Auckland tenant admits causing meth contamination but doesn’t have to pay for items thrown away

Testing and decontaminating an Auckland rental unit cost more than $16,000.

A tenant who caused tens of thousands of dollars to a furnished rental property through his methamphetamine use will not have to pay for all the items that had to be thrown out.

After two Tenancy Tribunal decisions in the case, the tenant has had to pay only $3270 in insurance excesses.

But the landlord’s agent says contaminated chattels, which had to be thrown away, were not fully covered by insurance, leaving them out of pocket by $18,000.

The tribunal says it won’t make the tenant pay for this.

The New Zealand Property Investors Federation public relations and advocacy manager, Matt Ball, said the tribunal’s latest decision in the case was “really unfair”.

“It sends a terrible message to tenants. It’s essentially saying that you can destroy someone else’s property and just walk away,” he said.

New Zealand Property Investors Federation advocacy manager Matt Ball says the Tenancy Tribunal decision is unfair and sends a "terrible message" to tenants. Photo / NZME

The tenant, who cannot be named for legal reasons, took on the furnished Herne Bay, Auckland apartment in April 2021.

He moved out in July 2023. Tests subsequently found methamphetamine contamination many times above levels considered unsafe for human health.

Tenant accepts he caused contamination

The tenant accepted that his actions had caused the contamination when he appeared before the tribunal.

The tribunal’s decisions did not specify whether he had been the subject of any criminal case regarding the illegal Class A drug.

The landlord’s agent, Goodwin Realty, said insurance policies covered claims up to a maximum of $15,000, which was “far below” the actual cost of replacing the large number of items that had to be thrown away as a result of the contamination.

The agent estimated the replacement value of the contaminated chattels amounted to an extra $18,000.

However, the unit’s contents had been bought between 2019 and 2020, meaning that by the end of the tenancy, almost all of it was more than three years old.

‘No residual value’

The tribunal found, referring to Inland Revenue’s depreciation guide, that items such as linen, bedding, crockery and cutlery had depreciated to the point where they had “no residual value” after three years.

The chattels that did have value, including an ironing board, a dish rack, a knife block, a couch, two armchairs, three lamps, the rangehood, a mattress and internal shutters and curtains, were now worth a total of $10,836, the tribunal determined.

The tenant accepted that his conduct had caused the methamphetamine contamination. Photo / NZME

This was below the amount that the landlord’s insurance had already agreed to pay out.

“I am not persuaded that I should order [the tenant] to make any further payment to the landlord,” tribunal member Christian Lamdin said.

He also said that the tenant’s bond had been released to the man before the inspections had been finalised.

Contamination ‘very high’

There are currently two measures that determine the “safe” level of methamphetamine contamination in residential premises.

In 2017, Standards New Zealand set the level at 1.5 micrograms per 100sq cm in high-use areas.

However, in 2018, the then Prime Minister’s Chief Science Adviser, Peter Gluckman, reported there was a lack of scientific evidence to prove exposure posed a health risk below 15 micrograms.

Testing in the Herne Bay house showed what the tribunal said was a “very high level” of contamination.

These included a level of 49.0 micrograms in a kitchen extractor fan, 109 on the lounge ceiling, 69 on a bedroom ceiling and 195 on a bathroom door.

Methamphetamine testing cost the landlord $8658 and decontamination costs were $8123.

These expenses were covered by insurance.

The landlord also claimed an unspecified amount for lost rent during the time the unit was being decontaminated.

Matt Ball of the Property Investors Federation said the tribunal had said a landlord should not be left better or worse off by its decisions.

However, he said this decision resulted in the landlord being left thousands of dollars out of pocket.

“The tribunal’s error is in assuming that an asset’s tax value and its useful life are the same thing, when they are clearly not.

“As an example, crockery is depreciated over three years, but if well cared for can last many lifetimes.”

Ball said the federation had raised this matter with the tribunal to seek clarification and ideally a change in the way damage was evaluated.

“If necessary, we will take this up with Associate Housing Minister Tama Potaka, as we feel very strongly that a deep unfairness has been established in the system and it needs to change,” he said.

“Our advice to investors, especially those providing fully furnished homes as in this case, is to bear this decision in mind when deciding what chattels to provide and when setting rents.

“Ensure your rent is set at a level that covers the cost of your chattels in a reasonable time, so that if the worst happens your losses are minimised or even fully covered,” he added.

Ric Stevens spent many years working for the former New Zealand Press Association news agency, including as a political reporter at Parliament, before holding senior positions at various daily newspapers. He joined NZME’s Open Justice team in 2022 and is based in Hawke’s Bay. His writing in the crime and justice sphere is informed by four years of frontline experience as a probation officer.