What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5457498 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 5457498?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit: $1,242.86 awarded to tenant; Rubbish Removal: $250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5457498?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5457498?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13855268-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5457498 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 5457498?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit: $1,242.86 awarded to tenant; Rubbish Removal: $250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5457498?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5457498?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13855268-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

101 Mount View Drive, Mangakakahi, Rotorua 3015 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5457498 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5457498 — net $1,535.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rubbish removal	$250.00		Rubbish removal
Insurance excess	$2,500.00		Insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Rent credit		$1,242.86	Rent credit
Total award	$2,778.00	$1,242.86
Net award	$1,535.14
Bond	$2,320.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,535.14

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,535.14 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,535.14 [The tenant/s]: $784.86

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing on 3 July 2026.
The tenancy of the premises commenced on 30 May 2025. The landlord has recorded the tenancy as ending on 7 January 2026.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. Where an allegation is particularly serious, and in particular involving criminal offending as is the case here, the Tribunal requires evidence of a sufficiently high standard to meet the burden. Rent credit
The landlord seeks compensation for rubbish removal and for its insurance excess arising from methamphetamine contamination testing costs. The landlord stated that they hold a rent credit for the tenant of $1,242.86 which the tenant confirmed. That sum has been included in the final order calculation. Rubbish removal
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The tenant did not remove all rubbish. The landlord provided photos of a shed on the premises at the commencement of the tenancy showing a small number of items belonging to the landlord. Photos provided of the shed at the end of the tenancy showed far more items which had been left in the shed by the tenant. The tenant accepted having left some items behind as she had been stressed at the end of the shifting process. The landlord provided an invoice for rubbish removal and tip fees of $250.00. The claim is proven and is reasonable Methamphetamine contamination
The landlord seeks the insurance excess of $2,500.00 arising from methamphetamine contamination, which relates to the testing charges. The testing costs were noted to be $365.70 for the first composite test; $1,138.59 for the breakdown of composite invoice and $1,002.80 for the discrete test invoice; a total of $2,507.00. The landlord is insured. The landlord’s policy of insurance carries an excess of $2,500.00. This part of the landlord’s claim is considered below. Legal framework
Methamphetamine contamination is regarded as damage. This is because it is a physical alteration (not necessarily permanent or irreparable), which impairs the value or usefulness of the item or property damaged, and which cannot be removed by normal cleaning (Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand S. Benson (2018), 6.16)
In the District Court decision of Full Circle Real Estate v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947Judge Kellar noted, that where the concentration of methamphetamine exceeds any prescribed maximum acceptable level, there is “damage” to the premises in terms of section 40(2)(a) RTA because there is a risk to human health.
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises by methamphetamine contamination occurred during the tenancy. 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)
Section 40(2)(b) RTA prohibits the tenant from using the premises or permitting the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose.
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.
At the time this tenancy ended, there were two sources of guidance on the issue of a safe level of methamphetamine contamination in residential premises. In June 2017 Standards New Zealand published NZS 8510:2017. The standard recommended a maximum contamination level of 1.5 μg/100cm2 for high use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture.
In May 2018 Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, who at the time was the Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor, released a report "Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards.” This report states that contamination at levels above 15 μg/100cm2 presents a health risk and requires remediation.
The Tribunal has generally applied the Gluckman recommendation. This approach was approved by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper, [2019] NZDC 4947 and Acme Realty Limited v Hogg and others. [2021] NZDC 3231.
The Residential Tenancies (Managing Methamphetamine Contamination) Regulations 2026, which came into force on 16 April 2026, state, under Regulation 5, that the maximum acceptable level of methamphetamine for premises (for the purposes of the definition of contaminated) is 15 μg/100cm.2
In Full Circle Real Estate v Piper Judge Kellar confirmed that the landlord needed to prove not only that the premises were contaminated by methamphetamine beyond “safe” levels but also that any damage through methamphetamine contamination occurred during the tenancy.
The District Court has held that remediation should be carried out in accordance with the prevailing guidelines at the time (Diamond Real Estate v Allan[2017] NZDC)
In summary, under the RTA, and as interpreted by cases such as Full Circle Real Estate Ltd v Piper, methamphetamine contamination is treated as damage if it exceeds the current regulatory or scientific standards (15 μg/100cm2). Tenant liability requires proof that contamination occurred during the tenancy and exceeded these thresholds. Responsibility is extended to the actions of others who are permitted by the tenant to be on the premises.

