What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5300466 about?

The tribunal order states: [The party] and [The party] must pay Enting Real

How much money was awarded in case 5300466?

Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $542.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $950.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $569.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5300466?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5300466?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12739887-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5300466 about?

The tribunal order states: [The party] and [The party] must pay Enting Real

How much money was awarded in case 5300466?

Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $542.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $950.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $569.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5300466?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5300466?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12739887-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

66 Denmark Street, Fairlie, Fairlie 7925 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5300466 — Exemplary damages

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5300466 — net $3,939.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears as at 15 May 2025	$950.00	Rent arrears as at 15 May 2025
Rubbish removal	$569.00	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$542.00	Lock/key replacement
Insurance excess	$650.00	Insurance excess
Exemplary damages	$1,200.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,939.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,939.00

This application was scheduled to be heard by video conference. Neither the tenant nor the guarantor connected to the Teams link provided to them and none of the calls I made to their telephone numbers were answered. The hearing therefore proceeded in their absence.

The landlord has made a number of claims against the tenant and has added [The party], as guarantor, to the claim. I shall address each of the issues in turn. Guarantor

[The party] signed the tenancy agreement as guarantor on 11 June 2024 – three days before the tenancy started. As guarantor she agreed to guarantee the performance of all covenants and payment of all monies relating to the tenancy. This means that she is jointly and severally liable for the tenant’s obligations. Rent arrears

The rent record shows that as at 15 May 2025, the day on which the tenant vacated the premises, she owed $950.00 in rent. This amount takes into account the $1,800.00 bond which was put towards the arrears.

Did the tenant comply with her 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The photographs show that the tenant left a considerable amount of rubbish at the premises.

I also accept the evidence that she did not return the keys when she was evicted from the property.

The amounts ordered to remedy these issues are proved by invoices. Methamphetamine contamination

The landlord claims that the tenant has damaged the premises by using methamphetamine.

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) RTA.

The landlord makes a number of claims under this heading.

The claims are $4,827.62 for the cost of testing of methamphetamine, $12,615.50 as the cost of decontaminating the premises, $2,779.00 as the cost of replacing the curtains, $6,250.00 as the cost of replacing the carpet, and the insurance excess payable of $650.00.

Firstly, I accept that the tenant used methamphetamine at the premises and therefore the premises were intentionally damaged during her tenancy. I say this because I accept that the heat pump was new at the beginning of the tenancy but at the end of the tenancy a swab taken from the heat pump showed that there was a level of methamphetamine of 21mu/100cm 2 recorded on the heat pump.

A report completed on 5 June 2025 shows the presence of methamphetamine throughout the premises. The highest level was 22mu/100cm 2 from a swab taken from the lounge door. The next highest levels were 8.2mu/100cm 2 taken from a swab of bedroom 2’s door, 7.8mu/100cm 2 from a swab taken from bedroom 3’s door, and 6.7mu/100cm 2 from the door of bedroom 1. Lower levels of methamphetamine were detected throughout the rest of the house.

The Tenancy Tribunal has routinely taken what has been called the “Gluckman level” of 15mu/100cm 2 as the level at which premises can be regarded as being contaminated. The District Court has also said that 15mu/100cm 2 is the level at which premises can be regarded as being contaminated - see for example Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947

I therefore find that the tenant contaminated the lounge area of the premises because that is the only area which shows a level of greater than 15mu/100cm 2 .

I am dismissing all the claimed costs set out in paragraph 12 above, aside from the claim for the insurance excess. This is because the insurance policy covered all those claimed costs and the only amount payable by the landlord for this cover was the excess of $650.00.

I am ordering the tenant to reimburse the cost of the excess that was payable because an insurance claim was made purely because the tenant used methamphetamine at the premises. In other words, this was a cost to the landlord because the tenant intentionally damaged the premises. Exemplary Damages

A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

It is unlawful to use methamphetamine – see the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.

Given my earlier findings I am satisfied that the tenant has committed an unlawful act by using, or allowing the use of, methamphetamine at the premises.

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

This unlawful act was obviously intentional. In coming to an award of $1,200.00 in exemplary damages, I have taken into account that the contamination of the premises has caused the landlord significant stress. I have also taken into account that the actual costs of remediation were purportedly more than the costs paid by the insurance company.

Further to this I consider that there is significant public interest in tenants abiding by their obligations, particularly in relation to ensuring that rental premises are not contaminated by methamphetamine.

I have also taken into account that exemplary damages are intended to be punitive in nature. Filing fee reimbursement

I am ordering the respondents to reimburse the filing fee to the landlord because the landlord was wholly successful with the claim against them. C ter Haar 19 November 2025

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5300466 — net $3,939.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears as at 15 May 2025	$950.00	Rent arrears as at 15 May 2025
Rubbish removal	$569.00	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$542.00	Lock/key replacement
Insurance excess	$650.00	Insurance excess
Exemplary damages	$1,200.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,939.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,939.00

Order

[The party] and [The party] must pay Enting Real Estate Limited As Agent For Wardle Holdings Limited $3,939.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
[The party] and [The party] are jointly and severally liable for the amount stated in Order 1.

Reasons

This application was scheduled to be heard by video conference. Neither the tenant nor the guarantor connected to the Teams link provided to them and none of the calls I made to their telephone numbers were answered. The hearing therefore proceeded in their absence.
The landlord has made a number of claims against the tenant and has added [The party], as guarantor, to the claim. I shall address each of the issues in turn. Guarantor
[The party] signed the tenancy agreement as guarantor on 11 June 2024 – three days before the tenancy started. As guarantor she agreed to guarantee the performance of all covenants and payment of all monies relating to the tenancy. This means that she is jointly and severally liable for the tenant’s obligations. Rent arrears
The rent record shows that as at 15 May 2025, the day on which the tenant vacated the premises, she owed $950.00 in rent. This amount takes into account the $1,800.00 bond which was put towards the arrears.

Did the tenant comply with her 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The photographs show that the tenant left a considerable amount of rubbish at the premises.
I also accept the evidence that she did not return the keys when she was evicted from the property.
The amounts ordered to remedy these issues are proved by invoices. Methamphetamine contamination
The landlord claims that the tenant has damaged the premises by using methamphetamine.
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) RTA.
The landlord makes a number of claims under this heading.
The claims are $4,827.62 for the cost of testing of methamphetamine, $12,615.50 as the cost of decontaminating the premises, $2,779.00 as the cost of replacing the curtains, $6,250.00 as the cost of replacing the carpet, and the insurance excess payable of $650.00.
Firstly, I accept that the tenant used methamphetamine at the premises and therefore the premises were intentionally damaged during her tenancy. I say this because I accept that the heat pump was new at the beginning of the tenancy but at the end of the tenancy a swab taken from the heat pump showed that there was a level of methamphetamine of 21mu/100cm 2 recorded on the heat pump.
A report completed on 5 June 2025 shows the presence of methamphetamine throughout the premises. The highest level was 22mu/100cm 2 from a swab taken from the lounge door. The next highest levels were 8.2mu/100cm 2 taken from a swab of bedroom 2’s door, 7.8mu/100cm 2 from a swab taken from bedroom 3’s door, and 6.7mu/100cm 2 from the door of bedroom 1. Lower levels of methamphetamine were detected throughout the rest of the house.
The Tenancy Tribunal has routinely taken what has been called the “Gluckman level” of 15mu/100cm 2 as the level at which premises can be regarded as being contaminated. The District Court has also said that 15mu/100cm 2 is the level at which premises can be regarded as being contaminated - see for example Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947
I therefore find that the tenant contaminated the lounge area of the premises because that is the only area which shows a level of greater than 15mu/100cm 2 .
I am dismissing all the claimed costs set out in paragraph 12 above, aside from the claim for the insurance excess. This is because the insurance policy covered all those claimed costs and the only amount payable by the landlord for this cover was the excess of $650.00.
I am ordering the tenant to reimburse the cost of the excess that was payable because an insurance claim was made purely because the tenant used methamphetamine at the premises. In other words, this was a cost to the landlord because the tenant intentionally damaged the premises. Exemplary Damages
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
It is unlawful to use methamphetamine – see the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
Given my earlier findings I am satisfied that the tenant has committed an unlawful act by using, or allowing the use of, methamphetamine at the premises.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
This unlawful act was obviously intentional. In coming to an award of $1,200.00 in exemplary damages, I have taken into account that the contamination of the premises has caused the landlord significant stress. I have also taken into account that the actual costs of remediation were purportedly more than the costs paid by the insurance company.
Further to this I consider that there is significant public interest in tenants abiding by their obligations, particularly in relation to ensuring that rental premises are not contaminated by methamphetamine.
I have also taken into account that exemplary damages are intended to be punitive in nature. Filing fee reimbursement
I am ordering the respondents to reimburse the filing fee to the landlord because the landlord was wholly successful with the claim against them. C ter Haar 19 November 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5300466 — Exemplary damages at 66 Denmark Street, Fairlie, Fairlie 7925

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5300466 — Exemplary damages at 66 Denmark Street, Fairlie, Fairlie 7925

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.