What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5371922?

The tribunal order states: Penelope Holland must pay Complete Property Management Limited As Agent

How much money was awarded in case 5371922?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing: $3,310.61 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $329.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $283.87 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $697.70 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5371922?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5371922?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13232604-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5371922?

The tribunal order states: Penelope Holland must pay Complete Property Management Limited As Agent

How much money was awarded in case 5371922?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing: $3,310.61 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $329.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $283.87 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $697.70 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5371922?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5371922?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13232604-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

306A Karaka Road, Thames, Thames 3500 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5371922 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5371922 — net $4,649.18 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$329.00	Lock/key replacement
Meth testing	$3,310.61	Meth testing
Window repairs	$283.87	Window repairs
Replacement of meth contaminated door	$697.70	Replacement of meth contaminated door
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,649.18
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,649.18

Only the applicant landlord attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation 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 did not return the keys.

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.

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.

A ranch slider window was broken. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage, which the landlord submits is likely caused by kicking.

The amount ordered is proved. Tenant’s liability for meth contamination?

The balance of the landlord’s claim is in relation to a meth contamination discovered at the property shortly after the tenancy ended.

The evidence establishes (pre tenancy meth testing) that the property was free of meth at the commencement of the tenancy.

Routine composite meth testing at the end of the tenancy confirmed that meth contamination was likely. Detailed testing then confirmed that the entry door was contaminated to a level of 15.7μg/100cm2. Five other tests were above

5μg/100cm2 but less than 15μg/100cm2.

The landlord claims for decontamination of all areas and the testing costs.

As it is likely the meth contamination occurred during the tenancy. The cost of the testing is awarded in full.

The issue then arises as to whether decontamination was required in all areas or whether it was only necessary to decontaminate the front door?

The answer to that question will determine the compensation that can be awarded and depend on the level at which decontamination is required.

In following the relevant Tribunal and District Court decisions I find that damage occurs, and decontamination is necessary only when levels of methamphetamine contamination are above 15μg/100cm2 which is the level adopted by the authors of what is colloquially known as the Gluckman report dated 29 May 2018.

The report concluded that there is no evidence of risk of harm from second or third hand exposure to methamphetamine residue measured at or less than 15μg/100cm2unless there is evidence to suggest that the premises have been used for manufacture.

The Court has therefore held that the previously used New Zealand Standard NZS 8510:20173 (NZS) which recommended decontamination at a level of

5μg/100cm2 was a guideline only and not regulatory. See Full Circle Real Estate v Piper and Acme Realty Ltd v Alexander James Hogg, Tuitui Grace Polotu, Leigh Sharyn Coughlin [2021] NZDC 3231) and Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947).

The Court findings were made in the face of significant opposition from the landlords appealing the Tribunal’s decisions on the grounds that the NZ standards were referred to on the Tenancy Services website and that companies involved in decontaminating premises were recommending the lower level in the NZ Standards be adopted.

It is relevant to also note that the 15μg/100cm2 level recommended by the Gluckman report has now been enacted into Regulations effective from April 2026. The Regulations confirm that a rental property will be deemed contaminated only if methamphetamine residue exceeds 15μg/100cm² and must be decontaminated to or below that level only.

Decontamination is not therefore required for low level methamphetamine levels below the 15μg.

The claim for the cost of replacement of the entry door is proven by the invoice provided and awarded.

I however dismiss the landlord’s claim for decontamination of all other effected areas.

Because Complete Property Management Limited As Agent For Simon Todd has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5371922 — net $4,649.18 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$329.00	Lock/key replacement
Meth testing	$3,310.61	Meth testing
Window repairs	$283.87	Window repairs
Replacement of meth contaminated door	$697.70	Replacement of meth contaminated door
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,649.18
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,649.18

Order

Penelope Holland must pay Complete Property Management Limited As Agent For Simon Todd $4,649.18 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Only the applicant landlord attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation 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 did not return the keys.
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.
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.
A ranch slider window was broken. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage, which the landlord submits is likely caused by kicking.
The amount ordered is proved. Tenant’s liability for meth contamination?
The balance of the landlord’s claim is in relation to a meth contamination discovered at the property shortly after the tenancy ended.
The evidence establishes (pre tenancy meth testing) that the property was free of meth at the commencement of the tenancy.
Routine composite meth testing at the end of the tenancy confirmed that meth contamination was likely. Detailed testing then confirmed that the entry door was contaminated to a level of 15.7μg/100cm2. Five other tests were above
5μg/100cm2 but less than 15μg/100cm2.
The landlord claims for decontamination of all areas and the testing costs.
As it is likely the meth contamination occurred during the tenancy. The cost of the testing is awarded in full.
The issue then arises as to whether decontamination was required in all areas or whether it was only necessary to decontaminate the front door?
The answer to that question will determine the compensation that can be awarded and depend on the level at which decontamination is required.
In following the relevant Tribunal and District Court decisions I find that damage occurs, and decontamination is necessary only when levels of methamphetamine contamination are above 15μg/100cm2 which is the level adopted by the authors of what is colloquially known as the Gluckman report dated 29 May 2018.
The report concluded that there is no evidence of risk of harm from second or third hand exposure to methamphetamine residue measured at or less than 15μg/100cm2unless there is evidence to suggest that the premises have been used for manufacture.
The Court has therefore held that the previously used New Zealand Standard NZS 8510:20173 (NZS) which recommended decontamination at a level of
5μg/100cm2 was a guideline only and not regulatory. See Full Circle Real Estate v Piper and Acme Realty Ltd v Alexander James Hogg, Tuitui Grace Polotu, Leigh Sharyn Coughlin [2021] NZDC 3231) and Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947).
The Court findings were made in the face of significant opposition from the landlords appealing the Tribunal’s decisions on the grounds that the NZ standards were referred to on the Tenancy Services website and that companies involved in decontaminating premises were recommending the lower level in the NZ Standards be adopted.
It is relevant to also note that the 15μg/100cm2 level recommended by the Gluckman report has now been enacted into Regulations effective from April 2026. The Regulations confirm that a rental property will be deemed contaminated only if methamphetamine residue exceeds 15μg/100cm² and must be decontaminated to or below that level only.
Decontamination is not therefore required for low level methamphetamine levels below the 15μg.
The claim for the cost of replacement of the entry door is proven by the invoice provided and awarded.
I however dismiss the landlord’s claim for decontamination of all other effected areas.
Because Complete Property Management Limited As Agent For Simon Todd has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5371922 — Property damage at 306A Karaka Road, Thames, Thames 3500

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5371922 — Property damage at 306A Karaka Road, Thames, Thames 3500

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?

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions