What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5097872 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 5097872?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Re-Painting Walls (Discounted After…: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $152.01 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5097872?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5097872?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11941962-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5097872 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 5097872?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Re-Painting Walls (Discounted After…: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $152.01 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5097872?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5097872?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11941962-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

17A Aronui Terrace, Kelston, Auckland 0602 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5097872 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5097872. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates to end of tenancy (ordered by consent	$152.01	Water rates to end of tenancy (ordered by consent
Re-painting walls (discounted after taking into account betterment	$300.00	Re-painting walls (discounted after taking into account betterment
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Ms Goodrick.

On 5 December 2025 the landlord applied for water arrears, compensation, exemplary damages for unlawful use, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Yesterday, 29 May 2025, the tenant applied for refund of her bond, exemplary damages on various grounds and for overpayments of rent during the tenancy.

Both claims were heard and considered at the hearing. Landlord’s claim

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy was for a period of approximately five and a half years and ended on 18 November 2024. The landlord produced water rates invoices together with summaries at the hearing. The tenant agreed that the sum of $152.01 remains owing for water. The tenant said that she thought that she had overpaid rent which is why she did not make the final payments for water.

The order for payment of water arrears is made by consent. The tenant’s claim for overpaid rent is considered as part of her claim below.

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. Walls

The landlord said the tenant had made some minor repairs to various walls during the tenancy and that although she painted over the repairs, the paint did not match, leading to lighter patches on a number of walls. The landlord produced an ingoing inspection report and photos from the end of the tenancy showing the mismatched paint at the end of the tenancy. The newly painted areas appear significantly lighter than the original paint.

The landlord engaged a painter to repaint the walls with the original colour. The landlord produced an invoice in the amount of $520.00 for painting the walls.

The tenant accepted said that her son had accidentally made a hole in a bedroom wall and that she had repaired that wall. At the same time she noticed minor nicks and scrapes on other walls and so filled these and then painted over the repairs.

The tenant said that on reflection she probably did not have to fill in the minor nicks and scrapes on the other walls as they were likely fair wear and tear. She said she did her best to match the paint but accepted that the paint used was lighter than the original paint.

The tenant said that she had wanted to re-do the painting and had asked the landlord for the correct paint colour, but that the landlord went ahead and did the painting and then sent her the invoice.

I have reviewed all of the evidence and consider that the tenant has, albeit with the best of intentions, caused damage to a number of walls by painting various areas with much lighter paint. It is clear that the hole in the son’s bedroom required repair but there is now no way of knowing whether the other areas that the tenant repaired in fact required repair or whether the defects in those areas may have been fair wear and tear. However in my view that is not relevant, as the tenant has made the decision to go ahead with repairs and the landlord has suffered damage as a result.

I accept that the tenant wanted to do the re-painting herself but there is no obligation on a landlord to allow the tenant access to do repairs once the tenancy has ended.

I consider the cost of the re-painting by the landlord to be reasonable. The landlord has done no more than necessary. There is no indication that the landlord has painted additional walls.

However some discount should be applied as there has been some betterment. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. The landlord now has some freshly painted walls. This property was a new property only 7 years ago. It is fairly usual for landlords to repaint walls every 10 years or so, and so the landlord would have had to repaint these walls in the next few years.

Standing back, I consider that compensation of $300.00 to be appropriate in all the circumstances. Methamphetamine

The landlord did methamphetamine testing at the start of the tenancy and provided a copy of that report to the Tribunal. The report confirms that no presence of methamphetamine was detected at that stage.

The landlord did composite methamphetamine testing at the end of the tenancy. This composite testing returned an average result of 0.25 μg/100cm 2 . The theoretical maximum of any of the 10 sample locations was 2.5 μg/100cm 2 .

The second test returned splits sample results between 0.02 μg/100cm 2 and

41 μg/100cm 2 .

The landlord did not seek the cost of the first testing as they routinely test regardless, but seek the cost of the second test as the first test showed a theoretical maximum of 2.5 μg/100cm 2 . The cost of this test was $1,034.43.

The landlord said that they were concerned about having any levels of methamphetamine in the property.

Section 138C Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides for regulations to be made prescribing the maximum acceptable level for contaminants, but as yet no regulations have been made in relation to methamphetamine.

There are currently two sources of guidance on the issue of a safe level of methamphetamine contamination in residential premises. In June 2017 Standards New Zealand published NZS 8510:2017. The standard recommended a maximum contamination level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 for high use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture. It recommended a higher level of 3.8μg/100cm 2 for limited use areas.

In May 2018 Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the then Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor, released a report "Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards”. The report noted that there is a lack of scientific evidence to prove that low-level third-hand methamphetamine exposure poses a health risk to humans. It stated that guidelines should be proportionate to risk and that exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm 2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect. It recommended retaining the level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 where contamination resulted from manufacture, due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the process.

The District Court has held that remediation should be carried out in accordance with the prevailing guidelines at the time (Diamond Real Estate Limited v Allan [2017] NZDC 833, Judge Kellar).

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.

I accept that the landlord wanted to take a cautious approach for the safety of future tenants. However as the theoretical maximum level indicated in the composite test was well under the levels set out in the Gluckman Report, there was no need to do further testing. The tenant is not liable for the cost of the further testing. Exemplary damages – unlawful use

Udy Realty Limited As Agent For Paul Stewart claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by using the premises for the consumption of methamphetamine.

A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Methamphetamine is class A controlled drug and consumption is unlawful under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.

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) RTA).

If the tenant breaches their obligations under section 40(2)(b) RTA the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Exemplary damages are different from compensation. They are not intended to compensate the landlord. They are a financial penalty intended to punish and deter.

The landlord relies on the reports obtained at the end of the tenancy showing very low levels of methamphetamine contamination.

When questioned at the hearing whether there was any other evidence of methamphetamine use at the property (for example drug paraphernalia such as pipes or any unusual behaviour) the landlord confirmed that there was not.

The tenant strongly denied using methamphetamine at the premises. She said that she simply cannot understand how positive readings have been obtained. She said that she has questioned every person who stayed at the property over the duration of the five-year tenancy and they have all denied using methamphetamine. She said that her repeated questioning has led to at least one of her relationships breaking down.

The tenant said that she has no detailed knowledge of methamphetamine testing. She noted the very low levels found. She said that she buys her furniture and children’s toys second hand and wonders if this could have led to contamination. She said that tradespeople have attended at the property without her being present and she would not know if they had used methamphetamine. She said that is the only possible way that she can imagine any contamination entering her home.

Having considered all of the evidence I am not satisfied that the tenant either used methamphetamine in the premises herself or permitted another person to do so. While testing has revealed very low levels of methamphetamine, there were no signs of methamphetamine use at the property and no evidence that the tenant used or permitted the use of methamphetamine at the premises.

I consider it more likely that a guest of the tenant did so without her knowledge. The levels were very low and so I consider that the use was likely to be minimal and on limited occasions and may well not have been obvious to the tenant.

The landlord’s claim for exemplary damages is not proven and is dismissed 1 . Tenant’s claim Overpaid rent

The tenant said that the landlord had not taken into account that she paid two weeks rent in advance at the start of the tenancy and that there had been various overpayments made during the tenancy.

Ms Goodrick produced a rent summary for the landlord. This rent summary included all payments made during the tenancy and showed no rent owing (or owed) at the end of the tenancy.

At the hearing I went carefully through the landlord’s rent summary and the tenant’s spreadsheet with the parties. I am satisfied that the landlord’s rent summary is accurate. It includes all payments made by the tenant. I consider that there is confusion on the part of the tenant as to overpayment.

This claim is not proven and is dismissed. Exemplary damages

The tenant included a claim for exemplary damages in her applications on various grounds but none of these grounds were pursued or proved and I did not understand the tenant to be pursuing this claim at the hearing. Most of the grounds listed would not have supported a claim for exemplary damages in any event.

The claim for exemplary damages is not proven and is dismissed. 1 For completeness I note that “intention” is required for an award of exemplary damages to be made in any event. Filing fee and name suppression

The landlord has been the substantially successful party and so I have refunded the filing fee paid by the landlord.

The landlord did not seek an order for name suppression.

After some careful consideration I have exercised my discretion to suppress the tenant’s name and identifying details pursuant to section 95A(4) RTA on the basis that the tenant’s interests override the public interest in this case due to the serious allegations regarding methamphetamine use that were not proven to be by the tenant or permitted by her.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5097872. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates to end of tenancy (ordered by consent	$152.01	Water rates to end of tenancy (ordered by consent
Re-painting walls (discounted after taking into account betterment	$300.00	Re-painting walls (discounted after taking into account betterment
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement