What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5442209 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 5442209?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5442209?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5442209?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13494603-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5442209 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 5442209?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5442209?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5442209?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13494603-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5442209 — Exemplary damages

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5442209 — Exemplary damages | TenantCheck

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made [suppressed] under application [suppressed].
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,080.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately for the monetary orders in favour of the landlord per the table below:

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenant.
The landlord has applied for compensation, exemplary damages and refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
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.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 23 November 2025. The landlord provided and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy is as ordered.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's 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). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
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) 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.
A hole in the living room wall was evident at the ends of the tenancy. Photos prove the damage, and an invoice establishes a cost of $736.00 to repair it.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
However, the landlord has an insurance excess of $500.00 as recorded in the tenant agreement. There is no apparent reason why a claim could not be made and succeed. Therefore, I award the lower cost being the excess of $500.00. It remains open for the owner to seek cover from its insurer.
The amount ordered is proved.

Did methamphetamine contamination occur during this tenancy?

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.”
Just recently, the government has confirmed the Gluckman levels to apply (see Housing and Urban Development explanation here). Regulations are now in force from 7 April 2026 (after this tenancy). Essentially, when methamphetamine residue levels are above 15μg/100cm 2 (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/100cm 2 (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/100cm 2 but the kitchen is below 15μg/100cm 2 , only the bedroom needs to be decontaminated.

Was there a need to decontaminate/clean?

The premises was tested for methamphetamine on or around 9 December 2024, prior to the tenancy commencing. There was a trace of methamphetamine detected with a theoretical maximum contamination of
38μg/100cm². The tester noted this was not unexpected given a historic remediation.
A composite test was conducted on or around 25 November 2025 after the tenancy ended. The composite identified a theoretical maximum contamination of 22μg/100cm² based on the samples taken. This is above the level considered unsafe in the Gluckman Report, and by this Tribunal. A subsequent comprehensive test was carried out. That confirmed the Living Room as the main source of contamination with a test recording 18.2μg/100cm² at one site. No other area tested exceeded 15μg/100cm although the second living room was just below and validated the first test result. The greater tested levels at exit cannot be accounted for by any legacy issues that were remediated.
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.
The insurer has accepted a methamphetamine contamination claim by the owner and remediation is almost complete.
The landlord advised the insurer has not sought the related excess from the owner as they are pursuing the tenant directly. That is why there is no related compensation claim in front of me today.

Were the premises used unlawfully?

The landlord claimed the tenants have 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.
As found above, the tenant used in the premises, or permitted to be used, methamphetamine in the premises during the tenancy. This is 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.
I find this act has been intentionally committed. The requirement of intention is about whether a party intended to do what they did or did not do (Parton v Fifita TT 1815/00, DC Auckland 1/5/2001). No plausible alternative was open to me. The tenant lived there alone as the only adult with her young daughter.
From the evidence presented it is difficult to make any finding other than the tenant knew, or should have known, methamphetamine was being used in the living room at a minimum and allowed that to continue. I find the requirement of intention under s 109 is established.
The purpose of exemplary damages is to punish rather than to compensate the other party. The considerations are therefore different than those concerning compensation for remediation or cleaning. The landlord says the owner has incurred an extended loss of rent due to the remediation exercise that is yet to complete. That represents over four months of potential rent loss, as well as the emotional and practical effect of the contamination.
It has been proven to the required standard that methamphetamine contamination is more likely than not to have occurred during this tenancy. It was an unlawful act, and while direct compensation has not been sought, some exemplary damages are considered appropriate for the consequential impact on the owner.
A final consideration here is the is strong public interest in deterring tenants from using rented premises for unlawful activities.
For the reasons outlined above, I consider an award of exemplary damages appropriate but on the lower scale and award exemplary damages of $665.73. This is approximately one-third of the maximum award possible (rounded up slightly) and this reflects no evidence of any prior unlawful act such as here. Prior order
On 9 December 2025 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears to 23 November 2025. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes. Filing fee
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The landlord requested suppression in its application. As it has been wholly successful, suppression is ordered.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made [suppressed] under application [suppressed].
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,080.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately for the monetary orders in favour of the landlord per the table below:

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenant.
The landlord has applied for compensation, exemplary damages and refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
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.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 23 November 2025. The landlord provided and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy is as ordered.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's 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). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
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) 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.
A hole in the living room wall was evident at the ends of the tenancy. Photos prove the damage, and an invoice establishes a cost of $736.00 to repair it.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
However, the landlord has an insurance excess of $500.00 as recorded in the tenant agreement. There is no apparent reason why a claim could not be made and succeed. Therefore, I award the lower cost being the excess of $500.00. It remains open for the owner to seek cover from its insurer.
The amount ordered is proved.

Did methamphetamine contamination occur during this tenancy?

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.”
Just recently, the government has confirmed the Gluckman levels to apply (see Housing and Urban Development explanation here). Regulations are now in force from 7 April 2026 (after this tenancy). Essentially, when methamphetamine residue levels are above 15μg/100cm 2 (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/100cm 2 (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/100cm 2 but the kitchen is below 15μg/100cm 2 , only the bedroom needs to be decontaminated.

Was there a need to decontaminate/clean?

The premises was tested for methamphetamine on or around 9 December 2024, prior to the tenancy commencing. There was a trace of methamphetamine detected with a theoretical maximum contamination of
38μg/100cm². The tester noted this was not unexpected given a historic remediation.
A composite test was conducted on or around 25 November 2025 after the tenancy ended. The composite identified a theoretical maximum contamination of 22μg/100cm² based on the samples taken. This is above the level considered unsafe in the Gluckman Report, and by this Tribunal. A subsequent comprehensive test was carried out. That confirmed the Living Room as the main source of contamination with a test recording 18.2μg/100cm² at one site. No other area tested exceeded 15μg/100cm although the second living room was just below and validated the first test result. The greater tested levels at exit cannot be accounted for by any legacy issues that were remediated.
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.
The insurer has accepted a methamphetamine contamination claim by the owner and remediation is almost complete.
The landlord advised the insurer has not sought the related excess from the owner as they are pursuing the tenant directly. That is why there is no related compensation claim in front of me today.

Were the premises used unlawfully?

The landlord claimed the tenants have 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.
As found above, the tenant used in the premises, or permitted to be used, methamphetamine in the premises during the tenancy. This is 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.
I find this act has been intentionally committed. The requirement of intention is about whether a party intended to do what they did or did not do (Parton v Fifita TT 1815/00, DC Auckland 1/5/2001). No plausible alternative was open to me. The tenant lived there alone as the only adult with her young daughter.
From the evidence presented it is difficult to make any finding other than the tenant knew, or should have known, methamphetamine was being used in the living room at a minimum and allowed that to continue. I find the requirement of intention under s 109 is established.
The purpose of exemplary damages is to punish rather than to compensate the other party. The considerations are therefore different than those concerning compensation for remediation or cleaning. The landlord says the owner has incurred an extended loss of rent due to the remediation exercise that is yet to complete. That represents over four months of potential rent loss, as well as the emotional and practical effect of the contamination.
It has been proven to the required standard that methamphetamine contamination is more likely than not to have occurred during this tenancy. It was an unlawful act, and while direct compensation has not been sought, some exemplary damages are considered appropriate for the consequential impact on the owner.
A final consideration here is the is strong public interest in deterring tenants from using rented premises for unlawful activities.
For the reasons outlined above, I consider an award of exemplary damages appropriate but on the lower scale and award exemplary damages of $665.73. This is approximately one-third of the maximum award possible (rounded up slightly) and this reflects no evidence of any prior unlawful act such as here. Prior order
On 9 December 2025 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears to 23 November 2025. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes. Filing fee
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The landlord requested suppression in its application. As it has been wholly successful, suppression is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5442209 — Exemplary damages

Tenancy Tribunal case 5442209 — Exemplary damages

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did methamphetamine contamination occur during this tenancy?

Was there a need to decontaminate/clean?

Were the premises used unlawfully?

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did methamphetamine contamination occur during this tenancy?

Was there a need to decontaminate/clean?

Were the premises used unlawfully?