What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5312530 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5312530?

Cleaning: $270.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $391.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $334.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $256.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $876.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $165.90 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5312530?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5312530?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12476839-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5312530 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5312530?

Cleaning: $270.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $391.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $334.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $256.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $876.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $165.90 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5312530?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5312530?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12476839-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5312530 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5312530 — net $1,984.90 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$876.00	Rent arrears
Cleaning	$270.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$391.00	Lawns and Garden work
Rubbish removal	$165.90	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$334.00	Lock/key replacement
Repairs	$256.00	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,984.90
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,984.90

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Mathew Pekama must pay [The landlord/s] $1,984.90 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $336.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the remote hearing.
The tenant did not attend the hearing. Telephone calls were made to the tenant on the number provided at the allocated hearing time. The calls went to voicemail. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given. I am satisfied that notice of the hearing was given to 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 18 June 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $876.00.

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. 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. The landlord provided photos of the premises showing the condition at the commencement of the tenancy and at the end of the tenancy. The photo showed that the premises had not been left reasonably clean and tidy by the tenant. Invoices for cleaning ($270.00), gardening ($391.00) and rubbish removal ($165.90) were provided.
The tenant did not return the keys. The landlord provided an invoice for $334.00 from the locksmith.
The amounts ordered are proved. Methamphetamine
The landlord seeks compensation for $1,450.00 for methamphetamine contamination remediation and $1,213.25 for costs for methamphetamine testing.
The results of the testing for methamphetamine residue showed a range of outcomes, with 8.7 micrograms per 100cm2 being the highest.
The landlord must prove that the tenant caused or permitted the contamination, or that it was caused by someone at the premises with the tenant’s consent. The landlord must also prove that, as a result of the contamination, the premises have been damaged or are not reasonably clean.
Section 138C Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides for regulations to be made prescribing the maximum acceptable level for contaminants, but as yet no regulations have been made in relation to methamphetamine.
There are currently two sources of guidance on the issue of a safe level of methamphetamine contamination in residential premises. In June 2017 Standards New Zealand published NZS 8510:2017. The standard recommended a maximum contamination level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 for high use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture. It recommended a higher level of 3.8μg/100cm 2 for limited use areas.
In May 2018 Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the then Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor, released a report "Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards”. The report noted that there is a lack of scientific evidence to prove that low- level third-hand methamphetamine exposure poses a health risk to humans. It stated that guidelines should be proportionate to risk and that exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm 2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect. It recommended retaining the level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 where contamination resulted from manufacture, due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the process.
The District Court has held that remediation should be carried out in accordance with the prevailing guidelines at the time (Diamond Real Estate Limited v Allan [2017] NZDC 833, Judge Kellar).
The Tribunal has for some time now generally applied the Gluckman recommendation. This approach was approved by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947, where the Court stated (at para [36]): The Tenancy Tribunal was in a difficult position. The best state of knowledge of risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination available to the adjudicator was the Gluckman Report. It would have been bold for the adjudicator to have ignored that report in favour of the New Zealand Standard given that the Gluckman report represents the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination in dwellings.
The District Court took a similar approach in Acme Realty Limited v Hogg and others [2021] NZDC 3231, where the Court referred to the Full Circle case and held that, because NZS 8510:2017 has not been adopted into law, the Tribunal was not bound to apply the 1.5μg standard.
More recently, in Barfoot and Thompson Limited v Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited [2021] NZTT Auckland 4276319, both parties presented scientific evidence at a hearing before the Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that there was no new scientific research to change the conclusions reached in the Gluckman Report.
The levels shown in the test results in this matter are below the level at which the Tribunal would consider the premises contaminated. The reasons are those set out above.
Further, no pre-tenancy base line methamphetamine testing had been carried out. If there is no baseline test from before the tenancy started, it is usually not possible to show that the property was clean at the start and contaminated at the end.
In Eren Limited v Martin and Kukuruzsnayak NZDC 15210, the District Court confirmed that the absence of a pre-tenancy test was determinative. The landlord could not prove contamination occurred during the tenancy. In Brooking and Hodges v Imrie NZDC 16976, the Court also pointed out that without pre- tenancy testing it was not possible to establish the causal link between the methamphetamine use and the tenant. 22The claim is dismissed.

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.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) 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: at the end of the tenancy the landlord discovered nails in the wall and a broken window. The landlord provided photos in support of the claim and an invoice for repairs of $256.00. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.
The landlord applied for name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful in this hearing. Suppression of the landlords name and details is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5312530 — net $1,984.90 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$876.00	Rent arrears
Cleaning	$270.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$391.00	Lawns and Garden work
Rubbish removal	$165.90	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$334.00	Lock/key replacement
Repairs	$256.00	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,984.90
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,984.90

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Mathew Pekama must pay [The landlord/s] $1,984.90 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $336.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the remote hearing.
The tenant did not attend the hearing. Telephone calls were made to the tenant on the number provided at the allocated hearing time. The calls went to voicemail. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given. I am satisfied that notice of the hearing was given to 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 18 June 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $876.00.

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. 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. The landlord provided photos of the premises showing the condition at the commencement of the tenancy and at the end of the tenancy. The photo showed that the premises had not been left reasonably clean and tidy by the tenant. Invoices for cleaning ($270.00), gardening ($391.00) and rubbish removal ($165.90) were provided.
The tenant did not return the keys. The landlord provided an invoice for $334.00 from the locksmith.
The amounts ordered are proved. Methamphetamine
The landlord seeks compensation for $1,450.00 for methamphetamine contamination remediation and $1,213.25 for costs for methamphetamine testing.
The results of the testing for methamphetamine residue showed a range of outcomes, with 8.7 micrograms per 100cm2 being the highest.
The landlord must prove that the tenant caused or permitted the contamination, or that it was caused by someone at the premises with the tenant’s consent. The landlord must also prove that, as a result of the contamination, the premises have been damaged or are not reasonably clean.
Section 138C Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides for regulations to be made prescribing the maximum acceptable level for contaminants, but as yet no regulations have been made in relation to methamphetamine.
There are currently two sources of guidance on the issue of a safe level of methamphetamine contamination in residential premises. In June 2017 Standards New Zealand published NZS 8510:2017. The standard recommended a maximum contamination level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 for high use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture. It recommended a higher level of 3.8μg/100cm 2 for limited use areas.
In May 2018 Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the then Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor, released a report "Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards”. The report noted that there is a lack of scientific evidence to prove that low- level third-hand methamphetamine exposure poses a health risk to humans. It stated that guidelines should be proportionate to risk and that exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm 2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect. It recommended retaining the level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 where contamination resulted from manufacture, due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the process.
The District Court has held that remediation should be carried out in accordance with the prevailing guidelines at the time (Diamond Real Estate Limited v Allan [2017] NZDC 833, Judge Kellar).
The Tribunal has for some time now generally applied the Gluckman recommendation. This approach was approved by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947, where the Court stated (at para [36]): The Tenancy Tribunal was in a difficult position. The best state of knowledge of risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination available to the adjudicator was the Gluckman Report. It would have been bold for the adjudicator to have ignored that report in favour of the New Zealand Standard given that the Gluckman report represents the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination in dwellings.
The District Court took a similar approach in Acme Realty Limited v Hogg and others [2021] NZDC 3231, where the Court referred to the Full Circle case and held that, because NZS 8510:2017 has not been adopted into law, the Tribunal was not bound to apply the 1.5μg standard.
More recently, in Barfoot and Thompson Limited v Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited [2021] NZTT Auckland 4276319, both parties presented scientific evidence at a hearing before the Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that there was no new scientific research to change the conclusions reached in the Gluckman Report.
The levels shown in the test results in this matter are below the level at which the Tribunal would consider the premises contaminated. The reasons are those set out above.
Further, no pre-tenancy base line methamphetamine testing had been carried out. If there is no baseline test from before the tenancy started, it is usually not possible to show that the property was clean at the start and contaminated at the end.
In Eren Limited v Martin and Kukuruzsnayak NZDC 15210, the District Court confirmed that the absence of a pre-tenancy test was determinative. The landlord could not prove contamination occurred during the tenancy. In Brooking and Hodges v Imrie NZDC 16976, the Court also pointed out that without pre- tenancy testing it was not possible to establish the causal link between the methamphetamine use and the tenant. 22The claim is dismissed.

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.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) 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: at the end of the tenancy the landlord discovered nails in the wall and a broken window. The landlord provided photos in support of the claim and an invoice for repairs of $256.00. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.
The landlord applied for name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful in this hearing. Suppression of the landlords name and details is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5312530 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5312530 — Rent arrears

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions