What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5317399 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 5317399?

Compensation: $33.60 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $77.83 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $31.45 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing: $1,132.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,671.57 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $96.69 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $218.18 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5317399?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5317399?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12996720-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5317399 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 5317399?

Compensation: $33.60 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $77.83 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $31.45 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing: $1,132.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,671.57 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $96.69 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $218.18 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5317399?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5317399?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12996720-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5317399 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5317399 — net $1,589.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 25.8.25	$1,671.57	Rent arrears to 25.8.25
Water rates: to 20.8.25	$218.18	Water rates: to 20.8.25
Rubbish removal: Fridge/Freezer	$96.69	Rubbish removal: Fridge/Freezer
Compensation for damage to benchtop	$1,000.00	42. I have determined to order the tenant to pay $1000 which reflects a reasonable contribution to the replacement cost of the bench or any potential impact on…
Compensation - 2 pavers	$33.60	Compensation - 2 pavers
Compensation - door handll	$77.83	Compensation - door handll
Compensation - window stay	$31.45	Compensation - window stay
Meth testing	$1,132.25	Meth testing
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,589.57
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,589.57

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5317399 — net $1,589.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 25.8.25	$1,671.57	Rent arrears to 25.8.25
Water rates: to 20.8.25	$218.18	Water rates: to 20.8.25
Rubbish removal: Fridge/Freezer	$96.69	Rubbish removal: Fridge/Freezer
Compensation for damage to benchtop	$1,000.00	42. I have determined to order the tenant to pay $1000 which reflects a reasonable contribution to the replacement cost of the bench or any potential impact on…
Compensation - 2 pavers	$33.60	Compensation - 2 pavers
Compensation - door handll	$77.83	Compensation - door handll
Compensation - window stay	$31.45	Compensation - window stay
Meth testing	$1,132.25	Meth testing
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,589.57
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,589.57

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details and the address of the premises.
[The tenant/s] must pay Lsa Property Limited T/A Quinovic Property Management $1,589.57 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

This order revokes and replaces the order made on 20 August 2025.
The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearings of this matter heard over two separate days. This matter was reheard following a successful application for a rehearing by the tenant. This order revokes and replaces the order made on 20 August 2025.
The tenancy commenced on 17 December 2024 and has now ended. There is a dispute about what date the termination date should be.
The landlord has applied for termination, rent arrears, water rates, compensation, payment of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood.
The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy 1 , in practical terms this means that: ... “[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
The more serious the claims made the greater the evidential burden on the applicant will be. 2
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02 2 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55. under the RTA. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety. Termination
The tenancy has now ended therefore the Tribunal is not required to make an order for termination. This claim was withdrawn by the landlord. However, the issue the Tribunal must now determine is what date the tenancy ended as this will determine the claims for rent arrears and/or storage costs. Rent arrears / storage costs / Obligations at end of a tenancy
The tenant must pay the rent as and when it is due and payable under the tenancy agreement. 3
Where a tenant remains in occupation of the premises after the tenancy has terminated, all the obligations of the tenant shall continue in force as if the tenancy were still subsisting until such time as the tenant ceases to occupy the premises. 4
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must remove all his or her goods from the premises, leave the premises (including the land provided with the premises) reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. 5
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and storage costs.
The landlord has claimed rent of $1,292.85 to 20 August 2025 and storage costs from 20 August 2025 to 25 August 2025 of $478.57.
The tenant disputes the rent arrears and storage costs and says he should only be liable for rent to 8 August 2025 as he did not have possession of the premises as the landlord had terminated the tenancy and he was in custody.
The landlord says when the tenant was remanded in custody his family asked for the tenancy to continue to allow them to remove his belongings and clean the house.
At the hearing it was clarified by the landlord that the storage costs reflect the amount of rent to 25 August 2025 as the tenant retained the key to the premises and access to the premises until 28 August 2025. The tenant’s belongings were stored at the premises until 25 August 2025 and he had access to the premises to that date. 3 See section 40 (1)(a) of the RTA. 4 See s 60 RTA. 5 See section 40(1)(e) of the RTA.
The landlord said the tenant emailed on 22 August 2025 saying he would vacate the property on 25 August 2025. I understand it is accepted by both parties that the tenant held the keys of the property until 25 August 2025.
I consider the tenant has retained possession, by way of having ongoing access to the premises, until at least 25 August 2025 and I make an order for the amount claimed as rent arrears which reflects the storage costs claimed.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy to 25 August 2025. The amount ordered is calculated as follows: Rent arrears to 20 August 2025 - $1,292.86 Plus rent arrears 21-25 August 2025 - $478.57 Less $100 Rent paid = Total $1,671.43 Disposal of fridge /freezer
The tenant did not remove his fridge/freezer from the premises at the end of the tenancy. He is therefore liable for the cost of it being removed. The landlord claimed $96.69 compensation to dispose of the fridge freezer. The property managers invoice notes the dump costs as $32 and 45-minutes labour as $64.69. The tenant says the amount claimed is unreasonable and he should only be responsible for half the labour amount claimed. The Tribunal will generally award the landlord’s time at the rate of $30 per hour, however in taking account the work involved in disposing of the fridge/freezer I find the amount claimed is reasonable and order the tenant to pay the full amount claimed of $96.69. Water rates
The tenant is responsible for water consumption charges. 6 The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy is $218.18 being $131.94 (for the period 7/3/25-30/5/25) and $86.24 (for the period 30/5/25-20/8/25). By consent I make an order for the water rates as claimed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A tenant must not intentionally or carelessly cause damage or permit any other person to damage the premises. 7 Where a landlord is claiming compensation for damage a landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during 6 See section 39 RTA. 7 See s 40 (2)(a) of the RTA. 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. 8 Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. 9
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). 10 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). 11 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 12
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. 13 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. 14
In assessing a claim for compensation, I must take into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Note about landlord’s insurance
The Insurance statement in the tenancy agreement says “Insurance - ** Is Property Insured for Tenant Damage has Yes selected but no Tenant Related policies exist **”
The landlord advised at the hearing that during the tenancy the tenant was notified that the landlord had insurance, with an insurance excess of $500, however the landlord missed a payment of the insurance premium and was 8 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 9 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA). 10 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 11 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 12 See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA. 13 See section 49B(1) RTA. 14 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. therefore not insured in respect of any claims for damage. I consider the tenant is entitled to rely on the landlord statement in respect of the insurance excess of $500 which I consider is the cap in respect of careless damage. Damage in this case Oven and Dishwasher damage
The landlord claimed compensation of $1,845.98 being $603.60 plus delivery costs replace the oven and $655.51 plus delivery costs to replace the dishwasher.
The landlord claimed these items were damaged during the tenancy. The landlord says the damage to the dishwasher was staining to the door and the damage to the oven was staining and what appears to be rust or chemical damage inside the oven.
The landlord provided a quote in support of the claim. The landlord did not know the age of the oven or dishwasher. The landlord provided photographs in support of the claim from during the tenancy and shortly before the end of the tenancy (shortly after the tenant had been arrested), to show marks on the dishwasher and interior surface damage on the oven.
The landlord was unaware as to whether the owner had replaced the oven and dishwasher and said the owner was awaiting the outcome of this Tribunal hearing. The landlord said both items were still working at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant said the property was on the market and he had been at the premises the day before the final hearing and he had seen that the oven and dishwasher had not been replaced. The tenant said the photographs taken by the landlord were taken before he gave possession to the landlord and he was able to clean the oven and dishwasher, therefore he says they are not damaged. During the hearing we reviewed the current property listing which appears to show the same dishwasher and oven. This indicated that neither have been replaced. In addition, the damage to the dishwasher appears to have been repaired.
On the evidence provided, including the property listing which shows the items still in the premises and the lack of information about the age of the items I consider the landlord has not proven that the dishwasher and oven were damaged beyond fair wear and tear.
In addition, and if I am wrong in my finding that the landlord has not proven that the oven and dishwasher were damaged, only a quote has been provided. The Tribunal takes a cautious approach when quotes are provided as the actual cost has not been established and the landlord may not actually pay the amounts quoted for the repairs. The landlord did not provide any evidence that the alleged damage has impacted the sale price. I consider the landlord has not proven a loss. The claims for compensation for the oven and dishwasher are dismissed. Replace benchtop
The landlord seeks compensation of $3,328.25 for replacement of the damaged benchtop.
The tenant accepted that the benchtop was damaged and that the damage was caused during the tenancy but says he purchased laminate which the landlord should have used to repair the bench.
The landlord says the laminate was inferior and unsuitable to repair the bench top. On reviewing the evidence in relation to the rolls of laminate provided by the tenant I agree with the landlord that the laminate provided was not suitable to repair the bench and, in any event, it was not installed by the tenant.
On reviewing the evidence provided, including the photographs of the damage I consider the damage was likely the result of the intentional action of the tenant. The damage appears to have been caused over time, with chemicals being persistently left on the bench.
Only a quote has been provided and as noted above, the Tribunal takes a cautious approach when quotes are provided as the actual cost has not been established and the landlord may not actually pay the amounts quoted for the repairs or replacement. In addition, the landlord could not advise the age of the bench, but at the first hearing indicated it may be approximately 5 years old.
Current depreciation guidelines estimate the useful lifespan of a laminate bench is 12-18 years. However, the pre-tenancy photographs indicate that the bench was in good condition at the start of the tenancy.
I have determined to order the tenant to pay $1000 which reflects a reasonable contribution to the replacement cost of the bench or any potential impact on the purchase price of the home, as it is currently on the market. The amount ordered is reflective of the tenant’s breach of their obligation. Replace 2 pavers
The landlord says that two pavers were damaged during the tenancy by the tenant. This was not disputed by the tenant. By consent I make an order for replacement of two pavers of $33.60 Replacement door handle
The landlord claims $77.83 in respect of a door handle that was damaged during the tenancy. The claim for the replacement door handle was undisputed by the tenant. By consent I make an order for the replacement door handle. Replacement kitchen window stay
The landlord seeks compensation of $31.45 for the replacement of the kitchen window stay that they say was damaged during the tenancy.
The landlord has provided a screen shot of a window stay from the Bunnings Warehouse website in support of the claim. The tenant did not dispute the damage. By consent I make an order for the amount claimed for the window stay.

METHAMPHETAMINE CONTAMINATION

The landlord has claimed methamphetamine testing costs - $1,132.25 being reimbursement of the IDS Independent drug screening invoice and decontamination costs - $1608 being reimbursement of the Chanel and Co cleaning and testing invoice.
The landlord says the premises was contaminated with methamphetamine during the tenancy. The Law Methamphetamine contamination
For context it is necessary to first set out the law relating to methamphetamine that the Tribunal follows.
Section 40 (2)(b) of the RTA says that a tenant must not use the premises, or permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose. The use, possession and manufacturing of methamphetamine is a criminal offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
Section 138C of the RTA provides for regulations to be made prescribing the maximum acceptable level for contaminants. There is currently no level specified for de-contamination for methamphetamine.
Methamphetamine contamination, at levels that require de-contamination, constitutes damage to the premises.
In 2010 the New Zealand Ministry of Health produced guidelines for the remediation of clandestine methamphetamine laboratories and determined that remediation was required if the environmental level of methamphetamine was
5 μg/100 cm 2 . While that related to laboratories, it is the case that the 0.5 level became the de facto level at which premises were considered to require decontamination in New Zealand.
In 2017 the level was increased when Standards New Zealand released Standard NZS 8510:2017 “Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine- contaminated properties”. At that time, this standard set the definitive levels at which properties which had methamphetamine contamination, required remediation. The Standard confirmed that: After seeking expert advice on exposure risk from Environmental Science and Research Ltd (ESR) and the Ministry of Health and reviewing a large number of public comments on a draft of this standard, the committee has decided to set the maximum acceptable level of methamphetamine in an affected property at 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 after decontamination. While this level is greater than the Ministry of Health 2010 guideline value of 0.5 μg/100 cm 2 for properties used as clandestine laboratories, there are a number of reasons why the committee decided to adopt the single value of 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 in this standard.
In short, this standard confirmed that the level at which habitation of residential premises was considered safe, was a level of 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 . The expectation on landlords arising from this Standard, was to remediate premises contaminated with methamphetamine, to a level of less than 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 .
However, in more recent times, the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman determined that there was little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption (Report entitled ‘Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards’, 29 May 2018). The report concluded that any levels below 15 μg/100 cm 2 were unlikely to present adverse effects: Taken together, these factors indicate that methamphetamine levels that exceed the NZS 8510:2017 clean-up standard of 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 should not be regarded as signalling a health risk. Indeed, exposure to methamphetamine levels below 15 μg/100 cm 2 would be unlikely to give rise to any adverse effects. This level still incorporates a 30-fold safety buffer on a conservative estimate of risk.
The Gluckman report noted that where there is evidence of manufacturing the NZ Standard is appropriate.
At this time there remains a current New Zealand Standard of 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 , and also a current opinion from the Chief Science Advisor that there is no evidence of risk below 15 μg/100 cm 2
There are therefore the two sources of guidance on the issue of a safe level of methamphetamine contamination in residential premises - the Standard level of
5 μg/100 cm 2 and the Gluckman report that there is no evidence of risk below 15 μg/100 cm 2 . The Tenancy Tribunal has adopted the recommendations of the Gluckman report, which concluded that de-contamination is required if contamination is present at levels of 15 μg/100 cm 2 or above. This approach has been approved by the District Court and continues to be applied in Tenancy Tribunal decisions. 15 Pre-tenancy baseline testing
The landlord must establish that methamphetamine contamination is likely to have occurred during the tenancy by the tenant, or some person in the premises with the tenant’s consent. This would need to be by way of pre- tenancy methamphetamine testing being undertaken.
In Anthony James Brooking v Colin Imrie 16 , The Court 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 (sic) 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 landlord’s 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.
In the earlier case of Eren Limited v Louise Martin 17 , The Court also considered a dispute over who caused the contamination. 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 15 Full Circle Real Estate Ltd v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947, Acme Realty Ltd v Alexander James Hogg, Tuitui Grace Polotu, Leigh Sharyn Coughlin [2021] NZDC 3231 and Eren Limited v Martin and Kukuruzsnayak [2021] NZDC 15210 16 Anthony James Brooking v Colin Imrie [2021] NZDC 16976 17 Eren Limited v Louise Martin [2021] NZDC 15210 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 the Tribunal could consider. However, the Court found that the circumstantial evidence was not sufficient to get over the problem of no pre-tenancy methamphetamine testing: However, the significant problem for this claim is that 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 18 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.
A common theme that can be discerned from these authorities is without a pre- tenancy test for the presence of methamphetamine, it will be difficult for a landlord to discharge the burden of proof on the balance of probabilities that the contamination of methamphetamine occurred during the tenancy. Analysis
A detailed methamphetamine testing assessment was undertaken on 28 July 2025 which produced the following results: • Kitchen/Dining – 6.53 μg/100cm2 • Lounge– 6.55 μg/100cm2 18 Yan v Weggery TT 4303380, 12 January 2022 • Bedroom 1, off lounge– 0.73 μg/100cm2 • Bedroom 2, off Dining– 1.78 μg/100cm2 • Bedroom 3 – opposite bathroom– 17.4 μg/100cm2 • Bathroom– 12.3 μg/100cm2 • Outhouse– 0.12 μg/100cm2 • Garage– 0.02 μg/100cm2
The landlord has established there was methamphetamine contamination at the end of the tenancy at a level that requires decontamination in bedroom 3 only.
However, the landlord has not provided a pre-tenancy methamphetamine test.
The absence of a pre-tenancy methamphetamine test is not always fatal to a claim.
Here, the owners of the property lived in the premises before the tenant took possession. This evidence is however insufficient to prove that the property was not contaminated with methamphetamine at the commencement of this tenancy.
The landlord has provided evidence from the NZ Police, by way of an Official information request that on 24 July 2025 that a warrant was executed at the premises and drug manufacturing utensils were located. The tenant is facing unspecified charges linked to the warrant being executed. The tenant disputes the Police claims.
The landlord has provided photographs taken shortly after the tenant was arrested of items associated with methamphetamine use, possession and potentially methamphetamine manufacturing. This includes small bags commonly known for storing methamphetamine and an empty box which appears to have held glass items used for dealing with chemicals and the landlord also provided a photograph of a glass stirring rod.
The tenant says the landlord did not undertake pre-tenancy methamphetamine testing and even if I were to find that methamphetamine contamination occurred during the tenancy it is not at a level which requires decontamination.
The tenant, on my direct enquiry, said that neither he nor did anyone else at the property use methamphetamine during the tenancy, nor to his knowledge did anyone without his permission to be at the premises, use methamphetamine in the premises. The tenant said that the box which appeared to hold glass items may have held kids’ toys. I asked the tenant about the items removed by the Police, but his response was guarded which was understandable given the current criminal prosecution.
No evidence was placed before the Tribunal for it to conclude that some other third party (such as a tradesperson) likely caused the contamination.
On balance, I give weight to the information from the NZ Police and the documentary evidence provided and find that it was more likely than not that the tenant or someone permitted in the premises used or possessed methamphetamine during the tenancy. It may be that manufacturing has occurred, but I do not consider on the evidence and the levels found in the premises that I can conclude that. The presence of the bags for storing methamphetamine, the test results and the information from the Police indicate methamphetamine was likely in the premises.
The landlord has proven that the tenant used, or permitted the use of, the premises for an unlawful purpose (the possession of methamphetamine). This is a breach of the RTA and an unlawful act pursuant to s40(3A)(c) RTA.
The tenant used the premises for an unlawful purpose and in-depth testing was required. I therefore consider that the landlord should be compensated for methamphetamine testing cost of $1,132.25.
However, the difficulty with the landlord’s claim against the tenant is the absence of a pre-tenancy test which means that there may have been some methamphetamine residue present at the commencement of the tenancy. If there was, there is no way of knowing how much and therefore it is impossible to determine whether the damage was caused by the tenant or a previous occupant. It is too uncertain.
The landlord has not proven that the tenant caused the damage to the premises.
I therefore do not award the decontamination costs because the damage to the premises may not have been caused by this tenant. Bond
The bond, which is held by the landlord following a previous Tribunal order, is to be paid to the landlord immediately to offset the amounts ordered Filing fee
As the landlord has partly succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee of $28. 19 Suppression
Section 95A of the RTA relates to suppression orders. The relevant provisions state: 19 See section 102 (4)(b) of the RTA. (1)The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.... ...(4) The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. (5) An order under subsection (4) may be made subject to any conditions that the Tribunal considers appropriate.
The landlord did not seek name suppression.
The tenant sought name suppression as he is currently involved in criminal proceedings which relate to the events considered in this order. The tenant says he has name suppression in relation to the criminal matter. I consider it is in the tenant’s interests to have name suppression, to not impact the outcome of his criminal case. I have made an order suppressing the tenant’s name and identifying details, including the address of the property.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5317399 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5317399 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

METHAMPHETAMINE CONTAMINATION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

METHAMPHETAMINE CONTAMINATION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions