What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5302792?

The tribunal order states: Dona Martin must pay Summit Property Management Limited For An On Behalf

How much money was awarded in case 5302792?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $55.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,478.57 awarded to landlord; Garage Door: $333.50 awarded to landlord; Holes in walls and door/replace elec…: $698.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $435.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5302792?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5302792?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12573422-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5302792?

The tribunal order states: Dona Martin must pay Summit Property Management Limited For An On Behalf

How much money was awarded in case 5302792?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $55.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,478.57 awarded to landlord; Garage Door: $333.50 awarded to landlord; Holes in walls and door/replace elec…: $698.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $435.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5302792?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5302792?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12573422-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

234A High Street, Motueka, Motueka 7120 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5302792 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5302792 — net $1,435.07 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,478.57	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Repairs: Garage door	$333.50	Repairs: Garage door
Repairs: Holes in walls and door/replace electrical fitting	$698.00	Repairs: Holes in walls and door/replace electrical fitting
Rubbish removal	$435.00	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$55.00	Lawns and Garden work
Replacement oven	$207.00	Replacement oven
Net award	$1,435.07
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,435.07

Order

Dona Martin must pay Summit Property Management Limited For An On Behalf Of Wakatu Incorporate $1,435.07 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 (BN-00057231) to Summit Property Management Limited For An On Behalf Of Wakatu Incorporate immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenant.
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?

The tenancy ended on 20 June 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy is as ordered.

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. Due to a methamphetamine remediation, much of the internal cleaning evidenced as required in photos was completed under that exercise and did not form a separate claim.
There was considerable rubbish and abandoned items left at the premises. Photos prove the need for removal and an invoice for $435.00 establishes the cost as sought as compensation. This is awarded in full.
The lawns and gardens were unkempt as shown in photos. An invoice for lawn mowing of $55.00 was produced. This is awarded in full.
A lock change was carried out near the end of the tenancy after a forced entry by a person known to the tenant but there without her permission. She was out of town around this time but cautioned the landlord that police should accompany it on a scheduled inspection. They did and removed the occupant. A trespass notice was served on him at that time. The cost of the lock change was $178.00 but given the need was due to a forced entry by someone else there without permission I do not find the tenant liable for this cost. The keys were returned by the tenant at the end of the tenancy. The claim is dismissed.
A methamphetamine composite test was conduced at the end of the tenancy and identified methamphetamine residues. This is addressed below.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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.
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.
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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Oven. The oven was damaged beyond repair. The oven door window was shattered in what appears to be intentional damage. The landlord sourced a second-hand oven and sought $207.00 compensation for the invoiced removal and installation of the replacement oven. The tenant had told the landlord she would replace the oven but this was never down. This claim is awarded in full. b. Bedroom. There were large holes made in a bedroom and its door. Photos evidence the damage. The tenant had committed to repairing this damage but failed to before the end of the tenancy. The invoice of $698.00 also included the replacement of a broke light batten – this was also evidenced by a photo. c. Garage door. The garage door was badly damaged near the end of the tenancy (after the unwelcome occupant had been moved on). A series of photos confirm the damage and need for repair. The invoiced cost of $333.50 is consistent with the repair effort required and it is awarded in full.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Ingoing photos established the damages above occurred during the tenancy.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for methamphetamine contamination?

The New Zealand Standard 8510:2017 Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine-contaminated properties (“NZS8510:2017”) provides industry guidance on good practice methods in the testing and clean-up of methamphetamine contamination in houses. NZS8510:2017 was released on 29 June 2017. The standard adopts a single level of 1.5μg/100cm² (1.5 micrograms of methamphetamine per 100 square centimetres of surface sampled) that ‘high use areas’ of affected properties should be decontaminated to, regardless of whether the properties were involved in the production or use of methamphetamine. Consider high use areas as those areas that can be easily accessed by the occupants.
On 29 May 2018, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman (the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor at that time) determined that there was little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption.
His report concluded that in the absence of other evidence of manufacture, any levels below 15μg/100cm² are highly unlikely to present adverse effects therefore there should be no need for remediation. Where there is evidence of manufacture the NZS8510:2017 standard is appropriate (noting there is no suggestion of manufacturing during this tenancy).
In 2019 there was a judgement in the District Court which dismissed an appeal after the Tribunal adopted the Gluckman Report to determine whether the tenant had caused damage to the premises or permitted any other person to do so (Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947).
Finally, I consider further validating are the 2019 comments of the Court of Appeal in Smith v Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited [2019] NZCA 38 where, in paragraph [16], with reference to the Gluckman Report, the decision stated: “We acknowledge that the testing in this case yielded results now considered not to raise any health and safety concerns.”
Just recently, the government has confirmed the Gluckman levels to apply (see Housing and Urban Development “HUD” explanation here). Regulations are expected to be in force in 2026, but an exact date has not been set yet. Essentially, the advice from HUD when methamphetamine residue levels are above 15μg/100cm2, the property is considered contaminated and needs to be decontaminated.
The property must be decontaminated until methamphetamine residue levels are no longer above 15μg/100cm2. Further, contamination should be determined on a room-by-room basis. An example given by HUD is if a bedroom is above 15μg/100cm2 but the kitchen is below 15μg/100cm2, only the bedroom needs to be decontaminated.

Was there a need to decontaminate/clean?

The premises was tested for methamphetamine (8 May 2024), prior to the tenancy commencing. No methamphetamine was detected at that time.
A composite test was conducted on or around 1 July 2025 after the tenancy ended. The composite identified a theoretical maximum contamination of 27μg/100cm² based on the samples taken. No subsequent comprehensive testing was provided as evidence but this was conducted. The landlord accessed that report and verbally recounted the detailed results, room by room. The comprehensive test identified several rooms with methamphetamine residue, but none were over the 15μg level that triggers a need to decontaminate.
Section 40(1)(e) (iii) of the RTA requires the tenant to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition.
The owners lodged an insurance claim for methamphetamine contamination and remediation. That claim was accepted by the insurer under the less tolerant NZS 8510:2017 levels, as still adopted by many insurers. An excess of $2,500 applied.
The landlord sought compensation for the insurance excess it incurred of $2,500.
Given the lower than required levels to trigger decontamination (in this Tribunal), I must decline the claim for the insurance excess. Filing fee
Because Summit Property Management Limited For An On Behalf Of Wakatu Incorporate has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5302792 — net $1,435.07 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,478.57	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Repairs: Garage door	$333.50	Repairs: Garage door
Repairs: Holes in walls and door/replace electrical fitting	$698.00	Repairs: Holes in walls and door/replace electrical fitting
Rubbish removal	$435.00	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$55.00	Lawns and Garden work
Replacement oven	$207.00	Replacement oven
Net award	$1,435.07
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,435.07

Order

Dona Martin must pay Summit Property Management Limited For An On Behalf Of Wakatu Incorporate $1,435.07 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 (BN-00057231) to Summit Property Management Limited For An On Behalf Of Wakatu Incorporate immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenant.
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?

The tenancy ended on 20 June 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy is as ordered.

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. Due to a methamphetamine remediation, much of the internal cleaning evidenced as required in photos was completed under that exercise and did not form a separate claim.
There was considerable rubbish and abandoned items left at the premises. Photos prove the need for removal and an invoice for $435.00 establishes the cost as sought as compensation. This is awarded in full.
The lawns and gardens were unkempt as shown in photos. An invoice for lawn mowing of $55.00 was produced. This is awarded in full.
A lock change was carried out near the end of the tenancy after a forced entry by a person known to the tenant but there without her permission. She was out of town around this time but cautioned the landlord that police should accompany it on a scheduled inspection. They did and removed the occupant. A trespass notice was served on him at that time. The cost of the lock change was $178.00 but given the need was due to a forced entry by someone else there without permission I do not find the tenant liable for this cost. The keys were returned by the tenant at the end of the tenancy. The claim is dismissed.
A methamphetamine composite test was conduced at the end of the tenancy and identified methamphetamine residues. This is addressed below.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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.
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.
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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Oven. The oven was damaged beyond repair. The oven door window was shattered in what appears to be intentional damage. The landlord sourced a second-hand oven and sought $207.00 compensation for the invoiced removal and installation of the replacement oven. The tenant had told the landlord she would replace the oven but this was never down. This claim is awarded in full. b. Bedroom. There were large holes made in a bedroom and its door. Photos evidence the damage. The tenant had committed to repairing this damage but failed to before the end of the tenancy. The invoice of $698.00 also included the replacement of a broke light batten – this was also evidenced by a photo. c. Garage door. The garage door was badly damaged near the end of the tenancy (after the unwelcome occupant had been moved on). A series of photos confirm the damage and need for repair. The invoiced cost of $333.50 is consistent with the repair effort required and it is awarded in full.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Ingoing photos established the damages above occurred during the tenancy.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for methamphetamine contamination?

The New Zealand Standard 8510:2017 Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine-contaminated properties (“NZS8510:2017”) provides industry guidance on good practice methods in the testing and clean-up of methamphetamine contamination in houses. NZS8510:2017 was released on 29 June 2017. The standard adopts a single level of 1.5μg/100cm² (1.5 micrograms of methamphetamine per 100 square centimetres of surface sampled) that ‘high use areas’ of affected properties should be decontaminated to, regardless of whether the properties were involved in the production or use of methamphetamine. Consider high use areas as those areas that can be easily accessed by the occupants.
On 29 May 2018, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman (the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor at that time) determined that there was little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption.
His report concluded that in the absence of other evidence of manufacture, any levels below 15μg/100cm² are highly unlikely to present adverse effects therefore there should be no need for remediation. Where there is evidence of manufacture the NZS8510:2017 standard is appropriate (noting there is no suggestion of manufacturing during this tenancy).
In 2019 there was a judgement in the District Court which dismissed an appeal after the Tribunal adopted the Gluckman Report to determine whether the tenant had caused damage to the premises or permitted any other person to do so (Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947).
Finally, I consider further validating are the 2019 comments of the Court of Appeal in Smith v Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited [2019] NZCA 38 where, in paragraph [16], with reference to the Gluckman Report, the decision stated: “We acknowledge that the testing in this case yielded results now considered not to raise any health and safety concerns.”
Just recently, the government has confirmed the Gluckman levels to apply (see Housing and Urban Development “HUD” explanation here). Regulations are expected to be in force in 2026, but an exact date has not been set yet. Essentially, the advice from HUD when methamphetamine residue levels are above 15μg/100cm2, the property is considered contaminated and needs to be decontaminated.
The property must be decontaminated until methamphetamine residue levels are no longer above 15μg/100cm2. Further, contamination should be determined on a room-by-room basis. An example given by HUD is if a bedroom is above 15μg/100cm2 but the kitchen is below 15μg/100cm2, only the bedroom needs to be decontaminated.

Was there a need to decontaminate/clean?

The premises was tested for methamphetamine (8 May 2024), prior to the tenancy commencing. No methamphetamine was detected at that time.
A composite test was conducted on or around 1 July 2025 after the tenancy ended. The composite identified a theoretical maximum contamination of 27μg/100cm² based on the samples taken. No subsequent comprehensive testing was provided as evidence but this was conducted. The landlord accessed that report and verbally recounted the detailed results, room by room. The comprehensive test identified several rooms with methamphetamine residue, but none were over the 15μg level that triggers a need to decontaminate.
Section 40(1)(e) (iii) of the RTA requires the tenant to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition.
The owners lodged an insurance claim for methamphetamine contamination and remediation. That claim was accepted by the insurer under the less tolerant NZS 8510:2017 levels, as still adopted by many insurers. An excess of $2,500 applied.
The landlord sought compensation for the insurance excess it incurred of $2,500.
Given the lower than required levels to trigger decontamination (in this Tribunal), I must decline the claim for the insurance excess. Filing fee
Because Summit Property Management Limited For An On Behalf Of Wakatu Incorporate has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5302792 — Rent arrears at 234A High Street, Motueka, Motueka 7120

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5302792 — Rent arrears at 234A High Street, Motueka, Motueka 7120

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

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 responsible for methamphetamine contamination?

Was there a need to decontaminate/clean?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

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 responsible for methamphetamine contamination?

Was there a need to decontaminate/clean?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions