Tenant Partially Liable for Meth Contamination Cleanup Costs
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal ruled that the tenant was partially responsible for the costs of cleaning up methamphetamine contamination found after the tenancy ended. The landlord was awarded $3,349.50.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is liable for the costs of cleaning up methamphetamine contamination if proven to have occurred during the tenancy.
📖 What the law says
This rule states that a tenant must keep the rental property reasonably clean and tidy. When the tenancy ends, the tenant must leave the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and remove all rubbish.
This rule makes a tenant responsible for the actions of anyone they allow onto the property. If that person does something that would break the tenancy agreement, the tenant is held accountable for it.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The tenant is partially liable for methamphetamine contamination cleanup costs.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal ruled that the tenant was partially liable for the costs of cleaning up methamphetamine contamination discovered after the tenancy ended, awarding the landlord $3,349.50.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5060849 1
[2025] NZTT 5060849
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. [NAME] must pay [COMPANY] - As Agent For [NAME] $3,349.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
Description Landlord Tenant Meth testing/Cleaning: testing $402.50 Meth testing/Cleaning: 80% share of remediation costs $4,140.00 Filing fee reimbursement $27.00 Total award $4,569.50 Bond $1,220.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord $3,349.50
2. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,220.00 (5552209-004) to [COMPANY] - As Agent For [NAME] immediately.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5060849 2
Reasons:
1. Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant joined by preapproved teleconference.
2. The landlord has applied for compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
3. The landlord withdrew, post hearing, the $10,000 claim for internal repairs and replacement. This was due to the age of the furnishing or chattels being such that the landlord decided the loss, after depreciation and betterment considerations, would be negligible or nil.
4. This was a long tenancy from 3 August 2018 to 30 September 2024.
5. The claims follow the post-tenancy discovery of methamphetamine contamination.
Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?
6. 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.
Methamphetamine
7. The New Zealand Standard 8510:2017 Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine-contaminated properties (“NZS8510:2017”) provides industry guidance on good practice methods in the testing and clean-up of methamphetamine contamination in houses. NZS8510:2017 was released on 29 June 2017. The standard adopts a single level of 1.5μg/100cm² (1.5 micrograms of methamphetamine per 100 square centimetres of surface sampled) that ‘high use areas’ of affected properties should be decontaminated to, regardless of whether the properties were involved in the production or use of methamphetamine. Consider high use areas as those areas that can be easily accessed by the occupants.
8. On 29 May 2018, [NAME] (the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor at that time) determined that there was little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption (See ‘Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards’, 29 May 2018.
9. His report concluded that in the absence of other evidence of manufacture, any levels below 15μg/100cm² are highly unlikely to present adverse effects therefore there should be no need for remediation. Where there is evidence of
https://www.dpmc.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2021-10/pmcsa-Methamphetamine-contamination-in-residential-properties.pdf https://www.dpmc.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2021-10/pmcsa-Methamphetamine-contamination-in-residential-properties.pdf
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5060849 3
manufacture the NZS8510:2017 standard is appropriate (noting there is no suggestion of manufacturing during this tenancy).
10. In 2019 there was a judgement in the District Court which dismissed an appeal after the Tribunal adopted the [NAME] to determine whether the tenant had caused damage to the premises or permitted any other person to do so (Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947).
11. Finally, I consider further validating are the 2019 comments of the Court of Appeal in Smith v Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited [2019] NZCA 38 where, in paragraph [16], with reference to the [NAME], the decision stated: “We acknowledge that the testing in this case yielded results now considered not to raise any health and safety concerns.”
Was there a need to decontaminate/clean?
12. The premises was tested for methamphetamine 18 May 2018, prior to the tenancy commencing. No methamphetamine was detected at that time. The gap between the test and this tenancy commencing was 4-5 weeks and the tenant understandably questions whether methamphetamine might have been introduced during this period. The landlord advised the premises was secured and the key with it during this period.
13. The tenancy ended.
14. A composite test on 10 October 2024 reported a theoretical maximum contamination of 58μg based on the samples taken. This is above the level considered safe in the [NAME], and by this Tribunal. The landlord conducted a comprehensive test on or around 29 October 2024. This found contamination in bedroom 1, lounge and bedroom 2. Of those rooms, only bedroom 2, at 33μg/100cm² was above the 15μg baseline adopted by this Tribunal. The tenant was informed and wanted to arrange his own testing as he was struggling to comprehend such a result. His test was conducted on 25 October 2024 and the results provided on 30 October 2024. The result reflected the earlier finding but assessed the lounge contamination as 29.9μg (the prior test recorded 12.3μg). The costs of the comprehensive test ($402.50), heat pump replacement ($3,000.00) and the deep clean ($5,175.00) were sought as compensation orders.
15. Section 40(1)(e) (iii) of the RTA requires the tenant to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. Section 41 assigns the tenant the responsibility for the actions of others.
16. I find the landlord has been able to prove some of the costs incurred should be assigned to the tenant.
17. In this instance, I have assessed the contaminated areas of tenant liability at 80%, based on the estimated square metreage for the bedroom and lounge
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5060849 4
versus the total area decontaminated, I award $4,140.00 of the cost incurred by the landlord. I also award the testing cost of $402.50.
18. The claim for the heat pump replacement of an estimated $3,000.00 is declined. The remediation strategy was for a clean and retest of the heat pump. This was not done. It appears accepted the heat pump was old and a replacement of it a more prudent option rather than further investment in the old one. Given that, I leave the replacement cost with the landlord.
Were the premises used unlawfully?
19. The landlord claimed the tenant had used the premises unlawfully, by using an unlawful drug, namely methamphetamine or allowed someone else to use methamphetamine on the premises. See the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
20. If the tenant had used in the premises, or permitted to be used, methamphetamine in the premises during the tenancy. That would be in breach of s 40(2)(b), RTA as it is unlawful to use premises, or allow them to be used, for the purpose of consuming methamphetamine which is a class A controlled drug (s 3A, 7(1)(a) and Schedule 1 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975). Section 40(3A)(c) of the Act provides that failure to comply with this is an unlawful act.
21. Schedule 1A of the Act provides that the maximum award of exemplary damages for such an act is $1,800.
22. Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
23. I do not consider this act has been performed or permitted by the tenant. The requirement of intention is about whether a party intended to do what they did or did not do ([NAME] v [NAME] TT 1815/00, DC Auckland 1/5/2001).
24. From the evidence presented I consider it more likely than not the tenant was unaware of the methamphetamine use and subsequent contamination as later discovered. From the submissions, it was more likely a legacy of a [NAME] staying for an extended period. I make in this determination a consideration of the actions of the tenant subsequent to the test results being reported. His work involved time away from the premises. He incurred a cost of testing himself to reassure himself the landlord results were accurate. He provided his test results and they have increased his liability due to the higher lounge reading in his report. I believe he has acted in a manner consistent with someone surprised by the results. He engaged genuinely in the hearing.
25. I dismiss the claim for exemplary damages.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5060849 5
Filing fee
26. [COMPANY] - As Agent For [NAME] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
[NAME]
24 March 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5060849 6
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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5060849 7
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: Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The landlord proved that methamphetamine contamination occurred during the tenancy, exceeding the safe level.
- The landlord provided evidence of testing prior to the tenancy showing no contamination.
- The landlord provided evidence of post-tenancy testing showing contamination in specific rooms.
- The tenant is liable for 80% of the remediation costs based on the contaminated areas.
- The landlord was reimbursed the filing fee because they substantially succeeded with their claim.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The landlord's claim for internal repairs and replacement was withdrawn due to the age of the items.
- The landlord's claim for the heat pump replacement was declined because a clean and retest was not done.
- The landlord's claim for exemplary damages was dismissed as there was no proof the tenant intentionally used or permitted methamphetamine use.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The tenant was found partially liable for the costs of cleaning up methamphetamine contamination discovered after the tenancy ended.
What was the dispute about?
The landlord claimed the tenant was responsible for the costs of cleaning up methamphetamine contamination found after the tenancy ended.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided the tenant was partially liable because the contamination was above the safe threshold and occurred during the tenancy.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 40(2)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 41
What was the argument that mattered most?
The landlord proved the contamination occurred during the tenancy and was above the safe threshold.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the landlord.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation could be held partially liable for cleanup costs if contamination occurs during their tenancy.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence included contamination test results and the landlord's cleanup costs.