Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5292883 — Property damage at 39 Bell Street, Tawa, Wellington 5028
Decided 4 Dec 2025 · Published 4 Dec 2025 · Application 5292883
- Property damage
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
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 Te Ahuru Mowai Limited Partnership $6,674.02, calculated as shown in table below.
- [The tenant/s] must pay the debt in order 2 at the rate of $20 per week.
- The first payment must be made on Tuesday 4 November 2025 and payments must continue every Tuesday until the debt is paid in full.
- If [The tenant/s] fails to make any payment within 2 working days of the due date, the balance of the debt owing will be payable immediately and can be enforced through the District Court.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $208.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Te Ahuru Mowai Limited Partnership immediately.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Trego and Mr Perenara represented the landlord.
- The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy on 13 December 2025. [The tenant/s] was in rent credit and that has been applied to this order.
- A number of the claims made were withdrawn or amended at the hearing. This decision discusses the remainder sought.
Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?
- Te Ahuru Mowai Limited Partnership claims compensation for having to repair: a. A number of walls in the property that had been damaged by holes or incomplete repairs. b. Methamphetamine damage. c. A missing door handle. d. The hot water cylinder.
- To be successful in such a claim 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
- [The tenant/s] consents to the claims regarding the walls and door handle. Accordingly, I only discuss the disputed claims, as follows. Methamphetamine damage
- Methamphetamine contamination is considered by the Tribunal to be intentional damage requiring remediation at levels of over 15μg per 100sq cm. 1
- Testing was undertaken in this property on 18 December 2024, five days after the tenancy ended. All areas tested returned positive results varying from 0.02 and 19.7μg per 100sq cm. Two areas, the bathroom entry and bedroom 1 produced levels exceeding 15μg per 100sq cm.
- Te Ahuru Mowai Limited Partnership had the entire property decontaminated. Originally, they sought reimbursement for the full cost slightly reduced. However, after discussion at the hearing agreed that only reimbursement of the cost for remediation of the two rooms testing at the higher levels was appropriate.
- [The tenant/s] was extremely and naturally upset by these readings as she was unaware of who was using methamphetamine in her home. She does however accept that given she resided in the home for 8 years, the number of family and friends who also used the house, and the relatively high levels in the subject areas, that the contamination most likely occurred during her tenure. Accordingly, she accepts the amount claimed. Hot water cylinder
- Te Ahuru Mowai Limited Partnership seeks reimbursement of the $592 cost they were put to in replacing the hot water cylinder after the copper piping had been removed.
- [The tenant/s] is clear that she did not remove the piping, and it was intact a week prior to the end of the tenancy as she was using hot water to clean the property. She says she left the property locked when she vacated and had her suspicions as to who might have removed the piping after she left.
- Te Ahuru Mowai Limited Partnership photos were taken on the 19 th of December, almost a week after the tenancy had ended. The property is in an area that is well known for deviant behaviour. [The tenant/s] personally had been plagued by dangerous and difficult behaviour from her neighbours which was part of the reason she left.
- Te Ahuru Mowai Limited Partnership as the applicant has the burden of proof. This means they must prove their claim to the evidential standard which is the balance of probabilities, or what is more likely than not. 1 See Crichton v Bay City Rentals Tauranga Ltd [2018] NZTT 4153013, 4154535, Fast Rental Limited v Grimes & Nicholls [2018] NZTT North Shore 4140391, Full Circle Real Estate v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947, Smith v Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited [2019] NZCA 38
- Their evidence is that the property was returned to them locked however accept that a vacant property in this area is “fair game” and copper piping has a high street value.
- Accordingly, as it cannot be established in evidence that at the end of the tenancy on the 13 th of December the pipes had been removed, I do not find the evidential burden met. It is highly possible that the pipes were removed after the tenancy ended but before the inspection and photos being taken. The evidence indicates that a number of neighbours knew [The tenant/s] had left by then. Over this period Te Ahuru Mowai Limited Partnership had possession of, and responsibility for the home. The claim must therefore be dismissed.
- Because Te Ahuru Mowai Limited Partnership has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
- Because [The tenant/s] consented to a number of orders and due to the family violence discussed, I consider it just and appropriate that her identifying details be suppressed pursuant to section 95A of the RTA. As Te Ahuru Mowai Limited Partnership is a social housing provider administering public funds, I do not consider it just that their details be suppressed.