What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5101050 about?

The tribunal order states: This order revokes and replaces the order issued on 14 March 2025 which

How much money was awarded in case 5101050?

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 5101050?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5101050?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11580651-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5101050 about?

The tribunal order states: This order revokes and replaces the order issued on 14 March 2025 which

How much money was awarded in case 5101050?

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 5101050?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5101050?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11580651-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5101050 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fees following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 10 November 2024. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing of $2,600.00 for rent arrears and $88.41 for water rates (usage) at the end of the tenancy.

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 the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord has provided several photographs and invoices for cleaning and rubbish removal ($860.00, $165.30, and $441.50), and exterior gardening work ($300.00).

The landlord was also required to temporarily connect the power to enable the cleaning work to be carried out. The landlord claims the reconnection costs of $70.00.

The tenant did not return the keys. The landlord was required to change the locks for the front door at a cost of $244.38 and has provided an invoice.

The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: large floor mat ($299.00 replacement), blue garage shelving ($394.00 replacement), an art print ($111.00 replacement), and a mirror ($75.00 replacement).

The landlord was required to replace these and has provided evidence of the replacement costs for each item as detailed above. Each of these items was estimated by the landlord to be less than two years old, however, they were not brand new, and some wear and tear would have been expected at the end of the tenancy. I have accordingly reduced the amounts ordered to reflect the estimated depreciation of each of the items.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.

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 landlord has claimed for damage that was caused both carelessly and intentionally at the property and has provided photographs that prove the damage occurred during the tenancy, together with invoices as evidence of the costs sought.

This damage included: a. A broken toilet seat that needed replacing at a cost of $28.49. b. An unapproved and installed deadbolt that needed removing, at a cost of $65.00. c. Removing unapproved shade sail poles at a cost of $65.00. d. Repairing dangerous rewiring by the tenant at a cost of $276.12. e. Repairing a damaged Clearlite panel due to the relocation of the shade sail by the tenant, at a cost of $400.30. f. Replacement of a damaged shade sail due to relocation of shade sail by the tenant, at a cost of $400.30.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered are proved.

I have considered betterment and depreciation in the final amounts awarded. 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. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Exemplary damages claim

The landlord claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by using methamphetamine at the property.

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.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Pursuant to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, it is unlawful for a person to use any controlled drug (section 7). Methamphetamine is included as a controlled drug in accordance with Schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Act. Therefore, using or allowing the premises to be used for the consumption of methamphetamine would be considered an unlawful purpose.

The tenancy commenced on 4 September 2024. The landlord has provided three methamphetamine detection reports. The first report dated 30 July 2024, prior to the tenancy commencing, shows an average result in a composite test of 0.09 μg/100cm2.

During the tenancy and due to concerns raised by neighbours, a further test was carried out and a report dated 9 October 2024 shows 2.2μg/100cm2 in an average over nine samples.

A post tenancy report with results from testing carried out on 15 November 2025 shows an average result of 3.8μg/100cm2, in an average over nine samples.

Although these results do not meet the decontamination level followed by the Tribunal (see Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947), I do find that it is more likely than not that the tenant, or others at the address during the tenancy, have unlawfully used methamphetamine at the property.

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The use of methamphetamine is an intentional unlawful act. There is a public interest in ensuring tenants do not engage in an unlawful activity and that properties are not contaminated with methamphetamine for future residents. Although the numbers are at the lower end, they have increased during what was a relatively short tenancy. I therefore find it just to award exemplary damages of $600.00 for this breach.

Because [The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with both claims I must reimburse both filing fees incurred. R Harvey-Lane 17 March 2025

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fees following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

The landlord was also required to temporarily connect the power to enable the cleaning work to be carried out. The landlord claims the reconnection costs of $70.00.

The tenant did not return the keys. The landlord was required to change the locks for the front door at a cost of $244.38 and has provided an invoice.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered are proved.

The landlord claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by using methamphetamine at the property.

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.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

During the tenancy and due to concerns raised by neighbours, a further test was carried out and a report dated 9 October 2024 shows 2.2μg/100cm2 in an average over nine samples.

A post tenancy report with results from testing carried out on 15 November 2025 shows an average result of 3.8μg/100cm2, in an average over nine samples.

Because [The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with both claims I must reimburse both filing fees incurred. R Harvey-Lane 17 March 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5101050 — Rent arrears

Tenancy Tribunal case 5101050 — Rent arrears

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?

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?