Tenant Ordered to Pay Meth Decontamination Costs
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the tenant to pay $1,253.74 for methamphetamine decontamination costs but did not award exemplary damages due to insufficient evidence.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant must pay for methamphetamine decontamination costs if contamination occurs during the tenancy.
📖 What the law says
This section outlines a tenant's responsibilities, which include paying rent on time, using the property mainly for living, keeping it reasonably clean and tidy, and notifying the landlord of any damage or repair needs. When moving out, the tenant must leave the property, remove their belongings, and leave it in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, free of rubbish.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the tenant to pay for methamphetamine decontamination costs but did not award exemplary damages.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the tenant to pay $1,253.74 for methamphetamine decontamination costs but did not award exemplary damages due to insufficient evidence.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5036131 1
[2025] NZTT 5036131
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT KAIKOHE | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA KI KAIKOHE
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. [NAME] must pay [COMPANY] (as agent for [COMPANY]) $1,253.74 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
Description Landlord Tenant Meth testing/Cleaning: Methamphetamine de- contamination
$2,500.00
Filing fee reimbursement $27.00 Balance of bond held by landlord $1,273.26 Total award $2,527.00 $1,273.26 Net award $1,253.74 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord $1,253.74
Reasons:
Background
1. The tenancy began on 19 October 2020 and ended on 27 August 2024.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5036131 2
2. The landlord’s application seeks methamphetamine de-contamination costs and exemplary damages (using the premises, or permitting them to be used, for an unlawful purpose).
3. The hearing took place by phone today, 27 March 2025. Both parties participated in the hearing. Ms [NAME] represented the landlord.
Methamphetamine evidence.
4. Ms [NAME] provided:
a. The results of a pre-tenancy composite methamphetamine test. The results are dated 29 September 2020. The samples were taken on 23 September 2020. The results show no detectable levels of methamphetamine on any of the samples.
b. The results of an end-of-tenancy composite methamphetamine test. The result was positive. The average amount of methamphetamine on the ten samples was 21.6 micrograms per 100cm2.
c. A detailed assessment report showing ‘room by room’ sample results. The report details the results of 19 samples taken from all over the property. All of the results are positive, at levels ranging from 0.1 micrograms to 37.6 micrograms.
De-contamination
5. Methamphetamine contamination, at levels that necessitate de-contamination of the premises, constitutes damage to the premises.
6. There is currently no level specified in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 as the ‘trigger’ for de-contamination.
7. The Tenancy Tribunal adopted the recommendations of the “Gluckman report”, which concluded that contamination at levels below 15 micrograms per 100m2 does not pose any threat to human health and does not necessitate de- contamination1.
8. In any damage claim:
a. The landlord must establish that the damage occurred during the period of the tenancy2.
1 This approach was affirmed by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Ltd v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 2 Section 49B(8) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”)
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5036131 3
b. Tenants are liable for damage that they cause, and they are also liable for damage caused by anyone who is at the premises with their consent3.
9. In this instance the methamphetamine evidence establishes that:
a. Methamphetamine contamination occurred during the tenancy.
b. The levels of contamination necessitated de-contamination of the premises.
10. The owner held insurance cover for methamphetamine de-contamination and testing costs, subject to an excess of $2,500.00. The premises have been de- contaminated. The claim against [NAME] seeks the amount of the insurance excess.
11. Although only parts of the property were contaminated at a level above 15 micrograms, the cost of testing and de-contamination of those areas would comfortably exceed the amount the claim.
12. The claim is proven.
Exemplary damages
13. It is an unlawful act for the tenant to use the premises, or to permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful activity4. The Tenancy Tribunal can award exemplary damages of up to $1,800.00 for that unlawful act.
14. Because exemplary damages are punitive, the Tribunal must be satisfied that there is personal responsibility on the tenant – either that she herself consumed methamphetamine at the premises or that she “permitted” someone else to consume it.
15. “Permitting” something includes knowing that it is happening, or is likely to happen, and turning a blind eye it. 5
16. [NAME] attended the hearing. [NAME] said that she was very shocked when Ms [NAME] informed her about the methamphetamine test result at the end of the tenancy. This is supported by Ms [NAME]’s recollection of that conversation.
17. Ms [NAME] said that in that conversation, [NAME] told her that she knew who had used methamphetamine at the premises, but she declined to say who that person was. [NAME] denied saying this. She said that Ms [NAME]’s phone call was very unexpected, and she was not sure what to think. She said that she initially suspected one person, a friend who stayed briefly at the
3 Section 41(1) RTA 4 Section 40(2)(b) RTA 5 [NAME] v [NAME] Corporation DC Porirua 28 June 2010
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5036131 4
premises, but after more thought she realised that the friend did not stay at the premises long enough to cause the amount of contamination shown in the results. [NAME] said that to this day she does not know who caused the contamination.
18. Although the Tenancy Tribunal applies the ‘civil’ standard of proof, which is “more likely than not” and not the higher criminal standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt”, where the issue before the Tribunal involves allegation of serious criminal activity it is appropriate for the Tribunal to require “strong evidence”6.
19. My finding is that in this instance there is insufficient evidence to establish that [NAME] caused or permitted methamphetamine use at the premises during the tenancy.
20. Therefore I will not make an award of exemplary damages.
Filing fee, bond
21. The bond of $1,600.00 was released to the landlord at the end of the tenancy.
22. From that amount, $326.73 has been applied to rubbish removal and water rates. The tenant does not dispute these costs. The balance of $1,273.26 is being held by [NAME] and can be applied to methamphetamine decontamination costs.
23. The landlord has been substantially successful in this application, and I will also award the landlord the filing fee.
24. Per the calculation above, [NAME] owes $1,253.74 over and above the bond.
[NAME]
27 March 2025
6 [COMPANY] v [COMPANY] & ors [2024] NZHC 2443
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5036131 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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5036131 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 proved that methamphetamine contamination occurred during the tenancy.
- The contamination levels required decontamination of the property.
- The tenant is liable for the insurance excess amount for decontamination costs.
- The landlord was mostly successful in their application and was awarded the filing fee.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The tenant was ordered to pay $1,253.74 for methamphetamine decontamination costs but did not receive exemplary damages.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the tenant should pay for methamphetamine decontamination costs and whether exemplary damages should be awarded.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the tenant must pay for decontamination costs because contamination occurred during the tenancy, but did not award exemplary damages due to insufficient evidence.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 49B(8) and 40(2)(b) were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the evidence of methamphetamine contamination during the tenancy and the lack of sufficient evidence to prove that the tenant caused or permitted the contamination.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the landlord, as the tenant was ordered to pay for decontamination costs.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure they have strong evidence to avoid paying for decontamination costs and receiving exemplary damages.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence of methamphetamine contamination tests and the lack of evidence linking the tenant to the contamination mattered.