What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5310979 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] and [The tenant/s] landlord/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5310979?

Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; First Meth Test: $1,744.55 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $253.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5310979?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5310979?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12453775-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5310979 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] and [The tenant/s] landlord/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5310979?

Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; First Meth Test: $1,744.55 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $253.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5310979?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5310979?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12453775-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

824B Papamoa Beach Road, Papamoa Beach, Papamoa Tenancy Tribunal Case 5310979 — Exemplary damages

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5310979 — net $3,675.55 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$253.00	Lock/key replacement
Insurance excess - replacement dryer	$650.00	Insurance excess - replacement dryer
First meth test	$1,744.55	First meth test
Exemplary damages	$1,000.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,675.55
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,675.55

The landlords attended the hearing by telephone. The tenant did not attend today’s hearing and nor did he make any request to appear by telephone. The hearing proceeded in his absence.

The landlords have made a number of claims against the tenant after he was evicted from the premises in July 2025. A previous Tenancy Tribunal Order ordered the eviction and payment of rent arrears.

I shall address each of the current claims in turn. Key replacement

I accept that the landlords needed to replace the locks given that the tenant was evicted from the premises.

The tenant is required to pay this cost which was proven with an invoice. Replacement dryer

I accept the evidence showing that the landlords provided a dryer with the premises, which was approximately two years old.

I also accept the evidence that the dryer was no longer there at the end of the tenancy.

The tenant is required to pay the insurance excess of $650.00 towards the cost of the replacement dryer. The insurance excess is less than the depreciated value of the new dryer which cost $1,299.00 to replace. Methamphetamine contamination

The landlords also claim the insurance excess that they had to pay for the premises to be ‘decontaminated’.

While I accept the evidence showing that the tenant used, or permitted the use of, methamphetamine at the premises during his tenancy, the levels of methamphetamine are below the 15mg/100cm 2 which the Tribunal regards as being the level at which the premises can be deemed contaminated by methamphetamine to an extent that is injurious to health.

The highest level at the premises is 7.9mg/100cm 2 recorded on the dining room window frame.

Given that the Tribunal does not deem the premises to be contaminated to an extent that is injurious to health at this level, I am dismissing the claim for the insurance excess the landlords paid to have the premises ‘decontaminated’. Methamphetamine tests

The landlords has paid for two methamphetamine tests conducted at the premises. The first was when they suspected that methamphetamine had been used and the second was after the premises had been decontaminated.

I am ordering the tenant to pay the cost of the first test. This is because the landlord correctly and reasonably suspected that methamphetamine had been used in the premises and the results show that it had been used. This is an unlawful activity and the tenant ought to be responsible for the cost of this test.

I am not ordering the tenant to pay for the second test because this test now serves as a baseline for future tenancies and is a test that is, or ought to be, conducted by a landlord at the beginning of every tenancy. Using premises for an unlawful purpose

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.

I have already found that the tenant used the premises, or permitted the premises to be used, for an unlawful purpose – the use of methamphetamine.

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.

I am awarding exemplary damages of $1,000.00. In coming to this amount I have taken into account that the tenant used, or permitted the use of, methamphetamine intentionally; and the fact that although this did not result in what the Tribunal considers contamination, the effect of the tenant using methamphetamine has had a considerable negative effect on the landlords not only financially but also emotionally. I have also taken into account the considerable public interest in tenants not only abiding by their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 but also not conducting any criminal activity at premises they are renting. Filing fee reimbursement

I am ordering the tenant to reimburse the filing fee to the landlords because the landlords were substantially successful with their claim against him. C ter Haar 24 September 2025

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5310979 — net $3,675.55 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$253.00	Lock/key replacement
Insurance excess - replacement dryer	$650.00	Insurance excess - replacement dryer
First meth test	$1,744.55	First meth test
Exemplary damages	$1,000.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,675.55
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,675.55

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] and [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $3,675.55 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlords attended the hearing by telephone. The tenant did not attend today’s hearing and nor did he make any request to appear by telephone. The hearing proceeded in his absence.
The landlords have made a number of claims against the tenant after he was evicted from the premises in July 2025. A previous Tenancy Tribunal Order ordered the eviction and payment of rent arrears.
I shall address each of the current claims in turn. Key replacement
I accept that the landlords needed to replace the locks given that the tenant was evicted from the premises.
The tenant is required to pay this cost which was proven with an invoice. Replacement dryer
I accept the evidence showing that the landlords provided a dryer with the premises, which was approximately two years old.
I also accept the evidence that the dryer was no longer there at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant is required to pay the insurance excess of $650.00 towards the cost of the replacement dryer. The insurance excess is less than the depreciated value of the new dryer which cost $1,299.00 to replace. Methamphetamine contamination
The landlords also claim the insurance excess that they had to pay for the premises to be ‘decontaminated’.
While I accept the evidence showing that the tenant used, or permitted the use of, methamphetamine at the premises during his tenancy, the levels of methamphetamine are below the 15mg/100cm 2 which the Tribunal regards as being the level at which the premises can be deemed contaminated by methamphetamine to an extent that is injurious to health.
The highest level at the premises is 7.9mg/100cm 2 recorded on the dining room window frame.
Given that the Tribunal does not deem the premises to be contaminated to an extent that is injurious to health at this level, I am dismissing the claim for the insurance excess the landlords paid to have the premises ‘decontaminated’. Methamphetamine tests
The landlords has paid for two methamphetamine tests conducted at the premises. The first was when they suspected that methamphetamine had been used and the second was after the premises had been decontaminated.
I am ordering the tenant to pay the cost of the first test. This is because the landlord correctly and reasonably suspected that methamphetamine had been used in the premises and the results show that it had been used. This is an unlawful activity and the tenant ought to be responsible for the cost of this test.
I am not ordering the tenant to pay for the second test because this test now serves as a baseline for future tenancies and is a test that is, or ought to be, conducted by a landlord at the beginning of every tenancy. Using premises for an unlawful purpose
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.
I have already found that the tenant used the premises, or permitted the premises to be used, for an unlawful purpose – the use of methamphetamine.
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.
I am awarding exemplary damages of $1,000.00. In coming to this amount I have taken into account that the tenant used, or permitted the use of, methamphetamine intentionally; and the fact that although this did not result in what the Tribunal considers contamination, the effect of the tenant using methamphetamine has had a considerable negative effect on the landlords not only financially but also emotionally. I have also taken into account the considerable public interest in tenants not only abiding by their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 but also not conducting any criminal activity at premises they are renting. Filing fee reimbursement
I am ordering the tenant to reimburse the filing fee to the landlords because the landlords were substantially successful with their claim against him. C ter Haar 24 September 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5310979 — Exemplary damages at 824B Papamoa Beach Road, Papamoa Beach, Papamoa

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5310979 — Exemplary damages at 824B Papamoa Beach Road, Papamoa Beach, Papamoa

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.