What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5279183 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] And Portfolio Management Limited As

How much money was awarded in case 5279183?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $465.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Living Area Carpet: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5279183?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5279183?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12680464-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5279183 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] And Portfolio Management Limited As

How much money was awarded in case 5279183?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $465.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Living Area Carpet: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5279183?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5279183?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12680464-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 18G, 34 Kingston Street, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5279183 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Unit/Flat 18G, 34 Kingston Street, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5279183 — 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 5279183 — net $1,942.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears between 17 and 23 December 2024	$465.00	Rent arrears between 17 and 23 December 2024
Replace living area carpet	$500.00	Replace living area carpet
Repairs walls and repainting	$750.00	Repairs walls and repainting
Repairs	$100.00	Repairs
Cleaning	$100.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,942.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,942.00

Claims and awards for application 5279183 — net $1,942.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears between 17 and 23 December 2024

Amount: $465.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears between 17 and 23 December 2024

Replace living area carpet

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace living area carpet

Repairs walls and repainting

Amount: $750.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs walls and repainting

Repairs

Amount: $100.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs

Cleaning

Amount: $100.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Dismissed claims

Methamphetamine Testing, Decontamina… — in full. __________________________________________________________________________________ 527918313 Filing fee

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] And Portfolio Management Limited As Agent For Gwen Yee $1,942.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears between 17 and 23 December 2024$465.00 Replace living area carpet$500.00 Repairs walls and repainting$750.00 Repairs$100.00 Cleaning$100.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$1,942.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,942.00

Reasons

The hearing was held on 6 November 2025.
Mr Wang, the landlord’s agent, attended the hearing.
Mr Taogaga, the tenant, did not attend the hearing. There was no adjournment, nor were any reasons provided for his non-attendance.
During the hearing, Mr Wang told me that his last contact with the tenant was by email the day before the hearing, when the tenant confirmed that he was in Wellington for work and would not be attending the Tribunal hearing.
In the circumstances, the hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence pursuant to section 92(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
I am also satisfied that the tenant was properly served with the application in accordance with section 91A(2)(e) of the RTA.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Inspection reports and evidence
Mr Wang submitted invoices and two inspection reports in support of the claims. These included: a. A previous outgoing inspection report dated 9 July 2021 (“July 2021 report”), relating to the prior tenancy, which Mr Wang stated was used as the reference point for the condition of the premises at the start of the current tenancy; and b. An outgoing inspection report dated 6 January 2025 (“January 2025 report”), completed shortly after the tenant vacated the premises.
During the hearing, I queried Mr Wang about the absence of a pre-tenancy inspection report for this particular tenancy, which began on 27 October 2021. Mr Wang confirmed that no separate pre-tenancy inspection report was completed at the commencement of Mr Taogaga’s tenancy, as the property had been vacant for approximately three months following the departure of the previous tenant.
Despite these issues, the landlord must persuade me on the balance of probabilities which damage pre-existed and which was caused during the tenancy.
Mr Wang explained that the July 2021 report was completed before he joined the company, so he had limited knowledge of the circumstances. His understanding was that, as the apartment was located in the city, it was difficult to rent out at that time, and the previous agent had spent considerable effort finding a new tenant. This accounted for the vacancy period.
I told Mr Wang that, while I acknowledge his explanation, the burden of proof remains on the landlord to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the claimed damage occurred during the tenancy, that Mr Taogaga was responsible for the damage, and that it was not the result of fair wear and tear.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 23 December 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant 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) of the RTA. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) of the RTA. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
A 90-day notice to terminate the tenancy was issued on 24 September 2024, as the landlord intended to place the apartment on the market for sale. The tenancy ended on 23 December 2024, with an outgoing inspection completed on 6 January 2025.
The landlord subsequently discovered that the apartment was in poor condition and alleged several areas of damage. Further testing later revealed methamphetamine contamination, which led to decontamination and subsequent repair work. The landlord seeks recovery of the following costs: a. Costs for repairs and replacements, including kitchen cabinetry, cracked tiles, repainting, carpet replacement, and general maintenance. b. Methamphetamine-related costs, including testing, decontamination, and post-treatment assessment. c. Cleaning and rubbish removal costs.
The key issues for determination are therefore: a. Whether the landlord has proved that the claimed damages occurred during the tenancy, that Mr Taogaga was responsible for the damage and that they were not the result of fair wear and tear. b. Whether the claimed costs for repairs, repainting, new carpet, and cleaning are reasonable and necessary, or whether they amount to property improvement. c. Whether the methamphetamine contamination claim is substantiated, given the absence of a pre-tenancy test. Cleaning
The cleaning invoice from Cobra Services, totalling $322, included tasks such as wiping kitchen benches, cleaning the oven and rangehood, vacuuming the new carpet, and disposing of an old towel rail and mini-fridge. Mr Wang said the apartment had been left in an unclean state, with rubbish and grease residue visible in the kitchen.
Having reviewed the photographs from the January 2025 report (particularly pages 110 and 113), I accept that limited cleaning of the kitchen, such as wiping down the mini oven, benches, and shelves, may have been required. However, I also observed that the cleaning work was undertaken after the repainting and re-carpeting had been completed. I explained to Mr Wang that once a property has been repainted and newly carpeted, any subsequent cleaning relates to tidying after renovation, not to cleaning following the tenant’s occupation. Those are the landlord’s refurbishment costs, not tenancy-related liabilities.
Furthermore, the invoice included disposal of items and vacuuming of new carpet, which clearly occurred after the renovation, not during the tenancy. As such, these were not costs arising from any breach of the tenant’s obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
For these reasons, I consider compensation of $100, to cover the cost of cleaning the kitchen, to be appropriate. I find that the landlord has not proven that the remaining cleaning costs claimed were attributable to the tenant. The balance of the claim is dismissed.

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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the 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 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) of the 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) of the 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. See section 49B(3A)(a) of the 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) of the 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. Property damage and repairs
Mr Wang submitted several invoices for repairs, including the replacement of kitchen cabinets, cracked tiles, repainting, and new carpet. I asked Mr Wang to refer me to the January 2025 report and the July 2021 report to verify the condition of the apartment.
During the hearing, I raised significant concerns about the three-month gap between the previous tenant’s July 2021 report dated 9 July 2021 and the commencement of Mr Taogaga’s tenancy on 27 October 2021. I told Mr Wang that, without a pre-tenancy inspection report for the current tenancy, I could not confidently attribute the alleged damage to the tenant, as it was possible that some of the issues pre-dated his occupation.
I reiterated that the landlord bears the burden of proof, on the balance of probabilities, to satisfy me that the damage occurred during the tenancy, that Mr Taogaga was responsible for the damage and that it was not the result of fair wear and tear. Kitchen cabinet
The landlord sought reimbursement for the replacement of the lower kitchen cabinetry due to “water damage and swollen panels.” I observed that the invoice described the full removal and replacement of the cabinetry, including plumbing work and disposal of the dishwasher.
I told Mr Wang that the invoice read like a renovation for sale, rather than a repair of damage caused by the tenant. The scope of work includes removing and replacing cabinetry, plumbing, and refitting the bench, suggesting improvement rather than repair.
As Mr Wang could not confirm who authorised or carried out the work, and given that the pre-tenancy condition of the cabinetry was unclear, I declined to find that the tenant was responsible for this cost. Tiles
Mr Wang identified cracked tiles in the kitchen, supported by photographs from the January 2025 report. I compared these with photographs from the July 2021 report and found markings similar to those in the January 2025 report.
I told Mr Wang that if the same pattern of cracking was visible in the July 2021 report, I could not be satisfied that the damage was not fair wear and tear or pre-existing.
Mr Wang submitted that the damage resulted from the tenant dropping something on the tiles, but acknowledged that he was not an expert. I again raised concerns about the three-month gap between the prior tenant’s exit inspection on 9 July 2021 and the commencement of Mr Taogaga’s tenancy on 27 October 2021.
I acknowledge that the January 2025 report showed the condition of the tiles had deteriorated and was cracking compared with the July 2021 report. However, I was not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the condition of the tiles was not due to fair wear and tear, or that the damage occurred during the tenancy.
Accordingly, the claim is not proven. Carpet
Mr Wang confirmed that the carpet invoice for $2,103 covered the installation of new carpet throughout the apartment.
Mr Wang drew my attention to the carpet in the living area, which he said was stained and damaged beyond repair. The carpet in the living area appeared so badly damaged that I initially thought it was bare flooring, until Mr Wang clarified, “That is the carpet.”
I reviewed the remaining carpet in the bedroom and hallway and noted that it showed visible staining and wear in the January 2025 report. The photographs from the July 2021 report also showed that the carpet already exhibited noticeable stains and wear at that time.
I noted that, while the carpet had deteriorated further since the start of the tenancy, the decision to replace it was ultimately for the landlord to decide. There was no evidence before me that the landlord attempted to mitigate the damage by engaging a professional carpet cleaner to clean the bedroom or hallway carpets. See section 49 of the RTA.
In my view, the tenant is only required to restore the landlord to the position he was in at the commencement of the tenancy on 27 October 2021. I advised Mr Wang that only a depreciated portion of the cost could be considered, as landlords cannot profit from the replacement of aged or previously worn items.
I consider reimbursement of $500 to be appropriate for the replacement of the living room carpet. I decline to award compensation for the balance of the invoice, as the landlord did not provide evidence of mitigation by attempting to clean or partially restore the existing carpet. The decision to replace the remaining carpet was the landlord’s choice. Painting and repairs
Two invoices from TMG Painting were produced, each for $1,955, dated 31 March 2025 and 23 April 2025, together representing a total of $3,910. The invoices described the work as “prepare and paint apartment throughout the unit.”
Mr Wang stated that repainting was undertaken after the exit inspection because the walls were marked, scratched, and in some areas had small holes and dents. He referred me to several photographs from the January 2025 report, including those showing marks in the living room, bedroom, and bathroom. He compared these with photographs from the July 2021 report, which he said showed the walls in good condition at the start of the tenancy.
Upon reviewing the photographic evidence, I accepted that there were visible scuffs and surface marks on the walls. However, the condition did not appear to warrant a full repaint of the entire apartment. The invoices, on their face, described comprehensive interior painting, including preparation of all surfaces, and were not limited to specific areas of damage.
I explained to Mr Wang that, while some touch-up painting might have been reasonable, the evidence suggested the landlord had chosen to refurbish the unit in its entirety. I drew Mr Wang’s attention to the wording of the invoices, which stated “paint apartment throughout (full repaint including ceilings), repair ranch slider step.” The fact that new carpet and other renovation work were carried out at the same time strongly indicated that this was part of a general refurbishment for sale, rather than a repair of tenant-caused damage.
I also noted that the tenancy had lasted for over three years, during which time normal wear and tear was expected. The RTA does not permit landlords to recover costs arising from fair wear and tear, or to claim for work that improves the property beyond its previous condition.
Accordingly, I found that only a portion of the painting could be attributed to tenancy-related marking. However, as the invoices did not distinguish between general refurbishment and necessary repairs, and because no itemised breakdown was provided, I was unable to quantify any portion with precision. I do, however, acknowledge that during the tenancy the tenant caused some damage to the walls.
For these reasons, I award $750 for painting and repairs. General repairs
The invoice from The Maintenance Guys, dated May 2025, for $977.50, listed various tasks, including the replacement of “swollen and damaged trim in the hallway and bathroom,” “replacement of laundry cupboard doors,” and “reattachment of laundry door hinges.”
Mr Wang referred me to photographs from the January 2025 report, particularly pages 19 and 62, showing minor damage to trims and a broken towel rail. He explained that these works were carried out after the decontamination process but acknowledged that, once the landlord took direct control of the property, the management company was no longer involved in overseeing the repairs.
I noted that much of the work listed in the invoice appeared to be of a general maintenance nature, and there was insufficient evidence linking the damage directly to Mr Taogaga’s conduct during the tenancy, or distinguishing it from fair wear and tear, with the exception of the towel rail. This concern is heightened by the fact that decontamination had taken place in the apartment. In the circumstances, I could not determine whether the tenant was responsible for the damage.
Mr Wang responsibly informed me that he could not say precisely what work had been carried out, as it was arranged by the landlord after management of the property had ceased.
During the hearing, I told Mr Wang that I would consider awarding compensation at a reduced amount to reflect the likely cost of the towel rail and associated labour. Having reviewed the January 2025 report holistically, I consider a compensation of $100 to be appropriate.
In considering the appropriate compensation, I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse 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. Methamphetamine Contamination
The landlord claimed costs associated with methamphetamine contamination, including testing, decontamination, and post-treatment assessments. Invoices were provided from All Clear and Meth Decontamination Services, covering initial testing, laboratory analysis, decontamination, and post-decontamination verification. The total claimed is $4,967.14.
The landlord must prove that the tenant caused or permitted the contamination, or that it was caused by someone at the premises with the tenant’s consent. The landlord must also prove that, as a result of the contamination, the premises have been damaged or are not reasonably clean.
Section 138C Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides for regulations to be made prescribing the maximum acceptable level for contaminants, but as yet no regulations have been made in relation to methamphetamine.
There are currently two sources of guidance on the issue of a safe level of methamphetamine contamination in residential premises. In June 2017, Standards New Zealand published NZS 8510:2017. The standard recommended a maximum contamination level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 for high-use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture. It recommended a higher level of 3.8μg/100cm 2 for limited-use areas.
In May 2018 Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the then Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor, released a report "Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards”. The report noted that there is a lack of scientific evidence to prove that low-level third-hand methamphetamine exposure poses a health risk to humans. It stated that guidelines should be proportionate to risk and that exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm 2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect. It recommended retaining the level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 where contamination resulted from manufacture, due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the process.
The District Court has held that remediation should be carried out in accordance with the prevailing guidelines at the time (Diamond Real Estate Limited v Allan [2017] NZDC 833, Judge Kellar).
The Tribunal has generally applied the Gluckman recommendation. This approach was approved by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947, where the Court stated (at para [36]): The Tenancy Tribunal was in a difficult position. The best state 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 contamination in dwellings.
The District Court took a similar approach in Acme Realty Limited v Hogg and others [2021] NZDC 3231, where the Court referred to the Full Circle case and held that, because NZS 8510:2017 has not been adopted into law, the Tribunal was not bound to apply the 1.5μg standard.
More recently, in Barfoot and Thompson Limited v Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited [2021] NZTT Auckland 4276319, both parties presented scientific evidence at a hearing before the Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that there was no new scientific research to change the conclusions reached in the Gluckman Report.
Mr Wang gave evidence that after Mr Taogaga vacated on 23 December 2024, an initial meth test was conducted on 7 February 2025, and decontamination work took place on 5 March 2025. He explained that there had been a delay due to the holiday period and that he had suspected possible drug use during the tenancy, stating that the tenant “often appeared high” during inspections.
When I asked whether a pre-tenancy meth test had been carried out, Mr Wang confirmed that no such report could be located. He said the company had searched its records but found none. He acknowledged that the only test results available were those taken after the tenancy had ended.
I explained to Mr Wang that the absence of a pre-tenancy meth test presented a fundamental evidentiary issue. Without a baseline result, it is impossible to establish whether any detected contamination arose during this tenancy or pre- dated it. I told Mr Wang that previous Tribunal decisions have held that, in such circumstances, the claim will usually fail because the landlord cannot discharge the burden of proof.
In Full Circle Real Estate v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947], Judge Kellar confirmed that the landlord needed to prove not only that the premises were contaminated by methamphetamine beyond “safe” levels but also that any damage through methamphetamine contamination occurred during the tenancy. When determining whether the methamphetamine contamination occurred during the tenancy, the Court commented on the type of evidence that was required: [38] Furthermore, the adjudicator was unable to determine whether methamphetamine contamination, whether above or below 15 micrograms per 100 square centimetres occurred during the tenancy when there was no test done before the tenancy started. There was no evidence before the Tenancy Tribunal or on appeal to show how long methamphetamine contamination remains in a property aside from reference in the Gluckman Report that: Experiments involving simulated “smoking” methamphetamine found that residue levels decline markedly over a few days. [39] That raises the possibility that it was likely methamphetamine contamination from smoking had occurred during the tenancy but there was no evidence on which the Tenancy Tribunal or this Court on appeal could determine that question. It may be that in future cases of this nature there will be evidence as to how long residue from methamphetamine contamination will remain on surfaces from which an inference may be able to be drawn as to whether the contamination occurred during the tenancy.
In Eren Limited v Martin and Kukuruzsnyak [2021] NZDC 15210, the District Court confirmed the above approach, noting that the lack of methamphetamine testing at the start of the tenancy meant that it was not possible to conclude, on the balance of probabilities, that the tenants were responsible for the methamphetamine residue found at the premises at the end of the tenancy.

Is the tenant liable for methamphetamine testing and decontamination?

The first question – did methamphetamine cause damage?

There are two parts to the question of the tenant’s liability. First, whether the level of methamphetamine contamination at the premises was beyond “safe” levels, thereby causing “damage” to the premises within the meaning of section 40(2)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Secondly, whether the landlord has established that any such damage occurred during the tenancy.
In relation to the first question, the landlord relies primarily on the All Clear post- decontamination assessment dated 10 March 2025 (“the post-decontamination report”).
Although Mr Wang was unable to provide a pre-tenancy methamphetamine test report, the All Clear post-decontamination report of 10 March 2025 showed that the methamphetamine concentration levels from samples taken in Bedroom 2 were 25 μg/100cm², being the highest reading, with other areas recording the following levels: a. Kitchen – ceiling: 6.2 μg/100cm² b. Living room – door frame: 23 μg/100cm² c. Bedroom 1 – door: 2.5 μg/100cm² d. Bathroom – door: 18.6 μg/100cm² e. Entry – door: 15 μg/100cm²
Three of the six areas tested had readings above the Gluckman Report level of 15 μg/100 cm². In the remaining three areas, the kitchen ceiling, bedroom 1 door, and entry door, the levels were below 15 μg/100cm².
I do not have the full report and therefore do not know what recommendations All Clear made to the landlord. However, I infer from the post-decontamination report that All Clear recommended decontamination of the premises, with access being restricted until that work had been completed.
Adopting the approach in Full Circle Real Estate Ltd v Liu and as endorsed in Acme Realty Ltd v Hodge, the standard to be applied is that recommended by the Gluckman Report.
Based on the evidence from the All Clear report, I am satisfied that the level of methamphetamine contamination at the premises was sufficient to cause damage. While not all areas tested exceeded 15 μg/100cm², the levels detected in most parts of the apartment were above the Gluckman threshold, and in three areas the readings were significantly higher than the “safe” level.
Accordingly, I find that the premises were damaged due to methamphetamine contamination. The second question – did the tenant cause the damage during tenancy?
Mr Wang was unable to produce the results of any baseline methamphetamine testing completed before the tenancy commenced. Mr Wang stated that the owner had undertaken such testing, but there is no evidence before me to confirm that any pre-tenancy test took place..
I acknowledge that the tenancy lasted for three years, one month, and twenty- seven days. However, without a pre-tenancy test, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the premises was damaged because the tenant consumed methamphetamine during the tenancy. I take this view because there is no evidence before me to confirm the following: a. That an exit test was conducted at the end of the previous tenancy on 9 July 2021; and b. That a pre-tenancy test was carried out before the commencement of this tenancy on 27 October 2021.
Accordingly, I conclude that the landlord has not proven, on the balance of probabilities, that the methamphetamine contamination occurred during this tenancy. While I accept that the landlord incurred genuine expenses in addressing the issue, those costs cannot properly be attributed to the tenant in the absence of conclusive evidence.
For these reasons, the claim for methamphetamine testing, decontamination, and related costs is dismissed in full. Filing fee
Because [The landlord/s] And Portfolio Management Limited As Agent For Gwen Yee has substantially succeeded with the claims 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 5279183 — net $1,942.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears between 17 and 23 December 2024	$465.00	Rent arrears between 17 and 23 December 2024
Replace living area carpet	$500.00	Replace living area carpet
Repairs walls and repainting	$750.00	Repairs walls and repainting
Repairs	$100.00	Repairs
Cleaning	$100.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,942.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,942.00

Claims and awards for application 5279183 — net $1,942.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears between 17 and 23 December 2024

Amount: $465.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears between 17 and 23 December 2024

Replace living area carpet

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace living area carpet

Repairs walls and repainting

Amount: $750.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs walls and repainting

Repairs

Amount: $100.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs

Cleaning

Amount: $100.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Dismissed claims

Methamphetamine Testing, Decontamina… — in full. __________________________________________________________________________________ 527918313 Filing fee

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] And Portfolio Management Limited As Agent For Gwen Yee $1,942.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears between 17 and 23 December 2024$465.00 Replace living area carpet$500.00 Repairs walls and repainting$750.00 Repairs$100.00 Cleaning$100.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$1,942.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,942.00

Reasons

The hearing was held on 6 November 2025.
Mr Wang, the landlord’s agent, attended the hearing.
Mr Taogaga, the tenant, did not attend the hearing. There was no adjournment, nor were any reasons provided for his non-attendance.
During the hearing, Mr Wang told me that his last contact with the tenant was by email the day before the hearing, when the tenant confirmed that he was in Wellington for work and would not be attending the Tribunal hearing.
In the circumstances, the hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence pursuant to section 92(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
I am also satisfied that the tenant was properly served with the application in accordance with section 91A(2)(e) of the RTA.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Inspection reports and evidence
Mr Wang submitted invoices and two inspection reports in support of the claims. These included: a. A previous outgoing inspection report dated 9 July 2021 (“July 2021 report”), relating to the prior tenancy, which Mr Wang stated was used as the reference point for the condition of the premises at the start of the current tenancy; and b. An outgoing inspection report dated 6 January 2025 (“January 2025 report”), completed shortly after the tenant vacated the premises.
During the hearing, I queried Mr Wang about the absence of a pre-tenancy inspection report for this particular tenancy, which began on 27 October 2021. Mr Wang confirmed that no separate pre-tenancy inspection report was completed at the commencement of Mr Taogaga’s tenancy, as the property had been vacant for approximately three months following the departure of the previous tenant.
Despite these issues, the landlord must persuade me on the balance of probabilities which damage pre-existed and which was caused during the tenancy.
Mr Wang explained that the July 2021 report was completed before he joined the company, so he had limited knowledge of the circumstances. His understanding was that, as the apartment was located in the city, it was difficult to rent out at that time, and the previous agent had spent considerable effort finding a new tenant. This accounted for the vacancy period.
I told Mr Wang that, while I acknowledge his explanation, the burden of proof remains on the landlord to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the claimed damage occurred during the tenancy, that Mr Taogaga was responsible for the damage, and that it was not the result of fair wear and tear.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 23 December 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant 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) of the RTA. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) of the RTA. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
A 90-day notice to terminate the tenancy was issued on 24 September 2024, as the landlord intended to place the apartment on the market for sale. The tenancy ended on 23 December 2024, with an outgoing inspection completed on 6 January 2025.
The landlord subsequently discovered that the apartment was in poor condition and alleged several areas of damage. Further testing later revealed methamphetamine contamination, which led to decontamination and subsequent repair work. The landlord seeks recovery of the following costs: a. Costs for repairs and replacements, including kitchen cabinetry, cracked tiles, repainting, carpet replacement, and general maintenance. b. Methamphetamine-related costs, including testing, decontamination, and post-treatment assessment. c. Cleaning and rubbish removal costs.
The key issues for determination are therefore: a. Whether the landlord has proved that the claimed damages occurred during the tenancy, that Mr Taogaga was responsible for the damage and that they were not the result of fair wear and tear. b. Whether the claimed costs for repairs, repainting, new carpet, and cleaning are reasonable and necessary, or whether they amount to property improvement. c. Whether the methamphetamine contamination claim is substantiated, given the absence of a pre-tenancy test. Cleaning
The cleaning invoice from Cobra Services, totalling $322, included tasks such as wiping kitchen benches, cleaning the oven and rangehood, vacuuming the new carpet, and disposing of an old towel rail and mini-fridge. Mr Wang said the apartment had been left in an unclean state, with rubbish and grease residue visible in the kitchen.
Having reviewed the photographs from the January 2025 report (particularly pages 110 and 113), I accept that limited cleaning of the kitchen, such as wiping down the mini oven, benches, and shelves, may have been required. However, I also observed that the cleaning work was undertaken after the repainting and re-carpeting had been completed. I explained to Mr Wang that once a property has been repainted and newly carpeted, any subsequent cleaning relates to tidying after renovation, not to cleaning following the tenant’s occupation. Those are the landlord’s refurbishment costs, not tenancy-related liabilities.
Furthermore, the invoice included disposal of items and vacuuming of new carpet, which clearly occurred after the renovation, not during the tenancy. As such, these were not costs arising from any breach of the tenant’s obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
For these reasons, I consider compensation of $100, to cover the cost of cleaning the kitchen, to be appropriate. I find that the landlord has not proven that the remaining cleaning costs claimed were attributable to the tenant. The balance of the claim is dismissed.

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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the 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 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) of the 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) of the 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. See section 49B(3A)(a) of the 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) of the 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. Property damage and repairs
Mr Wang submitted several invoices for repairs, including the replacement of kitchen cabinets, cracked tiles, repainting, and new carpet. I asked Mr Wang to refer me to the January 2025 report and the July 2021 report to verify the condition of the apartment.
During the hearing, I raised significant concerns about the three-month gap between the previous tenant’s July 2021 report dated 9 July 2021 and the commencement of Mr Taogaga’s tenancy on 27 October 2021. I told Mr Wang that, without a pre-tenancy inspection report for the current tenancy, I could not confidently attribute the alleged damage to the tenant, as it was possible that some of the issues pre-dated his occupation.
I reiterated that the landlord bears the burden of proof, on the balance of probabilities, to satisfy me that the damage occurred during the tenancy, that Mr Taogaga was responsible for the damage and that it was not the result of fair wear and tear. Kitchen cabinet
The landlord sought reimbursement for the replacement of the lower kitchen cabinetry due to “water damage and swollen panels.” I observed that the invoice described the full removal and replacement of the cabinetry, including plumbing work and disposal of the dishwasher.
I told Mr Wang that the invoice read like a renovation for sale, rather than a repair of damage caused by the tenant. The scope of work includes removing and replacing cabinetry, plumbing, and refitting the bench, suggesting improvement rather than repair.
As Mr Wang could not confirm who authorised or carried out the work, and given that the pre-tenancy condition of the cabinetry was unclear, I declined to find that the tenant was responsible for this cost. Tiles
Mr Wang identified cracked tiles in the kitchen, supported by photographs from the January 2025 report. I compared these with photographs from the July 2021 report and found markings similar to those in the January 2025 report.
I told Mr Wang that if the same pattern of cracking was visible in the July 2021 report, I could not be satisfied that the damage was not fair wear and tear or pre-existing.
Mr Wang submitted that the damage resulted from the tenant dropping something on the tiles, but acknowledged that he was not an expert. I again raised concerns about the three-month gap between the prior tenant’s exit inspection on 9 July 2021 and the commencement of Mr Taogaga’s tenancy on 27 October 2021.
I acknowledge that the January 2025 report showed the condition of the tiles had deteriorated and was cracking compared with the July 2021 report. However, I was not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the condition of the tiles was not due to fair wear and tear, or that the damage occurred during the tenancy.
Accordingly, the claim is not proven. Carpet
Mr Wang confirmed that the carpet invoice for $2,103 covered the installation of new carpet throughout the apartment.
Mr Wang drew my attention to the carpet in the living area, which he said was stained and damaged beyond repair. The carpet in the living area appeared so badly damaged that I initially thought it was bare flooring, until Mr Wang clarified, “That is the carpet.”
I reviewed the remaining carpet in the bedroom and hallway and noted that it showed visible staining and wear in the January 2025 report. The photographs from the July 2021 report also showed that the carpet already exhibited noticeable stains and wear at that time.
I noted that, while the carpet had deteriorated further since the start of the tenancy, the decision to replace it was ultimately for the landlord to decide. There was no evidence before me that the landlord attempted to mitigate the damage by engaging a professional carpet cleaner to clean the bedroom or hallway carpets. See section 49 of the RTA.
In my view, the tenant is only required to restore the landlord to the position he was in at the commencement of the tenancy on 27 October 2021. I advised Mr Wang that only a depreciated portion of the cost could be considered, as landlords cannot profit from the replacement of aged or previously worn items.
I consider reimbursement of $500 to be appropriate for the replacement of the living room carpet. I decline to award compensation for the balance of the invoice, as the landlord did not provide evidence of mitigation by attempting to clean or partially restore the existing carpet. The decision to replace the remaining carpet was the landlord’s choice. Painting and repairs
Two invoices from TMG Painting were produced, each for $1,955, dated 31 March 2025 and 23 April 2025, together representing a total of $3,910. The invoices described the work as “prepare and paint apartment throughout the unit.”
Mr Wang stated that repainting was undertaken after the exit inspection because the walls were marked, scratched, and in some areas had small holes and dents. He referred me to several photographs from the January 2025 report, including those showing marks in the living room, bedroom, and bathroom. He compared these with photographs from the July 2021 report, which he said showed the walls in good condition at the start of the tenancy.
Upon reviewing the photographic evidence, I accepted that there were visible scuffs and surface marks on the walls. However, the condition did not appear to warrant a full repaint of the entire apartment. The invoices, on their face, described comprehensive interior painting, including preparation of all surfaces, and were not limited to specific areas of damage.
I explained to Mr Wang that, while some touch-up painting might have been reasonable, the evidence suggested the landlord had chosen to refurbish the unit in its entirety. I drew Mr Wang’s attention to the wording of the invoices, which stated “paint apartment throughout (full repaint including ceilings), repair ranch slider step.” The fact that new carpet and other renovation work were carried out at the same time strongly indicated that this was part of a general refurbishment for sale, rather than a repair of tenant-caused damage.
I also noted that the tenancy had lasted for over three years, during which time normal wear and tear was expected. The RTA does not permit landlords to recover costs arising from fair wear and tear, or to claim for work that improves the property beyond its previous condition.
Accordingly, I found that only a portion of the painting could be attributed to tenancy-related marking. However, as the invoices did not distinguish between general refurbishment and necessary repairs, and because no itemised breakdown was provided, I was unable to quantify any portion with precision. I do, however, acknowledge that during the tenancy the tenant caused some damage to the walls.
For these reasons, I award $750 for painting and repairs. General repairs
The invoice from The Maintenance Guys, dated May 2025, for $977.50, listed various tasks, including the replacement of “swollen and damaged trim in the hallway and bathroom,” “replacement of laundry cupboard doors,” and “reattachment of laundry door hinges.”
Mr Wang referred me to photographs from the January 2025 report, particularly pages 19 and 62, showing minor damage to trims and a broken towel rail. He explained that these works were carried out after the decontamination process but acknowledged that, once the landlord took direct control of the property, the management company was no longer involved in overseeing the repairs.
I noted that much of the work listed in the invoice appeared to be of a general maintenance nature, and there was insufficient evidence linking the damage directly to Mr Taogaga’s conduct during the tenancy, or distinguishing it from fair wear and tear, with the exception of the towel rail. This concern is heightened by the fact that decontamination had taken place in the apartment. In the circumstances, I could not determine whether the tenant was responsible for the damage.
Mr Wang responsibly informed me that he could not say precisely what work had been carried out, as it was arranged by the landlord after management of the property had ceased.
During the hearing, I told Mr Wang that I would consider awarding compensation at a reduced amount to reflect the likely cost of the towel rail and associated labour. Having reviewed the January 2025 report holistically, I consider a compensation of $100 to be appropriate.
In considering the appropriate compensation, I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse 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. Methamphetamine Contamination
The landlord claimed costs associated with methamphetamine contamination, including testing, decontamination, and post-treatment assessments. Invoices were provided from All Clear and Meth Decontamination Services, covering initial testing, laboratory analysis, decontamination, and post-decontamination verification. The total claimed is $4,967.14.
The landlord must prove that the tenant caused or permitted the contamination, or that it was caused by someone at the premises with the tenant’s consent. The landlord must also prove that, as a result of the contamination, the premises have been damaged or are not reasonably clean.
Section 138C Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides for regulations to be made prescribing the maximum acceptable level for contaminants, but as yet no regulations have been made in relation to methamphetamine.
There are currently two sources of guidance on the issue of a safe level of methamphetamine contamination in residential premises. In June 2017, Standards New Zealand published NZS 8510:2017. The standard recommended a maximum contamination level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 for high-use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture. It recommended a higher level of 3.8μg/100cm 2 for limited-use areas.
In May 2018 Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the then Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor, released a report "Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards”. The report noted that there is a lack of scientific evidence to prove that low-level third-hand methamphetamine exposure poses a health risk to humans. It stated that guidelines should be proportionate to risk and that exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm 2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect. It recommended retaining the level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 where contamination resulted from manufacture, due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the process.
The District Court has held that remediation should be carried out in accordance with the prevailing guidelines at the time (Diamond Real Estate Limited v Allan [2017] NZDC 833, Judge Kellar).
The Tribunal has generally applied the Gluckman recommendation. This approach was approved by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947, where the Court stated (at para [36]): The Tenancy Tribunal was in a difficult position. The best state 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 contamination in dwellings.
The District Court took a similar approach in Acme Realty Limited v Hogg and others [2021] NZDC 3231, where the Court referred to the Full Circle case and held that, because NZS 8510:2017 has not been adopted into law, the Tribunal was not bound to apply the 1.5μg standard.
More recently, in Barfoot and Thompson Limited v Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited [2021] NZTT Auckland 4276319, both parties presented scientific evidence at a hearing before the Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that there was no new scientific research to change the conclusions reached in the Gluckman Report.
Mr Wang gave evidence that after Mr Taogaga vacated on 23 December 2024, an initial meth test was conducted on 7 February 2025, and decontamination work took place on 5 March 2025. He explained that there had been a delay due to the holiday period and that he had suspected possible drug use during the tenancy, stating that the tenant “often appeared high” during inspections.
When I asked whether a pre-tenancy meth test had been carried out, Mr Wang confirmed that no such report could be located. He said the company had searched its records but found none. He acknowledged that the only test results available were those taken after the tenancy had ended.
I explained to Mr Wang that the absence of a pre-tenancy meth test presented a fundamental evidentiary issue. Without a baseline result, it is impossible to establish whether any detected contamination arose during this tenancy or pre- dated it. I told Mr Wang that previous Tribunal decisions have held that, in such circumstances, the claim will usually fail because the landlord cannot discharge the burden of proof.
In Full Circle Real Estate v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947], Judge Kellar confirmed that the landlord needed to prove not only that the premises were contaminated by methamphetamine beyond “safe” levels but also that any damage through methamphetamine contamination occurred during the tenancy. When determining whether the methamphetamine contamination occurred during the tenancy, the Court commented on the type of evidence that was required: [38] Furthermore, the adjudicator was unable to determine whether methamphetamine contamination, whether above or below 15 micrograms per 100 square centimetres occurred during the tenancy when there was no test done before the tenancy started. There was no evidence before the Tenancy Tribunal or on appeal to show how long methamphetamine contamination remains in a property aside from reference in the Gluckman Report that: Experiments involving simulated “smoking” methamphetamine found that residue levels decline markedly over a few days. [39] That raises the possibility that it was likely methamphetamine contamination from smoking had occurred during the tenancy but there was no evidence on which the Tenancy Tribunal or this Court on appeal could determine that question. It may be that in future cases of this nature there will be evidence as to how long residue from methamphetamine contamination will remain on surfaces from which an inference may be able to be drawn as to whether the contamination occurred during the tenancy.
In Eren Limited v Martin and Kukuruzsnyak [2021] NZDC 15210, the District Court confirmed the above approach, noting that the lack of methamphetamine testing at the start of the tenancy meant that it was not possible to conclude, on the balance of probabilities, that the tenants were responsible for the methamphetamine residue found at the premises at the end of the tenancy.

Is the tenant liable for methamphetamine testing and decontamination?

The first question – did methamphetamine cause damage?

There are two parts to the question of the tenant’s liability. First, whether the level of methamphetamine contamination at the premises was beyond “safe” levels, thereby causing “damage” to the premises within the meaning of section 40(2)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Secondly, whether the landlord has established that any such damage occurred during the tenancy.
In relation to the first question, the landlord relies primarily on the All Clear post- decontamination assessment dated 10 March 2025 (“the post-decontamination report”).
Although Mr Wang was unable to provide a pre-tenancy methamphetamine test report, the All Clear post-decontamination report of 10 March 2025 showed that the methamphetamine concentration levels from samples taken in Bedroom 2 were 25 μg/100cm², being the highest reading, with other areas recording the following levels: a. Kitchen – ceiling: 6.2 μg/100cm² b. Living room – door frame: 23 μg/100cm² c. Bedroom 1 – door: 2.5 μg/100cm² d. Bathroom – door: 18.6 μg/100cm² e. Entry – door: 15 μg/100cm²
Three of the six areas tested had readings above the Gluckman Report level of 15 μg/100 cm². In the remaining three areas, the kitchen ceiling, bedroom 1 door, and entry door, the levels were below 15 μg/100cm².
I do not have the full report and therefore do not know what recommendations All Clear made to the landlord. However, I infer from the post-decontamination report that All Clear recommended decontamination of the premises, with access being restricted until that work had been completed.
Adopting the approach in Full Circle Real Estate Ltd v Liu and as endorsed in Acme Realty Ltd v Hodge, the standard to be applied is that recommended by the Gluckman Report.
Based on the evidence from the All Clear report, I am satisfied that the level of methamphetamine contamination at the premises was sufficient to cause damage. While not all areas tested exceeded 15 μg/100cm², the levels detected in most parts of the apartment were above the Gluckman threshold, and in three areas the readings were significantly higher than the “safe” level.
Accordingly, I find that the premises were damaged due to methamphetamine contamination. The second question – did the tenant cause the damage during tenancy?
Mr Wang was unable to produce the results of any baseline methamphetamine testing completed before the tenancy commenced. Mr Wang stated that the owner had undertaken such testing, but there is no evidence before me to confirm that any pre-tenancy test took place..
I acknowledge that the tenancy lasted for three years, one month, and twenty- seven days. However, without a pre-tenancy test, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the premises was damaged because the tenant consumed methamphetamine during the tenancy. I take this view because there is no evidence before me to confirm the following: a. That an exit test was conducted at the end of the previous tenancy on 9 July 2021; and b. That a pre-tenancy test was carried out before the commencement of this tenancy on 27 October 2021.
Accordingly, I conclude that the landlord has not proven, on the balance of probabilities, that the methamphetamine contamination occurred during this tenancy. While I accept that the landlord incurred genuine expenses in addressing the issue, those costs cannot properly be attributed to the tenant in the absence of conclusive evidence.
For these reasons, the claim for methamphetamine testing, decontamination, and related costs is dismissed in full. Filing fee
Because [The landlord/s] And Portfolio Management Limited As Agent For Gwen Yee has substantially succeeded with the claims I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5279183 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 18G, 34 Kingston Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5279183 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 18G, 34 Kingston Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Is the tenant liable for methamphetamine testing and decontamination?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Is the tenant liable for methamphetamine testing and decontamination?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions