A broker has successfully fought to claim methamphetamine decontamination costs on behalf of a landlord client that was landed with a $15,000 bill.

A ruling from the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) says the landlord’s tenant had moved out after experiencing abuse from her partner and locks were changed.

However, the tenant’s partner broke into the property on at least two occasions and caused “substantial damage” to the property.

The premises had been used for smoking methamphetamine, and AFCA says this “more likely than not” occurred when the partner broke into the property.

The landlord’s insurer, IAG, paid for malicious damage to the property but denied liability for the drug contamination, which would have cost $15,775 to deal with.

The complainant, represented by their broker, argued that the smoking fell under malicious damage or vandalism and/or deliberate or intentional damage, which were covered by the policy.

But the insurer says whoever smoked the methamphetamine was not intentionally damaging the property.

AFCA sided with the broker and complainant because it saw the smoking as part of the break-in, which was malicious.

“I am satisfied that the ex-partner’s breaking into the property and the damage that followed was motivated by malice and vindictiveness or spite,” AFCA said.

“The question arises as to whether the smoking of the amphetamine was part of that malicious damage or vandalism.

“Whilst I am satisfied that the ex-partner undertook the smoking of amphetamines whilst in the premises, I am also satisfied that his actions including destruction of the premises and the smoking had a wanton disregard for the outcome.

“His recklessness and his occupation and use of the property, on balance, including the use of methamphetamine led to the damage.

“On the information provided, I am satisfied that the damage is part of malicious damage or vandalism on the basis that the ex-partner had total disregard for the consequences of what he was doing in the premises.”

IAG has been ordered to pay the cost of the decontamination plus interest.

Click here for the full ruling.