What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5329100 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 5329100?

Cleaning: $70.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Refund Of Rent - Rent Credit: $497.14 awarded to tenant; Kitchen Cabinets: $517.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Doors: $1,063.65 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5329100?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5329100?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12653466-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5329100 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 5329100?

Cleaning: $70.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Refund Of Rent - Rent Credit: $497.14 awarded to tenant; Kitchen Cabinets: $517.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Doors: $1,063.65 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5329100?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5329100?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12653466-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5329100 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5329100 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5329100 — net $802.01 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Replace doors	$1,063.65		Replace doors
Repairs: Kitchen cabinets	$517.50		Repairs: Kitchen cabinets
Meth testing/Cleaning: Insurance excess	$2,500.00		Meth testing/Cleaning: Insurance excess
Repairs: wall damage- limited to insurance excess in	$550.00		Repairs: wall damage- limited to insurance excess in
Compensation - replace blind wands	$50.00		Compensation - replace blind wands
Cleaning: Blind cleaning following decontamination	$70.00		Cleaning: Blind cleaning following decontamination
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Refund of rent - rent credit		$497.14	Refund of rent - rent credit
Total award	$4,779.15	$497.14
Net award	$802.01
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$802.01

Claims and awards for application 5329100 — net $802.01 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Replace doors

Amount: $1,063.65
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace doors

Repairs: Kitchen cabinets

Amount: $517.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Kitchen cabinets

Meth testing/Cleaning: Insurance excess

Amount: $2,500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Meth testing/Cleaning: Insurance excess

Repairs: wall damage- limited to insurance excess in

Amount: $550.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: wall damage- limited to insurance excess in

Compensation - replace blind wands

Amount: $50.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Compensation - replace blind wands

Dismissed claims

Compensation

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Compensation Filing Fee Property damage

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties name and identifying details.
[Tenant] must pay [The landlord/s] $802.01 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,480.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

This matter was heard by way of a face-to-face hearing in the Tauranga registry on 22 October 2025.
The landlord’s property manager attended the hearing for the landlord. For ease of reference, I will refer to the property manager and landlord both as the landlord.
The tenant, [Tenant] (who I will refer to as Mr R), attended the hearing with a support person.
The tenant, [Tenant], (who I will refer to as Ms W) did not attend the hearing: a. Ms W was not served to the email address for service as stated in the tenancy agreement. Ms W was served to a more recent email address she provided as an address for service of the documents relating to the tenancy. b. The landlord did not have written confirmation from the tenant that this is her address for service. c. A copy of this order will be served on Ms W to the email address for service in the tenancy agreement and I refer Ms W to the notes at the end of the order in respect of re-hearings in the event Ms W did not receive notice of the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
At the hearing the written submissions referred to a claim for the kitchen downlight and fitting – this was not pursued at the hearing as it was not included in the application form.
The tenancy commenced on 1 March 2024 and ended on 2 March 2025.

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 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.

FAMILY VIOLENCE WITHDRAWAL

I was advised at the hearing by the landlord that on 13 February 2025 Ms W, withdrew from the tenancy pursuant to section 56B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Section 56B of the RTA relates to withdrawals from tenancies following family violence. Section 56B (1) of the RTA says a tenant under a fixed-term or periodic tenancy may withdraw from the tenancy by giving at least 2 days’ notice to the landlord if they give notice in the approved form with qualifying evidence.
Section 56B (2) of the RTA says if there are no other tenants under the tenancy at the time of the withdrawal, the tenancy terminates.
Section 56B (3) of the RTA says if there are other tenants (remaining tenants) under the tenancy at the time of the withdrawal, the tenant withdrawing from the tenancy (the withdrawing tenant) ceases to be responsible to the landlord for obligations under the tenancy agreement and the RTA, except in respect of any liability for anything done or omitted to be done before the withdrawal; and 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02 2 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55. • the tenancy continues in relation to the remaining tenants only; and • the withdrawing tenant must give each remaining tenant notice of the withdrawal no later than the close of the day that is 2 days after the date of the withdrawal; (however section 56(4) of the RTA says a failure to provide this notice does not affect the validity of the withdrawal), and • the amount of rent for which the remaining tenants are liable is reduced as set out pursuant to a calculation set out in section 56B (5) of the RTA.
Accordingly, Ms W’s liability ended on 13 February 2025 and her liability has been limited to claims for breaches that relate to the period that she was a tenant. DID THE TENANT COMPLY WITH THEIR OBLIGATIONS AT THE END OF THE

TENANCY?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must: a. remove all his or her goods from the premises, 3 b. leave the premises (including the land provided with the premises) reasonably clean and tidy, 4 c. remove all rubbish, 5 d. return all keys and security devices, 6 e. leave all chattels provided for their benefit, 7 f. replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy, 8 and g. replace standard light bulbs. LOCK/KEY REPLACMENT
The landlord claimed the cost of lock/key replacement due to concerns about security following the tests for methamphetamine being positive following the end of the tenancy. The tenant’s responsibility is to return all keys and security 3 See section 40 (1)(e) (ii) of the RTA. 4 See section 40 (1)(e) (iii) of the RTA. 5 See section 40 (1)(e) (iii) of the RTA. 6 See section 40(1)(e)(iv) of the RTA. 7 See section 40(1)(e)(v) of the RTA. 8 See section 40(1)(ca) RTA and Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016. devices. The tenant did return the keys. Because the tenant has complied with this obligation this claim is dismissed.

The landlord has made a claim for blind cleaning, blind repairs and replacement of the curtain wands. As this claim includes a claim that the blinds were damaged, I address this claim further below.

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. 9
Where a landlord is claiming compensation for damage 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. 10
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. 11
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). 12 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). 13 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 14
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. 15 Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also 9 See s 40 (2)(a) of the RTA. 10 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 11 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA). 12 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 13 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 14 See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA. 15 See section 49B(1) RTA. intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. 16
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.
I note that this premises was approximately 5 years old.

INSURANCE EXCESS

The Tribunal has previously found that a landlord is bound by the insurance excess stated in the tenancy agreement. 17
This is because while the tenancy agreement clause may not be accurate at the relevant time, (in this case the insurance excess was increased during the tenancy and the tenant was not informed of the change in insurance excess) nevertheless the Insurance Statement, 18 forms an important part of the tenancy agreement, as demonstrated by Parliament making a failure to comply an infringement offence and liable to a fine or an infringement fee.
I note that the landlord’s insurance excess was $2500.
The tenancy agreement records the insurance excess is $550 and accordingly any liability by the tenant for careless damage is limited to the insurance excess as provided for in the tenancy agreement.

METHAMPHETAMINE CONTAMINATION CLAIM

The landlord claims the insurance excess $2,500 in respect of a claim for methamphetamine contamination.
The landlord seeks the insurance excess from the tenant as 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 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. 16 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. 17 See Tenant v Philpot and Philpot [2021] NZTT 4295509, 4296039 18 As required by sections 13A(2)(b), 45(2B) and (2C) RTA.
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.
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. 19

METHAMPHETAMINE TESTING UNDERTAKEN

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.
The landlord has provided a Methamphetamine screening assessment report from The TDDA dated 13 February 2024. Samples for this testing were taken from the Kitchen/lounge (upstairs), bedroom 1 (upstairs), bedroom 2 (upstairs), bedroom 3 (downstairs – master bedroom) and bedroom 4 (downstairs), and the report says the result do “not confirm the presence of methamphetamine”.
The Certificate of Analysis result reads the composite result was <0.04 μg/100 cm 2 .
I accept that it is likely that the premises were not contaminated with methamphetamine at the start of the tenancy. Composite screening test
The landlord provided an assessment report from the TDDA for samples taken on 3 March 2025 with a result specified as 8.2 μg/100 cm 2 . 19 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 Discrete testing
A detailed assessment was undertaken on 5 March 2025 which produced the following results: • Bedroom 1 (upstairs) 2.00 μg • Bedroom 2 (upstairs) – 2.40 μg • Upstairs toilet- 2.10 μg • Upstairs hallway – 3.90 μg • Downstairs entry / staircase – 17.60 μg • Bedroom 3 – 2.40 μg • Garage / laundry – 3.00 and 0.33 μg • Kitchen – open plan with upstairs hallway and downstairs entry/staircase –
07 μg • Lounge - open plan with upstairs hallway and downstairs entry/staircase –
31 μg • Bedroom 4 downstairs – 1.5 μg • Bathroom downstairs – 0.65 μg
The landlord has established there was methamphetamine contamination at the end of the tenancy at a level that requires decontamination in the downstairs/entry / staircase area.
As noted above, tenant’s a responsible for the actions of people at their premises with their permission. In respect of the tenant’s responsibility for the actions of others the RTA specifically says: 41Tenant’s responsibility for actions of others (1)The tenant shall be responsible for anything done or omitted to be done by any person (other than the landlord or any person acting on the landlord’s behalf or with the landlord’s authority) who is in the premises with the tenant’s permission if the act or omission would have constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement had it been the act or omission of the tenant. (2)Where any person (other than the landlord or any person acting on the landlord’s behalf or with the landlord’s authority) intentionally or carelessly damages the premises while the tenant is in the premises, it shall be presumed that the tenant permitted that person to be in the premises unless the tenant proves that he or she took all reasonable steps to prevent that person from entering the premises or (as the case may require) to eject that person from the premises.
The tenant raised that there were periods of time that he was not in the premises due to 10-day Police Safety Orders preventing him from going to the property. He says he was not aware of what was happening in the home during this time and denies using methamphetamine himself. In any event, I find that he remained liable for damage while he was subject to a PSO as the tenant has provided insufficient evidence of reasonable steps, he undertook to prevent others from entering the premises in his absence or that the methamphetamine contamination occurred in his absence. COMPENSATION IN RESPECT OF METHAMPHETAMINE CONTAMINATION
The landlord seeks compensation for the testing and decontamination of the methamphetamine in the premises. The amount claimed is the insurance excess of $2,500
I consider the damage to likely have been intentional.
The insurance claim covered the testing costs (Composite test result - $252.01 and Discrete testing (retest / split lab composite - $1817.16) and decontamination costs of $9,602.50.
The tenant would not be liable for the decontamination of areas that were contaminated at levels below the Gluckman standard. The decontamination invoice does not itemise the amount for decontamination per room, however my assessment is that the area requiring decontamination would have accounted for approximately $1,000 of the decontamination costs. In the circumstances I consider the insurance excess of $2,500 to cover the testing and remediation of the contaminated area is reasonable and it is ordered.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amount ordered is proved.

WALL DAMAGE

The landlord claimed $2,500 in respect of wall damage and damage to a mural that the landlord says occurred during the tenancy. Pre-tenancy and post- tenancy photographs were provided in support of the claim. a. The landlord says the wall repairs undertaken were a selective repair of damage to walls and not a full redecoration. b. The insurance claim included the replacement costs of a mural that was in the premises. The landlord says the tenant damaged the mural in the upstairs main room during the tenancy. I note that in reviewing the photographs of the damage to the mural that I consider that the damage does not appear to be more than fair wear and tear. The damage evident in the photographs provided shows an isolated small scratch. The mural is large, and like walls, the landlord should expect some minor marks to occur during a tenancy. c. Supporting evidence in respect of the wall repairs was a BUCO estimate and confirmation from the insurance company of a settlement payment. The BUCO estimate provided (during the hearing) refers to the scope of work being ceiling restoration, rust treatment and repainting on staircase, windowsills repairs and internal doors repairs. This does not appear to include the wall repairs and I have not received the quote for the redecoration. d. However in the circumstances where confirmation of acceptance of the insurance claim has been provided (by email from the loss adjuster dated 28 May 2025) and the tenant accepts liability for some of the wall damage (but not the mural), which I assess as likely to have been the result of carelessness, I will make an order compensating the landlord $550 being the insurance excess stated in the tenancy agreement, which is the maximum that may be awarded for careless damage.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amount is ordered are proved.

DOOR REPLACEMENT

The landlord claimed compensation to replace two doors that the landlord says were missing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided a pre-tenancy inspection report, a post-tenancy inspection report, routine inspection reports and oral evidence in support of the claim. The amount claimed is $483 for the doors, $316.25 and $264.50 for hardware, with the total being $1,063.75.
Mr W accepted that one bedroom door had been removed and the door from the garage had been used to replace a bedroom door that Mr W said was damaged by the wind.
In absence of any evidence to support that the door was damaged by the wind I find it more likely than not that the damage to the two doors was likely careless and make an order that both tenants are liable for the door damage as the doors are not present in the January inspection report provided by the landlord.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amount ordered is proved. KITCHEN CUPBOARDS.
The landlord claims $517.50 in respect of damage to two kitchen cupboards which occurred during the tenancy.
One of the kitchen cupboards had a mark which the tenant explained occurred when he dropped some items from a platter, which he said was a mistake.
Another kitchen cupboard had chips on it, which the tenant indicated may have been caused by the children’s school bags being placed there. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability.
I consider the damage has likely been caused carelessly and award the full amount claimed for the repair, which is below the insurance excess amount for separate areas of damage.
On reviewing the January 2025 and exit inspection reports it appears one of the kitchen cupboards was damaged during the period Ms W was a tenant. It is not apparent whether the other kitchen cupboard was damaged during Ms W’s tenancy. As best as I can assess I consider it fair that both tenants were liable for part of one of the doors replacement and Mr W is liable for one door replacement.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amount ordered ($517.50) is proved. BLIND CLEANING / REPAIRS
The landlord claims a. $280 for blind cleaning, b. $50 to repair damaged blades, and c. $50 to replace 2 blind rods.
The landlord provided evidence that the blind wands were missing at the end of the tenancy; therefore, I make an order compensating the landlord for the blind wand replacement of $50.
Photographs were not provided of the damage to the blinds, I therefore find that there is in sufficient evidence that the blinds required repair. The claim to repair the damaged blinds is dismissed.
Photographs of one set of blinds and oral evidence were provided to show that the blind’s were dusty and required cleaning.
While, overall I consider that the premises was reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy the landlord said that the blinds required cleaning following decontamination as there was a residue from the decontamination process. As I have found the tenant liable for part of the premises to be decontaminated (but not all areas required decontamination according to the Gluckman standard) I will allow $70 of this claim to reflect that that tenant was liable for part of the decontamination undertaken, effectively to reflect the cleaning of the closest blinds to the area that required decontamination.
The amount ordered is proved.
The landlord also claimed the cost of curtain and blind replacement as a result of methamphetamine contamination. The evidence was that the blind and curtain replacements were for the downstairs master bedrooms and upstairs lounge area. These costs do not relate to the downstairs area where decontamination was required. Accordingly, I find that the landlord has not proven that the blinds and curtains required replacement due to methamphetamine contamination and the claim for compensation to replace the curtains and blinds is dismissed.
While I note that one of the blinds appeared to have a rip in it, I do not consider this relevant as the curtain would have been replaced in any event due to the landlord replacing the curtains and blinds in any event.

FILING FEE

As the landlord has partly succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee of $28. 20

BOND

The bond of $3,280 is to be paid to the landlord immediately to offset the amounts ordered. Part of the bond off-sets the amounts that both tenants are liable for and these are marked * in the Order. The balance offsets part of the amount that Mr W is liable for, and he is liable for the balance of the amount ordered.

RENT CREDIT

The landlord provided rent records which indicated there was a rent credit at the end of the tenancy. The rent credit is deducted from the amount payable by the tenant. 20 See section 102 (4)(b) of the RTA.

SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal must, in any proceedings that relate to a withdrawal from a tenancy under section 56B RTA, order that the name and any identifying particulars of the parties not be published. 21 Accordingly, both parties' names and identifying details are suppressed.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5329100 — net $802.01 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Replace doors	$1,063.65		Replace doors
Repairs: Kitchen cabinets	$517.50		Repairs: Kitchen cabinets
Meth testing/Cleaning: Insurance excess	$2,500.00		Meth testing/Cleaning: Insurance excess
Repairs: wall damage- limited to insurance excess in	$550.00		Repairs: wall damage- limited to insurance excess in
Compensation - replace blind wands	$50.00		Compensation - replace blind wands
Cleaning: Blind cleaning following decontamination	$70.00		Cleaning: Blind cleaning following decontamination
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Refund of rent - rent credit		$497.14	Refund of rent - rent credit
Total award	$4,779.15	$497.14
Net award	$802.01
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$802.01

Claims and awards for application 5329100 — net $802.01 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Replace doors

Amount: $1,063.65
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace doors

Repairs: Kitchen cabinets

Amount: $517.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Kitchen cabinets

Meth testing/Cleaning: Insurance excess

Amount: $2,500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Meth testing/Cleaning: Insurance excess

Repairs: wall damage- limited to insurance excess in

Amount: $550.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: wall damage- limited to insurance excess in

Compensation - replace blind wands

Amount: $50.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Compensation - replace blind wands

Dismissed claims

Compensation

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Compensation Filing Fee Property damage

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties name and identifying details.
[Tenant] must pay [The landlord/s] $802.01 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,480.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

This matter was heard by way of a face-to-face hearing in the Tauranga registry on 22 October 2025.
The landlord’s property manager attended the hearing for the landlord. For ease of reference, I will refer to the property manager and landlord both as the landlord.
The tenant, [Tenant] (who I will refer to as Mr R), attended the hearing with a support person.
The tenant, [Tenant], (who I will refer to as Ms W) did not attend the hearing: a. Ms W was not served to the email address for service as stated in the tenancy agreement. Ms W was served to a more recent email address she provided as an address for service of the documents relating to the tenancy. b. The landlord did not have written confirmation from the tenant that this is her address for service. c. A copy of this order will be served on Ms W to the email address for service in the tenancy agreement and I refer Ms W to the notes at the end of the order in respect of re-hearings in the event Ms W did not receive notice of the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
At the hearing the written submissions referred to a claim for the kitchen downlight and fitting – this was not pursued at the hearing as it was not included in the application form.
The tenancy commenced on 1 March 2024 and ended on 2 March 2025.

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 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.

FAMILY VIOLENCE WITHDRAWAL

I was advised at the hearing by the landlord that on 13 February 2025 Ms W, withdrew from the tenancy pursuant to section 56B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Section 56B of the RTA relates to withdrawals from tenancies following family violence. Section 56B (1) of the RTA says a tenant under a fixed-term or periodic tenancy may withdraw from the tenancy by giving at least 2 days’ notice to the landlord if they give notice in the approved form with qualifying evidence.
Section 56B (2) of the RTA says if there are no other tenants under the tenancy at the time of the withdrawal, the tenancy terminates.
Section 56B (3) of the RTA says if there are other tenants (remaining tenants) under the tenancy at the time of the withdrawal, the tenant withdrawing from the tenancy (the withdrawing tenant) ceases to be responsible to the landlord for obligations under the tenancy agreement and the RTA, except in respect of any liability for anything done or omitted to be done before the withdrawal; and 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02 2 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55. • the tenancy continues in relation to the remaining tenants only; and • the withdrawing tenant must give each remaining tenant notice of the withdrawal no later than the close of the day that is 2 days after the date of the withdrawal; (however section 56(4) of the RTA says a failure to provide this notice does not affect the validity of the withdrawal), and • the amount of rent for which the remaining tenants are liable is reduced as set out pursuant to a calculation set out in section 56B (5) of the RTA.
Accordingly, Ms W’s liability ended on 13 February 2025 and her liability has been limited to claims for breaches that relate to the period that she was a tenant. DID THE TENANT COMPLY WITH THEIR OBLIGATIONS AT THE END OF THE

TENANCY?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must: a. remove all his or her goods from the premises, 3 b. leave the premises (including the land provided with the premises) reasonably clean and tidy, 4 c. remove all rubbish, 5 d. return all keys and security devices, 6 e. leave all chattels provided for their benefit, 7 f. replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy, 8 and g. replace standard light bulbs. LOCK/KEY REPLACMENT
The landlord claimed the cost of lock/key replacement due to concerns about security following the tests for methamphetamine being positive following the end of the tenancy. The tenant’s responsibility is to return all keys and security 3 See section 40 (1)(e) (ii) of the RTA. 4 See section 40 (1)(e) (iii) of the RTA. 5 See section 40 (1)(e) (iii) of the RTA. 6 See section 40(1)(e)(iv) of the RTA. 7 See section 40(1)(e)(v) of the RTA. 8 See section 40(1)(ca) RTA and Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016. devices. The tenant did return the keys. Because the tenant has complied with this obligation this claim is dismissed.

The landlord has made a claim for blind cleaning, blind repairs and replacement of the curtain wands. As this claim includes a claim that the blinds were damaged, I address this claim further below.

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. 9
Where a landlord is claiming compensation for damage 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. 10
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. 11
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). 12 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). 13 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 14
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. 15 Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also 9 See s 40 (2)(a) of the RTA. 10 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 11 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA). 12 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 13 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 14 See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA. 15 See section 49B(1) RTA. intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. 16
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.
I note that this premises was approximately 5 years old.

INSURANCE EXCESS

The Tribunal has previously found that a landlord is bound by the insurance excess stated in the tenancy agreement. 17
This is because while the tenancy agreement clause may not be accurate at the relevant time, (in this case the insurance excess was increased during the tenancy and the tenant was not informed of the change in insurance excess) nevertheless the Insurance Statement, 18 forms an important part of the tenancy agreement, as demonstrated by Parliament making a failure to comply an infringement offence and liable to a fine or an infringement fee.
I note that the landlord’s insurance excess was $2500.
The tenancy agreement records the insurance excess is $550 and accordingly any liability by the tenant for careless damage is limited to the insurance excess as provided for in the tenancy agreement.

METHAMPHETAMINE CONTAMINATION CLAIM

The landlord claims the insurance excess $2,500 in respect of a claim for methamphetamine contamination.
The landlord seeks the insurance excess from the tenant as 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 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. 16 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. 17 See Tenant v Philpot and Philpot [2021] NZTT 4295509, 4296039 18 As required by sections 13A(2)(b), 45(2B) and (2C) RTA.
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.
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. 19

METHAMPHETAMINE TESTING UNDERTAKEN

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.
The landlord has provided a Methamphetamine screening assessment report from The TDDA dated 13 February 2024. Samples for this testing were taken from the Kitchen/lounge (upstairs), bedroom 1 (upstairs), bedroom 2 (upstairs), bedroom 3 (downstairs – master bedroom) and bedroom 4 (downstairs), and the report says the result do “not confirm the presence of methamphetamine”.
The Certificate of Analysis result reads the composite result was <0.04 μg/100 cm 2 .
I accept that it is likely that the premises were not contaminated with methamphetamine at the start of the tenancy. Composite screening test
The landlord provided an assessment report from the TDDA for samples taken on 3 March 2025 with a result specified as 8.2 μg/100 cm 2 . 19 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 Discrete testing
A detailed assessment was undertaken on 5 March 2025 which produced the following results: • Bedroom 1 (upstairs) 2.00 μg • Bedroom 2 (upstairs) – 2.40 μg • Upstairs toilet- 2.10 μg • Upstairs hallway – 3.90 μg • Downstairs entry / staircase – 17.60 μg • Bedroom 3 – 2.40 μg • Garage / laundry – 3.00 and 0.33 μg • Kitchen – open plan with upstairs hallway and downstairs entry/staircase –
07 μg • Lounge - open plan with upstairs hallway and downstairs entry/staircase –
31 μg • Bedroom 4 downstairs – 1.5 μg • Bathroom downstairs – 0.65 μg
The landlord has established there was methamphetamine contamination at the end of the tenancy at a level that requires decontamination in the downstairs/entry / staircase area.
As noted above, tenant’s a responsible for the actions of people at their premises with their permission. In respect of the tenant’s responsibility for the actions of others the RTA specifically says: 41Tenant’s responsibility for actions of others (1)The tenant shall be responsible for anything done or omitted to be done by any person (other than the landlord or any person acting on the landlord’s behalf or with the landlord’s authority) who is in the premises with the tenant’s permission if the act or omission would have constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement had it been the act or omission of the tenant. (2)Where any person (other than the landlord or any person acting on the landlord’s behalf or with the landlord’s authority) intentionally or carelessly damages the premises while the tenant is in the premises, it shall be presumed that the tenant permitted that person to be in the premises unless the tenant proves that he or she took all reasonable steps to prevent that person from entering the premises or (as the case may require) to eject that person from the premises.
The tenant raised that there were periods of time that he was not in the premises due to 10-day Police Safety Orders preventing him from going to the property. He says he was not aware of what was happening in the home during this time and denies using methamphetamine himself. In any event, I find that he remained liable for damage while he was subject to a PSO as the tenant has provided insufficient evidence of reasonable steps, he undertook to prevent others from entering the premises in his absence or that the methamphetamine contamination occurred in his absence. COMPENSATION IN RESPECT OF METHAMPHETAMINE CONTAMINATION
The landlord seeks compensation for the testing and decontamination of the methamphetamine in the premises. The amount claimed is the insurance excess of $2,500
I consider the damage to likely have been intentional.
The insurance claim covered the testing costs (Composite test result - $252.01 and Discrete testing (retest / split lab composite - $1817.16) and decontamination costs of $9,602.50.
The tenant would not be liable for the decontamination of areas that were contaminated at levels below the Gluckman standard. The decontamination invoice does not itemise the amount for decontamination per room, however my assessment is that the area requiring decontamination would have accounted for approximately $1,000 of the decontamination costs. In the circumstances I consider the insurance excess of $2,500 to cover the testing and remediation of the contaminated area is reasonable and it is ordered.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amount ordered is proved.

WALL DAMAGE

The landlord claimed $2,500 in respect of wall damage and damage to a mural that the landlord says occurred during the tenancy. Pre-tenancy and post- tenancy photographs were provided in support of the claim. a. The landlord says the wall repairs undertaken were a selective repair of damage to walls and not a full redecoration. b. The insurance claim included the replacement costs of a mural that was in the premises. The landlord says the tenant damaged the mural in the upstairs main room during the tenancy. I note that in reviewing the photographs of the damage to the mural that I consider that the damage does not appear to be more than fair wear and tear. The damage evident in the photographs provided shows an isolated small scratch. The mural is large, and like walls, the landlord should expect some minor marks to occur during a tenancy. c. Supporting evidence in respect of the wall repairs was a BUCO estimate and confirmation from the insurance company of a settlement payment. The BUCO estimate provided (during the hearing) refers to the scope of work being ceiling restoration, rust treatment and repainting on staircase, windowsills repairs and internal doors repairs. This does not appear to include the wall repairs and I have not received the quote for the redecoration. d. However in the circumstances where confirmation of acceptance of the insurance claim has been provided (by email from the loss adjuster dated 28 May 2025) and the tenant accepts liability for some of the wall damage (but not the mural), which I assess as likely to have been the result of carelessness, I will make an order compensating the landlord $550 being the insurance excess stated in the tenancy agreement, which is the maximum that may be awarded for careless damage.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amount is ordered are proved.

DOOR REPLACEMENT

The landlord claimed compensation to replace two doors that the landlord says were missing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided a pre-tenancy inspection report, a post-tenancy inspection report, routine inspection reports and oral evidence in support of the claim. The amount claimed is $483 for the doors, $316.25 and $264.50 for hardware, with the total being $1,063.75.
Mr W accepted that one bedroom door had been removed and the door from the garage had been used to replace a bedroom door that Mr W said was damaged by the wind.
In absence of any evidence to support that the door was damaged by the wind I find it more likely than not that the damage to the two doors was likely careless and make an order that both tenants are liable for the door damage as the doors are not present in the January inspection report provided by the landlord.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amount ordered is proved. KITCHEN CUPBOARDS.
The landlord claims $517.50 in respect of damage to two kitchen cupboards which occurred during the tenancy.
One of the kitchen cupboards had a mark which the tenant explained occurred when he dropped some items from a platter, which he said was a mistake.
Another kitchen cupboard had chips on it, which the tenant indicated may have been caused by the children’s school bags being placed there. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability.
I consider the damage has likely been caused carelessly and award the full amount claimed for the repair, which is below the insurance excess amount for separate areas of damage.
On reviewing the January 2025 and exit inspection reports it appears one of the kitchen cupboards was damaged during the period Ms W was a tenant. It is not apparent whether the other kitchen cupboard was damaged during Ms W’s tenancy. As best as I can assess I consider it fair that both tenants were liable for part of one of the doors replacement and Mr W is liable for one door replacement.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amount ordered ($517.50) is proved. BLIND CLEANING / REPAIRS
The landlord claims a. $280 for blind cleaning, b. $50 to repair damaged blades, and c. $50 to replace 2 blind rods.
The landlord provided evidence that the blind wands were missing at the end of the tenancy; therefore, I make an order compensating the landlord for the blind wand replacement of $50.
Photographs were not provided of the damage to the blinds, I therefore find that there is in sufficient evidence that the blinds required repair. The claim to repair the damaged blinds is dismissed.
Photographs of one set of blinds and oral evidence were provided to show that the blind’s were dusty and required cleaning.
While, overall I consider that the premises was reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy the landlord said that the blinds required cleaning following decontamination as there was a residue from the decontamination process. As I have found the tenant liable for part of the premises to be decontaminated (but not all areas required decontamination according to the Gluckman standard) I will allow $70 of this claim to reflect that that tenant was liable for part of the decontamination undertaken, effectively to reflect the cleaning of the closest blinds to the area that required decontamination.
The amount ordered is proved.
The landlord also claimed the cost of curtain and blind replacement as a result of methamphetamine contamination. The evidence was that the blind and curtain replacements were for the downstairs master bedrooms and upstairs lounge area. These costs do not relate to the downstairs area where decontamination was required. Accordingly, I find that the landlord has not proven that the blinds and curtains required replacement due to methamphetamine contamination and the claim for compensation to replace the curtains and blinds is dismissed.
While I note that one of the blinds appeared to have a rip in it, I do not consider this relevant as the curtain would have been replaced in any event due to the landlord replacing the curtains and blinds in any event.

FILING FEE

As the landlord has partly succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee of $28. 20

BOND

The bond of $3,280 is to be paid to the landlord immediately to offset the amounts ordered. Part of the bond off-sets the amounts that both tenants are liable for and these are marked * in the Order. The balance offsets part of the amount that Mr W is liable for, and he is liable for the balance of the amount ordered.

RENT CREDIT

The landlord provided rent records which indicated there was a rent credit at the end of the tenancy. The rent credit is deducted from the amount payable by the tenant. 20 See section 102 (4)(b) of the RTA.

SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal must, in any proceedings that relate to a withdrawal from a tenancy under section 56B RTA, order that the name and any identifying particulars of the parties not be published. 21 Accordingly, both parties' names and identifying details are suppressed.

At a glance

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

FAMILY VIOLENCE WITHDRAWAL

TENANCY?

BLIND CLEANING

IS THE TENANT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DAMAGE TO THE PREMISES?

INSURANCE EXCESS

METHAMPHETAMINE CONTAMINATION CLAIM

METHAMPHETAMINE TESTING UNDERTAKEN

WALL DAMAGE

DOOR REPLACEMENT

FILING FEE

BOND

RENT CREDIT

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

FAMILY VIOLENCE WITHDRAWAL

TENANCY?

BLIND CLEANING

IS THE TENANT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DAMAGE TO THE PREMISES?

INSURANCE EXCESS

METHAMPHETAMINE CONTAMINATION CLAIM

METHAMPHETAMINE TESTING UNDERTAKEN

WALL DAMAGE

DOOR REPLACEMENT

FILING FEE

BOND

RENT CREDIT

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions