Housing and Urban Development (HUD) explanation here) . Given the pending statutory standard mirrors much of Gluckman, it is worth noting the requirements soon to be when methamphetamine residue levels are above 15μg/100cm2 (micrograms per hundred square centimetres), the property is considered contaminated and needs to be decontaminated.
The property must be decontaminated until methamphetamine residue levels are no longer above 15μg/100cm2 (until they are 15μg/100cm2 or less).
Contamination will be determined on a room-by-room basis. An example given by HUD is if the bedroom is above 15μg/100cm2 but the kitchen is below 15μg/100cm2, only the bedroom needs to be decontaminated.
These steps are consistent with previous Tribunal determinations made regarding appropriate remediation action.

Was there a need to decontaminate/clean/test further?

The premises was baseline tested for methamphetamine, prior to the tenancy commencing. No methamphetamine was detected at that time.
A composite test was conducted on 6 November 2025. The composite identified a theoretical maximum contamination of 3.3μg/100cm², based on the ten samples taken (the average result being 0.33μg. This is well below the levels considered unsafe in the Gluckman Report, and by this Tribunal. However, the landlord arranged for a comprehensive test, at a cost of $1,034.43. This found minimal contamination, with the highest reading being 1.04μg/100cm². Given this result, under even the lower NZS8510:2017 standard of 1.5μg, the owner did not/could not pursue any insurance claim. The landlord seeks compensation for the comprehensive testing that cost $1,034.43.
Section 40(1)(e) (iii) of the RTA requires the tenant to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. Section 41 assigns the tenant the responsibility for the actions of others.
Given the low levels of methamphetamine at the end of the tenancy I needed to determine if the cost of comprehensive testing was a cost that the tenant should pay. Suffice to note here that the tenant refutes any such liability.
The landlord faces a challenge in arguing “cleanliness” has not been met in this situation as the residues do not exceed the level currently adopted as safe. The 1 The Residential Tenancies (Managing Methamphetamine Contamination) Regulations 2026 will come into force on 16 April 2026. residue itself is an unseen chemical, not that dissimilar to other possible residual contaminants like nicotine or chemicals from harsh cleaning products.
I find the landlord has not been able to prove the cost incurred should be assigned to the tenant and I decline the compensation claim as the theoretical maximum was such that no single area could ever return a result that would require later remediation at the tenant’s cost.
This claim is dismissed.

Did the tenant commit an unlawful act?

The landlord claimed the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by using an unlawful drug, namely methamphetamine or allowing someone else to use methamphetamine on the premises. See the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
If the tenant had used, or permitted to be used, methamphetamine in the premises during the tenancy this would be in breach of s 40(2)(b), RTA as it is unlawful to use premises, or allow them to be used, for the purpose of consuming methamphetamine which is a class A controlled drug (s 3A, 7(1)(a) and Schedule 1 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975). Section 40(3A)(c) of the Act provides that failure to comply with this is an unlawful act.
Schedule 1A of the Act provides that the maximum award of exemplary damages for such an act is $1,800.
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 interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In this instance the tenant did not reside at the premises during the tenancy. It provided a series of tenancies as sub-landlord.
There is no evidence the tenant used, or permitted the consumption of methamphetamine during this tenancy and this claim must fail.
Even if I am wrong, a one of key consideration on awarding exemplary damages is the intent.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the Court said this: In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is sought. As the Tribunal in Chief Executive, ex parte Edmondson v Walls TT548/92 said: Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it.
Given the circumstances here, I would not be satisfied exemplary damages should follow any such unlawful act due to no proven intent.
This claim is dismissed. Conclusion
The tenant raised some issues of its own. There were briefly discussed and the correct pathway advised although I consider these would struggle from the same challenge the landlord faced, being the actual occupancy of these premises during the tenancy.
The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that any landlord cost incurred in having a comprehensive methamphetamine test should be paid by the tenant and that claim must be dismissed.
Further, I am not satisfied that an unlawful act (being the act or permission for an unlawful activity) was committed by the tenant here and that claim must also be dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5422028 — Cleanliness at 33 Ross Street, Onerahi, Whangarei 0110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5422028 — Cleanliness at 33 Ross Street, Onerahi, Whangarei 0110

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant liable for methamphetamine testing costs?

Was there a need to decontaminate/clean/test further?

Did the tenant commit an unlawful act?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant liable for methamphetamine testing costs?

Was there a need to decontaminate/clean/test further?

Did the tenant commit an unlawful act?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions