What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5312400 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay The Difference Limited T/A: Harcourts Helensville

How much money was awarded in case 5312400?

Cleaning: $1,138.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5312400?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5312400?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12470548-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5312400 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay The Difference Limited T/A: Harcourts Helensville

How much money was awarded in case 5312400?

Cleaning: $1,138.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5312400?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5312400?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12470548-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

98B Mahana Road, Waimauku, Waimauku 0881 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5312400 — Cleanliness

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5312400 — net $1,166.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Meth testing/Cleaning	$1,138.50	Meth testing/Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,166.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,166.50

[The tenant/s] to pay The Difference Limited T/A: Harcourts Helensville $1,166.50 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,166.50 (6260898-021) to The Difference Limited T/A: Harcourts Helensville immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,073.50 (6260898-021) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 26 September 2025.

The landlord has applied for compensation for methamphetamine testing, exemplary damages for the premises being used for unlawful purpose and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenancy was from 5 April 2019 and ended on 26 June 2025.

At the beginning of the tenancy, the premises had recorded no methamphetamine.

At 10:00 am on 28 June 2025, the premises was tested for methamphetamine by Methtec Limited. The Composite test resulted found a methamphetamine level of 12.3 micrograms per 100 cm 2 .

The issue for the landlord was that the premises was tested on 28 June 2025 which was the start of date of the subsequent tenancy at the premises.

The question I must determine is whether the methamphetamine contamination occurred during this tenancy or whether it occurred during the 1 day of the subsequent tenancy.

The director of Methtec Limited stated the following: At the time of testing the new tenants were moving into the property – I believe they were just finishing the first truck load. We were initially asked to test the property on Friday the 27 th June which is the date between tenancies. We were unable to test on the Friday due to other bookings. The samples taken were a Composite Test and came back at a level of 12.3 micrograms. In my view it is highly unlikely that the new tenants have caused this contamination. It is more likely that previous tenants caused the contamination. Further testing was done on Thursday 10 th July and the results came back at a combined 8.72 micrograms. As the level of contamination has not increased across the almost two-week period that he new tenants have been in the property I would find it very unlikely that the new tenants are responsible for the contaminations.

The subsequent tenant stated that they only moved their belongings into the premises on 27 June 2025. The tenant did not fully occupy the premises until the following day on 28 June 2025. The subsequent tenant was phoned at the hearing and he gave evidence that he had no criminal convictions as he worked in aviation security.

The tenant denied any knowledge of any methamphetamine use at the premises.

However, she did say that her brother-in-law Bobby Alexander had been living with her as part of his bail conditions from the criminal jurisdiction. He had been there with a curfew condition.

Given the extreme short time of the subsequent tenancy prior to the methamphetamine testing, I find it more likely than not that the methamphetamine reading was due to this tenancy and not the subsequent tenancy.

I order the tenant to reimburse the landlord for the methamphetamine testing costs from the bond.

The landlord also sought exemplary damages for the unlawful methamphetamine use in the premises.

Under section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), a tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose.

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 RTA.

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) RTA.

It is unlawful to use methamphetamine as it contravenes the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.

However, I accept the tenant’s evidence that she did not use methamphetamine and I also accept her evidence that she was unaware of the methamphetamine use by any of the occupants.

I do not find that the tenant had permitted anyone at the premises to use the premises for an unlawful purpose. I decline to award any exemplary damages.

As the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I order the tenant to reimburse the landlord’s filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5312400 — net $1,166.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Meth testing/Cleaning	$1,138.50	Meth testing/Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,166.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,166.50

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay The Difference Limited T/A: Harcourts Helensville $1,166.50 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,166.50 (6260898-021) to The Difference Limited T/A: Harcourts Helensville immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,073.50 (6260898-021) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 26 September 2025.
The landlord has applied for compensation for methamphetamine testing, exemplary damages for the premises being used for unlawful purpose and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy was from 5 April 2019 and ended on 26 June 2025.
At the beginning of the tenancy, the premises had recorded no methamphetamine.
At 10:00 am on 28 June 2025, the premises was tested for methamphetamine by Methtec Limited. The Composite test resulted found a methamphetamine level of 12.3 micrograms per 100 cm 2 .
The issue for the landlord was that the premises was tested on 28 June 2025 which was the start of date of the subsequent tenancy at the premises.
The question I must determine is whether the methamphetamine contamination occurred during this tenancy or whether it occurred during the 1 day of the subsequent tenancy.
The director of Methtec Limited stated the following: At the time of testing the new tenants were moving into the property – I believe they were just finishing the first truck load. We were initially asked to test the property on Friday the 27 th June which is the date between tenancies. We were unable to test on the Friday due to other bookings. The samples taken were a Composite Test and came back at a level of 12.3 micrograms. In my view it is highly unlikely that the new tenants have caused this contamination. It is more likely that previous tenants caused the contamination. Further testing was done on Thursday 10 th July and the results came back at a combined 8.72 micrograms. As the level of contamination has not increased across the almost two-week period that he new tenants have been in the property I would find it very unlikely that the new tenants are responsible for the contaminations.
The subsequent tenant stated that they only moved their belongings into the premises on 27 June 2025. The tenant did not fully occupy the premises until the following day on 28 June 2025. The subsequent tenant was phoned at the hearing and he gave evidence that he had no criminal convictions as he worked in aviation security.
The tenant denied any knowledge of any methamphetamine use at the premises.
However, she did say that her brother-in-law Bobby Alexander had been living with her as part of his bail conditions from the criminal jurisdiction. He had been there with a curfew condition.
Given the extreme short time of the subsequent tenancy prior to the methamphetamine testing, I find it more likely than not that the methamphetamine reading was due to this tenancy and not the subsequent tenancy.
I order the tenant to reimburse the landlord for the methamphetamine testing costs from the bond.
The landlord also sought exemplary damages for the unlawful methamphetamine use in the premises.
Under section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), a tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose.
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 RTA.
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) RTA.
It is unlawful to use methamphetamine as it contravenes the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
However, I accept the tenant’s evidence that she did not use methamphetamine and I also accept her evidence that she was unaware of the methamphetamine use by any of the occupants.
I do not find that the tenant had permitted anyone at the premises to use the premises for an unlawful purpose. I decline to award any exemplary damages.
As the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I order the tenant to reimburse the landlord’s filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5312400 — Cleanliness at 98B Mahana Road, Waimauku, Waimauku 0881

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5312400 — Cleanliness at 98B Mahana Road, Waimauku, Waimauku 0881

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions