What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5301416 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Ashley Afa

How much money was awarded in case 5301416?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Insurance (Hall Wall: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Insurance (Laundry Floor: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5301416?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5301416?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12519219-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5301416 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Ashley Afa

How much money was awarded in case 5301416?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Insurance (Hall Wall: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Insurance (Laundry Floor: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5301416?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5301416?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12519219-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 1, 127 Godley Road, Green Bay, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5301416 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5301416 — net $1,028.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance (laundry floor	$400.00	Insurance (laundry floor
Insurance (hall wall	$400.00	Insurance (hall wall
Bedroom wall repair	$200.00	Bedroom wall repair
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,028.00
Bond	$3,080.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,028.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5301416 — net $1,028.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance (laundry floor	$400.00	Insurance (laundry floor
Insurance (hall wall	$400.00	Insurance (hall wall
Bedroom wall repair	$200.00	Bedroom wall repair
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,028.00
Bond	$3,080.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,028.00

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Ashley Afa $1,028.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,080.00 (5871330-004) immediately apportioned as follows: Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Ashley Afa: $1,028.00 [The tenant/s] tenant/s]: $2,052.00
All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend the hearing.
One hour prior to the hearing commencing the tenant’s daughter emailed the Tribunal requesting an adjournment on behalf of the tenant. The reason for the adjournment request was because the tenant and her family had tested positive for COVID.
The Tribunal requested evidence of the positive test results. The tenant was advised that the hearing would proceed until the results were provided. The tenant advised that the results would be available later that day or the following day.
Due to the delay in providing the evidence requested it was directed that the tenant could attend the hearing by telephone. At the hearing the tenant’s phone was called three times and on each occasion the call went to voicemail.
As the tenant had notice of the hearing which had not been adjourned, the hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence. Landlord application
The landlord applied for compensation due to damage caused by the tenant. The damage was in relation to the laundry floor, the hallway walls, the bedroom walls and methamphetamine contamination. In addition, the landlord applied for exemplary damages in relation to the methamphetamine contamination.

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 RTA.
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) RTA.
The photographs produced by the landlord from after the tenancy and the pre tenancy photographs show that there were holes in the floor of the laundry at the end.
In relation to the hallway damage, there are small holes from picture hooks. The photographs showed approximately six hooks on the wall, but the area is an open stairwell which would mean that repairs to the damage would be difficult.
For the wall damage in the bedroom the photograph showed two long marks.
The landlord has claimed insurance for this damage. The Tenancy Agreement contained, appropriately, a completed Insurance Statement. This recorded the insurance excess as $400.00 and named the insurer.
The landlord claimed that the tenant was not advised of any increase in the insurance excess. While in this application the landlord has claimed an insurance excess of $500.00 each for the laundry and wall damage and $2,500.00 for the methamphetamine contamination, neither of these amounts were previously advised to the tenant.
The Insurance Statement, as required by sections 13A(2)(b), 45(2B) and (2C) RTA forms an important part of the tenancy agreement, as demonstrated by Parliament making a failure to comply an infringement offence and liable to a fine or an infringement fee, as specified in Schedule 1B RTA.
The Act provided that if there is any change to the insurance information then the landlord must within a reasonable time after the landlord became aware of the change, provide the tenant with a copy of the correct information. As the tenant was not advised of any change, I have determined that where appropriate the insurance excess of $400.00 as stated in the tenancy agreement should stand.
The landlord has provided invoices for the painting required to repair the wall damage in the bedroom and hallway, but the two areas are separate claims. The excess for the hallway claim is awarded as the cost of repair would likely have exceeded the insurance excess. For the bedroom wall damage, I am not satisfied that the repair would exceed the insurance excess and instead I have awarded $200.00 which I consider to be reasonable for the damage shown in the photographs.
I have awarded the insurance excess for the laundry floor damage. Methamphetamine contamination
The landlord claimed compensation and exemplary damages in relation to methamphetamine contamination.
The compensation was in relation to the insurance excess of $2,500.00 as the insurance claim had been accepted. The tenancy agreement does not specify the amount of the excess for methamphetamine contamination. The landlord has provided an email from the insurance company dated 14 March 2025. That email records that the insurance excess for methamphetamine contamination is $2,500.00.
The landlord states that prior to this tenancy commencing, the premises were not tested for methamphetamine contamination. The landlord says that this was because the house had been the landlord’s family home for eight years.
The landlord says that just before the tenancy commenced a new kitchen vent had been fitted to the ceiling to comply with Healthy Homes standards. The landlord produced an invoice from JRA Build Limited dated 11 April 2024 which records renovation work that was carried out including installing a new extractor fan in the kitchen which was up to Healthy Homes standards and vented outside.
When the tenancy ended the landlord had a suspicion that the tenant may have used methamphetamine. This suspicion was due to information and complaints from neighbours and finding a possible drug instrument at the premises. The landlord has produced a photograph of a glass purple pipe that may have been used for drug consumption, however there is no direct evidence to support this.
The landlord produced a report from Contaminated Property Investigations NZ Ltd dated 7 March 2025. The sample date was 4 March 2025. That report records that the premises were contaminated with methamphetamine at levels ranging from 0.19μg per 100cm² to 17.1μg per 100cm². The highest recording of 17.1μg per 100cm² was from the sample taken in the kitchen. The photograph for the kitchen sample shows that it was taken from the ventilation unit in the ceiling as this is used for ventilation in the kitchen rather than a rangehood. The law
The Tenancy Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards. That means that any claim must be established by the person making it, that means the landlord must provide sufficient evidence proving its claim against the tenant. If the landlord does not provide sufficient evidence, then the claimant will be dismissed. The landlord must establish the claim to the balance of probabilities. To put it another way, the evidence showing that there has been a breach on the part of the tenant must be proven to be more likely than not, or put that into a mathematical context, slightly over 50% likely.
It has been well recognised for years, that methamphetamine contamination presents risks for people living in dwellings, when the level of that contamination, is high. The difficulty has been determining what the tolerable level should be, above which the premises would be considered contaminated.
The Tribunal has previously found that damage occurs, and decontamination is necessary, when levels of methamphetamine contamination are above 15μg/100cm². (Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper 1 ) This is the level adopted by the “Gluckman Report” dated 29 May 2018. The Gluckman Report concludes that there is no evidence of risk of harm from second or third hand exposure to methamphetamine residue measured at or less than 15μg/100cm² unless there is evidence to suggest that the premises have been used for manufacture.
Neither the Gluckman Report nor the previously used New Zealand Standard 2 , which recommended a level of 1.5μg/100cm², are embedded into law, they both represent guidelines and are not regulatory. The court in the Full Circle case considered whether the Tribunal was wrong to rely on the Gluckman Report instead of the New Zealand Standard and concluded that the Gluckman Report represented the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination. Therefore, the Tribunal continues to adopt a level of 15μg/100cm² as a level that requires remediation for contamination.
To determine whether the contamination occurred during the tenancy the Tribunal requires pre-tenancy testing. I note two District Court decisions where the Court has confirmed that in the absence of pre-tenancy methamphetamine testing, it would be very difficult for a landlord to prove the tenant contaminated the premises.
In Anthony James Brooking v Colin Imrie [2021] NZDC 16976, Judge Cameron considered a case where the Tenancy Tribunal accepted that contamination was caused by the tenants, in circumstances where there was no pre-tenancy testing performed. The Tribunal had accepted evidence from a witness, who worked in a childcare centre across the road from the Tenancy, who described the windows covered with a film, security cameras having been installed, and strong chemical smells arising from the premises. The witness also described gang members and other “undesirable” people attending the premises regularly, with cars regularly driving in an out of the premises often, as well as regular visits from the police.
On appeal the District Court did not accept that evidence was sufficient to prove that methamphetamine had been used or manufactured on the premises during that tenancy, and concluded that the difficulty with the landlords claim is that there was no methamphetamine test conducted at the beginning of the tenancy, and no actual proof of what occurred during the tenancy. The District Court allowed the appeal, overturning the Tribunal’s decision. In short, the Court considered that there was no evidence to support that the tenants in that case caused the contamination. 1 Full Circle Real Estate v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 – CIV2018-009-2490 2 NZS 8510:2017³ (NZS)
In the earlier case of Eren Limited v Louise Martin [2021] NZDC 15210, Judge de Ridder also considered a dispute over who caused the contamination. In that case, the Tribunal had declined the claim for the contamination remediation costs, on various grounds, including that the landlord had not established that the tenant contaminated the premises in the first instance. The appeal to the District Court was by the landlord. In that case, the landlord reports finding evidence of drug use in rubbish left by the tenants, and also that the neighbours had reported the tenants using drugs at the premises. The District Court confirmed that was circumstantial evidence that could be considered by the Tribunal. However, the Court found that the circumstantial evidence was not sufficient to get over the problem of no pre-tenancy methamphetamine testing.
For this claim there is no evidence of any methamphetamine testing carried out at the start of this tenancy. If there had been such testing and it revealed no methamphetamine then clearly the methamphetamine residue that was found at the end of this tenancy could only have occurred during the tenancy and could only have occurred by either the tenants using methamphetamine or permitting others to use methamphetamine inside the house. The lack of methamphetamine testing at the start of the tenancy significantly weakens the circumstantial case against the tenants to the point where it is not possible to conclude on the balance of probabilities that it was the tenants who were responsible for the methamphetamine residue located at the premises at the end of their tenancy.
In Yan v Weggery TT 4303380, (12 January 2022) the Tribunal considered a claim for methamphetamine damage where the premises concerned were brand-new at the start of the tenancy. It was accepted that of itself did not prove that there could not have been methamphetamine contamination before the start of the tenancy. The Tribunal noted that methamphetamine use does occur from tradespeople: just like it does in almost any element of society. The fact that the property was new at the start of the tenancy was insufficient to prove that the contamination occurred during the tenancy.
In Lodge City Rentals Limited v Hamilton TT4242075 6 July 2020, the Tribunal considered a claim for methamphetamine damage. One of the ways in which the landlord sought to prove methamphetamine contamination during the tenancy concerned an oven that had been installed during the course of the tenancy. A methamphetamine sample was taken from the oven. Analysis of the sample returned a positive result for the presence of methamphetamine with a reading of 0.41 μg/100cm². The Tribunal had the benefit of an expert report. The author considered that the area from which the sample was taken was one not typically handled and that hand to hand (object) contamination would be unlikely. The author stated that in their opinion, on the balance of probabilities, the oven was not contaminated when it was delivered, and the contamination occurred during the tenancy. The Tribunal disagreed finding that the area was one that could have been touched daily. The Tribunal was also unable to rule out the possibility that the contamination may have been left by those delivering or installing the oven at the property.
While I am bound by the decisions of higher Courts, I am not bound by previous Tribunal decisions. Each case will fall to be determined on its evidence and facts, some of which may not have been referred to in the decision.
The onus rests with the landlord to prove that the tenant was responsible for the contamination, not for the tenant to prove on balance that they are not responsible. The standard of proof required is greater than likely or probably, it is more likely or more probably. Analysis
The landlord must prove, to the above standard, that the contamination occurred during the tenancy.
There was no methamphetamine test conducted at the beginning of the tenancy. The authority set out above makes it clear that the absence of this significantly weakens the landlord’s case against the tenants in this claim.
The landlord is therefore left with circumstantial evidence. The key circumstantial evidence presented is as follows: a) the previous owner/occupant was in the premises for eight years; b) the complaints and behaviour reported by neighbours; c) the vent being installed in the kitchen before the tenancy commenced.
The evidence of the owner having occupied the premises for eight years prior to this tenancy is not confirmation that there was no opportunity for contamination to occur during that period.
Also, there was a period between when the new kitchen vent was installed and commencement of the tenancy. There is no definitive date for when the vent was installed but the invoice from the contractor who carried out renovations is dated 11 April 2024, more than a month before this tenancy began. It is possible that the vent was contaminated during that period.
I can also place very limited weight on the reports of the neighbours because there was no direct evidence of this. That evidence was second-hand evidence from the neighbour to the landlord. No evidence was presented from the neighbour.
I accept that a kitchen ceiling vent was fitted at least a month before the start of the tenancy. However, there was no evidence presented about the origin or newness of the vent (for example, where it was been stored, how long it had been stored for, who had access to it while it was stored and how it would have been packaged). The evidence was limited to the fact that the contractor had installed a vent. There was no evidence presented on the likelihood of the vent being contaminated from the premises (which may have already been compromised) or the likelihood of the vent being contaminated prior to installation.
For the reasons detailed above, I consider that the absence of a pre-let methamphetamine test, prior to or at the start of this tenancy, substantially weakens the circumstantial case against the tenants to the point where it is simply not possible to safely conclude on the civil balance of probabilities that the tenants were responsible for the methamphetamine residue detected at the premises at the end of the tenancy.
Therefore, the landlords’ claims for compensation (for testing, decontamination costs), and exemplary damages resulting from methamphetamine contamination/damage to the premises, must be dismissed.
Because Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Ashley Afa has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5301416 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 127 Godley Road, Green Bay, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5301416 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 127 Godley Road, Green Bay, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.