What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5263400 about?

The tribunal order states: This order replaces the order dated 5 September 2025 as the calculations in the

How much money was awarded in case 5263400?

Credit Held By Landlord: $384.07 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,187.95 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5263400?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5263400?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12388276-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5263400 about?

The tribunal order states: This order replaces the order dated 5 September 2025 as the calculations in the

How much money was awarded in case 5263400?

Credit Held By Landlord: $384.07 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,187.95 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5263400?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5263400?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12388276-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit G04, 3 Beaumonts Way, Manurewa, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5263400 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5263400 — net $830.88 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs	$1,187.95		Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Credit held by landlord		$384.07	Credit held by landlord
Total award	$1,214.95	$384.07
Net award	$830.88
Bond	$2,240.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$830.88

Order

This order replaces the order dated 5 September 2025 as the calculations in the table were incorrect.
An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Rochelle Ryan and Leann Adamson to pay [The landlord/s] $830.88 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,240.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $830.88 Rochelle Ryan and Leann Adamson: $1,409.12

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The first part of the claim is in relation to repairs carried out at the premises due to damage caused by the tenants. The damage is to the front doorstep, the bathroom door, the door, wall and trim of the bedrooms and the shower door wheels.
The second part of the claim relates to remediation due to methamphetamine contamination at the premises.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission 1 .
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) 2 .
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. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage 3 .
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 4 .
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 1 Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 2 Section 49B(3)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 3 Section 49B(3A)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 4 Section 49B(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty 5 .
I am satisfied that the repairs itemised in the invoice from Jim’s Handyman were carried out due to the damage caused by the tenant, that was more than fair wear and tear. For much of this damage the tenant has accepted responsibility except for the broken shower wheels. I am however satisfied that the damage to the shower wheels was likely to have occurred during the tenancy. The amount of the invoice is ordered. Methamphetamine
The landlord claims that the tenant caused damage to the premises due to methamphetamine use.
The tenancy commenced on 23 November 2024. The landlord arranged for pre tenancy methamphetamine testing which was carried out on 21 November 2024. The report from All Clear dated 25 November 2024 records that no presence of methamphetamine was detected.
The tenancy ended on 10 April 2025. The landlord arranged for post tenancy methamphetamine testing which was carried out on 17 April 2025. The landlord explained that the delay of one week from the end of the tenancy until the day of the testing was likely due to needing to book the testing. The property managers were the only people to have access to the premises which were not tenanted during this period.
The report from All Clear dated 23 April 2025 records that methamphetamine was detected. The composite test result was 1.58 μg/100cm². The report recommended individual analysis which was carried out and the results are contained in the report dated 24 April 2025. The composite test results show readings from 0.59 μg/100cm² to 3.8 μg/100cm².
The issue to consider is what level amounts to contamination.
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 6 ) 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. 5 Guo v Korck[2019] NZHC 1541 6 [2019] NZDC 4947 – CIV2018-009-2490
Neither the Gluckman Report nor the previously used New Zealand Standard 7 , 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.
More recently the District Court 8 has confirmed that the NZ Standard has not been adopted into law and therefore in that case the Adjudicator was not bound to find that any contamination above 1.5μg/100cm² was injurious to health.
Therefore, the Tribunal continues to adopt a level of 15μg/100cm² as a level that requires remediation for contamination.
The landlord had referred to other Tribunal cases where it was submitted that the Tribunal has awarded costs with low level contamination above the NZ standard. All those decisions are prior to the District Court decision referred to above which while not binding on the Tribunal, District Court decisions are influential and usually followed unless there is a strong reason to depart from them.
As the levels of contamination at these premises are below 15μg/100cm² I conclude that no decontamination was required. That part of the landlord’s claim is dismissed.
The landlord claimed for exemplary damages due to the tenant using the premises, or permitting the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose 9 . It is unlawful to manufacture, deal or possess methamphetamine which is a class A drug 10 .
Both tenants denied using methamphetamine in the premises and did not have any knowledge of any other person using methamphetamine at the premises. The tenant did acknowledge that her sister and brother-in-law and three children had lived at the premises between 7 March 2025 and 10 April 2025. During that time the tenants lived elsewhere. The tenants did not think that their sister and brother-in-law used methamphetamine when they lived at the premises.
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 had it been the act of the tenant 11 . Both the 7 NZS 8510:2017³ (NZS) 8 Acme Realty Ltd v Alexander James Hogg, Tuitui Grace Polotu, Leigh Sharyn Coughlin [2021] NZDC 3231 9 Section 40(2(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 10 Sections 6 & 7, Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 11 Section 41(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and the tenancy agreement 12 prevent the use of illegal substances in the premises.
For an award of exemplary damages, the Tribunal must have regard to the intent of the person in committing the unlawful act, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed and the public interest 13
A recent District Court decision 14 considered “intentional act” and confirmed that the landlord in that case must actually be aware of the breach.
A tenant can be liable for the unlawful act of methamphetamine use by a visitor if the visitor was permitted by the tenant to be on the premises and the tenant knew or ought to have known about the unlawful use 15 .
I am satisfied that the tenant permitted her sister and brother-in-law to be at the premises. If it were the tenant’s sister and brother-in-law who used methamphetamine at the premises, I am satisfied that the tenant did not know about the unlawful use. Therefore, the tenant is not liable for exemplary damages. That claim is dismissed.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. For the same reason I suppress the landlord’s name as sought.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5263400 — net $830.88 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs	$1,187.95		Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Credit held by landlord		$384.07	Credit held by landlord
Total award	$1,214.95	$384.07
Net award	$830.88
Bond	$2,240.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$830.88

Order

This order replaces the order dated 5 September 2025 as the calculations in the table were incorrect.
An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Rochelle Ryan and Leann Adamson to pay [The landlord/s] $830.88 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,240.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $830.88 Rochelle Ryan and Leann Adamson: $1,409.12

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The first part of the claim is in relation to repairs carried out at the premises due to damage caused by the tenants. The damage is to the front doorstep, the bathroom door, the door, wall and trim of the bedrooms and the shower door wheels.
The second part of the claim relates to remediation due to methamphetamine contamination at the premises.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission 1 .
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) 2 .
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. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage 3 .
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 4 .
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 1 Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 2 Section 49B(3)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 3 Section 49B(3A)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 4 Section 49B(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty 5 .
I am satisfied that the repairs itemised in the invoice from Jim’s Handyman were carried out due to the damage caused by the tenant, that was more than fair wear and tear. For much of this damage the tenant has accepted responsibility except for the broken shower wheels. I am however satisfied that the damage to the shower wheels was likely to have occurred during the tenancy. The amount of the invoice is ordered. Methamphetamine
The landlord claims that the tenant caused damage to the premises due to methamphetamine use.
The tenancy commenced on 23 November 2024. The landlord arranged for pre tenancy methamphetamine testing which was carried out on 21 November 2024. The report from All Clear dated 25 November 2024 records that no presence of methamphetamine was detected.
The tenancy ended on 10 April 2025. The landlord arranged for post tenancy methamphetamine testing which was carried out on 17 April 2025. The landlord explained that the delay of one week from the end of the tenancy until the day of the testing was likely due to needing to book the testing. The property managers were the only people to have access to the premises which were not tenanted during this period.
The report from All Clear dated 23 April 2025 records that methamphetamine was detected. The composite test result was 1.58 μg/100cm². The report recommended individual analysis which was carried out and the results are contained in the report dated 24 April 2025. The composite test results show readings from 0.59 μg/100cm² to 3.8 μg/100cm².
The issue to consider is what level amounts to contamination.
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 6 ) 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. 5 Guo v Korck[2019] NZHC 1541 6 [2019] NZDC 4947 – CIV2018-009-2490
Neither the Gluckman Report nor the previously used New Zealand Standard 7 , 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.
More recently the District Court 8 has confirmed that the NZ Standard has not been adopted into law and therefore in that case the Adjudicator was not bound to find that any contamination above 1.5μg/100cm² was injurious to health.
Therefore, the Tribunal continues to adopt a level of 15μg/100cm² as a level that requires remediation for contamination.
The landlord had referred to other Tribunal cases where it was submitted that the Tribunal has awarded costs with low level contamination above the NZ standard. All those decisions are prior to the District Court decision referred to above which while not binding on the Tribunal, District Court decisions are influential and usually followed unless there is a strong reason to depart from them.
As the levels of contamination at these premises are below 15μg/100cm² I conclude that no decontamination was required. That part of the landlord’s claim is dismissed.
The landlord claimed for exemplary damages due to the tenant using the premises, or permitting the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose 9 . It is unlawful to manufacture, deal or possess methamphetamine which is a class A drug 10 .
Both tenants denied using methamphetamine in the premises and did not have any knowledge of any other person using methamphetamine at the premises. The tenant did acknowledge that her sister and brother-in-law and three children had lived at the premises between 7 March 2025 and 10 April 2025. During that time the tenants lived elsewhere. The tenants did not think that their sister and brother-in-law used methamphetamine when they lived at the premises.
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 had it been the act of the tenant 11 . Both the 7 NZS 8510:2017³ (NZS) 8 Acme Realty Ltd v Alexander James Hogg, Tuitui Grace Polotu, Leigh Sharyn Coughlin [2021] NZDC 3231 9 Section 40(2(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 10 Sections 6 & 7, Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 11 Section 41(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and the tenancy agreement 12 prevent the use of illegal substances in the premises.
For an award of exemplary damages, the Tribunal must have regard to the intent of the person in committing the unlawful act, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed and the public interest 13
A recent District Court decision 14 considered “intentional act” and confirmed that the landlord in that case must actually be aware of the breach.
A tenant can be liable for the unlawful act of methamphetamine use by a visitor if the visitor was permitted by the tenant to be on the premises and the tenant knew or ought to have known about the unlawful use 15 .
I am satisfied that the tenant permitted her sister and brother-in-law to be at the premises. If it were the tenant’s sister and brother-in-law who used methamphetamine at the premises, I am satisfied that the tenant did not know about the unlawful use. Therefore, the tenant is not liable for exemplary damages. That claim is dismissed.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. For the same reason I suppress the landlord’s name as sought.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5263400 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Unit G04, 3 Beaumonts Way, Manurewa, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5263400 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Unit G04, 3 Beaumonts Way, Manurewa, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

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

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions