What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5131750?

The tribunal order states: Joseph charles Williams must pay Linkpeople Limited $2,782.86 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5131750?

Compensation: Decontamination: $2,781.11 awarded to landlord; Compensation: methamphetamine testin…: $230.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5131750?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5131750?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11726946-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5131750?

The tribunal order states: Joseph charles Williams must pay Linkpeople Limited $2,782.86 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5131750?

Compensation: Decontamination: $2,781.11 awarded to landlord; Compensation: methamphetamine testin…: $230.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5131750?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5131750?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11726946-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 2, 112 Great South Road, Manurewa, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5131750 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5131750 — net $2,782.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation: decontamination	$2,781.11	decontamination
Compensation: methamphetamine testing	$230.75	methamphetamine testing
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,782.86
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,782.86

Order

Joseph charles Williams must pay Linkpeople Limited $2,782.86 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $256.00 (3158459-021) to Linkpeople Limited immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 16 April 2025. The tenant did not.
The landlord claims the tenant committed an unlawful act by using methamphetamine inside the premises. The landlord seeks compensation for the cost of methamphetamine testing and decontamination. The landlord has applied for a refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This 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 Katipo 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 of 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. METHAMPHETAMINE TESTING & DECONTAMINATION
A tenant must not use, or permit the use of, the premises for any unlawful purpose. 1
A landlord must prove that premises have been damaged during the tenancy and that the damage is the result of an 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. 2 The use or possession of methamphetamine is an imprisonable offence. 3
If the landlord proves this, then a tenant is liable for the costs of “making good the damage” and other reasonably foreseeable losses related to the damage. 4
The general approach of the Tribunal when determining claims for decontamination due to the presence of methamphetamine residue is as follows: 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49(2)(b). 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49B(8)(a). 3 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, section 7. 4 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49A & 49B(1)(b). a. Methamphetamine residue of below 15mcg/100cm² does not cause damage to residential tenancy premises unless there is evidence of manufacturing; b. In premises or parts of premises, where residue is higher than 15mcg/100cm², this is considered damage and decontamination of those areas is appropriate; and c. Residue levels of higher than 30mcg/100cm² indicate a high level of use and may be indicative of manufacturing. Decontamination of premises to the lower level of below 1.5mcg/100cm² is justified. Evidence and submissions of the landlord
The landlord claims the tenant used methamphetamine during the tenancy and this caused damage to the property which needed to be decontaminated. In support of their claim, the landlord submitted the following evidence: a. A pre-tenancy methamphetamine testing certificate dated 20 January 2021. This certificate shows methamphetamine readings in the kitchen, bathroom, lounge, laundry and bedrooms were below 0.04mcg/100cm². b. A methamphetamine testing certificate dated 11 November 2024. This shows methamphetamine readings of 31.0mcg/100cm² in the kitchen and
7mcg/100cm² in bedroom 1. It also shows readings of 7.70mcg/100cm² in the bathroom, 1.29cmg/100cm² in the lounge and 8.56mcg/100cm² in bedroom 2.
The landlord gave evidence that the tenancy ended on 20 November 2024.
The landlord gave further evidence that the property was not tenanted between the date of the first methamphetamine test on 20 January 2021 and 27 April 2021 when this tenancy began. The landlord gave evidence there was a suicide in one of the neighbouring units shortly after the first methamphetamine test was completed, which caused a delay in tenanting the unit that comprises the tenancy address.
The landlord submitted an invoice for the methamphetamine test completed on 11 November 2024 for $230.75.
The landlord submitted an invoice for the decontamination totalling $12,781.11. The landlord gave evidence that they have recovered $10,000.00 from the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development and are only seeking $2,781.11 from the tenant to cover the shortfall. Analysis
On the balance of probabilities, I find that the tenant or a person at the premises with the tenant’s permission used methamphetamine inside the premises during the tenancy. The landlord submitted a methamphetamine testing certificate dated shortly before this tenancy began. It shows very minor levels of methamphetamine were present inside the premises. The methamphetamine testing certificate dated 11 November 2024 shows an increase in the levels of methamphetamine throughout the premises and very high readings of in the kitchen and bedroom 1. The logical inference from a comparison of the two testing certificates is that methamphetamine was consumed inside the premises during the tenancy by the tenant or a person at the address with the tenant’s permission.
The landlord has proven that the presence of methamphetamine residue in the kitchen and bedroom 1 exceeded 15mcg/100cm². The kitchen returned a reading higher than 30mcg/100cm², which indicates potential manufacturing. In these circumstances, I find the landlord was justified in decontaminating the entire premises, not just the kitchen and bedroom 1.
The landlord has proven on the balance of probabilities that the tenant or a person in the premises with the tenant’s permission committed an unlawful act by using methamphetamine. The landlord has also proven that this caused damage to the property and that the level of methamphetamine residue in the kitchen justified decontamination of the entire premises.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted in full for the following amounts: a. Methamphetamine testing: $230.75 b. Decontamination: $2,781.11 FILING FEE & NAME SUPPRESSION
The landlord has been wholly successful with their claim and therefore, I must order the tenant to reimburse the landlord the filing fee.
The landlord did not seek name suppression for themself but requested it on behalf of the tenant.
I have a discretion to grant the tenant name suppression under section 95A(3) RTA. This section requires me to consider the interests of the parties and public. In Lewis v Wilson & Horton [2003] 3 NZLR 546 at paragraph 43, The Court of Appeal endorsed the approach taken in the High Court, which held: ...that the principle of open justice dictates that there should be no restriction on publication of information about a case ‘except in very special circumstances.’
The landlord claims the tenant may struggle to find a new tenancy if their name is published. This is because prospective landlords might search and find a copy of this order disclosing that the tenant has previously tenanted a property that required decontamination due to methamphetamine use. I find this to be a natural and ordinary consequence of the tenant’s actions. It is not exceptional or a very special circumstance. Further, there is a strong public interest in prospective landlords being able to access information that discloses whether prospective tenants have consumed methamphetamine or permitted someone at the address with their permission to consume methamphetamine. This is because methamphetamine consumption has the potential to seriously damage a property and the cost of decontamination is high.
I have considered the interests of the parties and the public interest. I do not consider that this is an appropriate case to grant name suppression to the tenant and I decline to do so.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5131750 — net $2,782.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation: decontamination	$2,781.11	decontamination
Compensation: methamphetamine testing	$230.75	methamphetamine testing
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,782.86
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,782.86

Order

Joseph charles Williams must pay Linkpeople Limited $2,782.86 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $256.00 (3158459-021) to Linkpeople Limited immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 16 April 2025. The tenant did not.
The landlord claims the tenant committed an unlawful act by using methamphetamine inside the premises. The landlord seeks compensation for the cost of methamphetamine testing and decontamination. The landlord has applied for a refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This 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 Katipo 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 of 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. METHAMPHETAMINE TESTING & DECONTAMINATION
A tenant must not use, or permit the use of, the premises for any unlawful purpose. 1
A landlord must prove that premises have been damaged during the tenancy and that the damage is the result of an 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. 2 The use or possession of methamphetamine is an imprisonable offence. 3
If the landlord proves this, then a tenant is liable for the costs of “making good the damage” and other reasonably foreseeable losses related to the damage. 4
The general approach of the Tribunal when determining claims for decontamination due to the presence of methamphetamine residue is as follows: 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49(2)(b). 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49B(8)(a). 3 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, section 7. 4 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49A & 49B(1)(b). a. Methamphetamine residue of below 15mcg/100cm² does not cause damage to residential tenancy premises unless there is evidence of manufacturing; b. In premises or parts of premises, where residue is higher than 15mcg/100cm², this is considered damage and decontamination of those areas is appropriate; and c. Residue levels of higher than 30mcg/100cm² indicate a high level of use and may be indicative of manufacturing. Decontamination of premises to the lower level of below 1.5mcg/100cm² is justified. Evidence and submissions of the landlord
The landlord claims the tenant used methamphetamine during the tenancy and this caused damage to the property which needed to be decontaminated. In support of their claim, the landlord submitted the following evidence: a. A pre-tenancy methamphetamine testing certificate dated 20 January 2021. This certificate shows methamphetamine readings in the kitchen, bathroom, lounge, laundry and bedrooms were below 0.04mcg/100cm². b. A methamphetamine testing certificate dated 11 November 2024. This shows methamphetamine readings of 31.0mcg/100cm² in the kitchen and
7mcg/100cm² in bedroom 1. It also shows readings of 7.70mcg/100cm² in the bathroom, 1.29cmg/100cm² in the lounge and 8.56mcg/100cm² in bedroom 2.
The landlord gave evidence that the tenancy ended on 20 November 2024.
The landlord gave further evidence that the property was not tenanted between the date of the first methamphetamine test on 20 January 2021 and 27 April 2021 when this tenancy began. The landlord gave evidence there was a suicide in one of the neighbouring units shortly after the first methamphetamine test was completed, which caused a delay in tenanting the unit that comprises the tenancy address.
The landlord submitted an invoice for the methamphetamine test completed on 11 November 2024 for $230.75.
The landlord submitted an invoice for the decontamination totalling $12,781.11. The landlord gave evidence that they have recovered $10,000.00 from the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development and are only seeking $2,781.11 from the tenant to cover the shortfall. Analysis
On the balance of probabilities, I find that the tenant or a person at the premises with the tenant’s permission used methamphetamine inside the premises during the tenancy. The landlord submitted a methamphetamine testing certificate dated shortly before this tenancy began. It shows very minor levels of methamphetamine were present inside the premises. The methamphetamine testing certificate dated 11 November 2024 shows an increase in the levels of methamphetamine throughout the premises and very high readings of in the kitchen and bedroom 1. The logical inference from a comparison of the two testing certificates is that methamphetamine was consumed inside the premises during the tenancy by the tenant or a person at the address with the tenant’s permission.
The landlord has proven that the presence of methamphetamine residue in the kitchen and bedroom 1 exceeded 15mcg/100cm². The kitchen returned a reading higher than 30mcg/100cm², which indicates potential manufacturing. In these circumstances, I find the landlord was justified in decontaminating the entire premises, not just the kitchen and bedroom 1.
The landlord has proven on the balance of probabilities that the tenant or a person in the premises with the tenant’s permission committed an unlawful act by using methamphetamine. The landlord has also proven that this caused damage to the property and that the level of methamphetamine residue in the kitchen justified decontamination of the entire premises.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted in full for the following amounts: a. Methamphetamine testing: $230.75 b. Decontamination: $2,781.11 FILING FEE & NAME SUPPRESSION
The landlord has been wholly successful with their claim and therefore, I must order the tenant to reimburse the landlord the filing fee.
The landlord did not seek name suppression for themself but requested it on behalf of the tenant.
I have a discretion to grant the tenant name suppression under section 95A(3) RTA. This section requires me to consider the interests of the parties and public. In Lewis v Wilson & Horton [2003] 3 NZLR 546 at paragraph 43, The Court of Appeal endorsed the approach taken in the High Court, which held: ...that the principle of open justice dictates that there should be no restriction on publication of information about a case ‘except in very special circumstances.’
The landlord claims the tenant may struggle to find a new tenancy if their name is published. This is because prospective landlords might search and find a copy of this order disclosing that the tenant has previously tenanted a property that required decontamination due to methamphetamine use. I find this to be a natural and ordinary consequence of the tenant’s actions. It is not exceptional or a very special circumstance. Further, there is a strong public interest in prospective landlords being able to access information that discloses whether prospective tenants have consumed methamphetamine or permitted someone at the address with their permission to consume methamphetamine. This is because methamphetamine consumption has the potential to seriously damage a property and the cost of decontamination is high.
I have considered the interests of the parties and the public interest. I do not consider that this is an appropriate case to grant name suppression to the tenant and I decline to do so.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5131750 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Flat 2, 112 Great South Road, Manurewa,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5131750 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Flat 2, 112 Great South Road, Manurewa,

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