Tenant Held Liable for Meth Contamination Found During Tenancy
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal ruled that the tenant was responsible for methamphetamine contamination found during their tenancy. The landlord argued that the contamination was due to methamphetamine use, while the tenant denied responsibility. The Tribunal sided with the landlord, finding the tenant liable for the damage.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is responsible for damage occurring during their tenancy if the landlord proves the damage was not fair wear and tear.
📖 Technical summary
The Tenancy Tribunal ruled that the tenant was responsible for methamphetamine contamination found during their tenancy.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal ruled that the tenant was responsible for methamphetamine contamination found during their tenancy. The landlord claimed the damage was due to methamphetamine use, while the tenant denied liability. The Tribunal accepted the landlord's claim based on the balance of probabilities.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5141169 1
[2025] NZTT 5141169, 5133371
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT INVERCARGILL | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA KI WAIHŌPAI
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. [NAME] must pay [NAME] As Agent For [NAME] $1,922.71 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
2. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,880.00 (3473116-010) to [NAME] As Agent For [NAME] immediately.
Description Landlord Tenant Insurance Excess $2,500.00 Meth testing/Cleaning $1,600.00 Filing fee reimbursement $27.00 Total award $4,127.00 Bond Rent overpayment refund
$1,880.00 324.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord $1,922.71
Reasons:
1. Both parties attended the hearing. [NAME] is the only tenant who signed the tenancy agreement as her son [NAME] was named but he did not sign
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5141169 2
the agreement. He was present in person at today’s hearing with [NAME] as he resided at the home with his mother.
2. The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
3. The landlord states that the house was immaculate at the end of the tenancy. That the tenants had been excellent tenants and there had been no issues throughout the tenancy.
4. The background to this case is that the tenants were given notice that the property was going on the market. As a result of the proposed sale testing was carried out at the property for Methamphetamine. The results were positive. Further extensive testing was carried out and some of the results were high. As a result, the tenants were issued with a seven day notice to terminate.
5. The landlords confirmed at today’s hearing that they seek the insurance excess for the clean up together with the costs to carry out the last testing as this was not covered by insurance.
6. The tenants claim that the contamination did not occur during their tenancy and as there was no pre tenancy testing this could not be blamed on them. They seek to have their rent re paid on the basis that they should not have been paying rent on a property that was not habitable. They also claim for the cost of the storage of their belongings as it was a significant task moving in a week where they had nowhere to go.
Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5141169 3
tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. The landlord claims that the damage is as a result of Methamphetamine use. They seek the costs of the insurance excess and final testing.
14. The tenancy commenced on 5 April 2022 and ended with the termination notice on the 31 October 2024. There was no base line testing carried out.
15. The tenants deny liability. [NAME] claims that this has happened before at a previous tenancy and testing should be done before the tenancy started to avoid this. He denied Meth use in the home. [NAME] also denied that there would have been use at the property as she has had whanau stay including sick whanau and she is not that type of person. She states she carries out drug testing for work.
16. [NAME] stated, and I accept, that this has been a very stressful and upsetting situation for her.
17. The evidence in relation to the testing is that there were high levels detected in some areas. However, the concerning areas were the smoke alarms that had been installed during the tenancy. [NAME] accepts that new ones were installed during the tenancy replacing old ones that were there. He submitted that the contamination could have been bought into the home on the smoke alarms with the person who installed them.
18. I must deal with the evidence on the balance of probabilities, that is, what is more likely to have occurred than not. The evidence is that new items were contaminated with high levels and that occurred during the tenancy. On the balance of probabilities, I cannot accept this was bought in by the smoke alarm installer.
19. Therefore, I accept the claim of the landlords.
20. The amounts ordered are proved.
21. [NAME] As Agent For [NAME] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5141169 4
22. In relation to the claim by the tenants, that the house was contaminated before they moved in and therefore should have a full rent refund is dismissed.
23. The tenants confirmed that they have had no issue with the property for the entire tenancy, some two and a half years. They paid their rent and increased rent when it was asked. There is nothing to suggest that the house caused any issues for them.
24. On this basis I have no option but to dismiss the claim.
[NAME]
02 April 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5141169 5
Please read carefully: Visit justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals for more information on rehearings and appeals.
Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has happened. For example: • you did not get the letter telling you the date of the hearing, or • the adjudicator improperly admitted or rejected evidence, or • new evidence, relating to the original application, has become available.
You must give reasons and evidence to support your application for a rehearing. A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. You must apply within five working days of the decision using the Application for Rehearing form: justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf
Right of Appeal Both the landlord and the tenant can file an appeal. You should file your appeal at the District Court where the original hearing took place. The cost for an appeal is $260. You must apply within 10 working days after the decision is issued using this Appeal to the District Court form: justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals
Grounds for an appeal You can appeal if you think the decision was wrong, but not because you don’t like the decision. For some cases, there’ll be no right to appeal. For example, you can’t appeal: • against an interim order • a final order for the payment of less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work worth less than $1000.
Enforcement Where the Tribunal made an order about money or property this is called a civil debt. The Ministry of Justice Collections Team can assist with enforcing civil debt. You can contact the collections team on [PHONE] or go to justice.govt.nz/fines/civil-debt for forms and information.
Notice to a party ordered to pay money or vacate premises, etc. Failure to comply with any order may result in substantial additional costs for enforcement. It may also involve being ordered to appear in the District Court for an examination of your means or seizure of your property.
If you require further help or information regarding this matter, visit tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing- decisions or phone Tenancy Services on [PHONE].
Mēna ka hiahia koe ki ētahi atu awhina, kōrero ranei mo tēnei take, haere ki tenei ipurangi tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, waea atu ki Ratonga Takirua ma runga [PHONE] ranei.
https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals/ https://www.justice.govt.nz/fines/about-civil-debt/ https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions http://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5141169 6
A manaomia nisi faamatalaga poo se fesoasoani, e uiga i lau mataupu, asiasi ifo le matou aupega tafailagi: tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, pe fesootai mai le Tenancy Services i le numera [PHONE].
Reasons:
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The landlord's claim for the insurance excess and final testing costs was accepted because the amounts were proven.
- The landlord's claim for the filing fee was reimbursed because they wholly succeeded with their claim.
- The contamination of new smoke alarms, installed during the tenancy, indicated that the methamphetamine use occurred during that period.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The tenant's argument that the house was uninhabitable was dismissed because they had no issues with the property for the entire tenancy.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The tenant was held responsible for methamphetamine contamination found during their tenancy.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the tenant was responsible for methamphetamine contamination found during their tenancy.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the tenant was responsible for the contamination, based on the balance of probabilities and the lack of baseline testing.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49B was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the balance of probabilities showing that the contamination occurred during the tenancy.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the tenant who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure thorough baseline testing before and during a tenancy to avoid such disputes.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence of high levels of contamination found during the tenancy and the absence of baseline testing mattered.