How much money was awarded in case 5296201?

Body Corporate Breach Notice For Ant…: $862.50 awarded to landlord; Body Corporate Breach Notice For Bre…: $402.50 awarded to landlord; Electricity Final Reading: $49.88 awarded to landlord; Exit Methamphetamine Test (Individua…: $862.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Methamphetamine Decontamination: $6,176.00 awarded to landlord; Post-Decontamination Methamphetamine…: $862.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $162.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5296201?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5296201?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12639387-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5296201?

Body Corporate Breach Notice For Ant…: $862.50 awarded to landlord; Body Corporate Breach Notice For Bre…: $402.50 awarded to landlord; Electricity Final Reading: $49.88 awarded to landlord; Exit Methamphetamine Test (Individua…: $862.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Methamphetamine Decontamination: $6,176.00 awarded to landlord; Post-Decontamination Methamphetamine…: $862.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $162.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5296201?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5296201?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12639387-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 2A, 2 White Street, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5296201 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5296201 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Tenantcheck Insights

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5296201 — net $8,113.74 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 1 May 2025	$162.86	Rent arrears to 1 May 2025
Electricity final reading	$49.88	Electricity final reading
Dishwasher repair (due to being blocked with food	$138.00	Dishwasher repair (due to being blocked with food
Body Corporate breach notice for anti-social behaviour/taping fire doors	$862.50	Body Corporate breach notice for anti-social behaviour/taping fire doors
Replacement swipe card 23.01.2025	$50.00	Replacement swipe card 23.01.2025
Replacement swipe card 29.01.2025	$50.00	Replacement swipe card 23.01.2025
Body corporate breach notice for breaking into mailbox 28.03.2025	$402.50	Body corporate breach notice for breaking into mailbox 28.03.2025
Exit methamphetamine test (individual samples	$862.50	Exit methamphetamine test (individual samples
Methamphetamine decontamination	$6,176.00	Methamphetamine decontamination
Post-decontamination methamphetamine testing	$862.50	Post-decontamination methamphetamine testing
Replacement furniture due to decontamination	$500.00	Replacement furniture due to decontamination
Lock/key replacement	$250.00	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$8,113.74
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,113.74

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5296201 — net $8,113.74 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.

Claim

Landlord

Tenant

Reason

Rent arrears to 1 May 2025

$162.86

Rent arrears to 1 May 2025

Electricity final reading

$49.88

Electricity final reading

Dishwasher repair (due to being blocked with food

$138.00

Dishwasher repair (due to being blocked with food

Body Corporate breach notice for anti-social behaviour/taping fire doors

$862.50

Body Corporate breach notice for anti-social behaviour/taping fire doors

Replacement swipe card 23.01.2025

$50.00

Replacement swipe card 23.01.2025

Replacement swipe card 29.01.2025

$50.00

Replacement swipe card 23.01.2025

Body corporate breach notice for breaking into mailbox 28.03.2025

$402.50

Body corporate breach notice for breaking into mailbox 28.03.2025

Exit methamphetamine test (individual samples

$862.50

Exit methamphetamine test (individual samples

Methamphetamine decontamination

$6,176.00

Methamphetamine decontamination

Post-decontamination methamphetamine testing

$862.50

Post-decontamination methamphetamine testing

Replacement furniture due to decontamination

$500.00

Replacement furniture due to decontamination

Lock/key replacement

$250.00

Lock/key replacement

Filing fee reimbursement

$27.00

Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

$8,113.74

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

$8,113.74

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,280.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Kayla Bamford must pay [The landlord/s] $8,113.74 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

03.2025 $402.50 Exit methamphetamine test (individual samples)$862.50 Methamphetamine decontamination$6,176.00 Post-decontamination methamphetamine testing$862.50 Replacement furniture due to decontamination$500.00 Lock/key replacement$250.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$10,393.74 Bond$2,280.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$8,113.74

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing, represented by [property managers].

There was no appearance by the tenant. I am satisfied that the tenant has been served with this application in accordance with the provisions set out in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) and so the hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence.

This tenancy began on 1 May 2024 and ended on 1 May 2025. The tenancy property was a two-bedroom inner city apartment, with access to the building and floor by swipe card and access to the apartment itself with a key.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. How much is owed for rent and electricity and other charges incurred during the tenancy?

The landlord provided rent records proving that rent was owing for the last two days of the tenancy in the amount of $162.86. This claim is proved.

The landlord provided an invoice for the final electricity account (which is charged to the owner through the Body Corporate and then sent by invoice to the tenant) in the amount of $49.88. This claim is proved.

The landlord explained that the tenant lost their swipe key on two occasions (23 and 29 January 2025) and had to be used with new swipe cards. The body corporate has sent an invoice to the landlord on both occasions for $50.00. Both claims are proved.

The landlord said that the Body Corporate issued anti-social behaviour notices to the tenant on 25 November 2024 and 11 December 2024 for various breaches including taping over the fire doors so that they would remain open for access. The Body Corporate imposed a fine on the landlord in the amount of $862.50 for the second breach (invoice provided). This claim is proved.

The landlord also said that they were informed by the Body Corporate that the tenant and a male visitor broke into mailboxes of neighbouring apartments on two occasions. The landlord provided copies of the breach notices dated 8 March 2025 and 28 March 2025 which referenced video footage of the behaviour. The landlord only provided one invoice (for the second breach) in the amount of $402.50. This claim is proved.

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) RTA.

The tenant did not return the keys and so the landlord had to have the front door re-keyed. The landlord provided an invoice in the amount of $250.00 to have this done. This claim is proved.

The dishwasher was not reasonably clean as the outlet pipe was blocked with food. The landlord provided supporting evidence including an invoice in the amount of $138.00 to clear the blockage. This claim is proved. Is the tenant responsible for the cost of methamphetamine testing and decontamination?

The landlord has applied for compensation for the cost methamphetamine testing and remediation.

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.

The landlord said that they had methamphetamine testing done the day before the start of the tenancy which returned a composite sample of 0.44μg/100cm 2 , which has a theorical maximum level of 2.2μg/100cm 2 .

The landlord then had testing done at the end of the tenancy. It was not clear whether the landlord had a composite test done, but they did discrete sample testing which returned results as follows: a. Kitchen – 22μg/100cm 2 b. Lounge – 19.2μg/100cm 2 c. Bedroom – 19.9μg/100cm 2 d. Bathroom 1 – 35μg/100cm 2 e. Bedroom 2 – 8.3μg/100cm 2

The landlord produced an invoice in the amount of $7,176.00 for de- contamination and disposal of contaminated non-fixed chattels. The landlord provided copies of correspondence with the Body Corporate and their insurer confirming that the Body Corporate insurance does not cover the cost of methamphetamine testing and/or contamination.

The landlord has proved that the property has become contaminated with methamphetamine during the tenancy. Although there was some methamphetamine detected at the start of the tenancy this amount was well below the Gluckman standard.

I am satisfied that the contamination was caused by the tenant or someone at the property with her permission. The contamination is widespread and has likely accumulated over some time. All of the results at the end of the tenancy were above the Gluckman standard except the second bedroom.

I consider that the landlord is entitled to compensation for decontamination of all rooms above the Gluckman standard. The landlord provided a helpful exit inspection report which made it possible to estimate the size of the second bedroom in relation to the entire apartment. I estimate that the proportion of the invoice that relates to the contaminated rooms to be $6,176.00.

The landlord said that the property was furnished but they had to dispose of those chattels and replace them with new ones. They produced an invoice in the amount of $3,248.75 for the cost of doing so.

I am satisfied that the chattels had to be replaced due to methamphetamine contamination as set out in the report. However the Tribunal must also take into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position that they would have been if the breach had not occurred. In this case the landlord has new chattels.

The property manager who managed this tenancy is no longer working for the landlord and so the property managers who appeared at the hearing did their best to assist the Tribunal in this matter. After reviewing the various photos I estimate that the chattels were approximately 5 years old. On that basis I consider that compensation in the amount of $500.00 is appropriate and fair taking into account the likely useful lifespan of the various items.

The landlord claimed for the costs of the initial detailed (discrete sample) testing done at the end of the tenancy and provided an invoice in the amount of $862.50. I consider that the landlord is entitled to compensation as the discrete sample test was necessary to establish the level of contamination in each area.

The landlord claimed for a detailed (discrete sample) post-decontamination test in the amount of $862.50 (invoice provided) which I consider to be reasonable. This test was necessary due to the tenant’s breach.

The landlord also claimed for a standard composite test post-decontamination. I do not consider that the landlord is entitled to compensation for this test as it is standard practice for landlords to do a composite test in between tenancies. It was not clear to me why two tests had been done. Filing fee and name suppression

Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee of $27.00.

The landlord sought an order for name suppression and is entitled to an order as the successful party pursuant to section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5296201 — net $8,113.74 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 1 May 2025	$162.86	Rent arrears to 1 May 2025
Electricity final reading	$49.88	Electricity final reading
Dishwasher repair (due to being blocked with food	$138.00	Dishwasher repair (due to being blocked with food
Body Corporate breach notice for anti-social behaviour/taping fire doors	$862.50	Body Corporate breach notice for anti-social behaviour/taping fire doors
Replacement swipe card 23.01.2025	$50.00	Replacement swipe card 23.01.2025
Replacement swipe card 29.01.2025	$50.00	Replacement swipe card 23.01.2025
Body corporate breach notice for breaking into mailbox 28.03.2025	$402.50	Body corporate breach notice for breaking into mailbox 28.03.2025
Exit methamphetamine test (individual samples	$862.50	Exit methamphetamine test (individual samples
Methamphetamine decontamination	$6,176.00	Methamphetamine decontamination
Post-decontamination methamphetamine testing	$862.50	Post-decontamination methamphetamine testing
Replacement furniture due to decontamination	$500.00	Replacement furniture due to decontamination
Lock/key replacement	$250.00	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$8,113.74
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,113.74