Is the tenant liable for costs arising from methamphetamine contamination?

22The landlord explained that screening for methamphetamine contamination was carried out on 30 May 2025, at the commencement of the tenancy. Laboratory test results from ALS Food 7 Environmental NZ were provided. The composite (or average over the 10 sample tests) results were less than 0.2 μg/100cm2 . This is considered to be a negative result.

Composite testing was conducted on 16 January 2026. The testing returned a positive result for methamphetamine. 24Further discrete testing was conducted at the premises on 28 January 2026. Testing results were obtained from ALS Food & Environmental NZ dated 30 January 2026. The results showed a level of 17.6 μg/100cm2 for the bathroom ceiling. All other test results were substantially below 15 μg/100cm2.
The evidence provided by the landlord is such that I find that it is more likely than not that the tenant, or someone at the tenant’s premises with her consent, has used methamphetamine during the term of this tenancy.
In this case the landlord arranged for an initial test, which was completed by Active Testing Solutions. This was a composite test which showed the presence of methamphetamine. In view of the findings in this test, I consider it reasonable for the tenant to be liable for the costs related to it.
I am also satisfied that it was reasonable for the landlord to arrange for the subsequent, more detailed individual analysis which was carried out by Active Testing solutions.
The recommendation, in the Active Testing Solutions report, was that decontamination work be carried out. 28The levels of contamination are such that there is no suggestion that methamphetamine was manufactured at the premises.
The Tribunal having found that there was methamphetamine contamination orders the tenant to pay the landlord’s insurance excess of $2,500.00.
As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful in this matter and suppression of the landlord’s name only is ordered. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing. The tenant’s application for name suppression is dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5457498 — net $1,535.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rubbish removal	$250.00		Rubbish removal
Insurance excess	$2,500.00		Insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Rent credit		$1,242.86	Rent credit
Total award	$2,778.00	$1,242.86
Net award	$1,535.14
Bond	$2,320.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,535.14

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,535.14 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,535.14 [The tenant/s]: $784.86

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing on 3 July 2026.
The tenancy of the premises commenced on 30 May 2025. The landlord has recorded the tenancy as ending on 7 January 2026.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. Where an allegation is particularly serious, and in particular involving criminal offending as is the case here, the Tribunal requires evidence of a sufficiently high standard to meet the burden. Rent credit
The landlord seeks compensation for rubbish removal and for its insurance excess arising from methamphetamine contamination testing costs. The landlord stated that they hold a rent credit for the tenant of $1,242.86 which the tenant confirmed. That sum has been included in the final order calculation. Rubbish removal
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The tenant did not remove all rubbish. The landlord provided photos of a shed on the premises at the commencement of the tenancy showing a small number of items belonging to the landlord. Photos provided of the shed at the end of the tenancy showed far more items which had been left in the shed by the tenant. The tenant accepted having left some items behind as she had been stressed at the end of the shifting process. The landlord provided an invoice for rubbish removal and tip fees of $250.00. The claim is proven and is reasonable Methamphetamine contamination
The landlord seeks the insurance excess of $2,500.00 arising from methamphetamine contamination, which relates to the testing charges. The testing costs were noted to be $365.70 for the first composite test; $1,138.59 for the breakdown of composite invoice and $1,002.80 for the discrete test invoice; a total of $2,507.00. The landlord is insured. The landlord’s policy of insurance carries an excess of $2,500.00. This part of the landlord’s claim is considered below. Legal framework
Methamphetamine contamination is regarded as damage. This is because it is a physical alteration (not necessarily permanent or irreparable), which impairs the value or usefulness of the item or property damaged, and which cannot be removed by normal cleaning (Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand S. Benson (2018), 6.16)
In the District Court decision of Full Circle Real Estate v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947Judge Kellar noted, that where the concentration of methamphetamine exceeds any prescribed maximum acceptable level, there is “damage” to the premises in terms of section 40(2)(a) RTA because there is a risk to human health.
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises by methamphetamine contamination occurred during the tenancy. 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)
Section 40(2)(b) RTA prohibits the tenant from using the premises or permitting the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose.
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.
At the time this tenancy ended, there were two sources of guidance on the issue of a safe level of methamphetamine contamination in residential premises. In June 2017 Standards New Zealand published NZS 8510:2017. The standard recommended a maximum contamination level of 1.5 μg/100cm2 for high use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture.
In May 2018 Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, who at the time was the Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor, released a report "Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards.” This report states that contamination at levels above 15 μg/100cm2 presents a health risk and requires remediation.
The Tribunal has generally applied the Gluckman recommendation. This approach was approved by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper, [2019] NZDC 4947 and Acme Realty Limited v Hogg and others. [2021] NZDC 3231.
The Residential Tenancies (Managing Methamphetamine Contamination) Regulations 2026, which came into force on 16 April 2026, state, under Regulation 5, that the maximum acceptable level of methamphetamine for premises (for the purposes of the definition of contaminated) is 15 μg/100cm.2
In Full Circle Real Estate v Piper Judge Kellar confirmed that the landlord needed to prove not only that the premises were contaminated by methamphetamine beyond “safe” levels but also that any damage through methamphetamine contamination occurred during the tenancy.
The District Court has held that remediation should be carried out in accordance with the prevailing guidelines at the time (Diamond Real Estate v Allan[2017] NZDC)
In summary, under the RTA, and as interpreted by cases such as Full Circle Real Estate Ltd v Piper, methamphetamine contamination is treated as damage if it exceeds the current regulatory or scientific standards (15 μg/100cm2). Tenant liability requires proof that contamination occurred during the tenancy and exceeded these thresholds. Responsibility is extended to the actions of others who are permitted by the tenant to be on the premises.

Is the tenant liable for costs arising from methamphetamine contamination?

Composite testing was conducted on 16 January 2026. The testing returned a positive result for methamphetamine. 24Further discrete testing was conducted at the premises on 28 January 2026. Testing results were obtained from ALS Food & Environmental NZ dated 30 January 2026. The results showed a level of 17.6 μg/100cm2 for the bathroom ceiling. All other test results were substantially below 15 μg/100cm2.
The evidence provided by the landlord is such that I find that it is more likely than not that the tenant, or someone at the tenant’s premises with her consent, has used methamphetamine during the term of this tenancy.
In this case the landlord arranged for an initial test, which was completed by Active Testing Solutions. This was a composite test which showed the presence of methamphetamine. In view of the findings in this test, I consider it reasonable for the tenant to be liable for the costs related to it.
I am also satisfied that it was reasonable for the landlord to arrange for the subsequent, more detailed individual analysis which was carried out by Active Testing solutions.
The recommendation, in the Active Testing Solutions report, was that decontamination work be carried out. 28The levels of contamination are such that there is no suggestion that methamphetamine was manufactured at the premises.
The Tribunal having found that there was methamphetamine contamination orders the tenant to pay the landlord’s insurance excess of $2,500.00.
As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful in this matter and suppression of the landlord’s name only is ordered. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing. The tenant’s application for name suppression is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5457498 — Property damage at 101 Mount View Drive, Mangakakahi, Rotorua 3015

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5457498 — Property damage at 101 Mount View Drive, Mangakakahi, Rotorua 3015

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant liable for costs arising from methamphetamine contamination?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant liable for costs arising from methamphetamine contamination?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions