What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5448129 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 5448129?

Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Methamphetamine Decontamination Cost…: $3,913.60 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5448129?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5448129?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13871606-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5448129 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 5448129?

Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Methamphetamine Decontamination Cost…: $3,913.60 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5448129?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5448129?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13871606-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

15 Hugo Way, Papamoa Beach, Papamoa 3118 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5448129 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5448129 — net $5,141.60 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Methamphetamine decontamination costs and tests	$3,913.60	Methamphetamine decontamination costs and tests
Exemplary damages	$1,200.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,141.60
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,141.60

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlords’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] is to pay [The landlord/s] $5,141.60 immediately.

Reasons

This application was scheduled to be heard at the Tenancy Tribunal in Tauranga at 2pm on Tuesday 7 July 2026. The tenant did not attend the hearing and so it proceeded in her absence.
The landlords make a claim for costs associated with decontaminating premises, methamphetamine tests, exemplary damages for unlawful use of the premises and reimbursement of the filing fee. Background
The tenant rented the premises 11 September 2020 to 24 September 2025. A test for the presence of methamphetamine done on 28 August 2020 indicated that there was no presence of methamphetamine at the premises.
A test done on the day that the tenant vacated the premises (24 September 2025) revealed a reading of 8.39 μg/100cm 2 on the lounge door frame.
Given this reading, further individual samples were taken on 30 September 2025 which revealed a reading of 17.2 μg/100cm 2 from a sample taken from the heat pump in the lounge.
Other readings were 4.38 μg/100cm 2 from a sample taken on the kitchen ceiling, 2.15 μg/100cm 2 from the kitchen cabinet, 6.94 μg/100cm 2 from the dining room door frame, 8.39 μg/100cm 2 from the lounge door frame, 3.43 μg/100cm 2 from the ensuite ceiling, 3.99 μg/100cm 2 from the ensuite window frame, 6.30 μg/100cm 2 from the door frame of bedroom 1, 2.38 μg/100cm 2 from the window frame of bedroom 2, 2.39 μg/100cm 2 from bedroom 3 ceiling,
71 μg/100cm 2 from bedroom 3 door frame, 4.63μg/100cm 2 from the bathroom window frame, 9.46 μg/100cm 2 from the garage roller door and 2.29 μg/100cm 2 from the garage door frame.
As a result of receiving this report the premises were cleaned by specialists and soft furnishings were destroyed.
The premises were re-tested on 28 October 2025.
The re-test showed that all samples taken were below 1.5 μg/100cm 2 , apart from the samples taken from the kitchen ceiling (1.84 μg/100cm 2 ), the dining room door frame (1.56 μg/100cm 2 ), the lounge door frame (1.59 μg/100cm 2 ) and the ensuite(1.98 μg/100cm 2 ).
The premises were cleaned again so that all levels returned, after further testing, were negligible. Methamphetamine Contamination
The issue for the Tribunal is whether these results establish that the tenant has caused damage to the premises during the tenancy by smoking/using methamphetamine and should pay compensation for testing and cleaning.
Since 2015 the Tribunal has received increasing numbers of applications involving “methamphetamine contamination”.
In July 2017, ESR, the Crown Research Institute, released NZS8510:2017. This report set one level – 1.5 μg/100cm 2 and this became the standard that in general, the Tenancy Tribunal applied in cases before it relating to methamphetamine contamination – that is, any reading above 1.5 μg/100cm 2 μg/100cm 2 was regarded as contaminated and the tenant was required to pay the costs of remediating the premises.
However, in May 2018, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the then-Chief Scientific Advisor in the Office of the Prime Minister, released a report indicating that the previous guideline was unnecessarily risk averse. Noting the findings of various overseas reports, the report’s authors conclude that there is currently no evidence that methamphetamine levels typically resulting from third hand exposure to smoking residues on household surfaces can elicit an adverse health effect. They recommended that below 15 μg/100cm 2 methamphetamine levels would be unlikely to give rise to any adverse effects.
Tribunal decisions since 2019 show that the Tribunal has adopted the “Gluckman” level as the level at which premises could be regarded as being contaminated by methamphetamine – that is, readings over 15 μg/100cm 2 could be regarded as being contaminated.
The District Court has endorsed this approach – see for example Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947.
In accordance with these decisions, I find that the tenant has damaged the premises, given that the test done on 30 September 2025 revealed a reading above 15 μg/100cm 2 -
2 μg/100cm 2 from a sample taken from the heat pump in the lounge.
The tenant is therefore required to pay the costs of testing and remedy. These costs to the landlords are as follows: (a) she is required to pay the cost to the landlords of testing on 3 October 2025 ($34.50); and (b) the cost to the landlords of cleaning on 24 October 2025 ($2,316.00); and (c) the cost to the landlords of replacing the blinds ($883.00); and (d) the cost to the landlords of painting the house because the paintwork was damaged by the cleaning required ($680.10).
These costs are much reduced from the actual costs of remedy because the insurer covered a large proportion of these costs.
The landlords also claim the cost to them of a second clean ($1,380.00) and the final test for methamphetamine contamination ($683.10).
The landlords say that the tenant ought to pay these costs because the first cleaning did not result in levels below 1.5 μg/100cm 2 and in order to get the house to an acceptably clean state, further cleaning and testing were required.
To support this part of their claim, their witness, Mr Kedian, stated that the Gluckman report, on which the Tribunal relies, advises that once a level of greater than 15 μg/100cm 2 has been reached, then the premises ought to be remediated to a level below 1.5 μg/100cm 2 .
He also stated that the Tribunal should follow Kaingaora Homes and Communities’ lead because that entity, as the biggest landlord in New Zealand always ensure that methamphetamine contaminated houses are remediated to a level of below 1.5 μg/100cm 2 .
I am dismissing this part of the landlords’ claim.
This is because the Tribunal, for a long period of time now, has found that premises are deemed to be contaminated when levels are above the 15 μg/100cm 2 level. When results are under that level, the premises are deemed not to be contaminated and tenants are therefore not required to pay the cost of getting the levels to below 1.5 μg/100cm 2 .
Further to this, the Gluckman report recommends remediation down to 1.5 μg/100cm 2 only where there is “sound reason to suspect previous meth lab activities”.
In this case there has been no evidence provided that suggests meth lab activities and so the second cleaning and further testing is, in my view, unwarranted.
With regard to the Kaingaroa Homes and Community policy, the Tribunal is not bound to follow an entity’s policy, regardless of them being a Government agency. What is considerably more important to the Tribunal are the Courts’ decisions regarding methamphetamine contamination – see paragraph 16 above. Exemplary damages
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tests show that the tenant has unlawfully used, or permitted the use of, methamphetamine at the premises. She has therefore committed an unlawful act.
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 considering these factors, the tenant has obviously used, or permitted use of, methamphetamine, intentionally.
The effect on the landlords has been considerable. They have expended a considerable amount of time and resources on getting the premises back to a state which they consider acceptable. I accept that this has been a very stressful time and I have noted the landlord’s concern that the methamphetamine contamination may detrimentally impact any future sale of the property.
I must also take into account the considerable public interest in tenants not using rented premises for methamphetamine use which results in premises being contaminated.
In making an award of exemplary damages of $1,200.00 I have taken these factors into account, as well as the deterrent effect that such an award should have. Filing fee reimbursement
I am ordering the tenant to reimburse the filing fee to the landlords because the landlords were substantially successful with their claim against the tenant. Suppression of names
For the same reason I am allowing the landlords’ application for suppression of their names. C ter Haar 08 July 2026

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5448129 — net $5,141.60 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Methamphetamine decontamination costs and tests	$3,913.60	Methamphetamine decontamination costs and tests
Exemplary damages	$1,200.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,141.60
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,141.60

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlords’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] is to pay [The landlord/s] $5,141.60 immediately.

Reasons

This application was scheduled to be heard at the Tenancy Tribunal in Tauranga at 2pm on Tuesday 7 July 2026. The tenant did not attend the hearing and so it proceeded in her absence.
The landlords make a claim for costs associated with decontaminating premises, methamphetamine tests, exemplary damages for unlawful use of the premises and reimbursement of the filing fee. Background
The tenant rented the premises 11 September 2020 to 24 September 2025. A test for the presence of methamphetamine done on 28 August 2020 indicated that there was no presence of methamphetamine at the premises.
A test done on the day that the tenant vacated the premises (24 September 2025) revealed a reading of 8.39 μg/100cm 2 on the lounge door frame.
Given this reading, further individual samples were taken on 30 September 2025 which revealed a reading of 17.2 μg/100cm 2 from a sample taken from the heat pump in the lounge.
Other readings were 4.38 μg/100cm 2 from a sample taken on the kitchen ceiling, 2.15 μg/100cm 2 from the kitchen cabinet, 6.94 μg/100cm 2 from the dining room door frame, 8.39 μg/100cm 2 from the lounge door frame, 3.43 μg/100cm 2 from the ensuite ceiling, 3.99 μg/100cm 2 from the ensuite window frame, 6.30 μg/100cm 2 from the door frame of bedroom 1, 2.38 μg/100cm 2 from the window frame of bedroom 2, 2.39 μg/100cm 2 from bedroom 3 ceiling,
71 μg/100cm 2 from bedroom 3 door frame, 4.63μg/100cm 2 from the bathroom window frame, 9.46 μg/100cm 2 from the garage roller door and 2.29 μg/100cm 2 from the garage door frame.
As a result of receiving this report the premises were cleaned by specialists and soft furnishings were destroyed.
The premises were re-tested on 28 October 2025.
The re-test showed that all samples taken were below 1.5 μg/100cm 2 , apart from the samples taken from the kitchen ceiling (1.84 μg/100cm 2 ), the dining room door frame (1.56 μg/100cm 2 ), the lounge door frame (1.59 μg/100cm 2 ) and the ensuite(1.98 μg/100cm 2 ).
The premises were cleaned again so that all levels returned, after further testing, were negligible. Methamphetamine Contamination
The issue for the Tribunal is whether these results establish that the tenant has caused damage to the premises during the tenancy by smoking/using methamphetamine and should pay compensation for testing and cleaning.
Since 2015 the Tribunal has received increasing numbers of applications involving “methamphetamine contamination”.
In July 2017, ESR, the Crown Research Institute, released NZS8510:2017. This report set one level – 1.5 μg/100cm 2 and this became the standard that in general, the Tenancy Tribunal applied in cases before it relating to methamphetamine contamination – that is, any reading above 1.5 μg/100cm 2 μg/100cm 2 was regarded as contaminated and the tenant was required to pay the costs of remediating the premises.
However, in May 2018, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the then-Chief Scientific Advisor in the Office of the Prime Minister, released a report indicating that the previous guideline was unnecessarily risk averse. Noting the findings of various overseas reports, the report’s authors conclude that there is currently no evidence that methamphetamine levels typically resulting from third hand exposure to smoking residues on household surfaces can elicit an adverse health effect. They recommended that below 15 μg/100cm 2 methamphetamine levels would be unlikely to give rise to any adverse effects.
Tribunal decisions since 2019 show that the Tribunal has adopted the “Gluckman” level as the level at which premises could be regarded as being contaminated by methamphetamine – that is, readings over 15 μg/100cm 2 could be regarded as being contaminated.
The District Court has endorsed this approach – see for example Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947.
In accordance with these decisions, I find that the tenant has damaged the premises, given that the test done on 30 September 2025 revealed a reading above 15 μg/100cm 2 -
2 μg/100cm 2 from a sample taken from the heat pump in the lounge.
The tenant is therefore required to pay the costs of testing and remedy. These costs to the landlords are as follows: (a) she is required to pay the cost to the landlords of testing on 3 October 2025 ($34.50); and (b) the cost to the landlords of cleaning on 24 October 2025 ($2,316.00); and (c) the cost to the landlords of replacing the blinds ($883.00); and (d) the cost to the landlords of painting the house because the paintwork was damaged by the cleaning required ($680.10).
These costs are much reduced from the actual costs of remedy because the insurer covered a large proportion of these costs.
The landlords also claim the cost to them of a second clean ($1,380.00) and the final test for methamphetamine contamination ($683.10).
The landlords say that the tenant ought to pay these costs because the first cleaning did not result in levels below 1.5 μg/100cm 2 and in order to get the house to an acceptably clean state, further cleaning and testing were required.
To support this part of their claim, their witness, Mr Kedian, stated that the Gluckman report, on which the Tribunal relies, advises that once a level of greater than 15 μg/100cm 2 has been reached, then the premises ought to be remediated to a level below 1.5 μg/100cm 2 .
He also stated that the Tribunal should follow Kaingaora Homes and Communities’ lead because that entity, as the biggest landlord in New Zealand always ensure that methamphetamine contaminated houses are remediated to a level of below 1.5 μg/100cm 2 .
I am dismissing this part of the landlords’ claim.
This is because the Tribunal, for a long period of time now, has found that premises are deemed to be contaminated when levels are above the 15 μg/100cm 2 level. When results are under that level, the premises are deemed not to be contaminated and tenants are therefore not required to pay the cost of getting the levels to below 1.5 μg/100cm 2 .
Further to this, the Gluckman report recommends remediation down to 1.5 μg/100cm 2 only where there is “sound reason to suspect previous meth lab activities”.
In this case there has been no evidence provided that suggests meth lab activities and so the second cleaning and further testing is, in my view, unwarranted.
With regard to the Kaingaroa Homes and Community policy, the Tribunal is not bound to follow an entity’s policy, regardless of them being a Government agency. What is considerably more important to the Tribunal are the Courts’ decisions regarding methamphetamine contamination – see paragraph 16 above. Exemplary damages
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tests show that the tenant has unlawfully used, or permitted the use of, methamphetamine at the premises. She has therefore committed an unlawful act.
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 considering these factors, the tenant has obviously used, or permitted use of, methamphetamine, intentionally.
The effect on the landlords has been considerable. They have expended a considerable amount of time and resources on getting the premises back to a state which they consider acceptable. I accept that this has been a very stressful time and I have noted the landlord’s concern that the methamphetamine contamination may detrimentally impact any future sale of the property.
I must also take into account the considerable public interest in tenants not using rented premises for methamphetamine use which results in premises being contaminated.
In making an award of exemplary damages of $1,200.00 I have taken these factors into account, as well as the deterrent effect that such an award should have. Filing fee reimbursement
I am ordering the tenant to reimburse the filing fee to the landlords because the landlords were substantially successful with their claim against the tenant. Suppression of names
For the same reason I am allowing the landlords’ application for suppression of their names. C ter Haar 08 July 2026

Tenancy Tribunal case 5448129 — Exemplary damages at 15 Hugo Way, Papamoa Beach, Papamoa 3118

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5448129 — Exemplary damages at 15 Hugo Way, Papamoa Beach, Papamoa 3118

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions