What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5466203 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 5466203?

Loss Of Rent: $59,120.10 awarded to landlord; Remediation Costs: $40,879.90 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5466203?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5466203?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14068998-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5466203 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 5466203?

Loss Of Rent: $59,120.10 awarded to landlord; Remediation Costs: $40,879.90 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5466203?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5466203?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14068998-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

23 Murphys Road, Totara Park, Auckland 2019 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5466203 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5466203 — net $100,000.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Loss of rent	$59,120.10	Loss of rent
Remediation costs	$40,879.90	Remediation costs
Net award	$100,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$100,000.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5466203 — net $100,000.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Loss of rent	$59,120.10	Loss of rent
Remediation costs	$40,879.90	Remediation costs
Net award	$100,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$100,000.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details but not the address of the property.
[The landlord/s] tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] landlord/s] $100,000.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionLandlord Loss of rent$59,120.10 Remediation costs$40,879.90 Total award$100,000.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$100,000.00

Reasons

What is the claim about?

The landlord seeks extensive orders in relation to methamphetamine contamination caused by the manufacture of methamphetamine at the tenancy premises.
A hearing was held in [event location suppressed] on 17 August 2026. The landlord was in attendance, represented by Ms O’Callaghan and the property manager. The tenant is in prison. Arrangements were made for her to attend the hearing by AVL, however there was no appearance by the tenant. The Tribunal understands that the tenant elected not to attend. We are satisfied that the tenant has been properly notified of the hearing, so have proceeded to hear the case in her absence.

THE CLAIMS

The landlord claims:  Testing costs $10,286.53  Decontamination costs $27,324.00  Police raid damage $3,566.75  Reinstatement costs $61,439.38 this covers carpets, new kitchen bench, doors, paint, paper  Loss of rent $59,120.10.  Power bills 1,609.79  Filing fee $28.00 Total = $163,374.55 Jurisdiction and procedural issues.
The landlord claims a loss totaling $163,374.55. As we discussed at the hearing, proceeding in the Tribunal means that potentially the Tribunal can only make order up to $100,000, but no higher. If the Tribunal makes an order at its ceiling, the landlord waives any claim above that. This means the landlord cannot pursue further sums against the tenant in either the Tribunal or in other Courts or Tribunals. The landlord agreed with this limitation and confirmed that it wanted its claim dealt with in the Tribunal and accepted the jurisdictional limit of $100,000.00. We proceed on that basis.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced on 2 March 2024. The sole tenant is [The landlord/s] tenant/s].
On 22 May 2024, the Police executed a search of the premises, and during the search, the Police found equipment for the manufacture of methamphetamine and a substantial amount of methamphetamine product. Timeline of testing, cleaning and remediation work.
The landlord had the premises tested for methamphetamine contamination. The report from Analytica Laboratories records testing samples on 28 May 2024, where 20 specific samples were tested. We note at this point that the laboratory reports record the finding represented as μg per sample. However, we accept that all discrete samples were representative of a wipe (sample) of 100cm 2 . For brevity in this decision, where we refer to discrete sampling results, we will represent them as being the finding per 100cm 2 .
Returning to the Analytic Laboratories assessment, the highest level of methamphetamine detected was 3,360μg/100cm 2 ranging down to the lowest test of 53.2μg/100cm 2 . The landlord who is a large and established property management firm, noted that these levels were the highest levels of methamphetamine recorded, that they had seen, and the person who conducted the testing also said that they were the highest he had seen in a residential premises. They are also the highest levels the Tribunal has seen.
The landlord set about remediating the premise, and that involved contracting with Extreme Cleaning Solutions (ECS)
Following the remediation work by ECS, further testing was undertaken on the 18 July 2024, which still showed contamination throughout the home. 32 tests were taken and whilst some were below 1.5μg/100cm 21 , some areas still showed significant contamination, such as sample H 203μg/100cm 2 , conservatory, sample J 110 μg/100cm 2 in the lounge, sample B 15.1 μg/100cm 2 in the kitchen, sample Y 13.5 μg/100cm 2 roof space, sample L 8.9 μg/100cm 2 Bedroom 1 and sample U 9.47 μg/100cm 2 in the Entranceway.
The landlord then had ECS do a second round of cleaning/remediation.
Further testing was done on the 12 August 2024, 25 samples were taken from different rooms and areas in the house. Of those samples only 2, one in the kitchen 2.8μg/100cm 2 and bedroom 2 1.76 μg/100cm 2 were above 1.5 μg/100cm 2.
ECS did a third round of cleaning, and those two rooms were tested again and found to be below 1.5 μg/100cm 2 , therefore a Decontamination Contractor Clearance Certificate was issued by ECS. 1 As discussed later in the decision, 1.5 or below, is the level to which remediation must occur, when manufacture has occurred.
Following the issue of that Certificate the landlord began the repair and remedial work, some of which was necessary because the chemicals used by ECS in the contamination/cleaning process damaged the paint work throughout the house and powder coating on the aluminum joinery. The landlord says it painted the interior of the whole house, installed a new benchtop and appliances in the kitchen, replaced light fittings and light switches, replaced DVS systems, heat pump and extraction fans and soft furnishings like curtains/ blinds and carpet.
This work was completed by the 18 November 2024, and the landlord advertised the property for rent after that. The property manager said that it was difficult to relet the property, as potential tenants were put off by the fact that it had been used for methamphetamine manufacture, had been subject to contamination and was the scene of criminal offending. She said that finally in January 2025 they had new tenants who were about to move in.
As a result of the new tenants moving in the landlord decided to do a pre let methamphetamine test. Due to the previous contamination they chose to do this by discreet testing. The testing was done in two days on the 10 and 15 January 2025, those results showed contamination at the property over 1.5 μg/100cm 2 in the following areas: Bedroom 1, 2.46 μg/100cm 2 , Downstairs Bathroom 1.59 μg/100cm 2 , Laundry 3.54μg/100cm 2 , Bedroom 3 1.6 μg/100cm 2 , Entry 1.67 μg/100cm 2 , Walk in wardrobe 1.67 μg/100cm 2 , hallway outside bedroom 1 3.74 μg/100cm 2 , and roof space off bedroom 4, 45.9 μg/100cm
*2
Again, further decontamination work was done by ECS and further testing done on the 29 January 2025. The 24 tests showed that the property had been remediated below 1.5μg/100cm 2 in all sampled areas. A second Decontamination Contractor Clearance certificate was issued on the 2 February 2025.
The house was then placed on the market for sale. There was very little interest in the property, which the landlord attributes to its stigma of being a ‘meth house’.
In August 2025 further testing was done and once again of the eight samples tested two returned results above 1.5 μg/100cm 2 The highest level of contamination was 4.05μg/100cm 2 , and then 2.66μg/100cm 2 , both in the roof space.
Further decontamination was completed by ECS.
Further testing from samples dated 3 October 2025, from which a composite test was undertaken of two samples, reported levels of 0.15μg/100cm 2 and
22μg/100cm 2 .
Further testing was obtained on 8 October 2025, which returned results of
32μg/100cm 2 and 0.11μg/100cm 2 . 2 This area had not been previously tested as it was difficult to access.
As the October samples were less than 1.5 μg/100cm 2, the house was considered in a condition to be able to be re-rented again.
The property was advertised for rent in November 2025 and is now relet. The conviction and sentencing of the tenant and her co-offenders,
The tenant and another occupant, Jiehong Ru, were later convicted of methamphetamine manufacture, both entering a guilty plea, and both being sentenced to three years imprisonment.
The Tribunal has been provided with the respective sentencing notes. The sentencing notes from Judge Moses for [The landlord/s] tenant/s] is less detailed than the sentencing notes for Jiehong Ru. In Mr Ru’s case, Judge Wiltens states: [6] The brief facts on which you are for sentence are that on 22 May 2024 police executed a search warrant at an address on Murphys Road in Totara Park. You were both present at the address. [7] A search of the address located an active large-scale clandestine laboratory. That consisted of equipment, material and precursor substances that were capable of being used to manufacture methamphetamine. Also located were hotplates, air stills, glass jars, measuring jugs, funnels, disposable gloves, breathing apparatus, fry pans, tubing, syringes and glassware. [8] Methamphetamine or its byproducts are indication of the methamphetamine manufacturing process, and they were detected within some of those items. Furthermore, in a number of areas of the house there were containers of liquids in 20-litre containers and 20-litre containers of toluene, large amounts of caustic soda, methamphetamine crystals and $124,835 in cash. [9] An evaluation of that evidence pointed to the manufacture of methamphetamine. An analysis of a number of items showed that there was a total of approximately one kilogram of a solid substance that was mainly pseudoephedrine hydrochloride, and a total of 152.2 grams of a solid that contained methamphetamine hydrochloride. [10] I should note for completeness that after you pleaded guilty on the basis of an agreed summary of facts, the Crown had sought to introduce additional evidence of additional amounts of methamphetamine located at the address and sought an uplift to the starting point that they had initially sought for your offending.
We note that no reparation was ordered at sentencing.
The landlord subsequently applied to the Tribunal for compensation as it related to the testing and remediation costs. [The landlord/s] LANDLORD’S WITNESS]’S EVIDENCE
[The landlord/s] landlord’s witness] attended the hearing where he gave oral evidence for the landlord.
[The landlord/s] landlord’s witness] carried out all the testing at the property. He is a director of [Witnesses company].
[The landlord/s] landlord’s witness] advised that following an inspection of the premises, he considered it likely methamphetamine had been manufactured, While the Police had removed the primary equipment, there were other items left in the premises consistent with manufacture such as finding an ice cream container with a crystalline substance that tested positive for methamphetamine, there were other crystalline substances in the kitchen consistent with methamphetamine, and equipment such as a large fan in the kitchen and small plastic bags also consistent with producing methamphetamine for sale.
[The landlord/s] landlord’s witness] explained the process with undertaking testing of the premises, starting with a composite test to confirm the presence or absence of methamphetamine, leading to later discrete testing around the premises, in this case some 20 samples were taken from various locations in the first tranche of tests (May 2024).
[The landlord/s] landlord’s witness] stated that as a consequence of the manufacture, methamphetamine vapour was produced, which would have been distributed through the house, including via the ventilation system, and into ceiling cavities from recessed lights.
[The landlord/s] landlord’s witness] states that the levels of methamphetamine detected in May 2024 were at the very top of levels they have seen in contaminated premises in over 14 years in the business.
[The landlord/s] landlord’s witness] also gave evidence around the process that was undertaken for decontamination of these premises.
Ms Prowse asked [The landlord/s] landlord’s witness] for his opinion as to why there was later higher contamination in places that had initially been remediated [The landlord/s] landlord’s witness] considered that this was most likely explained by contamination arising from vapour transferring from elsewhere in the house, such as via the ventilation system or roof cavity.

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 party bringing the claim (the landlord), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, 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.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, 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.

ANALYSIS

There is a significant history as it relates to levels of methamphetamine contamination in residential premises, or more particularly, the levels at which premises are deemed to be uninhabitable or requiring remediation.
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
5 μg/100 cm 2 . While that related to laboratories, it is the case that the 0.5 level became the de facto level at which premises were considered to require decontamination at that time.
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 decontamination was required for levels of contamination above 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 :
Later still, in 2018 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 15μg/100cm 2 were unlikely to present adverse effects.
However, the Gluckman report confirms that where there is suspected manufacture, then the premises should be remediated to 1.5μg/100cm : Remediation down to the 1.5μg/100cm 2 standard may be prudent if there is also sound reason to suspect previous meth lab activities. This would only be a precautionary measure to remove other toxicants that may be present but not measured.
More recently still, the matter was addressed by way of Regulations, that was the Residential Tenancies (Managing Methamphetamine Contamination) Regulations 2016. The regulations confirmed that the “maximum acceptable level of methamphetamine” in premises is 15μg/100cm 2 , and the level at which premises would be uninhabitable was fixed at 30μg/100 cm 2 . What this means that if the level of contamination fell between 15 and 30μg/100 cm 2 the premises could be lived in but decontamination was needed. Those regulations came into force on 16 April 2026.
However, while we have recorded the situation with the Regulations for context, given the date that the contamination and remediation occurred in this case, it was the levels that were set in the Gluckman report that apply. We note the District Court judgment of Diamond Real Estate Limited v Allan [2017] NZDC 833, in which Judge Kellar considered a case in which remediation was undertaken in reliance on the 2010 Ministry of Health level of 0.5μg/100 cm 2 . In that case, following the remediation work the Standard NZS 8510:2017 was released, which as noted above increased the acceptable level to 1.5μg/100 cm 2 . Judge Kellar records that when the premises were tested, the highest level recorded was in the toilet at 1.4μg/100 cm 2 that “exceeded the Ministry of Health guidelines at the time.” The Court confirmed that any consideration as to whether the premises had been damaged, but be based on the prevailing guidelines at that time: ...It appears to be the case that at the time the methamphetamine testing and decontamination was carried out the premises were not safe to occupy in terms of the then prevailing Ministry of Health guidelines. If the landlord had no choice but to test for methamphetamine and decontaminate the premises and if the premises were not ‘safe’ in terms of the prevailing Ministry of Health guidelines at the time of testing then the premises may be said to have been damaged during the term of the tenancy.
While we accept that the levels that must be applied in this case are those in the Gluckman report, even if this case was measured against the Regulations, given the levels of methamphetamine contamination identified in this case, the outcome would be no different.

Were the premises contaminated with methamphetamine by these tenants?

While there was no pre-tenancy testing in these premises, there is no doubt that the tenant was responsible for manufacturing methamphetamine in these premises - the tenant pleaded guilty to that offence in the criminal court.
The Tribunal applies the balance of probabilities which means more likely than not. We accept that the contamination in these premises is at the extreme end of the scale, and based on the evidence available, we accept that it has either entirely or materially arisen from manufacture by these tenants.
To provide context, we note that in the Gluckman report, the Chief Science advisor noted that test results over 30μg/100cm 2 were indicative of manufacturing as that was viewed as very high. In the case of this tenancy, the result was 3,360μg/100cm 2 , that is 112 times higher than the level at which the Gluckman report indicates manufacture would have occurred.
Furthermore, we accept [The landlord/s] landlord’s witness]'s evidence that the inspection findings following the Police removing the equipment, included crystalline substances which were likely methamphetamine.
We note that the tenant has not opposed the landlord’s application.
We accept that the tenant’s manufacture of methamphetamine contaminated these premises.
We also find that the tenant used the property for an unlawful purpose, namely the manufacture of class A drug, and therefore breached s 40(2)(b) RTA.

Is the tenant liable for testing and remediation costs?

At the end of the tenancy, the tenants must return the premises reasonably clean. 3
Tenants are also liable for any intentional damage that either they do or is done by someone at the property with their consent. 4
Because the methamphetamine contamination was more than 1.5μg/100cm 2 the premises were uninhabitable, or to put that another way, unclean and or intentionally damaged. As a direct result of the contamination, the landlord has incurred costs to decontaminate the premises, which included multiple episodes of testing and cleaning.

Can the amounts claimed be ordered?

As discussed above, the maximum that the Tribunal can order is $100,000. For the reasons we will now explain, we accept that at least $100,000 can be ordered only as it relate to remediation costs ($65,006.13) and lost rent ($59,120.10).
Taking into account the landlords claims, we will only consider three of those claims, that relates to decontamination costs, reinstatement costs and lost rent. Those three claims alone total $124,126.23 so if the landlord establishes those claims, then the Tribunal could make an order of $100,000.00. Decontamination and Reinstatement costs
We accept the following claims made by the landlord for remediation for the following reasons: 3 Section 40(1)(e)(iii) RTA. 4 Section 40(2)(a) RTA. a. Carpet replacement ($6,535.88) i. We accept the carpet needed to be removed because it was contaminated. We are satisfied based on the pre-tenancy inspection photographs that the carpet was in good order at the start of the tenancy. We are satisfied that replacing the carpet was needed given the contamination. b. Curtains & blinds ($3,105.00) i. We are satisfied that these soft items needed to be replaced. Again, we are of the view that these items were in good condition at the start of the tenancy. c. Painting, bench-top and door replacement ($33,005.00) i. This work was directly related to remediation, including replacing the kitchen bench on which the methamphetamine was manufactured, repainting surfaces, and replacing the internal doors from which the evidence is that these could not be cleaned. 12 doors were replaced. d. Electrical work ($12,888.00) and top up ($707.25) and Light fittings ($880.35) i. A range of electrical work was needed, which required the replacement of electrical fittings and fixtures. While this cost is significant, we have no reason to conclude that this work was not reasonably necessary or proportionate to the remediation work needed. e. Vent removal and paint patch ($1,092.50) i. This work related to removal of the DVS vent and then to make good the damage. This is directly related to the tenant’s breach. f. Police raid damage ($3,566.75) i. The landlord incurred costs of $3,566.75 to repair damage caused by the Police including damage to doors, blinds and gate. These costs should sit with the tenant because they relate to police actions to enforce the tenant’s breach.
We are satisfied that this work was reasonably required and directly related to the remediation necessary to address the contamination.
With claims for compensation, the Tribunal must apply depreciation. We will address this below. Lost rent
The landlord claims lost rent for the premises following the tenants rent payments coming to an end on 4 June 2024, and until the premises were later rented on 12 December 2025. The landlord does not seek rent for a period of 90 days during 2025 when the property was on the market for sale.
The landlord’s position is that there were extensive delays with getting the remediation completed because the decontamination had to be done, then tested and then redone. After the first set of remediation was completed, the landlord had trouble finding new tenants, because they needed to disclose the history of the premises, and simply put, tenants were not interested in renting the dwelling. Eventually another tenant was found, and prior to that tenant taking the lease, updated testing was undertaken which showed that the contamination had increased, so another round of decontamination was needed.
The landlord tried selling the premises, and again that was not successful because purchasers were not interested in purchasing the premises given its history.
The landlord states that the tenants had paid rent until 4 June 2024. The landlord seeks rent compensation from then until 12 December 2025, minus a 90 day period the premise were put on the market, which totals $59,120.10. We are satisfied that the rent arrears claim has been established. The landlord’s loss is a direct consequence the tenant’s breach. We accept that the landlord did all it could to either sell or re-rent the premises, we cannot see what more the landlords could have done. The rent arrears claim is significant, but in the circumstance the reason for this large rent lost has been fully explained. The landlords’ rent loss is established and is ordered in full. Depreciation
The Tribunal must take into account betterment, the principle being that the landlord should be returned to the position they would have been but for the breach. The landlord should not be put into a better position that they would have been had the breach not occurred. That is achieved by applying depreciation. We note that we have been provided with an entry condition report, taken only 3 months before, this report shows a property that is in very good condition. There is no indication that any items that the landlord claims compensation for would have needed to be replaced or repaired only 3 months into a tenancy.
As above, we have ordered $59,120.10 in rent arrears, and that means that the Tribunal could only order $40,879.90 for the remediation given the Tribunal’s cap. The landlord has been successful in its claims that would be $60,900.38. While we have not taken a line-by-line approach to calculating depreciation, we consider that had we done so, the depreciation would have been much less than that which is now over the Tribunals cap, and therefore order the tenant to pay remediation costs of $40,879.90.

FURTHER CLAIMS

We recognise that the landlord seeks further orders, however given there is no further ability to make orders as we have reached the ceiling of our jurisdiction, we decline to make further orders. That is not to say that the landlords’ claims are without merit, this approach should not be viewed in that way. It is simply recognising that Courts and Tribunals do not adjudicate moot or academic points, and considering further claims where there is no prospect of an order being made would fall into that category.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case, the landlord has been entirely successful, so landlord’s name suppression is ordered.
However, the Tribunal declines to order suppression of the tenancy address. In the circumstances we consider there is a strong public interest for prospective tenants or purchasers to be aware of this decision, particularly given the history of the methamphetamine levels in this property increasing by leaching, airflow or some other means. Further, the fact of methamphetamine contamination is publicly known already as the contamination is now recorded on the LIM and the criminal proceedings were not subject to any suppression.
Accordingly, while name suppression is ordered, that does not extend to the tenancy address. R Woodhouse/ T Prowse 18 August 2026

At a glance

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What is the claim about?

THE CLAIMS

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

Were the premises contaminated with methamphetamine by these tenants?

Is the tenant liable for testing and remediation costs?

Can the amounts claimed be ordered?

FURTHER CLAIMS

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What is the claim about?

THE CLAIMS

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

Were the premises contaminated with methamphetamine by these tenants?

Is the tenant liable for testing and remediation costs?

Can the amounts claimed be ordered?

FURTHER CLAIMS

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.