What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5202673?

The tribunal order states: Leonie Renata and Neil Wilson must pay Jem Rentals Limited $13,738.56

How much money was awarded in case 5202673?

2 Garage Door Remotes: $39.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Heat Pump Remote: $55.98 awarded to landlord; Meth Test 27 March 2025: $2,116.00 awarded to landlord; Meth Test 7 Jan 2025: $293.25 awarded to landlord; Meth Test 9 Jan 2025: $396.75 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5117809 D…: $5,871.62 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $598.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $438.31 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $202.65 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5202673?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5202673?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11766435-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5202673?

The tribunal order states: Leonie Renata and Neil Wilson must pay Jem Rentals Limited $13,738.56

How much money was awarded in case 5202673?

2 Garage Door Remotes: $39.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Heat Pump Remote: $55.98 awarded to landlord; Meth Test 27 March 2025: $2,116.00 awarded to landlord; Meth Test 7 Jan 2025: $293.25 awarded to landlord; Meth Test 9 Jan 2025: $396.75 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5117809 D…: $5,871.62 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $598.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $438.31 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $202.65 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5202673?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5202673?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11766435-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

23 Thornlea Drive, Welcome Bay, Tauranga 3112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5202673 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

23 Thornlea Drive, Welcome Bay, Tauranga 3112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5202673 — Property damage | 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 5202673 — net $13,738.56 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 5117809 dated 03/03/2025	$5,871.62	Previous order application 5117809 dated 03/03/2025
Water rates as at end of tenancy	$202.65	Water rates as at end of tenancy
Meth test 7 Jan 2025	$293.25	Meth test 7 Jan 2025
Meth test 9 Jan 2025	$396.75	Meth test 9 Jan 2025
Meth test 27 March 2025	$2,116.00	Meth test 27 March 2025
Insurance excess - meth related damage	$2,500.00	Insurance excess - meth related damage
Rubbish removal	$438.31	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$598.00	Lock/key replacement
2 garage door remotes	$39.00	2 garage door remotes
Heat pump remote	$55.98	Heat pump remote
Exemplary damages – using premises for unlawful purpose	$1,200.00	Exemplary damages – using premises for unlawful purpose
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$13,738.56
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$13,738.56

Claims and awards for application 5202673 — net $13,738.56 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Previous order application 5117809 dated 03/03/2025

Amount: $5,871.62
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Previous order application 5117809 dated 03/03/2025

Water rates as at end of tenancy

Amount: $202.65
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates as at end of tenancy

Meth test 7 Jan 2025

Amount: $293.25
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Meth test 7 Jan 2025

Meth test 9 Jan 2025

Amount: $396.75
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Meth test 9 Jan 2025

Meth test 27 March 2025

Amount: $2,116.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Meth test 27 March 2025

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Exemplary damages Filing Fee Property damage Rubbish Removal Water Rates

Order

Leonie Renata and Neil Wilson must pay Jem Rentals Limited $13,738.56 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
This Order incorporates the previous order for application 5117809 dated 3 March 2025.

Reasons

The tenants did not attend the hearing which was held today at Tauranga District Court. The hearing proceeded in their absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Water rates
I accept the evidence indicating that as at the end of the tenancy the tenants owed a further $202.65 in water rates. This is over and above the water rates ordered in the previous order for application 5117809. Methamphetamine contamination
A landlord must prove that any 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.
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 makes a number of claims under this heading, including the insurance excess payable for cleaning the premises, carpet replacement and replacement of the blinds for the entire house, less two bedrooms, and the costs of the methamphetamine tests.
I accept that the premises were contaminated by methamphetamine during the tenants’ occupation of the tenancy. This is because a test done on 12 August 2016, a week prior to the tenants moving in, does not indicate any methamphetamine contamination, whereas three tests done in January and March 2025 show that methamphetamine was present in all the rooms of the premises including the garage, except for in two bedrooms.
However, the tenants are not liable for any costs associated with this contamination unless the level of methamphetamine contamination is 15mg/100cm 2 or greater.
This is because for a number of years now the Tribunal has accepted and applied what is universally described as the “Gluckman” level. This is the level which Professor Gluckman in his report of May 2018 to the Government, concluded was a level below which there was no real risk to occupants of the premises (except where there is evidence of manufacturing).
Applying this level means that in this case, where there is only one room (the lounge) that tests over the 15mg/100cm 2 , the tenants are liable only for the remediation costs relating to this room. The lounge tested as 16.8mg/100cm 2 .
Evidence was given today as to the costs of cleaning the premises, the costs of replacing the carpet and the costs of replacing the blinds throughout the entire premises, minus the two bedrooms unaffected by methamphetamine. The total cost amounted to $17,445.00.
However, the landlord seeks payment only of the insurance excess payable for these costs – that is, $2,500.00. This amount is less than the estimated cost of remediating the lounge only and so I am ordering the tenants to pay this amount.
I am also ordering the tenants to pay the invoiced costs of methamphetamine testing given that the lounge tested over the 15mg/100cm 2 level.
The landlord also seeks an award of exemplary damages because the tenants used the premises for an unlawful purpose.
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.
It is unlawful to use methamphetamine and so I find that the tenants have committed an unlawful act.
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.
I consider it just to award the landlord $1,200.00 in exemplary damages. I accept that the contamination has caused the landlord significant stress and has meant that the premises have not been able to be re-tenanted in a timely way. I have also taken into account the considerable public interest in tenants’ abiding by NZ law, particularly in relation to drug abuse which has a documented negative impact not only on the users themselves but on the wider society.
I note that at today’s hearing the landlord withdrew a claim for painting the premises.

Did the tenants 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.
I accept the evidence that the tenants left a considerable amount of rubbish at the premises.
The tenants did not return the keys.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: 2 garage door remotes and a heat pump remote.
The amounts ordered to remedy these issues are proved by invoices. Filing fee reimbursement
I am also ordering the tenants to reimburse the filing fee to the landlord because the landlord was wholly successful in the claim against them. C ter Haar 29 April 2025

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 5202673 — net $13,738.56 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 5117809 dated 03/03/2025	$5,871.62	Previous order application 5117809 dated 03/03/2025
Water rates as at end of tenancy	$202.65	Water rates as at end of tenancy
Meth test 7 Jan 2025	$293.25	Meth test 7 Jan 2025
Meth test 9 Jan 2025	$396.75	Meth test 9 Jan 2025
Meth test 27 March 2025	$2,116.00	Meth test 27 March 2025
Insurance excess - meth related damage	$2,500.00	Insurance excess - meth related damage
Rubbish removal	$438.31	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$598.00	Lock/key replacement
2 garage door remotes	$39.00	2 garage door remotes
Heat pump remote	$55.98	Heat pump remote
Exemplary damages – using premises for unlawful purpose	$1,200.00	Exemplary damages – using premises for unlawful purpose
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$13,738.56
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$13,738.56

Claims and awards for application 5202673 — net $13,738.56 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Previous order application 5117809 dated 03/03/2025

Amount: $5,871.62
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Previous order application 5117809 dated 03/03/2025

Water rates as at end of tenancy

Amount: $202.65
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates as at end of tenancy

Meth test 7 Jan 2025

Amount: $293.25
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Meth test 7 Jan 2025

Meth test 9 Jan 2025

Amount: $396.75
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Meth test 9 Jan 2025

Meth test 27 March 2025

Amount: $2,116.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Meth test 27 March 2025

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Exemplary damages Filing Fee Property damage Rubbish Removal Water Rates

Order

Leonie Renata and Neil Wilson must pay Jem Rentals Limited $13,738.56 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
This Order incorporates the previous order for application 5117809 dated 3 March 2025.

Reasons

The tenants did not attend the hearing which was held today at Tauranga District Court. The hearing proceeded in their absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Water rates
I accept the evidence indicating that as at the end of the tenancy the tenants owed a further $202.65 in water rates. This is over and above the water rates ordered in the previous order for application 5117809. Methamphetamine contamination
A landlord must prove that any 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.
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 makes a number of claims under this heading, including the insurance excess payable for cleaning the premises, carpet replacement and replacement of the blinds for the entire house, less two bedrooms, and the costs of the methamphetamine tests.
I accept that the premises were contaminated by methamphetamine during the tenants’ occupation of the tenancy. This is because a test done on 12 August 2016, a week prior to the tenants moving in, does not indicate any methamphetamine contamination, whereas three tests done in January and March 2025 show that methamphetamine was present in all the rooms of the premises including the garage, except for in two bedrooms.
However, the tenants are not liable for any costs associated with this contamination unless the level of methamphetamine contamination is 15mg/100cm 2 or greater.
This is because for a number of years now the Tribunal has accepted and applied what is universally described as the “Gluckman” level. This is the level which Professor Gluckman in his report of May 2018 to the Government, concluded was a level below which there was no real risk to occupants of the premises (except where there is evidence of manufacturing).
Applying this level means that in this case, where there is only one room (the lounge) that tests over the 15mg/100cm 2 , the tenants are liable only for the remediation costs relating to this room. The lounge tested as 16.8mg/100cm 2 .
Evidence was given today as to the costs of cleaning the premises, the costs of replacing the carpet and the costs of replacing the blinds throughout the entire premises, minus the two bedrooms unaffected by methamphetamine. The total cost amounted to $17,445.00.
However, the landlord seeks payment only of the insurance excess payable for these costs – that is, $2,500.00. This amount is less than the estimated cost of remediating the lounge only and so I am ordering the tenants to pay this amount.
I am also ordering the tenants to pay the invoiced costs of methamphetamine testing given that the lounge tested over the 15mg/100cm 2 level.
The landlord also seeks an award of exemplary damages because the tenants used the premises for an unlawful purpose.
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.
It is unlawful to use methamphetamine and so I find that the tenants have committed an unlawful act.
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.
I consider it just to award the landlord $1,200.00 in exemplary damages. I accept that the contamination has caused the landlord significant stress and has meant that the premises have not been able to be re-tenanted in a timely way. I have also taken into account the considerable public interest in tenants’ abiding by NZ law, particularly in relation to drug abuse which has a documented negative impact not only on the users themselves but on the wider society.
I note that at today’s hearing the landlord withdrew a claim for painting the premises.

Did the tenants 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.
I accept the evidence that the tenants left a considerable amount of rubbish at the premises.
The tenants did not return the keys.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: 2 garage door remotes and a heat pump remote.
The amounts ordered to remedy these issues are proved by invoices. Filing fee reimbursement
I am also ordering the tenants to reimburse the filing fee to the landlord because the landlord was wholly successful in the claim against them. C ter Haar 29 April 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5202673 — Property damage at 23 Thornlea Drive, Welcome Bay, Tauranga 3112

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5202673 — Property damage at 23 Thornlea Drive, Welcome Bay, Tauranga 3112

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions