What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5229940 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 5229940?

Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Testing And Decontamination Costs: $4,208.49 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5229940?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5229940?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13832915-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5229940 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 5229940?

Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Testing And Decontamination Costs: $4,208.49 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5229940?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5229940?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13832915-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

1 Bryce Place, Kelvin Grove, Palmerston North 4414 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5229940 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5229940 — net $5,035.49 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: testing and decontamination costs	$4,208.49	Repairs: testing and decontamination costs
Exemplary damages	$800.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,035.49
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,035.49

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5229940 — net $5,035.49 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: testing and decontamination costs	$4,208.49	Repairs: testing and decontamination costs
Exemplary damages	$800.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,035.49
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,035.49

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name only.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $5,035.49 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

This matter was part heard remotely by the Tribunal on 4 June 2025.
Orders were made by the Tribunal terminating the tenancy on 6 June 2025 as well as for rent arrears, ($3,485.00) and release of the bond ($1,200.00). This left a balance owing by the tenant of $2,285.00. The hearing was adjourned to hear the landlord’s claims for compensation.
The matter was set down to be heard on 5 August 2025. The landlord applied for an adjournment as evidence relating to her compensation claims and insurance details were not available. The Tribunal ordered the parties to file any further documentary evidence no later than 5 working days before the hearing.
The hearing was eventually held remotely on 8 June 2026. Both parties attended the hearing. The burden of proof
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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 or 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.” Relevant legal principles – compensation and exemplary damages
The Tribunal may award compensation to a landlord for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the tenant of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach. • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are different. They 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.”
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proven that the other party has, with intent, committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must consider the factors set out in section 109 (3) RTA. Those factors are: • The intention of the person • The effect of the unlawful act • The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and • The public interest.
The landlord’s claims are as follows; • Compensation for damage to the premises due to methamphetamine contamination. • Compensation for damage to furniture due to methamphetamine contamination • Methamphetamine testing costs. • Methamphetamine decontamination costs. • Pet related costs • Damage to a toilet • An aerial has been removed. • Exemplary damages for using the premises for an unlawful purpose. • Exemplary damages for subletting the premises without first obtaining consent from the landlord • Reimbursement of the filing fee. • Rent arrears.

DECISIONS AND REASONS

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord seeks compensation for damage caused to the property following a police raid as well as damage caused to the property through methamphetamine contamination and the related testing and cleaning.
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the is damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. The landlord is insured. The landlord’s policy of insurance carries an excess of $500.00 on each and every claim.
Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA. The use of methamphetamine is an imprisonable offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
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.
For a landlord to succeed in a claim for costs involved in methamphetamine testing and contamination there are two main aspects that must be proven: a. First, that the contamination occurred during the tenancy (and so the tenant is liable). b. Secondly, that the level of methamphetamine detected is likely to constitute a health hazard and therefore would entitle the landlord to claim the costs of testing and decontaminating the premises.
It has been well recognised for years, that methamphetamine contamination presents risks for people living in dwellings when the level of contamination is high. The difficulty has been determining what the tolerable level should be, above which the premises would be considered contaminated.
In 2017 Standards New Zealand released NZS8510:2017; “Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine-contaminated properties.” In short, this standard confirmed that the level at which habitation of residential premises was considered safe was a level of
5μg/100cm2. The expectation on landlords arising from this standard was to remediate premises contaminated with methamphetamine, to a level of less than 1.5μg/100cm2.
However, in more recent times, the (former) Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman determined that there was little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption. The report concluded that any levels below 15μg/100cm2 were unlikely to present adverse effects and there should be no need for remediation (Report, Methamphetamine Contamination in Residential Properties: Exposures, Risk Levels, and Interpretation of Standards, 29 May 2018).
The levels have now been confirmed in the most recent amendments to the law in the Residential Tenancies (Managing Methamphetamine Contamination) Regulations 2026 which came into force on 16 April 2026. The regulations confirmed 15μg/100cm2 as the minimum level at which contamination has occurred.
The matter had previously been considered by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper, where Judge Kellar needed to determine the level that should be applied. The court discussed the conflict between the New Zealand Standard and Chief Science Advisors report and confirmed: The Tenancy Tribunal was in a difficult position. The best states of knowledge of risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination available to the adjudicator was the Gluckman report. It would have been bold for the adjudicator to have ignored that report in favour of the New Zealand standard given that the Gluckman Report represents the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine in dwellings.
In my view, this decision of the District Court has confirmed that the level to be applied at the relevant dates for this hearing is the level expressed by the Chief Science Advisor, which is that there is no risk when levels of contamination are below 15μg/100cm2.
This view is further endorsed by the Court of Appeal decision, Smith v Accessible Properties Limited [2019] NZCA 38, where in reference to the Gluckman Report it states, “[w]e acknowledge that the testing in this case yielded results now considered not to raise any health and safety concerns”. Discussion on methamphetamine damage
Is the landlord able to prove the pre tenancy levels of contamination? The landlord did not undertake methamphetamine testing at the commencement of the tenancy. This would often result in the dismissal of a claim due to the uncertainty of when methamphetamine contamination may have occurred. Were the premises already contaminated at the commencement of the tenancy?
The landlord’s evidence was that a new shower was installed in the premises in January 2025, well after the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord asserts that if the test results showed that the shower was contaminated, that would prove that methamphetamine had been used at the premises after the commencement of this tenancy.
Testing for methamphetamine contamination was conducted at the premises. Samples were obtained on 8 June 2025. The discrete samples were tested by ALS Food and Environmental NZ. The test results showed that some degree of methamphetamine contamination existed in all of the 10 discrete samples. The results are as below (all results in this order are shown as micrograms per 100cm2). Kitchen 10.2 Lounge Room78.1 Hallway5.80 Bedroom 131.4 Bedroom 222.1 Bedroom 327.4 Bathroom16.7 Separate toilet20.1 Laundry10.1 Garage1.17
A separate sample was taken from the bathroom glass shower panel on 21 July 2025. This is the panel which the landlord said had only been installed in January 2025. That discrete test returned a result of 15.5.
The tenant’s evidence was that she had been on probation during the course of the tenancy. She had been drug tested from the late 2023 until 30 March 2025 and that all tests had been negative.
The tenant said that she had one border living with her during the tenancy and that she would have visitors at the house from time to time. She agreed that the bathroom had been renovated during the course of the tenancy. She said that she moved out of the premises 27 March 2025 and that the people that sublet the property moved in before 12 April 2025.
The Tribunal order dated 4 June 2025 records that the tenancy of [The tenant/s] at these premises ended on 6 June 2025. That order has not been appealed. For the purposes of this decision, I am bound by the earlier order and proceed on that basis.
Having reviewed the evidence, I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that: a. The contamination was caused during the tenancy. It may or may not have been caused by the tenant personally, however the tenant remains liable for the actions of anyone at the premises with her consent (s.41 RTA). b. The level of methamphetamine detected is likely to constitute a health hazard and therefore entitled the landlord to claim the cost for testing and decontaminating the premises.
The landlord compensation claims which relate to methamphetamine contamination are; Testing$7,521.73. Painting and decorating$8,238.60 Paint$877.96 Replacement Curtains$3,621.95 Replacement Carpet$5,000.00 Decontamination cleaning$9,547.88 Doors x 3 painted and installed $1,488.24 HRV replacement$4,398.00 Insulation$2,693.52 House clear out$747.75 Doors x 9$4,464.00 Total$48,599.63
The compensation claims relating to methamphetamine can be broken up into three areas.
First, testing costs. The tenant is liable for all testing costs. The testing costs are $7,521.73.
Secondly, decontamination cleaning. The tenant is liable for all cleaning costs. The cleaning costs are $10,295.63.
Finally, compensation for renovation and repairs. The total claimed is $30,782.27.
I have considered betterment and depreciation in respect of the amounts claimed for renovations and repairs and they have been reduced from what was sought by the landlord. Some wear and tear would be expected at the end of a tenancy of this length, and they have been replaced new. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations but should not be better 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.
As an indication, the landlord confirmed that the premises were last decorated in 2020.The curtains and carpet were more than 10 years old Having taken those factors into account, I consider that an appropriate compensation figure for renovation and repairs is $15,391.13 (50% of the sum claimed).
The total compensation figure is $33,208.49. The landlord’s evidence confirms that the landlord has received $29,000.00 from her insurer, that being the maximum payable under the landlord’s insurance cover. The remaining balance of $4,208.49 is to be paid by the tenant. The landlord is not insured for that sum and the damage is intentional. 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. Other claims
The landlord seeks compensation of $639.03 for door and wall repairs . The damage was caused by the Police during a police raid on the premises.
It is not the intention of section 41, RTA that tenants are liable for the damage done by anyone who is at the premises. Tenants are only liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. Here, there is nothing to suggest that the police were at the premises with the permission of the tenant.
If I made the order the landlord is seeking, it would mean that a tenant would be liable for any damage caused by the Police, or any other government agency, or any other person that entered the tenancy premises. That would result in tenants being unfairly made to pay for damage caused by people they have not invited into their homes or who are there other than with their permission.
Accordingly, I find the tenant is not liable to pay for the damage caused by the Police. Cattery
The landlord seeks compensation for $1,719.00. The tenant cared for the landlord’s cat, as the landlord was also living in rented accommodation where cats were not allowed. The contamination resulted in the landlord incurring pet accommodation costs. Caring for the landlord’s cat did not form part of the tenancy arrangement between the parties. The claim is dismissed. Toilet
The toilet was damaged during the course of a home invasion by parties unknown. The repair cost was $835.75. It is not the intention of section 41, RTA that tenants are liable for the damage done by anyone who is at the premises. Tenants are only liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. Here there is nothing to suggest that the perpetrators of the damage were at the premises with the permission of the tenant. The claim is dismissed. Rent arrears
Rent arrears have already been ordered in this matter and no further order is required. Fireplace
The landlord said that the internal vent was gone as was a handle. The fireplace was at least 8 years old. The tenant said that the internal vent had rusted during her tenancy and was then repaired. The burden of proving that the damage occurred during the tenancy is on the landlord. I have not received sufficient evidence to confirm that it was more likely than not damaged by the tenant during the tenancy and the claim is dismissed. Aerial
The landlord says that there was an aerial present at the start of the tenancy and that it was no longer present at the end of the tenancy. The landlord seeks compensation of $211.60 for a replacement. The tenant says that the aerial was present at the end of the tenancy. No other evidence has been provided by either party. I am not persuaded that it is more likely than not that the aerial has been removed and the claim is dismissed. Exemplary Damages claims
[The landlord/s]claims the tenant has sublet or parted with possession of the premises without their prior written consent.
In the absence of a specific provision in the tenancy agreement prohibiting subletting or parting of possession of the tenancy, a tenant may do so but only with the prior written consent of the landlord. The landlord may not withhold consent unreasonably. See section 44(2) and (3) RTA.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 44(2A)(b) and Schedule 1A RTA.
In light of the Tribunal’s order dated 6 June 2026, that this tenancy carried on until termination by the Tribunal, I find that this tenancy carried on until that date and that there was no subletting of the premises. The application is dismissed.
[The landlord/s] claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully.
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) RTA.
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 RTA.
It is unlawful to use or allow the use of methamphetamine in breach of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
I have already found that methamphetamine had been used in the premises during the course of the tenancy. The tenant has 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) RTA.
The use of methamphetamine can only be intentional, whether it be by the tenant or a guest of the tenant. The detrimental effect of methamphetamine use to premises is well known. It is in the best interests of this landlord and landlord’s generally to not have the premises used for unlawful purposes. Having reviewed the evidence and the extensive methamphetamine contamination in the premises shown by the testing results, I consider an order of $800.00 to be appropriate.
As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful in this hearing. Suppression of the landlord’s name only is ordered. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter. The tenant’s application for name suppression is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5229940 — Property damage at 1 Bryce Place, Kelvin Grove, Palmerston North 4414

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5229940 — Property damage at 1 Bryce Place, Kelvin Grove, Palmerston North 4414

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

DECISIONS AND REASONS

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

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

DECISIONS AND REASONS

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions