There are a lot of numbers circulating about what meth contamination can cost a landlord. Most of them are quoted without a source, and several of the most common ones are attached to the wrong part of the Act entirely.

Here is what Schedule 1A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 actually sets, and what has to happen before any of it applies.

The $4,000 figure

Section 45(1AB) of the Act declares it an unlawful act for a landlord to contravene section45(1AAB), which covers providing premises, or continuing to provide premises, despite the landlord's knowledge of contamination.

Schedule 1A sets the maximum for that unlawful act at $4,000.

That is the meth contamination figure.

Source: Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1AB) and Schedule 1A.

The $7,200 figure

Section 45(1A) declares it an unlawful act for a landlord to fail to comply with paragraphs (a) to (ca) of section 45(1). Schedule 1A describes that as failing to meet obligations in respect of cleanliness, maintenance, smoke alarms, the healthy homes standards, or buildings, health, and safety requirements, and sets the maximum at $7,200.

That is a healthy homes and general obligations figure. It is real and it is serious. It is not the meth number, and it is quoted as the meth number constantly.

Source: Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A.

Neither figure is automatic

Section 109(3) sets the test. On an application for exemplary damages, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the person against whom the order is sought committed the unlawful act intentionally, and that having regard to that person's intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the party against whom it was committed, and the public interest, it would be just to require them to pay.

Section 109(4) confirms the maximum is the amount shown in column 3 of Schedule 1A for the relevant section.

A landlord who genuinely did not know, and who was not acting intentionally, is in a materially different position from one who knew and carried on anyway.

Source: Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 109(3) and 109(4).

The $50,000 figure

This is the most commonly misused number in the market.

Section 109B(1) provides that the Tribunal may make a pecuniary penalty order on the application of the chief executive. Not on the application of a tenant.

It applies only where, at the time of committing the unlawful act, the landlord was a landlord of six or more tenancies or a landlord of a boarding house, and only where the landlord intentionally committed the unlawful act.

The order requires the landlord to pay the amount to the Crown. Section 109C sets the maximum at $50,000.

So it is not a tenant remedy, it does not apply to most private landlords, and the money does not go to the tenant.

Source: Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 109B(1) and 109C.

When the obligation actually engages

Section 45(1AA)sets the precondition. It applies where the landlord knows that tests carried out in accordance with prescribed methods have established that the premises are contaminated, and the premises have not been decontaminated in accordance with the relevant prescribed decontamination process.

Where that applies, section 45(1AAB)(a) provides that if the premises have not yet been provided to the tenant, the landlord must not provide them until decontamination has been carried out under a relevant prescribed process. Section 45(1AAB)(b) provides that where the tenant has already been provided with the premises, the landlord may continue to provide them only if the premises are being decontaminated in accordance with a relevant prescribed process.

Source: Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 45(1AA) and 45(1AAB).

The protection almost nobody mentions

Section 45A(2) provides that a landlord who has complied with the contaminant regulations is not liable, under the Act, for not having provided the tenant with clean or habitable premises on the basis of the presence of the contaminant, during a period where a contaminant is present but the premises are either not contaminated, or are contaminated unknown to the landlord.

Section 45A(3) defines that knowledge narrowly. A landlord knows that premises are contaminated only if the landlord knows that tests carried out in accordance with a relevant prescribed method have established it.

That is a genuine statutory protection, and it is rarely mentioned by anyone selling testing services.

Source: Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45A(1), 45A(2) and 45A(3).

Why I am telling you the numbers are lower than you have been told

Because accuracy is the point. If I inflate the risk to sell a test, then everything else I tell you is worth less.

Every figure in this article carries the section it comes from, so you can check it against the legislation yourself rather than taking my word for it. That is how it should work for anything a compliance provider tells you.

The real reasons to test are evidence and cost recovery. Not fear of a penalty that in most cases will not apply.

Steve Hegh, NZ Healthy Homes. 021 132 4577.

This article is general information about New Zealand tenancylaw as at August 2026. It is not legal advice.

‍