What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5195454 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 5195454?

Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $7,500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $270.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $753.95 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $557.15 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5195454?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5195454?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11973747-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5195454 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 5195454?

Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $7,500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $270.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $753.95 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $557.15 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5195454?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5195454?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11973747-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

50 Beatty Road, Pukekohe, Pukekohe 2120 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5195454 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5195454 — net $7,588.10 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 23/02/25	$270.00	Rent arrears to 23/02/25
Water rates	$557.15	Water rates
Insurance excess	$7,500.00	Insurance excess
Rubbish removal	$753.95	Rubbish removal
Exemplary damages - unlawful use	$1,000.00	Exemplary damages - unlawful use
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,588.10
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,588.10

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Marlene Hose must pay [The landlord/s] $7,588.10 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended today’s hearing; the tenant did not attend. The tenant has been served both by post and by email and therefore I have proceeded in her absence.
The tenancy was for one year. During the tenancy the property was managed by [The property management company]. The house is an older style brick home on a large corner section.
The property was in good condition at the beginning of the tenancy.
The property manager says that the tenant was a good tenant at the beginning of the tenancy, the home was kept relatively clean and at the last inspection in October 2024, there was no damage noted. Rent was paid on time every week directly from MSD.
Since the October 2024 inspection the neighbours had reported issues at the property and the tenant had erected black cloth or polyurethane around the fences so the property could not be viewed from the road.
Many of these issues coincided with the tenant’s boyfriend moving into the property.
On or about the 10 February this year the Pukekohe Police informed the property manager and the landlord that the Police had arrested the tenant and when they had gone to the property and found the property extensively damaged and known gang members living at the property.
As a result of that notification the property managers gave notice of an inspection at the property the following day. When the property managers went to the property the following day, no one was home, but relatives of the tenant came to the property and gave access. The property managers found the house extensively damaged with multiple holes in the walls, doors and the door lock was missing completely. Windows, lights and cabinet doors were broken. Some of the holes someone had attempted to repair but they were poorly repaired. The property manager took photographs of the property, and those photographs show damage to almost every wall or surface. The property manager said today “ There probably was a wall that didn’t have a hole in it- or a door.”
The tenant was due to move out on the 23 February as a 90-day notice had been given by the landlord, that the landlord required possession at the end of the fixed term.
Given the condition of the property the landlord had the property tested for methamphetamine contamination. The property had been tested before the tenancy began on the 11 January 2024. The testing that took place on the 13 February 2025 was completed by the same company and the same technician who did the pre tenancy testing and the testing samples were taken from almost identical areas as the pre tenancy testing. The composite and detailed testing on the 13 February 2025 showed much higher levels of methamphetamine than were present in the 11 January 2024 tests. On the door in the lounge the results were 15.3
As a result of the damage to the walls, doors and lights, and the methamphetamine contamination results the landlord made an insurance claim to repair the damage. The insurance company dealt with the claims for both methamphetamine and the holes in walls, broken doors, windows and light fittings as part of the same claim. They approved the claim on the basis that the landlord pay the excess of $750 per room (x10) which the landlord accepted.
The landlord seeks: a. The rent to 23 February 2025. b. Water rates owing $ 557.15. c. The insurance excess of $7500.00 d. Exemplary damages for unlawful use of the premises e. Costs rubbish removal $753.95 f. The filing fee.
The landlord has provided a rent ledger to the Tribunal that shows that rent was paid up until the 20 February. The tenant is liable for 3 days rent of $270.00
The landlord provided the water rates ledger and invoice. The amount claimed is proven.

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. Whilst the tenant’s relatives removed most of the belongings, the items that they did not want were left behind and the landlord had to remove them and dispose of them. The belongings were not of any value.
The landlord provided a detailed invoice for this rubbish removal and the amount ordered is proven.

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.
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.
I am satisfied that the tenant or people at the property with the tenant’s consent caused the holes in the walls, doors, cabinetry, light fittings and broke the window. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The damage is in every room for which the landlord paid an insurance excess, therefore I award the landlord the insurance excess of $7500.00.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. 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. Methamphetamine
The insurance claim covered both the remediation costs for the damage to the property (holes etc) and the damage caused by methamphetamine contamination. As I have already found that the tenant is liable for the insurance excess because of the physical damage to the property holes in walls etc, then I do not need to consider the claim for compensation for methamphetamine. I note that the level of contamination in the lounge would have required decontamination of that area.
The landlord seeks exemplary damages pursuant to s40 (3AC) RTA. Exemplary damages of up to $1800.00 can be awarded under this section if the landlord proves that there is a breach of s40(2)(b) of the RTA which provides the tenant shall not use the premises, or permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose.
I am satisfied that the tenant or her invitees used methamphetamine in the premises which is an unlawful activity. 1 I say this for the following reasons: a. The property was tested shortly before the tenancy and straight after. The test areas were in similar locations and conducted by the same company. The tests results show a marked increase in the level of methamphetamine contamination in almost every area of the house. b. The increase in levels of methamphetamine contamination is consistent with prolonged and numerous uses of methamphetamine. For example, the 1 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. increase of levels in bedroom 2 door from 0.17 μg/100cm 2 to 6.5 μg/100cm 2 indicate in a room that size of more up to 150 smoked doses. 2 c. The testing occurred on the 13 February only a day or so after the tenant was arrested (on unrelated charges). I am satisfied that the tenant or her invitees used the methamphetamine at the property whilst the tenant was still living at the property.
Having determined that the tenant breached s40(2)(b) RTA by using the property for an unlawful purpose award $1000.00 for this breach. In coming to this amount, I have taken into account: a. The intent of the tenant- in this case the marked increase in levels of contamination indicate that methamphetamine was used frequently at the property during the tenancy. b. The effect on the landlord. The landlord said that dealing with the methamphetamine was extremely stressful and inconvenient. The use of methamphetamine combined with the other damage to the property and knowing that it was gang related made the landlord scared. The landlord was also concerned for the neighbours. The landlord had to wait for the insurance company to assess the damage and could not make plans for the property. c. The public interest: methamphetamine is a scourge on our society. When it is used in homes, it can cause harm to those living in the home, especially children. The public expects that when a tenant uses methamphetamine in the home for the Tribunal to make such an award that recognises the damage this drug does and that such an award is a deterrent to others. Name suppression and filing fee
As the landlord has been successful in its claims, I award the landlord the filing fee and grant name suppression as requested.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5195454 — net $7,588.10 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 23/02/25	$270.00	Rent arrears to 23/02/25
Water rates	$557.15	Water rates
Insurance excess	$7,500.00	Insurance excess
Rubbish removal	$753.95	Rubbish removal
Exemplary damages - unlawful use	$1,000.00	Exemplary damages - unlawful use
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,588.10
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,588.10

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Marlene Hose must pay [The landlord/s] $7,588.10 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended today’s hearing; the tenant did not attend. The tenant has been served both by post and by email and therefore I have proceeded in her absence.
The tenancy was for one year. During the tenancy the property was managed by [The property management company]. The house is an older style brick home on a large corner section.
The property was in good condition at the beginning of the tenancy.
The property manager says that the tenant was a good tenant at the beginning of the tenancy, the home was kept relatively clean and at the last inspection in October 2024, there was no damage noted. Rent was paid on time every week directly from MSD.
Since the October 2024 inspection the neighbours had reported issues at the property and the tenant had erected black cloth or polyurethane around the fences so the property could not be viewed from the road.
Many of these issues coincided with the tenant’s boyfriend moving into the property.
On or about the 10 February this year the Pukekohe Police informed the property manager and the landlord that the Police had arrested the tenant and when they had gone to the property and found the property extensively damaged and known gang members living at the property.
As a result of that notification the property managers gave notice of an inspection at the property the following day. When the property managers went to the property the following day, no one was home, but relatives of the tenant came to the property and gave access. The property managers found the house extensively damaged with multiple holes in the walls, doors and the door lock was missing completely. Windows, lights and cabinet doors were broken. Some of the holes someone had attempted to repair but they were poorly repaired. The property manager took photographs of the property, and those photographs show damage to almost every wall or surface. The property manager said today “ There probably was a wall that didn’t have a hole in it- or a door.”
The tenant was due to move out on the 23 February as a 90-day notice had been given by the landlord, that the landlord required possession at the end of the fixed term.
Given the condition of the property the landlord had the property tested for methamphetamine contamination. The property had been tested before the tenancy began on the 11 January 2024. The testing that took place on the 13 February 2025 was completed by the same company and the same technician who did the pre tenancy testing and the testing samples were taken from almost identical areas as the pre tenancy testing. The composite and detailed testing on the 13 February 2025 showed much higher levels of methamphetamine than were present in the 11 January 2024 tests. On the door in the lounge the results were 15.3
As a result of the damage to the walls, doors and lights, and the methamphetamine contamination results the landlord made an insurance claim to repair the damage. The insurance company dealt with the claims for both methamphetamine and the holes in walls, broken doors, windows and light fittings as part of the same claim. They approved the claim on the basis that the landlord pay the excess of $750 per room (x10) which the landlord accepted.
The landlord seeks: a. The rent to 23 February 2025. b. Water rates owing $ 557.15. c. The insurance excess of $7500.00 d. Exemplary damages for unlawful use of the premises e. Costs rubbish removal $753.95 f. The filing fee.
The landlord has provided a rent ledger to the Tribunal that shows that rent was paid up until the 20 February. The tenant is liable for 3 days rent of $270.00
The landlord provided the water rates ledger and invoice. The amount claimed is proven.

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. Whilst the tenant’s relatives removed most of the belongings, the items that they did not want were left behind and the landlord had to remove them and dispose of them. The belongings were not of any value.
The landlord provided a detailed invoice for this rubbish removal and the amount ordered is proven.

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.
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.
I am satisfied that the tenant or people at the property with the tenant’s consent caused the holes in the walls, doors, cabinetry, light fittings and broke the window. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The damage is in every room for which the landlord paid an insurance excess, therefore I award the landlord the insurance excess of $7500.00.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. 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. Methamphetamine
The insurance claim covered both the remediation costs for the damage to the property (holes etc) and the damage caused by methamphetamine contamination. As I have already found that the tenant is liable for the insurance excess because of the physical damage to the property holes in walls etc, then I do not need to consider the claim for compensation for methamphetamine. I note that the level of contamination in the lounge would have required decontamination of that area.
The landlord seeks exemplary damages pursuant to s40 (3AC) RTA. Exemplary damages of up to $1800.00 can be awarded under this section if the landlord proves that there is a breach of s40(2)(b) of the RTA which provides the tenant shall not use the premises, or permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose.
I am satisfied that the tenant or her invitees used methamphetamine in the premises which is an unlawful activity. 1 I say this for the following reasons: a. The property was tested shortly before the tenancy and straight after. The test areas were in similar locations and conducted by the same company. The tests results show a marked increase in the level of methamphetamine contamination in almost every area of the house. b. The increase in levels of methamphetamine contamination is consistent with prolonged and numerous uses of methamphetamine. For example, the 1 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. increase of levels in bedroom 2 door from 0.17 μg/100cm 2 to 6.5 μg/100cm 2 indicate in a room that size of more up to 150 smoked doses. 2 c. The testing occurred on the 13 February only a day or so after the tenant was arrested (on unrelated charges). I am satisfied that the tenant or her invitees used the methamphetamine at the property whilst the tenant was still living at the property.
Having determined that the tenant breached s40(2)(b) RTA by using the property for an unlawful purpose award $1000.00 for this breach. In coming to this amount, I have taken into account: a. The intent of the tenant- in this case the marked increase in levels of contamination indicate that methamphetamine was used frequently at the property during the tenancy. b. The effect on the landlord. The landlord said that dealing with the methamphetamine was extremely stressful and inconvenient. The use of methamphetamine combined with the other damage to the property and knowing that it was gang related made the landlord scared. The landlord was also concerned for the neighbours. The landlord had to wait for the insurance company to assess the damage and could not make plans for the property. c. The public interest: methamphetamine is a scourge on our society. When it is used in homes, it can cause harm to those living in the home, especially children. The public expects that when a tenant uses methamphetamine in the home for the Tribunal to make such an award that recognises the damage this drug does and that such an award is a deterrent to others. Name suppression and filing fee
As the landlord has been successful in its claims, I award the landlord the filing fee and grant name suppression as requested.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5195454 — Property damage at 50 Beatty Road, Pukekohe, Pukekohe 2120

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5195454 — Property damage at 50 Beatty Road, Pukekohe, Pukekohe 2120

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions