Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5438336 — Cleanliness
Decided 11 May 2026 · Published 11 May 2026 · Application 5438336
- Cleanliness
- Exemplary damages
- Property damage
- Smoke alarms
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlords’ names and identifying details.
- Karisha Tavendale must pay [the landlords] $36,335.58 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,880.00 (bond number suppressed) to [the landlords] immediately. DescriptionLandlordsTenant Meth test smoke alarm$344.82 Meth test premises$1,149.48 Meth test premises post decontamination Decontamination costs (cleaning) $1,641.63 $7,613.00 Decontamination costs (post cleaning) Loss of rent $17,135.45 $7,340.00 Driveway cleaning$611.20 Miscellaneous damage$250.00 Blind damage$130.00 Exemplary damages - unlawful use$1,400.00 Exemplary damages – failure to quit$600.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$38,215.58 Less bond$1,880.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlords$36,335.58
Reasons
- Only the landlords’ representatives attended the hearing.
- The landlords have applied for compensation, exemplary damages and payment of the bond following the end of the tenancy. Background
- This fixed term tenancy began December 2021. Following several extensions, it was due to end on 4 December 2025. The premises were newly built at the beginning of the tenancy.
- In 2025, the landlords had a suspicion that the tenant might be using methamphetamine (meth) in the premises. The suspicion arose from the tenant’s behaviour.
- In September 2025, the landlords replaced a smoke alarm in the premises. Before they installed it, they had it tested for meth. As one would expect, the test result was negative.
- In October, the landlords gave the tenant notice that the tenancy would terminate at the end of the fixed term.
- The tenant had not vacated the premises when the landlords’ agent attended the premises on 5 December to conduct the final inspection. The tenant did not vacate until 13 December.
- After the tenant vacated, the landlords had the smoke alarm tested for meth and the test result was positive.
- The landlords then had the premises thoroughly tested for meth contamination. The test result included levels of meth above 15μ/100cm² in two locations in the living area and in one of the bedrooms. All the results showed the presence of meth.
- The landlords then arranged to have the premises decontaminated following the advice of the testers.
- The premises were tested again in February after the decontamination process was completed and the test was negative.
- Following painting and installation of carpet and soft furnishings, the premises were ready for occupation on 27 March. The premises have now been relet but not yet occupied. Law Relating to Meth Contamination
- The landlords 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 landlords must also prove that, due to the contamination, the premises have been damaged or are not reasonably clean.
- Regulations have recently been made prescribing the maximum acceptable level for contaminants. They came into effect on 16 April 2026 and so they have no application in this case. In terms of the relevant levels of contamination, they would not have altered the outcome of this case.
- The Tribunal has followed the guidelines in Sir Peter Gluckman’s, the then Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor, report "Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards”. That practice has been approved by the District Court. 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.
- 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). Damage and Compensation Generally
- The tenant must not carelessly or intentionally damage the premises.
- A landlords must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. 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.
- Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlords' insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent).
- Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlords' insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent).
- 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. Claims Meth Related Liability
- The premises were newly built at the start of the tenancy and therefore it is unlikely that there was any meth contamination of them when the tenancy began.
- Due to the landlords’ suspicions, they tested the smoke alarm before it was installed in September 2025. That was a sensible precaution. They were hoping that the test result after the tenancy ended would be negative but unfortunately it was positive.
- The inevitable detailed testing that followed showed the presence of meth residue in the premises well above the 15μ/100cm² level.
- I am satisfied on this evidence that the premises were not contaminated with meth before the tenancy began and therefore it must have been contaminated during the tenancy. The tenant has not disproved the presumption that she or someone at the premises with her permission used meth in the premises during the tenancy.
- It follows that the tenant is liable for the financial consequences of the contamination subject to the requirements of causation, foreseeability and reasonableness. Because the contamination was intentional, there are no limitations arising from the landlords’ insurance. Testing
- The landlords do not claim the cost of testing the smoke alarm before it was installed.
- The landlords claim the $344.82 cost of testing it after the tenancy ended. Because the test was positive, and the landlords had a reasonable suspicion that there could be meth contamination, I have awarded it.
- It was obviously reasonable for the landlords to then conduct detailed meth testing of the premises and so I have awarded the cost of that testing in the sum of $1,49.48.
- The post decontamination testing was needed to ensure that the decontamination was successful and so I have awarded the cost of that in the sum of $1,641.63. Decontamination
- The landlords were required to decontaminate the premises before they could be relet. They followed the meth tester’s recommendations in terms of the decontamination process. I have considered the invoices for the decontamination (cleaning) and the subsequent painting, and supply and installation of soft furnishings and I find them to be reasonable in amount and I have therefore awarded them.
- I note that under the new regulations the decontamination process would likely have differed to some extent from the process that was followed in this case. For example, the carpet may have been cleaned rather than replaced. But it was reasonable for the landlords to follow the advice of the meth tester, and it was a common practice at the time. Loss of Rent
- The landlords claim loss of rent from 14 December 2025 to 27 March 2026 when the decontamination was completed, and the premises could be relet. In principle that is a legitimate claim.
- I asked the landlords’ representatives some relevant questions and they told me that if they did not have suspicions about meth use in the premises, they would have advertised the premises before the tenancy ended and they are confident that they would have found another tenant before Christmas at the same rent or better. They have now relet the premises at a higher rent.
- I accept their evidence, and I find that it is reasonable to award compensation for the loss of opportunity to relet the premises at the end of 2025 equivalent to the passing rent for the period from when the tenant vacated the premises to the completion of the decontamination. I note that the new tenancy has not yet begun.
- I have therefore awarded the sum of $7,340. Other Cleaning and Damage
- There was damage to a door stop, a blind, downpipe brackets and a manhole cover during the tenancy. The damage exceeds fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
- The landlords produced an invoice for the cost of repairing the damage in the sum of $276.58. The invoice included some other minor work not chargeable to the tenant, and so I have awarded the sum of $250. There was evidence that the cost of repairing the damaged blind was $130 and I have award that also.
- The parking area for the premises was stained with oil at the end of the tenancy and the landlords had the staining professionally removed which was reasonable. I have awarded the cost in the sum of $611.20 based on the invoice produced. Exemplary Damages Unlawful Use
- A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose.
- Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00.
- 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.
- I have found that the tenant used or allowed meth to be used in the premises during the tenancy. Both are criminal offences under the Misuse of drugs Act 1975. They are serious offences, and they constitute use of the premises for an unlawful purpose. The tenant has therefore committed an unlawful act.
- Given the serious consequences that have been suffered by the landlords due to the tenant’s conduct and the interests of the landlords and the public interest in discouraging this type of behaviour, an award of exemplary damages is required.
- The maximum award must be reserved for the most serious cases. This case is serious, but it is not at the top end. An award in the sum of $1,400 is appropriate. Failure to Quit
- A tenant must vacate the premises on the termination of the tenancy.
- Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00.
- The tenant failed to vacate the premises at the end of the tenancy, and she has not offered any excuse for that, reasonable or otherwise. I find that she has committed an unlawful act.
- The failure to vacate delayed the landlords in obtaining possession, testing the premises and proceeding with decontamination. The tenant has paid a price for that in terms of compensation for lost rent, but an award of exemplary damages is still required. The least she could do in the circumstances is to have vacated the premises on time.
- This may be speculation, but I think but the failure to vacate on time may well be related to the meth use and I think I need to bear that in mind . An award of $600 is appropriate. Filing Fee
- The landlords have succeeded and so I have awarded the filing fee. Suppression
- Because the landlords have succeeded, I have granted their request for name suppression. I have also suppressed the tenancy address. Result
- The bond will be paid to the landlords and the tenant must pay the remaining liability.