What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5202671 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 5202671?

Cleaning: $580.75 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $699.89 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $900.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Methamphetamine Testing: $1,241.31 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,568.58 awarded to landlord; Hole In Floor In Lounge: $977.50 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Bathroom Vanity: $706.25 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $80.50 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $328.91 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5202671?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5202671?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12057011-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5202671 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 5202671?

Cleaning: $580.75 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $699.89 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $900.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Methamphetamine Testing: $1,241.31 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,568.58 awarded to landlord; Hole In Floor In Lounge: $977.50 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Bathroom Vanity: $706.25 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $80.50 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $328.91 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5202671?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5202671?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12057011-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

58 Saralee Drive, Manurewa, Auckland 2105 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5202671 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

58 Saralee Drive, Manurewa, Auckland 2105 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5202671 — Rent arrears | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5202671 — net $4,167.69 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 3 February 2025	$1,568.58	Rent arrears to 3 February 2025
Water rates	$328.91	Water rates
Lawns and Garden work	$150.00	Lawns and Garden work
Cleaning	$699.89	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$580.75	Carpet Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$207.00	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal	$80.50	Rubbish removal
Repairs: hole in floor in lounge	$977.50	Repairs: hole in floor in lounge
Replace furnishings: bathroom vanity	$706.25	Replace furnishings: bathroom vanity
Methamphetamine testing	$1,241.31	Methamphetamine testing
Exemplary damages section 40(2)(b) - methamphetamine	$900.00	Exemplary damages section 40(2)(b) - methamphetamine
Exemplary damages section 40(2)(b) - cannabis	$100.00	Exemplary damages section 40(2)(b) - cannabis
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,167.69
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,167.69

Claims and awards for application 5202671 — net $4,167.69 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 3 February 2025

Amount: $1,568.58
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 3 February 2025

Water rates

Amount: $328.91
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Lawns and Garden work

Amount: $150.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns and Garden work

Cleaning

Amount: $699.89
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $580.75
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Dismissed claims

Lightbulbs — DAMAGE The law

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Exemplary damages Filing Fee Lawns And Garden Work Property damage Rent arrears Rubbish Removal Water Rates

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Shannon Justin Paul Lewis and Matamoamoa Layton Manoa must pay [The landlord/s] $4,167.69 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, outgoings, compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Katipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ...[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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 of 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

RENT ARREARS

The landlord gave evidence that the tenancy ended on 3 February 2025. I accept the landlord’s evidence on this point.
The landlord submitted a rent summary, which proves rent arrears are $1,568.58 up to 3 February 2025.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is granted for $1,568.58.

WATER RATES

The landlord submitted original invoices from the water rates authority, as well as photograph of the final water meter reading. These documents prove the tenant owes $328.91 in outstanding water rates invoices.
The landlord’s claim for outstanding water rates invoices is granted for $328.91. DID THE TENANT COMPLY WITH THEIR OBLIGATIONS AT THE END OF THE

TENANCY?

The law

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. 1
The term “premises” includes “any land or appurtenances other than facilities.” 2 Therefore, the obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy relates to the inside and outside of the premises.
The landlord claims the tenant breached these obligations and seeks compensation for the following amounts: a. Lawnmowing:$150.00 b. Internal cleaning:$699.89 c. Carpet cleaning:$580.75 d. Replace garage remotes (x2):$207.00 e. Rubbish removal:$80.50 f. Replace lightbulbs:$82.80
The landlord submitted invoices for the above amounts. Analysis
The landlord submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy. These show the lawns overgrown. Inside the premises, the floors do not appear to have been vacuumed or mopped. There is hair on the floor in the bathroom. The bathroom does not appear to have been cleaned. The oven is dirty and the tenant has left some personal belongings and rubbish inside the premises. There are also marks on the carpet, including what appears to be green paint on the carpet in the dining room and small vivid marks on other parts of the carpet.
Based on the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy, I find the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord gave evidence that the tenant did not return two garage remotes at the end of the tenancy. I accept the landlord’s evidence on this point. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(ii) – (v). 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 2.
The landlord’s claims for compensation are granted for the following amounts: a. Lawnmowing:$150.00 b. Internal cleaning:$699.89 c. Carpet cleaning:$580.75 d. Replace garage remotes (x2):$207.00 e. Rubbish removal:$80.50
The landlord gave evidence that two light bulbs in the kitchen and four lightbulbs in the bathrooms were not working at the end of the tenancy.
I consider lightbulbs to be a chattel provided by the landlord for the use of the tenant during the tenancy. The tenant returned the lightbulbs at the end of the tenancy, but they were not working.
This tenancy was approximately four years long. It is foreseeable that lightbulbs may run out and require replacement due to use over time. No evidence was submitted to suggest unreasonable use of the lights by the tenant. On the balance of probabilities, I find the fact that some lightbulbs may have required replacement at the end of the tenancy to be a result of fair wear and tear, which a tenant is not responsible for. 3
The landlord’s claim for compensation of $82.80 to replace the lightbulbs is dismissed.

DAMAGE

The law

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. 4
Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. 5 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49A(2). 4 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 & 49B. 5 See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403.
In Nixon v Geal-Otter DC North Shore, 30 January 1996, [1996] RTHNZ 2, 1996 WL 35049225, his Honour Judge Thorburn held: Adjudicators and the Court must be careful to recognise that in any tenancy there will be a deterioration of condition because of fair wear and tear. It can be no other way. Mere use of premises will by the law of inevitability produce a deterioration of condition.
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). 6
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). 7
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. 8
The landlord seeks compensation to repair the following damage, which they claim occurred during the tenancy and is the responsibility of the tenant: a. Hole in the floor in the lounge:$977.50 b. Broken insinkerator:$431.25 c. Damaged bathroom vanity:$1,006.25 d. Marks to bedroom walls:$632.50
The landlord submitted invoices for each item listed above.
The landlord did not file a claim with their insurer.
I deal with the issues individually below. Hole in the floor in the lounge
The landlord gave evidence that the tenant kept two large couches in the lounge. At the end of the tenancy, the landlord claims they noticed that the floor was sunken where one of the couches sat. The landlord gave evidence that the floor was intact at the beginning of the tenancy. 6 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49B(3)(a). 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49B(3)(b). 8 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord organised for the carpet to be pulled back and discovered a hole in the flooring. The landlord submitted a photograph of the hole, as well as a photograph of the tenant’s couches in the lounge taken during a routine inspection. Analysis
In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I accept the landlord’s evidence that the floor in the lounge was intact at the beginning of the tenancy. The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show a hole in the ground in the lounge. On the balance of probabilities, I find the hole occurred during the tenancy.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord’s claim for compensation of $977.50 to repair the hole is granted. Broken insinkerator
The landlord gave evidence that the kitchen insinkerator was working at the beginning of the tenancy and not working at the end. The landlord does not know how or why it stopped working or how old it was at the beginning of the tenancy. Analysis
The landlord has not proven on the balance of probabilities that the damage to the insinkerator is beyond fair wear and tear. The landlord does not know the age of the insikerator or why it stopped working. No evidence of unreasonable use of the insinkerator by the tenant was submitted. In these circumstances, it is reasonably plausible that the insinkerator stopped working due to its age and condition.
The landlord’s claim for compensation of $431.25 to replace the insinkerator is dismissed. Bathroom vanity
The landlord gave evidence that the vanity in one of the bathrooms was damaged during the tenancy. The landlord submitted photographs taken at the beginning and end of the tenancy. The landlord claims a comparison of the two sets of photographs prove that the damage occurred during the tenancy.
The landlord gave evidence that towards the end of the tenancy, the tenant contacted them to advise that there was a leak in the sink of the bathroom vanity. The landlord claims they tried to organise a time to visit the premises to inspect the damage, but their communications with the tenant went unanswered.
The landlord claims that at the end of the tenancy they completed an inspection of the premises and no leak in the sink in the bathroom vanity was found.
The landlord submits that the bathroom vanity was damaged due to an intentional or careless act of the tenant. Analysis
In the photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy, the bathroom vanity is not damaged. In the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy, the coating of the bathroom vanity is bubbling and peeling off.
On the basis of a comparison of the photographs of the bathroom vanity taken at the beginning and end of the tenancy, I find the bathroom vanity was damaged during the tenancy. The damage appears to have been caused by water.
I accept the landlord’s evidence that the sink was not leaking at the end of the tenancy. The water damage is on the lower part of the bathroom vanity. I consider it more likely than not that the bathroom vanity was damaged as a result of a careless act on behalf of the tenant, such as overflowing the vanity sink, causing water to spill onto the bathroom floor and damage the lower part of the vanity.
The landlord does not know how old the bathroom vanity is. This tenancy was approximately four years long. The vanity is at least four years old and has been replaced by a brand new one.
An adjustment to the total amount of compensation sought by the landlord needs to be made to reflect betterment and depreciation. The landlord must be returned to the same position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations. They must not be any better or worse off. I consider a reduction of $300.00 to the total amount of compensation sought by the landlord to be fair and reasonable.
The landlord’s claim for compensation to replace the bathroom vanity is granted for $706.25. Marks on bedroom wall
The landlord gave evidence that there were black marks on the wall in the bedroom from the tenant’s bedframe and submitted a photograph.
The landlord has had the bedroom walls painted at a cost of $632.50 and seeks compensation for this amount. Analysis
On the balance of probabilities, I am not persuaded that the marks to the walls are more than fair wear and tear. This tenancy was approximately four years long. It is inevitable that walls will sustain some marks to them as a result of everyday living. It is reasonable to have a bedframe in a bedroom and to have it placed against a wall. I find the presence of some marks on the wall where the tenant’s bedframe sat to be a result of fair wear and tear.
The landlord’s claim for compensation of $632.50 to paint the bedroom walls is dismissed.

