What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5243396?

The tribunal order states: Anna Edmonds, Cleopatra Elizabeth Lea Opetaia-Fa'alogo and Ruiha Uru

How much money was awarded in case 5243396?

Cleaning: $345.00 awarded to landlord; External Cladding: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $125.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,037.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5243396?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5243396?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12103409-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5243396?

The tribunal order states: Anna Edmonds, Cleopatra Elizabeth Lea Opetaia-Fa'alogo and Ruiha Uru

How much money was awarded in case 5243396?

Cleaning: $345.00 awarded to landlord; External Cladding: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $125.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,037.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5243396?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5243396?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12103409-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

74 Forest Hill Road, Henderson, Auckland 0612 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5243396 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

74 Forest Hill Road, Henderson, Auckland 0612 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5243396 — Rent arrears | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5243396 — net $1,734.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 18 February 2025	$1,037.86	Rent arrears to 18 February 2025
External cladding	$200.00	External cladding
Carpet Cleaning and flea treatment	$345.00	Carpet Cleaning and flea treatment
Carpet damage	$125.00	Carpet damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,734.86
Bond	$3,180.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,734.86

Claims and awards for application 5243396 — net $1,734.86 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 18 February 2025

Amount: $1,037.86
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 18 February 2025

External cladding

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: External cladding

Carpet Cleaning and flea treatment

Amount: $345.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning and flea treatment

Carpet damage

Amount: $125.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet damage

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $27.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears

Order

Anna Edmonds, Cleopatra Elizabeth Lea Opetaia-Fa'alogo and Ruiha Uru Waekamania Leef to pay Lumen Property Limited As Agent For Owner $1,734.86 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,180.00 (3180675-018) immediately apportioned as follows: Lumen Property Limited As Agent For Owner: $1,734.86 Anna Edmonds, Cleopatra Elizabeth Lea Opetaia-Fa'alogo and Ruiha Uru Waekamania Leef: $1,445.14

Reasons

The landlord and all three tenants attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Evidential burden
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 applicant), 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.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (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.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary damages
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded.
Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional. Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 18 February 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenants accepted they owed this amount.

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 tenants accepted that the carpet required professional cleaning and flea treatment as they had kept pets at the premise.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Are the tenants 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.
Damage to the external cladding at the left had side of the front entrance of the premise was caused during the tenancy. The damage appears to be from the tenants using excess force when moving the rubbish bins and therefore is defined as careless damage that is more than fair wear and tear. The tenants accepted liability for the damage.
There was frayed carpet at the entrance of two bedrooms, that the landlord says was likely from pets scratching the carpet on the stairs at the entrance t these two rooms. The landlord confirmed the carpet was around 10 years old. The Inland Revenue depreciation schedule (IR265) states the lifespan of carpet is 8 years and should be depreciated at around 13 percent per annum. I have therefore granted the landlord one quarter of the $500.00 claimed, being $125.00, as the $500.00 claimed was not the total cost of the carpet replacement.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have considered 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 considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Should the tenants be liable for the landlord’s methamphetamine testing costs?
On 5 December 2023, the landlord undertook a composite methamphetamine test that yielded composite testing for the entire premise of less than 1.5 μg.
The tenancy commenced on 26 January 2024 and ended on 18 February 2025.
The landlord says that when the tenants moved out, they undertook further methamphetamine testing. Initially a composite test was carried out that yielded two results, being: a. 2.74 μg for the foyer, bedrooms 1,2 and 3 and the open plan kitchen/dining/lounge; and b. 7.82 μg for the hallway, laundry, bathroom, bedroom 4 and ensuite 1.
The landlord then paid for each of these samples to be tested discretely on 24 April 2025. The test results showed that all rooms in the premise were still less than 1.5 μg, with the highest results being the kitchen at 1.09 μg/100cm 2 and the ensuite 1 at 5.75 μg/100cm 2.
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/100cm 2 for high use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture. It recommended a higher level of 3.8μg/100cm 2 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. 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.
Page 28 of the Gluckman report, looks at composite tests and notes: “Combining multiple samples taken throughout a dwelling into a single composite sample, as permitted in NZS 8510:2017, has limited value and cannot accurately reflect levels of risk, and depending on how the data are integrated can lead to quite misleading interpretation and false impressions of high exposure. This approach of composite analysis is promoted as a cost-effective option for initial screening, but it is in fact costly because it creates a bias towards detecting higher levels, and can falsely impose a requirement for further testing without identifying the areas (nor the actual levels) of potential contamination. Given the low health risk in properties that were not used as meth labs, if they are to be tested, the initial screening should not involve composite field testing that could produce a false positive result – that is, detecting a level of 1.5 μg/100 cm2 (or slightly above) from a composite field sample that adds the readings from all swabs together. Such field composite testing means that every sample can be below the standard, but when combined can raise the overall result, triggering another round of expensive testing”.
The composite and discrete test results for this premise are well below the Gluckman contamination level.
I also note, the first composite test was undertaken nearly a month prior to the tenancy commencing and the second set of composite and then discrete testing was undertaken 2 months after the tenancy ended. Therefore, I cannot be satisfied that the increased methamphetamine level found in ensuite 1 was caused by the tenants during the tenancy. Other persons could have accessed the premise during the month prior to and the two months post the tenancy. In addition, the property manager confirms that there was no signs that the tenants were using methamphetamine during the tenancy and the tenants deny using methamphetamine or allowing any guests to use methamphetamine in the premise.
I find that the landlord has not proven on the balance of probabilities that the tenants or persons in the premise with their consent during the tenancy caused the 5.76 μg/100 cm2 methamphetamine contamination in the ensuite. I therefore dismiss the landlord’s claim for reimbursement of the two testing costs for the 14 and 24 April 2025 testing. Reimbursement of filing fee
Because Lumen Property Limited As Agent For Owner has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5243396 — net $1,734.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 18 February 2025	$1,037.86	Rent arrears to 18 February 2025
External cladding	$200.00	External cladding
Carpet Cleaning and flea treatment	$345.00	Carpet Cleaning and flea treatment
Carpet damage	$125.00	Carpet damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,734.86
Bond	$3,180.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,734.86

Claims and awards for application 5243396 — net $1,734.86 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 18 February 2025

Amount: $1,037.86
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 18 February 2025

External cladding

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: External cladding

Carpet Cleaning and flea treatment

Amount: $345.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning and flea treatment

Carpet damage

Amount: $125.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet damage

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $27.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears

Order

Anna Edmonds, Cleopatra Elizabeth Lea Opetaia-Fa'alogo and Ruiha Uru Waekamania Leef to pay Lumen Property Limited As Agent For Owner $1,734.86 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,180.00 (3180675-018) immediately apportioned as follows: Lumen Property Limited As Agent For Owner: $1,734.86 Anna Edmonds, Cleopatra Elizabeth Lea Opetaia-Fa'alogo and Ruiha Uru Waekamania Leef: $1,445.14

Reasons

The landlord and all three tenants attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Evidential burden
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 applicant), 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.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (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.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary damages
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded.
Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional. Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 18 February 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenants accepted they owed this amount.

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 tenants accepted that the carpet required professional cleaning and flea treatment as they had kept pets at the premise.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Are the tenants 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.
Damage to the external cladding at the left had side of the front entrance of the premise was caused during the tenancy. The damage appears to be from the tenants using excess force when moving the rubbish bins and therefore is defined as careless damage that is more than fair wear and tear. The tenants accepted liability for the damage.
There was frayed carpet at the entrance of two bedrooms, that the landlord says was likely from pets scratching the carpet on the stairs at the entrance t these two rooms. The landlord confirmed the carpet was around 10 years old. The Inland Revenue depreciation schedule (IR265) states the lifespan of carpet is 8 years and should be depreciated at around 13 percent per annum. I have therefore granted the landlord one quarter of the $500.00 claimed, being $125.00, as the $500.00 claimed was not the total cost of the carpet replacement.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have considered 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 considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Should the tenants be liable for the landlord’s methamphetamine testing costs?
On 5 December 2023, the landlord undertook a composite methamphetamine test that yielded composite testing for the entire premise of less than 1.5 μg.
The tenancy commenced on 26 January 2024 and ended on 18 February 2025.
The landlord says that when the tenants moved out, they undertook further methamphetamine testing. Initially a composite test was carried out that yielded two results, being: a. 2.74 μg for the foyer, bedrooms 1,2 and 3 and the open plan kitchen/dining/lounge; and b. 7.82 μg for the hallway, laundry, bathroom, bedroom 4 and ensuite 1.
The landlord then paid for each of these samples to be tested discretely on 24 April 2025. The test results showed that all rooms in the premise were still less than 1.5 μg, with the highest results being the kitchen at 1.09 μg/100cm 2 and the ensuite 1 at 5.75 μg/100cm 2.
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/100cm 2 for high use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture. It recommended a higher level of 3.8μg/100cm 2 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. 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.
Page 28 of the Gluckman report, looks at composite tests and notes: “Combining multiple samples taken throughout a dwelling into a single composite sample, as permitted in NZS 8510:2017, has limited value and cannot accurately reflect levels of risk, and depending on how the data are integrated can lead to quite misleading interpretation and false impressions of high exposure. This approach of composite analysis is promoted as a cost-effective option for initial screening, but it is in fact costly because it creates a bias towards detecting higher levels, and can falsely impose a requirement for further testing without identifying the areas (nor the actual levels) of potential contamination. Given the low health risk in properties that were not used as meth labs, if they are to be tested, the initial screening should not involve composite field testing that could produce a false positive result – that is, detecting a level of 1.5 μg/100 cm2 (or slightly above) from a composite field sample that adds the readings from all swabs together. Such field composite testing means that every sample can be below the standard, but when combined can raise the overall result, triggering another round of expensive testing”.
The composite and discrete test results for this premise are well below the Gluckman contamination level.
I also note, the first composite test was undertaken nearly a month prior to the tenancy commencing and the second set of composite and then discrete testing was undertaken 2 months after the tenancy ended. Therefore, I cannot be satisfied that the increased methamphetamine level found in ensuite 1 was caused by the tenants during the tenancy. Other persons could have accessed the premise during the month prior to and the two months post the tenancy. In addition, the property manager confirms that there was no signs that the tenants were using methamphetamine during the tenancy and the tenants deny using methamphetamine or allowing any guests to use methamphetamine in the premise.
I find that the landlord has not proven on the balance of probabilities that the tenants or persons in the premise with their consent during the tenancy caused the 5.76 μg/100 cm2 methamphetamine contamination in the ensuite. I therefore dismiss the landlord’s claim for reimbursement of the two testing costs for the 14 and 24 April 2025 testing. Reimbursement of filing fee
Because Lumen Property Limited As Agent For Owner has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5243396 — Rent arrears at 74 Forest Hill Road, Henderson, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5243396 — Rent arrears at 74 Forest Hill Road, Henderson, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

How much is owed for rent?

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

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

How much is owed for rent?

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

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions