What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5317694 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of [tenant 1]’s name and identifying details

How much money was awarded in case 5317694?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing: $208.15 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,620.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5317694?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5317694?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12340918-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5317694 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of [tenant 1]’s name and identifying details

How much money was awarded in case 5317694?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing: $208.15 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,620.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5317694?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5317694?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12340918-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5317694 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5317694 — net $576.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 31.8.2025	$2,620.14	Rent arrears to 31.8.2025
Meth testing	$208.15	Meth testing
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$576.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$576.29

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of [tenant 1]’s name and identifying details only.
The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to Penryn Trading Limited T/As Propertyscouts Greater Wellington As Agent For Marysia Bogusz, at 11.59pm on Sunday 31 August 2025.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,280.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Penryn Trading Limited T/As Propertyscouts Greater Wellington As Agent For Marysia Bogusz immediately.
[The tenant/s] must pay Penryn Trading Limited T/As Propertyscouts Greater Wellington As Agent For Marysia Bogusz $576.29 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

The landlord and one of the tenants, [Tenant 1], attended the hearing by video and telephone conference. [Tenant 1] was also supported by [tenant’s 1 support person].
The other tenant, Melinda Derbidge did not attend the hearing by joining the video link. The Tribunal attempted to call her at the cell phone number provided in the application but the calls disconnected. Prior to the hearing, Ms Derbidge had asked for an adjournment, which was declined. She also filed a written submission. Therefore, I am satisfied that she received notice of the hearing and did not attend.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond. The landlord also seeks the costs of testing for methamphetamine (meth) at the premises. Termination for rent arrears
At the hearing [tenant 1] gave evidence that she and Ms Derbidge were each to pay one-half of the rent and she has been paying her share of $285/week. The landlord agreed that payments have been received from [tenant 1], and it appears that Ms Derbidge has missed several rent payments which has caused the rent arrears. In her written submission, Ms Derbidge acknowledged responsibility for rent arrears and offered to enter a repayment arrangement.
Given the increasing arrears, the landlord is not willing to enter a repayment arrangement, and seeks termination of the tenancy.
Rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. The tenancy is terminated. See section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
As discussed at the hearing, both tenants are jointly and severally liable for each other’s obligations under the tenancy agreement. This means that both tenants must ensure that the full rent of $570 is paid each week. Any agreement between tenants as to the share of rent they will each pay is not set by the landlord and is not the landlord’s concern. Where one tenant misses their share of the rent, as agreed with the other tenant, both tenants are liable to pay the missing amount to the landlord. The landlord can then choose to pursue one or both of the tenants for the arrears.
I also explained at the hearing that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine disputes between tenants including disputes over responsibility for rent arrears. In that case, if a tenant believes that their co-tenant is solely responsible for any portion of the arrears their remedy is to make a claim against the other tenant in the Disputes Tribunal to recover the amount owed. Meth testing costs
The landlord seeks the cost of testing for meth at the premises. I am satisfied on the evidence that a pre-tenancy test of a composite of 9 surface wipe samples collected on 10 June 2025 established that the level of meth at the premises was <0.04 μg/100cm² which is virtually zero. It is acknowledged that scientific testing instruments have detection limits which is the smallest amount of a substance they can reliably measure. This means tests can only detect substances above a certain concentration and cannot say there is “zero” presence of a substance.
The landlord had cause to suspect that methamphetamine was being used at the premises by Ms Derbidge. He arranged for a second meth test at the premises collecting another series of surface wipe samples on 22 July 2025. A composite of 9 samples tested showed that the level of meth at the premises had risen to 0.22. The result of testing a composite of samples represents the average of all residues from the samples making up the composite. The landlord then arranged for sample H taken from the bedroom used by Ms Derbidge to be individually tested to establish the actual residue present in that individual sample. The level of meth was 0.84 μg/100cm².
In her written submission, Ms Derbidge disputed responsibility for the meth testing costs stating: “On the day of the meth test I left the property.......I was not in the property during the relevant period and the second test showed higher levels despite my absence.” However, because Ms Derbidge did not attend the hearing, she could not be questioned about her submission on this point including what dates she was absent from the premises and what she means by “relevant period.”
I am satisfied on the available evidence and after hearing from the landlord and the tenant present at the hearing that testing of individual sample H from the bedroom used by Ms Derbidge shows that meth has been used in that room after the tenancy started. While a specific date of “use” cannot be determined, the results establish that it occurred sometime between 11 June 2025 when the tenancy started and 22 July 2025 when the samples were collected.
Use of meth at the premises is a breach of the tenancy agreement and section 40(2)(b) RTA which prohibits the tenant from using the premises, or permitting the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose. It is an imprisonable offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 (MDA) to use any controlled drug, or to knowingly permit any premises to be used for consuming controlled drugs, which includes meth (ss7 and 12 MDA).
After careful consideration of all the available evidence, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that [tenant 1] did not permit methamphetamine to be used at the premises. Ms Derbidge did not attend the hearing and could not be questioned on the issue. However, she suggests in her submission that she left the property on the day of the meth test. The samples for the meth test were collected on 22 July 2025. By this time meth was already present so her leaving the property at that point does not support any suggestion that she could not have been responsible for meth use at the property. I find it likely that she or someone with her permission used meth at the premises prior to the surface wipe samples being collected for meth testing on 22 July 2025.
It follows that the landlord is entitled to recover the costs of conducting the meth testing on 22 July 2025 from the tenants. While it may be argued that [tenant 1] should not be held liable for any breach by Ms Derbidge, the principles of joint and several liability dictate otherwise. Suppression
Section 95A(4) RTA provides that 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.
My findings above are that [tenant 1] is not at fault for the arrears and meth testing costs owed to the landlord. Her support person also explained some history regarding her personal circumstances. This is also her first tenancy and she is only 17 years. Given all the circumstances, I consider it would be unjust to publish [tenant 1]’s name and not in the public interest. The landlord also supports suppression for [tenant 1]. Orders are made accordingly.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5317694 — net $576.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 31.8.2025	$2,620.14	Rent arrears to 31.8.2025
Meth testing	$208.15	Meth testing
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$576.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$576.29

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of [tenant 1]’s name and identifying details only.
The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to Penryn Trading Limited T/As Propertyscouts Greater Wellington As Agent For Marysia Bogusz, at 11.59pm on Sunday 31 August 2025.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,280.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Penryn Trading Limited T/As Propertyscouts Greater Wellington As Agent For Marysia Bogusz immediately.
[The tenant/s] must pay Penryn Trading Limited T/As Propertyscouts Greater Wellington As Agent For Marysia Bogusz $576.29 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

The landlord and one of the tenants, [Tenant 1], attended the hearing by video and telephone conference. [Tenant 1] was also supported by [tenant’s 1 support person].
The other tenant, Melinda Derbidge did not attend the hearing by joining the video link. The Tribunal attempted to call her at the cell phone number provided in the application but the calls disconnected. Prior to the hearing, Ms Derbidge had asked for an adjournment, which was declined. She also filed a written submission. Therefore, I am satisfied that she received notice of the hearing and did not attend.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond. The landlord also seeks the costs of testing for methamphetamine (meth) at the premises. Termination for rent arrears
At the hearing [tenant 1] gave evidence that she and Ms Derbidge were each to pay one-half of the rent and she has been paying her share of $285/week. The landlord agreed that payments have been received from [tenant 1], and it appears that Ms Derbidge has missed several rent payments which has caused the rent arrears. In her written submission, Ms Derbidge acknowledged responsibility for rent arrears and offered to enter a repayment arrangement.
Given the increasing arrears, the landlord is not willing to enter a repayment arrangement, and seeks termination of the tenancy.
Rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. The tenancy is terminated. See section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
As discussed at the hearing, both tenants are jointly and severally liable for each other’s obligations under the tenancy agreement. This means that both tenants must ensure that the full rent of $570 is paid each week. Any agreement between tenants as to the share of rent they will each pay is not set by the landlord and is not the landlord’s concern. Where one tenant misses their share of the rent, as agreed with the other tenant, both tenants are liable to pay the missing amount to the landlord. The landlord can then choose to pursue one or both of the tenants for the arrears.
I also explained at the hearing that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine disputes between tenants including disputes over responsibility for rent arrears. In that case, if a tenant believes that their co-tenant is solely responsible for any portion of the arrears their remedy is to make a claim against the other tenant in the Disputes Tribunal to recover the amount owed. Meth testing costs
The landlord seeks the cost of testing for meth at the premises. I am satisfied on the evidence that a pre-tenancy test of a composite of 9 surface wipe samples collected on 10 June 2025 established that the level of meth at the premises was <0.04 μg/100cm² which is virtually zero. It is acknowledged that scientific testing instruments have detection limits which is the smallest amount of a substance they can reliably measure. This means tests can only detect substances above a certain concentration and cannot say there is “zero” presence of a substance.
The landlord had cause to suspect that methamphetamine was being used at the premises by Ms Derbidge. He arranged for a second meth test at the premises collecting another series of surface wipe samples on 22 July 2025. A composite of 9 samples tested showed that the level of meth at the premises had risen to 0.22. The result of testing a composite of samples represents the average of all residues from the samples making up the composite. The landlord then arranged for sample H taken from the bedroom used by Ms Derbidge to be individually tested to establish the actual residue present in that individual sample. The level of meth was 0.84 μg/100cm².
In her written submission, Ms Derbidge disputed responsibility for the meth testing costs stating: “On the day of the meth test I left the property.......I was not in the property during the relevant period and the second test showed higher levels despite my absence.” However, because Ms Derbidge did not attend the hearing, she could not be questioned about her submission on this point including what dates she was absent from the premises and what she means by “relevant period.”
I am satisfied on the available evidence and after hearing from the landlord and the tenant present at the hearing that testing of individual sample H from the bedroom used by Ms Derbidge shows that meth has been used in that room after the tenancy started. While a specific date of “use” cannot be determined, the results establish that it occurred sometime between 11 June 2025 when the tenancy started and 22 July 2025 when the samples were collected.
Use of meth at the premises is a breach of the tenancy agreement and section 40(2)(b) RTA which prohibits the tenant from using the premises, or permitting the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose. It is an imprisonable offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 (MDA) to use any controlled drug, or to knowingly permit any premises to be used for consuming controlled drugs, which includes meth (ss7 and 12 MDA).
After careful consideration of all the available evidence, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that [tenant 1] did not permit methamphetamine to be used at the premises. Ms Derbidge did not attend the hearing and could not be questioned on the issue. However, she suggests in her submission that she left the property on the day of the meth test. The samples for the meth test were collected on 22 July 2025. By this time meth was already present so her leaving the property at that point does not support any suggestion that she could not have been responsible for meth use at the property. I find it likely that she or someone with her permission used meth at the premises prior to the surface wipe samples being collected for meth testing on 22 July 2025.
It follows that the landlord is entitled to recover the costs of conducting the meth testing on 22 July 2025 from the tenants. While it may be argued that [tenant 1] should not be held liable for any breach by Ms Derbidge, the principles of joint and several liability dictate otherwise. Suppression
Section 95A(4) RTA provides that 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.
My findings above are that [tenant 1] is not at fault for the arrears and meth testing costs owed to the landlord. Her support person also explained some history regarding her personal circumstances. This is also her first tenancy and she is only 17 years. Given all the circumstances, I consider it would be unjust to publish [tenant 1]’s name and not in the public interest. The landlord also supports suppression for [tenant 1]. Orders are made accordingly.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5317694 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5317694 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions