What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5259020 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 5259020?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,174.28 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit: $1,057.14 awarded to tenant; Water Rates: $172.28 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5259020?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5259020?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12477617-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5259020 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 5259020?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,174.28 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit: $1,057.14 awarded to tenant; Water Rates: $172.28 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5259020?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5259020?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12477617-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

11 Robert Burke Place, Henderson, Auckland 0612 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5259020 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5259020 — net $316.42 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates	$172.28		Water rates
Repairs	$1,174.28		Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Rent credit		$1,057.14	Rent credit
Total award	$1,373.56	$1,057.14
Net award	$316.42
Bond	$2,640.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$316.42

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Gralin Property Management (Auckland Central) Limited As Agent For Yang Zou And Shancha Xu $316.42 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,640.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Gralin Property Management (Auckland Central) Limited As Agent For Yang Zou And Shancha Xu: $316.42 [The tenant/s]: $2,323.58
The remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for water rates, compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Water rates and rent
The tenancy ended on 12 March 2025. The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord provided the rent summary which showed that the tenant was in credit for rent payments at the end of the tenancy. The landlord had charged the tenant for 13 March 2025 as she had returned that day to carry out some cleaning. I have included that day as the tenant did not seem to have a problem with this.
The landlord’s compensation claim includes loss of rent due to methamphetamine contamination which will be considered later in this order. Repairs
The landlord claimed for repairs, and these were acknowledged by the tenant except for the lounge curtains, which had deteriorated after being washed. The landlord agreed to the removal of the lounge curtain claim. Methamphetamine claim
The landlord claims for methamphetamine decontamination. An insurance claim was accepted, and the landlord seeks reimbursement of the insurance excess of $2,400.00.
The landlord produced a pre tenancy report for methamphetamine testing carried out on 23 March 2023. That report concluded that no methamphetamine was detected.
The landlord produced a post tenancy report for methamphetamine testing carried out on 14 March 2025. That report concluded that the composite tests had a potential maximum of 9.31μg/100cm².
The Tribunal has previously found that damage occurs, and decontamination is necessary, when levels of methamphetamine contamination are above 15μg/100cm². (Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper 1 ) This is the level adopted by the “Gluckman Report” dated 29 May 2018. 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 15μg/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 2 , which recommended a level of 1.5μg/100cm², are embedded into law, they both represent guidelines and are not regulatory. The court in the Full Circle case considered whether the Tribunal was wrong to rely on the Gluckman Report instead of the New Zealand Standard and concluded that the Gluckman Report represented the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination. Therefore, the Tribunal continues to adopt a level of 15μg/100cm² as a level that requires remediation for contamination.
As the test results for this tenancy show methamphetamine less than 15μg/100cm² there is no contamination and therefore no award for compensation for decontamination or loss of rent. The landlord’s claims for the insurance excess and loss of rent due to methamphetamine contamination are dismissed. Exemplary damages
The landlord claimed for exemplary damages due to the tenant using the premises for an unlawful purpose being methamphetamine, a prohibited drug.
The tenant shall not use the premises, or permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose 3 .
Using the premises for any activity prohibited by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 is considered using the premises for an unlawful purpose.
In considering whether to grant an award of exemplary damages the Tribunal must consider: (i)The intent of the person committing the unlawful act; (ii)The effect of the unlawful act; (iii)The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed; (iv)The public interest; and 1 Full Circle Real Estate v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 – CIV2018-009-2490 2 NZS 8510:2017³ (NZS) 3 Section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (v)Whether it is just to make the award 4 .
The tenant denied using methamphetamine at the premises or knowingly allowing someone else to use methamphetamine at the premises. The tenant said that some other people had provided respite care for her with the care of her elderly invalid father. She left the premises when those people were in the home, and this occurred around every three months. The tenant does not know for sure if any of these people used methamphetamine at the premises.
The landlord says that the tenant is the occupant and while her friends or family may be responsible for the methamphetamine at the premises, the tenant should be liable.
I note that the tenant is responsible for anything done by any person who is in the premises with the tenant’s permission if the act would have constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement has it been the act of the tenant 5 .
In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is sought. There must be evidence that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it.
In this situation there is no evidence that the tenant acted intentionally. The facts before me do not show that this tenant intentionally used the premises for an unlawful purpose.
The landlord’s claim for exemplary damages is dismissed. Suppression and filing fee
At the hearing the tenant sought suppression.
Section 95A(4) Residential Tenancies Act provides that the Tribunal may on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
Taking into consideration the parties’ interest, alongside that of the public interest, I find the tenant’s interest outweighs the public interest. The claims that the landlord succeeded with were mostly acknowledged by the tenant. While the claim in respect of methamphetamine contamination did not succeed an order naming the tenant may have a negative impact on her obtaining a further tenancy. Therefore, the Tribunal makes an order suppressing the name of the tenant. 4 Section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 5 Section 41(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986
While the landlord has been successful with their application it did not seek suppression, so no order is made in respect of the landlord.
Because Gralin Property Management (Auckland Central) Limited As Agent For Yang Zou And Shancha Xu has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5259020 — net $316.42 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates	$172.28		Water rates
Repairs	$1,174.28		Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Rent credit		$1,057.14	Rent credit
Total award	$1,373.56	$1,057.14
Net award	$316.42
Bond	$2,640.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$316.42

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Gralin Property Management (Auckland Central) Limited As Agent For Yang Zou And Shancha Xu $316.42 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,640.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Gralin Property Management (Auckland Central) Limited As Agent For Yang Zou And Shancha Xu: $316.42 [The tenant/s]: $2,323.58
The remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for water rates, compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Water rates and rent
The tenancy ended on 12 March 2025. The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord provided the rent summary which showed that the tenant was in credit for rent payments at the end of the tenancy. The landlord had charged the tenant for 13 March 2025 as she had returned that day to carry out some cleaning. I have included that day as the tenant did not seem to have a problem with this.
The landlord’s compensation claim includes loss of rent due to methamphetamine contamination which will be considered later in this order. Repairs
The landlord claimed for repairs, and these were acknowledged by the tenant except for the lounge curtains, which had deteriorated after being washed. The landlord agreed to the removal of the lounge curtain claim. Methamphetamine claim
The landlord claims for methamphetamine decontamination. An insurance claim was accepted, and the landlord seeks reimbursement of the insurance excess of $2,400.00.
The landlord produced a pre tenancy report for methamphetamine testing carried out on 23 March 2023. That report concluded that no methamphetamine was detected.
The landlord produced a post tenancy report for methamphetamine testing carried out on 14 March 2025. That report concluded that the composite tests had a potential maximum of 9.31μg/100cm².
The Tribunal has previously found that damage occurs, and decontamination is necessary, when levels of methamphetamine contamination are above 15μg/100cm². (Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper 1 ) This is the level adopted by the “Gluckman Report” dated 29 May 2018. 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 15μg/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 2 , which recommended a level of 1.5μg/100cm², are embedded into law, they both represent guidelines and are not regulatory. The court in the Full Circle case considered whether the Tribunal was wrong to rely on the Gluckman Report instead of the New Zealand Standard and concluded that the Gluckman Report represented the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination. Therefore, the Tribunal continues to adopt a level of 15μg/100cm² as a level that requires remediation for contamination.
As the test results for this tenancy show methamphetamine less than 15μg/100cm² there is no contamination and therefore no award for compensation for decontamination or loss of rent. The landlord’s claims for the insurance excess and loss of rent due to methamphetamine contamination are dismissed. Exemplary damages
The landlord claimed for exemplary damages due to the tenant using the premises for an unlawful purpose being methamphetamine, a prohibited drug.
The tenant shall not use the premises, or permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose 3 .
Using the premises for any activity prohibited by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 is considered using the premises for an unlawful purpose.
In considering whether to grant an award of exemplary damages the Tribunal must consider: (i)The intent of the person committing the unlawful act; (ii)The effect of the unlawful act; (iii)The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed; (iv)The public interest; and 1 Full Circle Real Estate v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 – CIV2018-009-2490 2 NZS 8510:2017³ (NZS) 3 Section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (v)Whether it is just to make the award 4 .
The tenant denied using methamphetamine at the premises or knowingly allowing someone else to use methamphetamine at the premises. The tenant said that some other people had provided respite care for her with the care of her elderly invalid father. She left the premises when those people were in the home, and this occurred around every three months. The tenant does not know for sure if any of these people used methamphetamine at the premises.
The landlord says that the tenant is the occupant and while her friends or family may be responsible for the methamphetamine at the premises, the tenant should be liable.
I note that the tenant is responsible for anything done by any person who is in the premises with the tenant’s permission if the act would have constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement has it been the act of the tenant 5 .
In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is sought. There must be evidence that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it.
In this situation there is no evidence that the tenant acted intentionally. The facts before me do not show that this tenant intentionally used the premises for an unlawful purpose.
The landlord’s claim for exemplary damages is dismissed. Suppression and filing fee
At the hearing the tenant sought suppression.
Section 95A(4) Residential Tenancies Act provides that the Tribunal may on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
Taking into consideration the parties’ interest, alongside that of the public interest, I find the tenant’s interest outweighs the public interest. The claims that the landlord succeeded with were mostly acknowledged by the tenant. While the claim in respect of methamphetamine contamination did not succeed an order naming the tenant may have a negative impact on her obtaining a further tenancy. Therefore, the Tribunal makes an order suppressing the name of the tenant. 4 Section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 5 Section 41(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986
While the landlord has been successful with their application it did not seek suppression, so no order is made in respect of the landlord.
Because Gralin Property Management (Auckland Central) Limited As Agent For Yang Zou And Shancha Xu has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5259020 — Property damage at 11 Robert Burke Place, Henderson, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5259020 — Property damage at 11 Robert Burke Place, Henderson, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions