What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4983508 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4983508?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4983508?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4983508?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11361000-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4983508 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4983508?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4983508?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4983508?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11361000-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

6 Fairdale Avenue, Red Hill, Papakura 2110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4983508 — Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Nikki Manuera and Nathan Katipa must pay [The landlord/s] $23,597.64 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The previous monetary orders in the order dated 20 September 2025 are incorporated into this order and may not be enforced.

Reasons

This was the last of three hearings via teleconference. The landlord attended this hearing but the calls to the tenants went unanswered.
The tenants failed to attend the first hearing. That resulted in an order for termination, rent arrears (as at that date) and the release of the bond to the landlord (order dated 20 September 2024). Those orders are included in this order.
The tenants did attend the second hearing, on 25 November 2024. They accepted the revised rent arrears and water rates owing as at that date (the final read was yet to complete). However, the vacate date was later extended for the tenants benefit and the landlord was yet to finalise the compensation claims. Supporting evidence of the landlord was provided late and it was necessary to adjourn to this final hearing to conclude the landlord claims and allow the tenants further time to receive and consider the vacated claims and evidence.
The landlord had applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
This tenancy commenced 30 April 2022. The owners had purchased the property at the end of 2021.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 22 October 2024 after a mutually agreed extension after termination effective 20 September 2024. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The water rates was revised to include the final invoice. The landlord had included the full invoice cost in the claim. This meant a daily fixed charge was included. That is a cost that stays with the landlord. This was explained to the landlord and the daily rate, multiplied by the billing date range, established a discount to the final water rates awarded. The amount is this order reflects the discount.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave all of the premises reasonably clean and tidy. A large amount of rubbish and abandoned items remained. The lawns required mowing and the gardens needed attention to bring them back to a reasonable standard.
Some of the items requiring disposal do appear to have been put into discrete piles, others into bags. That made removal easier but the volume and related cost was still significant. There was also large amount of paint containers and aerosol cans that required disposal. The invoice (inclusive of the lawn and garden work) included a repair to a fence and removal of a roof/pergola. Neither were due to tenant liability.
The invoice total of $5,620.00 is reduced to the line items of proven tenant liability, totalling $4,220.00. Photos provided before and after the tenancy support the cost as ordered.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Front door badly scratched, b. Carpet badly stained in multiple places, c. Walls with badly patched repairs, d. Three broken or cracked windows, and e. Bedroom cabinetry broken.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The problem with any compensation award for the above damage is the landlord has not actioned the repairs. This is due to a decision to sell the property “as is”. The landlord cited a lack of funds as a driver for this approach.
No insurance cover was available for the damage.
The landlord sought $4000.00 total compensation for the damage. No details were provided in support of that estimate. Given the lack of actual repairs or realised loss, I have made a provisional award of $2,000.00. Some financial recognition and accountability for the damage caused by the tenants, as evidenced in the photos, is appropriate. The impact of the remaining damage on any successful sale price is easily considered greater than the provisional sum awarded, even allowing for any depreciation. If the premises does not sell, the amount can be used towards actual repairs as made.

Was the premises methamphetamine contaminated?

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.
On 29 May 2018, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman (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.
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 manufacture the NZS8510:2017 standard is appropriate (noting there is no suggestion of manufacturing during this tenancy).
The Tribunal has generally applied the Gluckman recommendation. This approach was approved by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947, where the Court stated (at para [36]): The Tenancy Tribunal was in a difficult position. The best state of knowledge of risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination available to the adjudicator was the Gluckman Report. It would have been bold for the adjudicator to have ignored that report in favour of the New Zealand Standard given that the Gluckman report represents the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination in dwellings.
The District Court took a similar approach in Acme Realty Limited v Hogg and others [2021] NZDC 3231, where the Court referred to the Full Circle case and held that, because NZS 8510:2017 has not been adopted into law, the Tribunal was not bound to apply the 1.5μg standard.
More recently, in Barfoot and Thompson Limited v Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited [2021] NZTT Auckland 4276319, both parties presented scientific evidence at a hearing before the Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that there was no new scientific research to change the conclusions reached in the Gluckman Report.

Was there a need to decontaminate/clean?

No methamphetamine testing was conducted before the tenancy. Provision for this was made in the tenancy agreement as drafted by the property manager and signed but no subsequent test was conducted. The current landlord advised she was unaware at the time of the purchase and was uncertain if her then husband declined a test, or if one was never proposed at that time.
During the tenancy police considered the premises as a location of interest and conducted a warrantless search on 30 August 2023. That search located several stolen items and some drug utensils along with small amounts of cannabis (leaf and oil).
A composite test was conducted on 26 January 2024. The landlord reported it as “positive”. The testing followed a number of neighbour reports regarding what they considered activities at the property. The landlord discussed the result with one tenant and the landlord stated she was told by that tenant that a relation “was using methamphetamine with her friends” while staying. An email between them (March 2024), and provided in support, is inconclusive regarding such a statement. That same email evidenced the need and intention of the landlord to sell the premises.
The composite result was summarised in a report as:
The landlord received a quote for remediation of $27,640.25. That was dated 2 July 2024 and only referenced the composite results above. No detailed testing results were provided. The remediation, like the repairs above, has not been done. The premises has been marketed for sale.
Based on the evidence provided, it is uncertain to what extent and to where any remediation should occur.

The question of whether premises were contaminated with methamphetamine during a tenancy and where no pre-tenancy inspection conducted has been considered on appeal. The District Court confirmed in such an absence a high level of evidence would be required, pointing toward the absence of a pre- tenancy inspection as being determinative (refer Eren Limited v Martin and Kukuruzsnayak [2021] NZDC 15210 and Brooking and Hodges v Imrie [2021] NZDC 16976).
The police report does not identify any methamphetamine related discovery that establishes use or manufacturing at the premises. The landlord recounted tenant conversation and a possible admission of a relation consuming methamphetamine at one stage is not considered sufficiently proven to overcome the onus on the landlord to establish no pre-existing contamination in such claims.
I make no orders for any methamphetamine related costs. Filing fee
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The landlord requested suppression in its application. As it has been substantially successful, name suppression is ordered. Given the current state of the premises, it is appropriate to leave the address as public record. Future occupants are entitled to be know the current state and ensure appropriate decontamination has occurred, as required.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4983508 — Rent arrears at 6 Fairdale Avenue, Red Hill, Papakura 2110

Tenancy Tribunal case 4983508 — Rent arrears at 6 Fairdale Avenue, Red Hill, Papakura 2110

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Was the premises methamphetamine contaminated?

Was there a need to decontaminate/clean?

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Was the premises methamphetamine contaminated?

Was there a need to decontaminate/clean?

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Was the premises methamphetamine contaminated?

Was there a need to decontaminate/clean?

Are the tenants liable for related costs?

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Was the premises methamphetamine contaminated?

Was there a need to decontaminate/clean?

Are the tenants liable for related costs?