METHAMPHETAMINE

The law

A tenant must not use, or permit the use of, the premises for any unlawful purpose. 9
Where a tenant uses or permits the use of the premises for an unlawful purpose, they commit an unlawful act for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,800.00 may be granted. 10
Where a landlord claims the tenant has used the premises for an unlawful purpose that has led to damage, a landlord may also seek compensation. A landlord must prove that the premises have been damaged during the tenancy and that the damage is the result of an 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. 11 If a landlord proves this, then a tenant is liable for the costs of “making good the damage” and other reasonably foreseeable losses related to the damage. 12
The Tribunal has previously found that damage occurs and decontamination is necessary when levels of methamphetamine contamination are above 9 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(2)(b). 10 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(b), 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A. 11 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49B(8)(a). 12 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 49A & 49B(1)(b). 15mcg/100cm². 13 This is the level adopted by the authors of what is colloquially known as the Gluckman Report dated 29 May 2018 (“the Gluckman Report”). 14
The Gluckman report concludes that there is no evidence of risk of harm from second or third hand exposure to methamphetamine residue measured at or less than 15mcg/100cm², unless there is evidence to suggest that the premises have been used for manufacture.
Neither the Gluckman Report nor the previously used New Zealand Standard NZS 8510:2017 15 (NZS), which recommend a level of 1.5mcg/100cm² are embedded into law, they both represent guidelines and are not regulatory.
In Full Circle Real Estate v Piper, the District Court considered whether the Tribunal erred in applying the Gluckman level of 15mcg/100cm² instead of the NZS of 1.5mcg/100cm². The District Court held: 16 It would have been bold for the adjudicator to have ignored that report (the Gluckman 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.
To summarise, the general approach of the Tribunal when determining claims for decontamination due to the presence of methamphetamine residue is as follows: a. Methamphetamine residue of below 15mcg/100cm² does not cause damage to residential tenancy premises unless there is evidence of manufacturing; b. In premises or parts of premises, where residue is higher than 15mcg/100cm², this is considered damage and decontamination of those areas is appropriate; and c. Residue levels of higher than 30mcg/100cm² indicate a high level of use and may be indicative of manufacturing. Decontamination of premises to the lower level of below 1.5mcg/100cm² is justified. Landlord’s evidence and submissions 13 Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4797. 14 Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposure, risk levels and interpretation of standards.” 29 May 2018 – Professor Gluckman – Prime Minister’s chief science advisor; (The Gluckman Report). 15 NZS 8510:2017 New Zealand Standard – testing and decontamination of methamphetamine contaminated properties. 16 Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 479 at [36].
The landlord claims the tenant used or permitted people at the property with the tenant’s permission to use methamphetamine inside the premises.
The landlord submitted a methamphetamine screening assessment report dated 7 October 2021. It records an average result of less than
02mcg/100cm² throughout the premises.
Following the end of the tenancy on 3 February 2025, the landlord had the premises tested for methamphetamine residue. A methamphetamine screening report dated 7 February 2025 shows an average result of 1.29mcg/100cm² throughout the premises.
On the basis of the report dated 7 February 2025, the landlord had individual samples taken. A methamphetamine screening report dated 12 February 2025 records the following results for the individual samples: Sample locationMethamphetamine concentration in mcg/100cm² Kitchen – Window frame
62 Living room – Door frame
16 Bedroom 1 – Door
05 Bathroom 1 – Window frame
27 Bedroom 2 – Window frame
2 Garage – Door frame
61 Entry – Door
4 Bedroom 3 – Door
08 Ensuite – Window frame
47 Bedroom 4 – Door
0 Bathroom 2 – Window frame
52 Bedroom 5 – Door
27
The landlord submitted an invoice for $1,241.31 for the individual testing.
The landlord claims a comparison of the results contained in the methamphetamine assessment reports taken at the beginning and end of the tenancy proves the tenant or a person at the property with the tenant’s permission, used methamphetamine inside the premises during the tenancy.
The landlord has had the premises decontaminated and submitted an invoice for $1,707.75.
The landlord seeks exemplary damages and compensation for the following amounts: a. Individual sampling:$1,241.31 b. Decontamination:$1,707.75 c. Decontamination test: $1,321.86 Analysis – compensation for individual sampling and decontamination
The tenancy began on 13 November 2021 and ended on 3 February 2025.
The landlord had the premises tested for methamphetamine residue on 7 October 2021, shortly before the tenancy began. The average result was less than 0.02mcg/100cm² of methamphetamine residue throughout the premises.
The landlord had the premises tested again on 7 February 2025, shortly after the tenancy ended. The average result was 1.29mcg/100cm² of methamphetamine residue throughout the premises.
A comparison of the methamphetamine assessment reports dated 7 October 2021 and 7 February 2025 shows an increase in the presence of methamphetamine residue inside the premises. This leads me to find on the balance of probabilities that the tenant or a person at the premises with the tenant’s permission used methamphetamine inside the premises.
The use of methamphetamine is a criminal offence that carries a maximum penalty of 6 months imprisonment. 17 Therefore, I find the tenant used or permitted the use of the premises for an unlawful purpose. 18
The landlord’s claim for compensation of $1,241.31 for individual sampling is granted. The methamphetamine assessment report dated 7 February 2025 indicates an increase in the presence of methamphetamine residue inside the premises compared to the report dated 7 October 2021. In these circumstances, it was appropriate for the landlord to undertake individual sampling to determine whether decontamination was required.
The landlord’s claims for compensation of $1,707.75 for decontamination and $1,321.86 for post-decontamination testing are dismissed. I adopt the approach taken in the Gluckman Report that damage occurs and decontamination is necessary when levels of methamphetamine contamination are above 15mcg/100cm². This is the general approach of the Tribunal when determining claims for compensation for decontamination.
The methamphetamine residue levels in this case were below 15mcg/100cm² and there is no evidence to indicate manufacturing occurred at the premises. Therefore, decontamination was not required. 17 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, section 7(1)(a) & (2)(a). 18 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(2)(b). Analysis – exemplary damages
I have found that the tenant use or permitted the use of the premises for an unlawful purpose. This is an unlawful act, which may attract exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,800.00.
Section 109 RTA states that exemplary damages may be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally and the Tribunal determines it is just to make an award having regard to the following factors: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed; and d. The public interest.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
In the District Court decision of Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667, the Court needed to consider a case where the landlord had unlawfully entered the tenancy. That was not disputed. The evidence was that because of a misunderstanding around notices being given, the landlord went into the tenancy without the necessary notice having first being served on the tenant.
Judge Neave in the District Court agreed with an earlier summary of the law from the Tribunal that: 19 Before an award for exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the 19 Chief Executive, ex party Edmonson v Walls North Shore TT 548/92. party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it.
Judge Neave went on to accept that the unlawful entry was made in error, and on that basis there was no intention established, therefore there was no basis to order exemplary damages.
In this case, I find the tenant most likely acted intentionally when they used or permitted someone at the premises with the tenant’s permission to use methamphetamine inside the premises. No evidence to the contrary was submitted and it is difficult to conceive of a situation where the tenant would have consumed or permitted someone at the premises with the tenant’s permission to have consumed methamphetamine in error.
The effect the unlawful act has had on the premises has been of great concern to the landlord. The landlord has incurred financial loss in having individual samples completed and the premises decontaminated. The landlord is unable to claim compensation for the latter.
There is a strong public interest in ensuring tenants are deterred from using or permitting someone at the premises with the tenant’s permission from using methamphetamine inside the premises. Methamphetamine use inside the premises has the potential to cause significant damage.
For these reasons, I find it just to make an award of exemplary damages. I find $900.00 to be a fair and reasonable amount. In settling on this figure I have considered the fact that methamphetamine is a Class A drug. I have also considered the fact that the highest individual reading was 5.4 mcg/100cm², which I find to be modest. Further, I was not referred to any previous instances where the tenant has used or permitted others to use methamphetamine inside tenanted premises.

CANNABIS

Landlord’s evidence and submissions

The landlord claims the tenant also used or permitted the use of the premises for an unlawful purpose by possessing cannabis inside the premises.
The landlord submitted a photograph of a Tupperware container found inside the premises at the end of the tenancy. A small amount of leafy material, which the landlord claims is cannabis, is present inside the container.
The landlord seeks exemplary damages. Analysis
On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced that the leafy material found in the Tupperware container is cannabis.
I find the tenant most likely kept a small amount of cannabis at the premises.
Possession of cannabis is a criminal offence for which a maximum penalty of 3 months imprisonment may be imposed. 20
In keeping cannabis at the premises, I find the tenant used or permitted the use of the premises for an unlawful purpose.
On the balance of probabilities, I find the tenant acted intentionally in storing cannabis at the premises. No evidence to the contrary was submitted.
The landlord did not submit any evidence that the tenant consumed cannabis inside the premises. No evidence regarding damage to the premises as a result of storage of cannabis was submitted.
There is a public interest in deterring tenants from keeping controlled drugs at tenanted premises. This can attract the attention of the Police and result in a negative stigma being attached to the premises. For this reason, I find it just to make an award of exemplary damages, but only for a small amount.
I order the tenant to pay $100.00 in exemplary damages. In settling on this figure, I have considered the fact that cannabis is a Class C controlled drug and only a very small amount was found at the premises. The premises were not damaged as a result of the storage of cannabis and the landlord has not suffered any financial loss due to the unlawful act. I find $100.00 reasonably promotes the general purpose of deterrence.

FILING FEE

Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5202671 — net $4,167.69 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 3 February 2025	$1,568.58	Rent arrears to 3 February 2025
Water rates	$328.91	Water rates
Lawns and Garden work	$150.00	Lawns and Garden work
Cleaning	$699.89	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$580.75	Carpet Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$207.00	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal	$80.50	Rubbish removal
Repairs: hole in floor in lounge	$977.50	Repairs: hole in floor in lounge
Replace furnishings: bathroom vanity	$706.25	Replace furnishings: bathroom vanity
Methamphetamine testing	$1,241.31	Methamphetamine testing
Exemplary damages section 40(2)(b) - methamphetamine	$900.00	Exemplary damages section 40(2)(b) - methamphetamine
Exemplary damages section 40(2)(b) - cannabis	$100.00	Exemplary damages section 40(2)(b) - cannabis
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,167.69
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,167.69

Claims and awards for application 5202671 — net $4,167.69 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 3 February 2025

Amount: $1,568.58
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 3 February 2025

Water rates

Amount: $328.91
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Lawns and Garden work

Amount: $150.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns and Garden work

Cleaning

Amount: $699.89
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $580.75
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Dismissed claims

Lightbulbs — DAMAGE The law

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Exemplary damages Filing Fee Lawns And Garden Work Property damage Rent arrears Rubbish Removal Water Rates

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Shannon Justin Paul Lewis and Matamoamoa Layton Manoa must pay [The landlord/s] $4,167.69 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, outgoings, compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Katipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ...[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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 of 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

RENT ARREARS

The landlord gave evidence that the tenancy ended on 3 February 2025. I accept the landlord’s evidence on this point.
The landlord submitted a rent summary, which proves rent arrears are $1,568.58 up to 3 February 2025.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is granted for $1,568.58.

WATER RATES

The landlord submitted original invoices from the water rates authority, as well as photograph of the final water meter reading. These documents prove the tenant owes $328.91 in outstanding water rates invoices.
The landlord’s claim for outstanding water rates invoices is granted for $328.91. DID THE TENANT COMPLY WITH THEIR OBLIGATIONS AT THE END OF THE

TENANCY?

The law

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. 1
The term “premises” includes “any land or appurtenances other than facilities.” 2 Therefore, the obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy relates to the inside and outside of the premises.
The landlord claims the tenant breached these obligations and seeks compensation for the following amounts: a. Lawnmowing:$150.00 b. Internal cleaning:$699.89 c. Carpet cleaning:$580.75 d. Replace garage remotes (x2):$207.00 e. Rubbish removal:$80.50 f. Replace lightbulbs:$82.80
The landlord submitted invoices for the above amounts. Analysis
The landlord submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy. These show the lawns overgrown. Inside the premises, the floors do not appear to have been vacuumed or mopped. There is hair on the floor in the bathroom. The bathroom does not appear to have been cleaned. The oven is dirty and the tenant has left some personal belongings and rubbish inside the premises. There are also marks on the carpet, including what appears to be green paint on the carpet in the dining room and small vivid marks on other parts of the carpet.
Based on the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy, I find the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord gave evidence that the tenant did not return two garage remotes at the end of the tenancy. I accept the landlord’s evidence on this point. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(ii) – (v). 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 2.
The landlord’s claims for compensation are granted for the following amounts: a. Lawnmowing:$150.00 b. Internal cleaning:$699.89 c. Carpet cleaning:$580.75 d. Replace garage remotes (x2):$207.00 e. Rubbish removal:$80.50
The landlord gave evidence that two light bulbs in the kitchen and four lightbulbs in the bathrooms were not working at the end of the tenancy.
I consider lightbulbs to be a chattel provided by the landlord for the use of the tenant during the tenancy. The tenant returned the lightbulbs at the end of the tenancy, but they were not working.
This tenancy was approximately four years long. It is foreseeable that lightbulbs may run out and require replacement due to use over time. No evidence was submitted to suggest unreasonable use of the lights by the tenant. On the balance of probabilities, I find the fact that some lightbulbs may have required replacement at the end of the tenancy to be a result of fair wear and tear, which a tenant is not responsible for. 3
The landlord’s claim for compensation of $82.80 to replace the lightbulbs is dismissed.

DAMAGE

The law

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. 4
Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. 5 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49A(2). 4 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 & 49B. 5 See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403.
In Nixon v Geal-Otter DC North Shore, 30 January 1996, [1996] RTHNZ 2, 1996 WL 35049225, his Honour Judge Thorburn held: Adjudicators and the Court must be careful to recognise that in any tenancy there will be a deterioration of condition because of fair wear and tear. It can be no other way. Mere use of premises will by the law of inevitability produce a deterioration of condition.
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). 6
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). 7
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. 8
The landlord seeks compensation to repair the following damage, which they claim occurred during the tenancy and is the responsibility of the tenant: a. Hole in the floor in the lounge:$977.50 b. Broken insinkerator:$431.25 c. Damaged bathroom vanity:$1,006.25 d. Marks to bedroom walls:$632.50
The landlord submitted invoices for each item listed above.
The landlord did not file a claim with their insurer.
I deal with the issues individually below. Hole in the floor in the lounge
The landlord gave evidence that the tenant kept two large couches in the lounge. At the end of the tenancy, the landlord claims they noticed that the floor was sunken where one of the couches sat. The landlord gave evidence that the floor was intact at the beginning of the tenancy. 6 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49B(3)(a). 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49B(3)(b). 8 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord organised for the carpet to be pulled back and discovered a hole in the flooring. The landlord submitted a photograph of the hole, as well as a photograph of the tenant’s couches in the lounge taken during a routine inspection. Analysis
In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I accept the landlord’s evidence that the floor in the lounge was intact at the beginning of the tenancy. The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show a hole in the ground in the lounge. On the balance of probabilities, I find the hole occurred during the tenancy.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord’s claim for compensation of $977.50 to repair the hole is granted. Broken insinkerator
The landlord gave evidence that the kitchen insinkerator was working at the beginning of the tenancy and not working at the end. The landlord does not know how or why it stopped working or how old it was at the beginning of the tenancy. Analysis
The landlord has not proven on the balance of probabilities that the damage to the insinkerator is beyond fair wear and tear. The landlord does not know the age of the insikerator or why it stopped working. No evidence of unreasonable use of the insinkerator by the tenant was submitted. In these circumstances, it is reasonably plausible that the insinkerator stopped working due to its age and condition.
The landlord’s claim for compensation of $431.25 to replace the insinkerator is dismissed. Bathroom vanity
The landlord gave evidence that the vanity in one of the bathrooms was damaged during the tenancy. The landlord submitted photographs taken at the beginning and end of the tenancy. The landlord claims a comparison of the two sets of photographs prove that the damage occurred during the tenancy.
The landlord gave evidence that towards the end of the tenancy, the tenant contacted them to advise that there was a leak in the sink of the bathroom vanity. The landlord claims they tried to organise a time to visit the premises to inspect the damage, but their communications with the tenant went unanswered.
The landlord claims that at the end of the tenancy they completed an inspection of the premises and no leak in the sink in the bathroom vanity was found.
The landlord submits that the bathroom vanity was damaged due to an intentional or careless act of the tenant. Analysis
In the photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy, the bathroom vanity is not damaged. In the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy, the coating of the bathroom vanity is bubbling and peeling off.
On the basis of a comparison of the photographs of the bathroom vanity taken at the beginning and end of the tenancy, I find the bathroom vanity was damaged during the tenancy. The damage appears to have been caused by water.
I accept the landlord’s evidence that the sink was not leaking at the end of the tenancy. The water damage is on the lower part of the bathroom vanity. I consider it more likely than not that the bathroom vanity was damaged as a result of a careless act on behalf of the tenant, such as overflowing the vanity sink, causing water to spill onto the bathroom floor and damage the lower part of the vanity.
The landlord does not know how old the bathroom vanity is. This tenancy was approximately four years long. The vanity is at least four years old and has been replaced by a brand new one.
An adjustment to the total amount of compensation sought by the landlord needs to be made to reflect betterment and depreciation. The landlord must be returned to the same position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations. They must not be any better or worse off. I consider a reduction of $300.00 to the total amount of compensation sought by the landlord to be fair and reasonable.
The landlord’s claim for compensation to replace the bathroom vanity is granted for $706.25. Marks on bedroom wall
The landlord gave evidence that there were black marks on the wall in the bedroom from the tenant’s bedframe and submitted a photograph.
The landlord has had the bedroom walls painted at a cost of $632.50 and seeks compensation for this amount. Analysis
On the balance of probabilities, I am not persuaded that the marks to the walls are more than fair wear and tear. This tenancy was approximately four years long. It is inevitable that walls will sustain some marks to them as a result of everyday living. It is reasonable to have a bedframe in a bedroom and to have it placed against a wall. I find the presence of some marks on the wall where the tenant’s bedframe sat to be a result of fair wear and tear.
The landlord’s claim for compensation of $632.50 to paint the bedroom walls is dismissed.

METHAMPHETAMINE

The law

A tenant must not use, or permit the use of, the premises for any unlawful purpose. 9
Where a tenant uses or permits the use of the premises for an unlawful purpose, they commit an unlawful act for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,800.00 may be granted. 10
Where a landlord claims the tenant has used the premises for an unlawful purpose that has led to damage, a landlord may also seek compensation. A landlord must prove that the premises have been damaged during the tenancy and that the damage is the result of an 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. 11 If a landlord proves this, then a tenant is liable for the costs of “making good the damage” and other reasonably foreseeable losses related to the damage. 12
The Tribunal has previously found that damage occurs and decontamination is necessary when levels of methamphetamine contamination are above 9 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(2)(b). 10 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(b), 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A. 11 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49B(8)(a). 12 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 49A & 49B(1)(b). 15mcg/100cm². 13 This is the level adopted by the authors of what is colloquially known as the Gluckman Report dated 29 May 2018 (“the Gluckman Report”). 14
The Gluckman report concludes that there is no evidence of risk of harm from second or third hand exposure to methamphetamine residue measured at or less than 15mcg/100cm², unless there is evidence to suggest that the premises have been used for manufacture.
Neither the Gluckman Report nor the previously used New Zealand Standard NZS 8510:2017 15 (NZS), which recommend a level of 1.5mcg/100cm² are embedded into law, they both represent guidelines and are not regulatory.
In Full Circle Real Estate v Piper, the District Court considered whether the Tribunal erred in applying the Gluckman level of 15mcg/100cm² instead of the NZS of 1.5mcg/100cm². The District Court held: 16 It would have been bold for the adjudicator to have ignored that report (the Gluckman 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.
To summarise, the general approach of the Tribunal when determining claims for decontamination due to the presence of methamphetamine residue is as follows: a. Methamphetamine residue of below 15mcg/100cm² does not cause damage to residential tenancy premises unless there is evidence of manufacturing; b. In premises or parts of premises, where residue is higher than 15mcg/100cm², this is considered damage and decontamination of those areas is appropriate; and c. Residue levels of higher than 30mcg/100cm² indicate a high level of use and may be indicative of manufacturing. Decontamination of premises to the lower level of below 1.5mcg/100cm² is justified. Landlord’s evidence and submissions 13 Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4797. 14 Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposure, risk levels and interpretation of standards.” 29 May 2018 – Professor Gluckman – Prime Minister’s chief science advisor; (The Gluckman Report). 15 NZS 8510:2017 New Zealand Standard – testing and decontamination of methamphetamine contaminated properties. 16 Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 479 at [36].
The landlord claims the tenant used or permitted people at the property with the tenant’s permission to use methamphetamine inside the premises.
The landlord submitted a methamphetamine screening assessment report dated 7 October 2021. It records an average result of less than
02mcg/100cm² throughout the premises.
Following the end of the tenancy on 3 February 2025, the landlord had the premises tested for methamphetamine residue. A methamphetamine screening report dated 7 February 2025 shows an average result of 1.29mcg/100cm² throughout the premises.
On the basis of the report dated 7 February 2025, the landlord had individual samples taken. A methamphetamine screening report dated 12 February 2025 records the following results for the individual samples: Sample locationMethamphetamine concentration in mcg/100cm² Kitchen – Window frame
62 Living room – Door frame
16 Bedroom 1 – Door
05 Bathroom 1 – Window frame
27 Bedroom 2 – Window frame
2 Garage – Door frame
61 Entry – Door
4 Bedroom 3 – Door
08 Ensuite – Window frame
47 Bedroom 4 – Door
0 Bathroom 2 – Window frame
52 Bedroom 5 – Door
27
The landlord submitted an invoice for $1,241.31 for the individual testing.
The landlord claims a comparison of the results contained in the methamphetamine assessment reports taken at the beginning and end of the tenancy proves the tenant or a person at the property with the tenant’s permission, used methamphetamine inside the premises during the tenancy.
The landlord has had the premises decontaminated and submitted an invoice for $1,707.75.
The landlord seeks exemplary damages and compensation for the following amounts: a. Individual sampling:$1,241.31 b. Decontamination:$1,707.75 c. Decontamination test: $1,321.86 Analysis – compensation for individual sampling and decontamination
The tenancy began on 13 November 2021 and ended on 3 February 2025.
The landlord had the premises tested for methamphetamine residue on 7 October 2021, shortly before the tenancy began. The average result was less than 0.02mcg/100cm² of methamphetamine residue throughout the premises.
The landlord had the premises tested again on 7 February 2025, shortly after the tenancy ended. The average result was 1.29mcg/100cm² of methamphetamine residue throughout the premises.
A comparison of the methamphetamine assessment reports dated 7 October 2021 and 7 February 2025 shows an increase in the presence of methamphetamine residue inside the premises. This leads me to find on the balance of probabilities that the tenant or a person at the premises with the tenant’s permission used methamphetamine inside the premises.
The use of methamphetamine is a criminal offence that carries a maximum penalty of 6 months imprisonment. 17 Therefore, I find the tenant used or permitted the use of the premises for an unlawful purpose. 18
The landlord’s claim for compensation of $1,241.31 for individual sampling is granted. The methamphetamine assessment report dated 7 February 2025 indicates an increase in the presence of methamphetamine residue inside the premises compared to the report dated 7 October 2021. In these circumstances, it was appropriate for the landlord to undertake individual sampling to determine whether decontamination was required.
The landlord’s claims for compensation of $1,707.75 for decontamination and $1,321.86 for post-decontamination testing are dismissed. I adopt the approach taken in the Gluckman Report that damage occurs and decontamination is necessary when levels of methamphetamine contamination are above 15mcg/100cm². This is the general approach of the Tribunal when determining claims for compensation for decontamination.
The methamphetamine residue levels in this case were below 15mcg/100cm² and there is no evidence to indicate manufacturing occurred at the premises. Therefore, decontamination was not required. 17 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, section 7(1)(a) & (2)(a). 18 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(2)(b). Analysis – exemplary damages
I have found that the tenant use or permitted the use of the premises for an unlawful purpose. This is an unlawful act, which may attract exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,800.00.
Section 109 RTA states that exemplary damages may be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally and the Tribunal determines it is just to make an award having regard to the following factors: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed; and d. The public interest.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
In the District Court decision of Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667, the Court needed to consider a case where the landlord had unlawfully entered the tenancy. That was not disputed. The evidence was that because of a misunderstanding around notices being given, the landlord went into the tenancy without the necessary notice having first being served on the tenant.
Judge Neave in the District Court agreed with an earlier summary of the law from the Tribunal that: 19 Before an award for exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the 19 Chief Executive, ex party Edmonson v Walls North Shore TT 548/92. party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it.
Judge Neave went on to accept that the unlawful entry was made in error, and on that basis there was no intention established, therefore there was no basis to order exemplary damages.
In this case, I find the tenant most likely acted intentionally when they used or permitted someone at the premises with the tenant’s permission to use methamphetamine inside the premises. No evidence to the contrary was submitted and it is difficult to conceive of a situation where the tenant would have consumed or permitted someone at the premises with the tenant’s permission to have consumed methamphetamine in error.
The effect the unlawful act has had on the premises has been of great concern to the landlord. The landlord has incurred financial loss in having individual samples completed and the premises decontaminated. The landlord is unable to claim compensation for the latter.
There is a strong public interest in ensuring tenants are deterred from using or permitting someone at the premises with the tenant’s permission from using methamphetamine inside the premises. Methamphetamine use inside the premises has the potential to cause significant damage.
For these reasons, I find it just to make an award of exemplary damages. I find $900.00 to be a fair and reasonable amount. In settling on this figure I have considered the fact that methamphetamine is a Class A drug. I have also considered the fact that the highest individual reading was 5.4 mcg/100cm², which I find to be modest. Further, I was not referred to any previous instances where the tenant has used or permitted others to use methamphetamine inside tenanted premises.

CANNABIS

Landlord’s evidence and submissions

The landlord claims the tenant also used or permitted the use of the premises for an unlawful purpose by possessing cannabis inside the premises.
The landlord submitted a photograph of a Tupperware container found inside the premises at the end of the tenancy. A small amount of leafy material, which the landlord claims is cannabis, is present inside the container.
The landlord seeks exemplary damages. Analysis
On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced that the leafy material found in the Tupperware container is cannabis.
I find the tenant most likely kept a small amount of cannabis at the premises.
Possession of cannabis is a criminal offence for which a maximum penalty of 3 months imprisonment may be imposed. 20
In keeping cannabis at the premises, I find the tenant used or permitted the use of the premises for an unlawful purpose.
On the balance of probabilities, I find the tenant acted intentionally in storing cannabis at the premises. No evidence to the contrary was submitted.
The landlord did not submit any evidence that the tenant consumed cannabis inside the premises. No evidence regarding damage to the premises as a result of storage of cannabis was submitted.
There is a public interest in deterring tenants from keeping controlled drugs at tenanted premises. This can attract the attention of the Police and result in a negative stigma being attached to the premises. For this reason, I find it just to make an award of exemplary damages, but only for a small amount.
I order the tenant to pay $100.00 in exemplary damages. In settling on this figure, I have considered the fact that cannabis is a Class C controlled drug and only a very small amount was found at the premises. The premises were not damaged as a result of the storage of cannabis and the landlord has not suffered any financial loss due to the unlawful act. I find $100.00 reasonably promotes the general purpose of deterrence.

FILING FEE

Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5202671 — Rent arrears at 58 Saralee Drive, Manurewa, Auckland 2105

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5202671 — Rent arrears at 58 Saralee Drive, Manurewa, Auckland 2105

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

RENT ARREARS

WATER RATES

TENANCY?

DAMAGE

METHAMPHETAMINE

CANNABIS

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

RENT ARREARS

WATER RATES

TENANCY?

DAMAGE

METHAMPHETAMINE

CANNABIS

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions