What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5127353?

The tribunal order states: Dannielle Ngahuia Worters and Vicki Elizabeth Kiddell must pay Seaside

How much money was awarded in case 5127353?

Cleaning: $1,725.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Fly Spray And Flea Bombs: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $990.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Applications 5017551…: $9,593.40 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,450.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Handles and loc…: $621.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $4,485.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5127353?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5127353?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11375947-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5127353?

The tribunal order states: Dannielle Ngahuia Worters and Vicki Elizabeth Kiddell must pay Seaside

How much money was awarded in case 5127353?

Cleaning: $1,725.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Fly Spray And Flea Bombs: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $990.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Applications 5017551…: $9,593.40 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,450.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Handles and loc…: $621.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $4,485.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5127353?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5127353?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11375947-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

29 Stephanie Close, Glenfield, Auckland 0629 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5127353 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5127353 — net $1,934.60 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Lawns and Garden work	$990.00		Lawns and Garden work
Rubbish removal	$4,485.00		Rubbish removal
Replace furnishings: Handles and locks @ 60	$621.00		Replace furnishings: Handles and locks @ 60
Fly spray and flea bombs	$230.00		Fly spray and flea bombs
Cleaning	$1,725.00		Cleaning
Repairs	$3,450.00		Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Previous order applications 5017551 and 5056308		$9,593.40	Previous order applications 5017551 and 5056308
Total award	$11,528.00	$9,593.40
Net award	$1,934.60
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,934.60

Order

Dannielle Ngahuia Worters and Vicki Elizabeth Kiddell must pay Seaside Property Management Limited Huirong Liu $1,934.60 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The tenants must collect the large piece of swamp kauri from the driveway by no later than 11:59pm on Thursday 13 February 2025. Where the tenants have not collected the swap kauri, the landlord may dispose of it as the landlord sees fit.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 30 January 2025.
On 17 December 2024, the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for a total award of $13,607.88 to the landlord and $23,201.28 to the tenants and refund of the bond to the tenants of $3,920.00. The previous order, for applications 5017551 and 5056308, is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes. The amount still owing to the tenants from this order is $9,593.40.
On 18 December 2024, the landlord appealed the 17 December 2024 Order and sought a stay of enforcement proceedings pending the outcome of the appeal.
On 7 January 2025, Judge Otene issued a minute that states “the application for a stay pending determination of the appeal is declined. If the appeal is successful in whole or part, there is avenue for appropriate orders to be made to reinstate the appellant’s position”.
The tenant has indicated at the hearing today that she will seek a stay of enforcement proceedings of this application until the District Court hears and determined the appeal under file number CIV-2025-044-000004.
The landlord has applied for a disposal of goods order, compensation, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord produced evidence that proved the tenants: a. Did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy; b. Did not remove all rubbish; c. Did not remove all personal effects/belongings; and d. Did not return all the keys and three locks needed to be changed.
The landlord also proved a requirement to purchase fly spray and flea bombs to treat the house, after the tenants had a cat in the house and they had left food and other items in the house after the tenancy ended that attracted flies. $$230.00 has been awarded to cover this cost.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord has proven the following damage was caused during the tenancy, and that it was more than fair wear and tear: a. 3 kitchen cabinet handles broken and missing; b. Holes in two-bedroom doors, a bedroom wall and the room by the staircase.
The tenants have not disproved liability for this damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The landlord’s claims for replacing seven window handles, curtains that were removed and a missing vacuum cleaner are dismissed as the landlord did not provide sufficient evidence to support these claims on the balance of probabilities and I am not satisfied the landlord had incurred any costs to replace these items as at the date of today’s hearing. Disposal of goods
The landlord has applied for the disposal of goods the tenant left at the premises at the end of the tenancy. The landlord produced a list of 72 items that it required the Tribunal’s consent to dispose of. It had set a value of $8.00 on these items and stated that value of the goods is below the cost of storing, transporting and selling them.
The tenants stated that the fish tanks and fish tank stand and other items, such as a large piece of swamp kauri are quite valuable and costly to replace. Further, she would have come back to collect these valuable items but was stopped from doing so by the property owner and the property owner’s son, who she says levelled racial slurs at her. She also cited issues with not being able to afford the costs of a removal van and had no way to move the fish tanks and swamp kauri in her Suzuki swift.
The landlord says it agreed on a period for the tenants were to collect the goods, but the tenants failed to collect the goods within that time and denied stopping the tenants from collecting their belongings.
At the hearing today, the parties have agreed to the tenants being given permission to return to the property to collect a large piece of swamp kauri that is just off the driveway. The tenants must remove this piece of swamp kauri by 11:59pm on Thursday 13 February 2025. Where the tenants have not collected the swap kauri, the landlord may dispose of it as the landlord sees fit.
The landlord then confirmed that she had already disposed of all the other 72 items on the list, without waiting for the Tribunal to issue her a disposal order and without producing any proof that it had made all reasonable efforts to assess the market value of those goods.
Because no assessment had been done under s 62A(1), the Tribunal was unable to assess whether the goods had a value below the cost of storing, transporting, and selling them and whether the landlord had the legal right to dispose of these goods without a disposal order.
The tenants stated some of these goods had a resale value above the cost of storing, transporting, and selling them but the landlord chose to dispose of those goods without a consent order.
Section 62 of the RTA allows the landlord, on the termination of the tenancy, to dispose of foodstuffs or other perishable goods, immediately after taking possession of the premises, in any way the landlord thinks fit but all other goods must be disposed of in accordance with the provisions set out in ss 62A and 62B of the RTA.
The tenants have indicated they are considering making a further application to the Tribunal to make a claim for unlawful disposal of their belongings. A landlord must not seize or dispose of any of the tenant’s goods, except where they are disposed of under sections 62 to 62C of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. See section 33(1) and (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and the tenants are aware that breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 33(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Did the tenants use the premise for unlawful purposes?

Seaside Property Management Limited Huirong Liu claims the tenants have used the premises unlawfully, using the premise for an unlawful purpose, by using methamphetamine in the premise or allowing a person in the premises with the tenant’s permission to use methamphetamine inside the premise.
The landlord sought $2,500.00 insurance excess for the methamphetamine testing costs and for the decontamination costs and exemplary damages for the tenants unlawful use of the premise.
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.
It is an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 for any person to have in their possession or consume any controlled drug and to allow any premises to be used for the commission of an offence under that Act and (sections 7 and 12). “Methamphetamine” is included as a controlled drug under Schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Act. Therefore, using or allowing the premise to be used for the consumption or manufacture of methamphetamine would be considered an unlawful purpose.
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.
To make a successful claim for methamphetamine testing and/or remediation costs, the landlord must prove that the tenant caused or permitted the contamination, or that it was caused by someone at the premises with the tenant’s consent. The landlord must also prove that, because of the contamination, the premises have been damaged or are not reasonably clean.
Section 138C Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides for regulations to be made prescribing the maximum acceptable level for contaminants, but as yet no regulations have been made in relation to methamphetamine.
There are currently 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 1.5μg/100cm2 for high use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture. It recommended a higher level of 3.8μg/100cm2 for limited use areas.
In May 2018 Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the then Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor, released a report "Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards”. The report noted that there is a lack of scientific evidence to prove that low-level third-hand methamphetamine exposure poses a health risk to humans. It stated that guidelines should be proportionate to risk and that exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect. It recommended retaining the level of 1.5μg/100cm2 where contamination resulted from manufacture, due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the process.
The District Court has held that remediation should be carried out in accordance with the prevailing guidelines at the time (Diamond Real Estate Limited v Allan [2017] NZDC 833, Judge Kellar).
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, where the Court stated (at para [36]): “The Tenancy Tribunal was in a difficult position. The best state of knowledge of risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination available to the adjudicator was the Gluckman Report. It would have been bold for the adjudicator to have ignored that report in favour of the New Zealand Standard given that the Gluckman report represents the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination in dwellings.”
The District Court took a similar approach in Acme Realty Limited v Hogg and others [2021] NZDC 3231, where the Court referred to the Full Circle case and held that, because NZS 8510:2017 has not been adopted into law, the Tribunal was not bound to apply the 1.5μg standard.
More recently, in Barfoot and Thompson Limited v Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited [2021] NZTT Auckland 4276319, both parties presented scientific evidence at a hearing before the Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that there was no new scientific research to change the conclusions reached in the Gluckman Report.
The landlord could not produce a pre-tenancy methamphetamine comprehensive or composite test to prove the premise was free from methamphetamine contamination at the start of the tenancy..
The landlord produced the results of a comprehensive test, that was carried out by the landlord 17 days after the tenancy ended, being 23 December 2024. This test showed four test results above 1.5μg per 100cm2 and six samples of between 0.12μg and 1.43 μg per 100cm2. The highest test results were in the lounge at 3.50 μg per 100cm2 and in bedroom 5 at 3.00 μg per 100cm2. These results are well below the Gluckman level and as such, the landlord is not required to undertake any decontamination processes.
The landlord also stated that when the property manager had undertaken the exit inspection, she had found evidence of marijuana use in the premise but did not produce any evidence to support this claim. In addition, the landlord stated there was a rusty metal drum outside the premise and it knew that these types of drums were always associated with methamphetamine use.
I see no link between the claim the landlord found marijuana at the premise during the exit inspection with its methamphetamine related claims and am unsure how a rusty metal drum is proof of methamphetamine use by the tenants during their tenancy.
I am not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has provided sufficient evidence to support its claims for compensation or exemplary damages. I dismiss the landlord’s claims accordingly. Reimbursement of filing fee
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with its claims, I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5127353 — net $1,934.60 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Lawns and Garden work	$990.00		Lawns and Garden work
Rubbish removal	$4,485.00		Rubbish removal
Replace furnishings: Handles and locks @ 60	$621.00		Replace furnishings: Handles and locks @ 60
Fly spray and flea bombs	$230.00		Fly spray and flea bombs
Cleaning	$1,725.00		Cleaning
Repairs	$3,450.00		Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Previous order applications 5017551 and 5056308		$9,593.40	Previous order applications 5017551 and 5056308
Total award	$11,528.00	$9,593.40
Net award	$1,934.60
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,934.60

Order

Dannielle Ngahuia Worters and Vicki Elizabeth Kiddell must pay Seaside Property Management Limited Huirong Liu $1,934.60 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The tenants must collect the large piece of swamp kauri from the driveway by no later than 11:59pm on Thursday 13 February 2025. Where the tenants have not collected the swap kauri, the landlord may dispose of it as the landlord sees fit.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 30 January 2025.
On 17 December 2024, the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for a total award of $13,607.88 to the landlord and $23,201.28 to the tenants and refund of the bond to the tenants of $3,920.00. The previous order, for applications 5017551 and 5056308, is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes. The amount still owing to the tenants from this order is $9,593.40.
On 18 December 2024, the landlord appealed the 17 December 2024 Order and sought a stay of enforcement proceedings pending the outcome of the appeal.
On 7 January 2025, Judge Otene issued a minute that states “the application for a stay pending determination of the appeal is declined. If the appeal is successful in whole or part, there is avenue for appropriate orders to be made to reinstate the appellant’s position”.
The tenant has indicated at the hearing today that she will seek a stay of enforcement proceedings of this application until the District Court hears and determined the appeal under file number CIV-2025-044-000004.
The landlord has applied for a disposal of goods order, compensation, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord produced evidence that proved the tenants: a. Did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy; b. Did not remove all rubbish; c. Did not remove all personal effects/belongings; and d. Did not return all the keys and three locks needed to be changed.
The landlord also proved a requirement to purchase fly spray and flea bombs to treat the house, after the tenants had a cat in the house and they had left food and other items in the house after the tenancy ended that attracted flies. $$230.00 has been awarded to cover this cost.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord has proven the following damage was caused during the tenancy, and that it was more than fair wear and tear: a. 3 kitchen cabinet handles broken and missing; b. Holes in two-bedroom doors, a bedroom wall and the room by the staircase.
The tenants have not disproved liability for this damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The landlord’s claims for replacing seven window handles, curtains that were removed and a missing vacuum cleaner are dismissed as the landlord did not provide sufficient evidence to support these claims on the balance of probabilities and I am not satisfied the landlord had incurred any costs to replace these items as at the date of today’s hearing. Disposal of goods
The landlord has applied for the disposal of goods the tenant left at the premises at the end of the tenancy. The landlord produced a list of 72 items that it required the Tribunal’s consent to dispose of. It had set a value of $8.00 on these items and stated that value of the goods is below the cost of storing, transporting and selling them.
The tenants stated that the fish tanks and fish tank stand and other items, such as a large piece of swamp kauri are quite valuable and costly to replace. Further, she would have come back to collect these valuable items but was stopped from doing so by the property owner and the property owner’s son, who she says levelled racial slurs at her. She also cited issues with not being able to afford the costs of a removal van and had no way to move the fish tanks and swamp kauri in her Suzuki swift.
The landlord says it agreed on a period for the tenants were to collect the goods, but the tenants failed to collect the goods within that time and denied stopping the tenants from collecting their belongings.
At the hearing today, the parties have agreed to the tenants being given permission to return to the property to collect a large piece of swamp kauri that is just off the driveway. The tenants must remove this piece of swamp kauri by 11:59pm on Thursday 13 February 2025. Where the tenants have not collected the swap kauri, the landlord may dispose of it as the landlord sees fit.
The landlord then confirmed that she had already disposed of all the other 72 items on the list, without waiting for the Tribunal to issue her a disposal order and without producing any proof that it had made all reasonable efforts to assess the market value of those goods.
Because no assessment had been done under s 62A(1), the Tribunal was unable to assess whether the goods had a value below the cost of storing, transporting, and selling them and whether the landlord had the legal right to dispose of these goods without a disposal order.
The tenants stated some of these goods had a resale value above the cost of storing, transporting, and selling them but the landlord chose to dispose of those goods without a consent order.
Section 62 of the RTA allows the landlord, on the termination of the tenancy, to dispose of foodstuffs or other perishable goods, immediately after taking possession of the premises, in any way the landlord thinks fit but all other goods must be disposed of in accordance with the provisions set out in ss 62A and 62B of the RTA.
The tenants have indicated they are considering making a further application to the Tribunal to make a claim for unlawful disposal of their belongings. A landlord must not seize or dispose of any of the tenant’s goods, except where they are disposed of under sections 62 to 62C of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. See section 33(1) and (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and the tenants are aware that breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 33(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Did the tenants use the premise for unlawful purposes?

Seaside Property Management Limited Huirong Liu claims the tenants have used the premises unlawfully, using the premise for an unlawful purpose, by using methamphetamine in the premise or allowing a person in the premises with the tenant’s permission to use methamphetamine inside the premise.
The landlord sought $2,500.00 insurance excess for the methamphetamine testing costs and for the decontamination costs and exemplary damages for the tenants unlawful use of the premise.
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.
It is an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 for any person to have in their possession or consume any controlled drug and to allow any premises to be used for the commission of an offence under that Act and (sections 7 and 12). “Methamphetamine” is included as a controlled drug under Schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Act. Therefore, using or allowing the premise to be used for the consumption or manufacture of methamphetamine would be considered an unlawful purpose.
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.
To make a successful claim for methamphetamine testing and/or remediation costs, the landlord must prove that the tenant caused or permitted the contamination, or that it was caused by someone at the premises with the tenant’s consent. The landlord must also prove that, because of the contamination, the premises have been damaged or are not reasonably clean.
Section 138C Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides for regulations to be made prescribing the maximum acceptable level for contaminants, but as yet no regulations have been made in relation to methamphetamine.
There are currently 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 1.5μg/100cm2 for high use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture. It recommended a higher level of 3.8μg/100cm2 for limited use areas.
In May 2018 Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the then Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor, released a report "Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards”. The report noted that there is a lack of scientific evidence to prove that low-level third-hand methamphetamine exposure poses a health risk to humans. It stated that guidelines should be proportionate to risk and that exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect. It recommended retaining the level of 1.5μg/100cm2 where contamination resulted from manufacture, due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the process.
The District Court has held that remediation should be carried out in accordance with the prevailing guidelines at the time (Diamond Real Estate Limited v Allan [2017] NZDC 833, Judge Kellar).
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, where the Court stated (at para [36]): “The Tenancy Tribunal was in a difficult position. The best state of knowledge of risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination available to the adjudicator was the Gluckman Report. It would have been bold for the adjudicator to have ignored that report in favour of the New Zealand Standard given that the Gluckman report represents the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination in dwellings.”
The District Court took a similar approach in Acme Realty Limited v Hogg and others [2021] NZDC 3231, where the Court referred to the Full Circle case and held that, because NZS 8510:2017 has not been adopted into law, the Tribunal was not bound to apply the 1.5μg standard.
More recently, in Barfoot and Thompson Limited v Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited [2021] NZTT Auckland 4276319, both parties presented scientific evidence at a hearing before the Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that there was no new scientific research to change the conclusions reached in the Gluckman Report.
The landlord could not produce a pre-tenancy methamphetamine comprehensive or composite test to prove the premise was free from methamphetamine contamination at the start of the tenancy..
The landlord produced the results of a comprehensive test, that was carried out by the landlord 17 days after the tenancy ended, being 23 December 2024. This test showed four test results above 1.5μg per 100cm2 and six samples of between 0.12μg and 1.43 μg per 100cm2. The highest test results were in the lounge at 3.50 μg per 100cm2 and in bedroom 5 at 3.00 μg per 100cm2. These results are well below the Gluckman level and as such, the landlord is not required to undertake any decontamination processes.
The landlord also stated that when the property manager had undertaken the exit inspection, she had found evidence of marijuana use in the premise but did not produce any evidence to support this claim. In addition, the landlord stated there was a rusty metal drum outside the premise and it knew that these types of drums were always associated with methamphetamine use.
I see no link between the claim the landlord found marijuana at the premise during the exit inspection with its methamphetamine related claims and am unsure how a rusty metal drum is proof of methamphetamine use by the tenants during their tenancy.
I am not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has provided sufficient evidence to support its claims for compensation or exemplary damages. I dismiss the landlord’s claims accordingly. Reimbursement of filing fee
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with its claims, I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5127353 — Property damage at 29 Stephanie Close, Glenfield, Auckland 0629

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5127353 — Property damage at 29 Stephanie Close, Glenfield, Auckland 0629

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenants use the premise for unlawful purposes?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenants use the premise for unlawful purposes?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions