What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5452070 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Fair Rentals Limited As Agent For Mandeep Singh

How much money was awarded in case 5452070?

Cleaning: $2,142.28 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Meth testing: Composite and detailed…: $1,184.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5452070?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5452070?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13853416-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5452070 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Fair Rentals Limited As Agent For Mandeep Singh

How much money was awarded in case 5452070?

Cleaning: $2,142.28 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Meth testing: Composite and detailed…: $1,184.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5452070?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5452070?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13853416-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

18 Lilburn Crescent, Massey, Auckland 0614 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5452070 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5452070 — net $3,354.78 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Meth testing: Composite and detailed tests	$1,184.50	Meth testing: Composite and detailed tests
Meth remediation / cleaning	$2,142.28	Meth remediation / cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,354.78
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,354.78

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Fair Rentals Limited As Agent For Mandeep Singh $3,354.78 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
The tenant did not connect to the MS Teams link provided to them and nor did they connect via telephone as instructed in the Notice of Hearing sent to them. The hearing proceeded in their absence.
The tenancy commenced on 23 October 2024 and ended on 17 August 2025.
The landlord has applied for a. Composite Meth testing - $218.50 b. Detailed Meth testing - $966 c. Methamphetamine decontamination costs - $7,498 d. Water rates (this claim was withdrawn at the hearing as the water rates have previously been ordered) e. payment of the bond (this claim was withdrawn as the landlord has received the bond, and f. reimbursement of the filing fee. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy 1 , in practical terms this means that: ... “[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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.”
The more serious the claims made the greater the evidential burden on the applicant will be. 2 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02 2 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55.
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities under the RTA. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety. Methamphetamine claims
The landlord claims methamphetamine contamination testing costs and decontamination/remediation costs. The landlord seeks these costs from the tenant.
In 2010 the New Zealand Ministry of Health produced guidelines for the remediation of clandestine methamphetamine laboratories and determined that remediation was required if the environmental level of methamphetamine was 0.5 μg/100 cm 2 . While that related to laboratories, it is the case that the
5 level became the de facto level at which premises were considered to require decontamination in New Zealand.
In 2017 the level was increased when Standards New Zealand released Standard NZS 8510:2017 “Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine- contaminated properties”. At that time, this standard set the definitive levels at which properties which had methamphetamine contamination, required remediation. The Standard confirmed that: After seeking expert advice on exposure risk from Environmental Science and Research Ltd (ESR) and the Ministry of Health and reviewing a large number of public comments on a draft of this standard, the committee has decided to set the maximum acceptable level of methamphetamine in an affected property at 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 after decontamination. While this level is greater than the Ministry of Health 2010 guideline value of 0.5 μg/100 cm 2 for properties used as clandestine laboratories, there are a number of reasons why the committee decided to adopt the single value of 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 in this standard.
In short, this standard confirmed that the level at which habitation of residential premises was considered safe, was a level of 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 . The expectation on landlords arising from this Standard, was to remediate premises contaminated with methamphetamine, to a level of less than 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 .
In more recent times, the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman determined that there was little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption (Report entitled ‘Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards’, 29 May 2018). The report concluded that any levels below 15 μg/100 cm 2 were unlikely to present adverse effects: Taken together, these factors indicate that methamphetamine levels that exceed the NZS 8510:2017 clean-up standard of 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 should not be regarded as signalling a health risk. Indeed, exposure to methamphetamine levels below 15 μg/100 cm 2 would be unlikely to give rise to any adverse effects. This level still incorporates a 30-fold safety buffer on a conservative estimate of risk.
At the relevant time to this tenancy there was a a current New Zealand Standard of 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 , and also an opinion from the Chief Science Advisor that there is no evidence of risk below 15 μg/100 cm 2 . Decisions of the Court have confirmed that the level to be applied is the level expressed by the Chief Science Advisor, which is that there is no risk when levels of contamination are below 15 μg/100 cm 2 . 3
Although not applicable in this case, I note that from 16 April 2026, statutory contamination levels came into effect. The new statutory standard in the Residential Tenancies (Managing Methamphetamine Contamination) Regulations 2026 (MMCR) is that when methamphetamine residue levels are above 15μg/100cm2, 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. This new statutory standard is similar to the general approach taken in previous Tribunal determinations regarding methamphetamine residue levels and appropriate remediation action.
With any claim before the Tribunal, the onus for establishing the claim sits with the applicant, that is the landlord. It is the landlord that must provide sufficient evidence to prove to the balance of probabilities, that methamphetamine was used in the premises by the tenant, or some person on the tenancy with the tenant’s consent. The balance of probabilities means that what is alleged, is likely to be just over 50% likely to have occurred.
The landlord must establish that it is likely to have occurred during the tenancy. This would generally need to be by way of pre-tenancy methamphetamine testing being undertaken. This case 3 Full Circle Real Estate v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947, Smith v Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited [2019] NZCA 38,
The landlord provided the baseline composite test result dated 22 October 2024, which records a level of <0.02 μg/100 cm 2 to show that there was no methamphetamine contamination at the start of the tenancy.
The tenancy ended on 17 August 2025. The landlord had a composite sample taken at the premises on 22 August 2025 which identified contamination, and the landlord had individual testing undertaken. The results were as follows: Laboratory Findings – Hill Laboratories (26-Aug-2025) Location Methamphetamine (μg/sample) Lounge 19.8 Kitchen 3.8 Hallway 14.1 Bedroom 1 5.4 Bedroom 2 3.2 Bedroom 3 18.3 Bathroom 9.7 Toilet 8.3 Downstairs room 1.31 Composite (all areas) 8.6
The landlord has established there was methamphetamine contamination at the end of the tenancy. The tenant is therefore responsible for the methamphetamine testing costs.
The landlord had two methamphetamine tests undertaken.
The results of the first test dated 22 August 2026 are above. The cost of the composite test was $218.50 and first detailed test was $1,242. The application claimed a test fee of $966.00 (being the cost of the second test), with the total amount claimed for methamphetamine testing being $1,184.50. I order the full amount claimed for methamphetamine testing as sought by the landlord in the application form.
I directed the landlord to file the results of the second test and the landlord has not filed the results. The tenant is not responsible for the cost of the second test. I am unclear as to why that was undertaken. In any event the landlord appears to have received the bond to off-set part of the second test. I record that I have made no determinations in respect of the second test or how the bond is to be used by the landlord, as the Tribunal did not make any order in respect of the bond payment.
I also directed the landlord to file confirmation of payment of the remediation costs. Only a quote has been provided. The Tribunal takes a cautious approach to quotes as the invoice should have been provided and the landlord may not pay the full amount claimed – however the landlord said the quote had been paid. The landlord was given time after the hearing to file the invoice or a receipt or confirmation of payment but has not done so.
In addition, the tenant is only responsible for decontamination costs in the lounge and bedroom 3.
The quote states the scope of work as follows: Scope of Work: The decontamination and remediation tasks include, but are not limited to the following: Surface Cleaning(Triple Wash) Remove, tag, protect and hand wash all hard surfaces in Open Plan Kitchen/Lounge,hallway,bedroom1,bedroom2,Bedroom3,bathroom,toilet(walls, ceilings,skirtings,boards,windowsills,doors, cupboards, wardrobes). Rangehood Unit: Hand Wipe and Hand wash the filters. Internal Heat pump unit : Remove and Dispose of. (We will strongly recommend to remove & dispose of internal heat pump unit as the levels are high in that area). Bathroom Extraction Fan : Hand Wipe the extraction fan. Perform a three‐stage wash process. HEPA‐Vacuum all surfaces to remove dust and loose particles. Pre‐Clean with heavy‐duty degreaser to break down organic residues. Apply an approved decontamination agent, allow recommended contact time before rinse. Rinse or wipe down thoroughly, repeat if necessary to achieve compliance levels.
Seven rooms are quoted for decontamination and noting that under the MMCR the landlord will need to ensure two of the rooms are decontaminated I will order 2/7 of the quote as compensation for methamphetamine contamination. The amount ordered is $2,142.28 Filing fee
Because the landlord has partly succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee of $28. Suppression
On my enquiry, the landlord did not seek name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5452070 — net $3,354.78 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Meth testing: Composite and detailed tests	$1,184.50	Meth testing: Composite and detailed tests
Meth remediation / cleaning	$2,142.28	Meth remediation / cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,354.78
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,354.78

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Fair Rentals Limited As Agent For Mandeep Singh $3,354.78 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
The tenant did not connect to the MS Teams link provided to them and nor did they connect via telephone as instructed in the Notice of Hearing sent to them. The hearing proceeded in their absence.
The tenancy commenced on 23 October 2024 and ended on 17 August 2025.
The landlord has applied for a. Composite Meth testing - $218.50 b. Detailed Meth testing - $966 c. Methamphetamine decontamination costs - $7,498 d. Water rates (this claim was withdrawn at the hearing as the water rates have previously been ordered) e. payment of the bond (this claim was withdrawn as the landlord has received the bond, and f. reimbursement of the filing fee. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy 1 , in practical terms this means that: ... “[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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.”
The more serious the claims made the greater the evidential burden on the applicant will be. 2 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02 2 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55.
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities under the RTA. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety. Methamphetamine claims
The landlord claims methamphetamine contamination testing costs and decontamination/remediation costs. The landlord seeks these costs from the tenant.
In 2010 the New Zealand Ministry of Health produced guidelines for the remediation of clandestine methamphetamine laboratories and determined that remediation was required if the environmental level of methamphetamine was 0.5 μg/100 cm 2 . While that related to laboratories, it is the case that the
5 level became the de facto level at which premises were considered to require decontamination in New Zealand.
In 2017 the level was increased when Standards New Zealand released Standard NZS 8510:2017 “Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine- contaminated properties”. At that time, this standard set the definitive levels at which properties which had methamphetamine contamination, required remediation. The Standard confirmed that: After seeking expert advice on exposure risk from Environmental Science and Research Ltd (ESR) and the Ministry of Health and reviewing a large number of public comments on a draft of this standard, the committee has decided to set the maximum acceptable level of methamphetamine in an affected property at 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 after decontamination. While this level is greater than the Ministry of Health 2010 guideline value of 0.5 μg/100 cm 2 for properties used as clandestine laboratories, there are a number of reasons why the committee decided to adopt the single value of 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 in this standard.
In short, this standard confirmed that the level at which habitation of residential premises was considered safe, was a level of 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 . The expectation on landlords arising from this Standard, was to remediate premises contaminated with methamphetamine, to a level of less than 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 .
In more recent times, the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman determined that there was little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption (Report entitled ‘Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards’, 29 May 2018). The report concluded that any levels below 15 μg/100 cm 2 were unlikely to present adverse effects: Taken together, these factors indicate that methamphetamine levels that exceed the NZS 8510:2017 clean-up standard of 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 should not be regarded as signalling a health risk. Indeed, exposure to methamphetamine levels below 15 μg/100 cm 2 would be unlikely to give rise to any adverse effects. This level still incorporates a 30-fold safety buffer on a conservative estimate of risk.
At the relevant time to this tenancy there was a a current New Zealand Standard of 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 , and also an opinion from the Chief Science Advisor that there is no evidence of risk below 15 μg/100 cm 2 . Decisions of the Court have confirmed that the level to be applied is the level expressed by the Chief Science Advisor, which is that there is no risk when levels of contamination are below 15 μg/100 cm 2 . 3
Although not applicable in this case, I note that from 16 April 2026, statutory contamination levels came into effect. The new statutory standard in the Residential Tenancies (Managing Methamphetamine Contamination) Regulations 2026 (MMCR) is that when methamphetamine residue levels are above 15μg/100cm2, 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. This new statutory standard is similar to the general approach taken in previous Tribunal determinations regarding methamphetamine residue levels and appropriate remediation action.
With any claim before the Tribunal, the onus for establishing the claim sits with the applicant, that is the landlord. It is the landlord that must provide sufficient evidence to prove to the balance of probabilities, that methamphetamine was used in the premises by the tenant, or some person on the tenancy with the tenant’s consent. The balance of probabilities means that what is alleged, is likely to be just over 50% likely to have occurred.
The landlord must establish that it is likely to have occurred during the tenancy. This would generally need to be by way of pre-tenancy methamphetamine testing being undertaken. This case 3 Full Circle Real Estate v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947, Smith v Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited [2019] NZCA 38,
The landlord provided the baseline composite test result dated 22 October 2024, which records a level of <0.02 μg/100 cm 2 to show that there was no methamphetamine contamination at the start of the tenancy.
The tenancy ended on 17 August 2025. The landlord had a composite sample taken at the premises on 22 August 2025 which identified contamination, and the landlord had individual testing undertaken. The results were as follows: Laboratory Findings – Hill Laboratories (26-Aug-2025) Location Methamphetamine (μg/sample) Lounge 19.8 Kitchen 3.8 Hallway 14.1 Bedroom 1 5.4 Bedroom 2 3.2 Bedroom 3 18.3 Bathroom 9.7 Toilet 8.3 Downstairs room 1.31 Composite (all areas) 8.6
The landlord has established there was methamphetamine contamination at the end of the tenancy. The tenant is therefore responsible for the methamphetamine testing costs.
The landlord had two methamphetamine tests undertaken.
The results of the first test dated 22 August 2026 are above. The cost of the composite test was $218.50 and first detailed test was $1,242. The application claimed a test fee of $966.00 (being the cost of the second test), with the total amount claimed for methamphetamine testing being $1,184.50. I order the full amount claimed for methamphetamine testing as sought by the landlord in the application form.
I directed the landlord to file the results of the second test and the landlord has not filed the results. The tenant is not responsible for the cost of the second test. I am unclear as to why that was undertaken. In any event the landlord appears to have received the bond to off-set part of the second test. I record that I have made no determinations in respect of the second test or how the bond is to be used by the landlord, as the Tribunal did not make any order in respect of the bond payment.
I also directed the landlord to file confirmation of payment of the remediation costs. Only a quote has been provided. The Tribunal takes a cautious approach to quotes as the invoice should have been provided and the landlord may not pay the full amount claimed – however the landlord said the quote had been paid. The landlord was given time after the hearing to file the invoice or a receipt or confirmation of payment but has not done so.
In addition, the tenant is only responsible for decontamination costs in the lounge and bedroom 3.
The quote states the scope of work as follows: Scope of Work: The decontamination and remediation tasks include, but are not limited to the following: Surface Cleaning(Triple Wash) Remove, tag, protect and hand wash all hard surfaces in Open Plan Kitchen/Lounge,hallway,bedroom1,bedroom2,Bedroom3,bathroom,toilet(walls, ceilings,skirtings,boards,windowsills,doors, cupboards, wardrobes). Rangehood Unit: Hand Wipe and Hand wash the filters. Internal Heat pump unit : Remove and Dispose of. (We will strongly recommend to remove & dispose of internal heat pump unit as the levels are high in that area). Bathroom Extraction Fan : Hand Wipe the extraction fan. Perform a three‐stage wash process. HEPA‐Vacuum all surfaces to remove dust and loose particles. Pre‐Clean with heavy‐duty degreaser to break down organic residues. Apply an approved decontamination agent, allow recommended contact time before rinse. Rinse or wipe down thoroughly, repeat if necessary to achieve compliance levels.
Seven rooms are quoted for decontamination and noting that under the MMCR the landlord will need to ensure two of the rooms are decontaminated I will order 2/7 of the quote as compensation for methamphetamine contamination. The amount ordered is $2,142.28 Filing fee
Because the landlord has partly succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee of $28. Suppression
On my enquiry, the landlord did not seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5452070 — Cleanliness at 18 Lilburn Crescent, Massey, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5452070 — Cleanliness at 18 Lilburn Crescent, Massey, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions