Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5425835 — Rent arrears at 19 Scott Avenue, Otaki Beach, Otaki 5512
Decided 6 May 2026 · Published 6 May 2026 · Application 5425835
- Rent arrears
- Exemplary damages
Order
- [The tenant/s] has used, or permitted the use of, the premises for an unlawful purpose.
- [The tenant/s] must pay Berrymans Property Management & Rentals Limited $1,656.57 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
Reasons
- The landlord attended the hearing. There was no attendance by the tenant.
- The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation for methamphetamine contamination costs including testing costs, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
- The landlord also seeks exemplary damages alleging that the tenant has used, or permitted the use of, methamphetamine at the premises. Background
- The tenancy commenced on 12 February 2025. The tenancy ended on 18 December 2025 after the landlord enforced a conditional termination order for rent arrears.
- At the end of the tenancy, the tenant signed over the bond to the landlord to offset rent arrears owed at that point.
- Prior to the tenancy commencing the landlord conducted methamphetamine testing which showed that there was no presence of methamphetamine at the premises.
- On 19 December 2025, after the tenancy ended, the premises tested positive for methamphetamine.
- The premises have undergone specialist cleaning and carpets and furnishings have been replaced. The premises were re-tested and declared free of methamphetamine in February 2026. The decontamination costs were covered by the landlord’s insurance. The landlord seeks $800 compensation, being the insurance excesses paid.
How much is owed for rent?
- The tenancy ended on 18 December 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
Is there methamphetamine damage/contamination of the premises?
- 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 for whom they are responsible. 1 The use or possession of methamphetamine is an imprisonable offence. 2 1 Section 49B(1) Residential tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 2 See sections 7 and 12 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975
- If a landlord proves this, then a tenant is liable for the costs of “making good the damage” and any other reasonably foreseeable losses that flow from the damage. 3
- The standard of proof that applies is the civil standard “on the balance of probabilities”. This means I do not have to be completely certain, but I must be satisfied that what is alleged is “more probable than not.”
- Generally, the more serious the claim, the stronger the evidence that is required. 4
What were the methamphetamine test results?
- A composite test (where the results of multiple samples are combined) on 19 December 2025 (the day after the tenant vacated the premises and the tenancy ended) indicated that methamphetamine was present at the premises.
- A second comprehensive test of 10 individual samples was done on 5 January 2026. The results range from 0.55 to 9.9μg/100cm² (micrograms in a sample area of 100 square centimetres) for each area tested and fall below the level required to establish that the premises were damaged.
- The Gluckman report 5 and prevailing case law 6 has established that exposure to methamphetamine at a level below 15μg/100cm² is unlikely to have any adverse effect and remediation/decontamination of the premises to a level of
- 5μg/100cm² is only appropriate if there is reason to suspect manufacturing activity.
- Since the landlord conducted testing at the premises and lodged this application, regulations have now come into force prescribing the maximum acceptable level of methamphetamine for premises for the purpose of the definition of “contaminated” in section 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). 7 The maximum acceptable level is 15μg/100cm² which is consistent with the prevailing case law.
- In summary, the level of methamphetamine detected here was well below the level of 15μg/100cm² and there was no evidence presented to suggest methamphetamine manufacturing activity at the premises. Therefore, the property has not been damaged by methamphetamine contamination and the tenant is not liable for the decontamination costs incurred by the landlord. 3 Sections 49A and 49B(1)(b) RTA 4 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55 5 See the report by Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposure, risk levels and interpretation of standards, 29 May 2018 (the Gluckman report). 6 Full Circle Real Estate v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 which adopted the Gluckman report. This approach was also accepted by the High Court in Nisbet v Te Ahuru Mowai Limited Partnership [2025] NZHC 2467 7 Regulation 5 Residential Tenancies (Managing Methamphetamine Contamination) Regulations 2026 Is the tenant liable for compensation and exemplary damages for using, or permitting the use of methamphetamine at the premises?
- A tenant must not use the premises, or permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose. 8 Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to $1,800. 9
- The landlord has provided evidence that the tenant either used, or allowed the use of, methamphetamine at the premises in breach of their obligations. The evidence is summarised as follows: a. The landlord has established with a pre-tenancy screening test that there was no methamphetamine present at the premises when the tenancy started; b. The landlord has proved with a further screening test that methamphetamine was present at the premises when the tenancy ended; c. It is an imprisonable offence to use any controlled drug, or to knowingly permit any premises to be used for consuming controlled drugs, which includes methamphetamine. It follows that the use of methamphetamine at the premises amounts to using the premises for an unlawful purpose; 10
- Based on the evidence, I find that the tenant has used, or permitted the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose.
- I award the landlord the compensation sought for the comprehensive methamphetamine testing conducted on 5 January 2026. The testing costs were $862.50. However, the landlord only sought to recover $800. Therefore, I only award that sum.
- I do not award further testing costs which exceed the total sought by the landlord. However, even had they asked for those costs, I consider they should not be awarded for the following reasons: a. I would not award the cost of the initial composite test because doing this test is good practice as part of the landlord’s pre and post tenancy maintenance checks; b. I would not award the post-decontamination test cost because the premises were not contaminated by methamphetamine, in that all areas tested were below the maximum acceptable level of 15μg/100cm².
- I also consider exemplary damages for using the premises for an unlawful purpose. Exemplary damages up to $1,800 may be awarded. 8 Section 40(2)(b) RTA 9 Section 40(3A)(c) and schedule 1A RTA 10 See n2 above
- 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. 11
- I am satisfied that the use of methamphetamine at the premises was intentional, and the tenant is legally responsible for it. The effect on the landlord has been to cause significant inconvenience in having the premises tested; lodging an insurance claim; and taking these proceedings. The interests of the landlord (that their property is not implicated in unlawful activity that may damage or reduce the ability to rent it out in future) and the public interest (that tenants be discouraged from unlawful activity) are also relevant. In those circumstances, I award $600. This is a third of the maximum award. It is at the lower end of the scale because the premises were not contaminated, and there is no indication that this tenant has previously breached the RTA in this manner.
- As the landlord has substantially succeeded with their application, they are entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee.