How much money was awarded in case 5325561?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Methamphetamine Contamination: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $240.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $811.43 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $412.31 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5325561?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5325561?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12520171-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5325561?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Methamphetamine Contamination: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $240.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $811.43 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $412.31 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5325561?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5325561?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12520171-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5325561 — Rent arrears

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5325561 about?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5325561 — net $2,591.74 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 13 September 2025	$811.43	Rent arrears to 13 September 2025
Water rates	$412.31	Water rates
Lock/key replacement	$240.00	Lock/key replacement
Methamphetamine contamination	$2,500.00	Methamphetamine contamination
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,591.74
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,591.74

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Dorothy Grimes must pay [The landlord/s] $2,591.74 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

The application for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms H and Ms W] represented the landlord. Ms Grimes attended by way of teleconference.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Ms Grimes did not dispute the amount of rent or the water charges claimed. She also did not dispute that she did not return the keys at the end of the tenancy as required by 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act)

The amount ordered to change the locks has been established by the production of an invoice.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

To be successful in a claim for damage to the premises, the landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they, or others at the premises with their permission, did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage: sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.

The landlord claims the insurance excess payable to its insurer for costs incurred to test and clean the premises of methamphetamine contamination.

A methamphetamine detailed screening assessment was completed of the premises on 10 September 2024. Testing of the 25 samples taken from the premises established that all rooms had levels above the level that is considered to be likely to give rise to adverse effects (15 μg/100cm²) and therefore requires cleaning/remediation (as determined in the report by Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, Methamphetamine Contamination in Residential Properties: Exposures, Risk Levels, and Interpretation of Standards). The levels in two rooms, the kitchen/livingroom and an ensuite bathroom were particularly high (230 ug/100cm² and 300 ug/100cm² respectively).

I am satisfied that the landlord has established that the damage to the premises caused by methamphetamine occurred during the tenancy, the damage is clearly beyond fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for it.

Ms Grimes accepts the contamination damage and the amount claimed. She said that it was her flatmate that had used methamphetamine in the premises, and she was unaware that the flatmate was doing so at the time. However, she accepts that she is responsible for damage caused by those at the premises with her permission.

Should exemplary damages be payable?

Section 40(2)(b) of the Act provides that the tenant shall not use or permit the premises to be used for any unlawful purpose. Contravention of section 40(2)(b) is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,800.00: section 40(3A) of the Act.

Exemplary damages are different to compensatory damages. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine and are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proved, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the Act. The threshold requirement is that the unlawful act was committed ‘intentionally’. In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court held that this requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: (a) The intention of the person (b) The effect of the unlawful act; (c) The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d) The public interest.

I dismiss the claim for exemplary damages.

I accept that Ms Grimes did not use methamphetamine in the premises. I am also prepared to accept her evidence that, during the period of the tenancy, she was completely unaware that her flatmate was using methamphetamine and there was nothing that she observed that may have put her on notice of the use by her flatmate.

I am therefore satisfied, on the evidence before me, that Ms Grimes did not “permit” the use of methamphetamine at the premises. Tribunal application fee

The landlord has been mostly successful in its claims, and I consider this an appropriate case to award it payment of the Tribunal application fee. Suppression

The landlord applied, in its application, for a suppression order.

Section 95A of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).

The landlord has been substantially successful in its claims. I therefore order suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5325561 — net $2,591.74 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 13 September 2025	$811.43	Rent arrears to 13 September 2025
Water rates	$412.31	Water rates
Lock/key replacement	$240.00	Lock/key replacement
Methamphetamine contamination	$2,500.00	Methamphetamine contamination
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,591.74
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,591.74

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Dorothy Grimes must pay [The landlord/s] $2,591.74 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

The application for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms H and Ms W] represented the landlord. Ms Grimes attended by way of teleconference.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The amount ordered to change the locks has been established by the production of an invoice.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims the insurance excess payable to its insurer for costs incurred to test and clean the premises of methamphetamine contamination.

Should exemplary damages be payable?

I dismiss the claim for exemplary damages.

I am therefore satisfied, on the evidence before me, that Ms Grimes did not “permit” the use of methamphetamine at the premises. Tribunal application fee

The landlord has been mostly successful in its claims, and I consider this an appropriate case to award it payment of the Tribunal application fee. Suppression

The landlord applied, in its application, for a suppression order.

The landlord has been substantially successful in its claims. I therefore order suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5325561 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5325561 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should exemplary damages be payable?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should exemplary damages be payable?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions