How much money was awarded in case 5331600?

Cleaning: $295.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $414.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $341.55 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $144.95 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,308.43 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $110.40 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5331600?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5331600?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12762415-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5331600?

Cleaning: $295.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $414.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $341.55 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $144.95 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,308.43 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $110.40 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5331600?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5331600?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12762415-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5331600 — Rent arrears

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5331600 about?

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

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5331600 — net $842.33 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$295.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$414.00	Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$144.95	Lock/key replacement
Meth testing/Cleaning: stage two (discrete testing	$341.55	Meth testing/Cleaning: stage two (discrete testing
Rubbish removal	$110.40	Rubbish removal
Rent arrears to 28 July 2025	$1,308.43	Rent arrears to 28 July 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$842.33
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$842.33

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

Ariaan Tiare Shanielle Thomas must pay [The landlord/s] $842.33 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

All other clams are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended 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.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 28 July 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with her obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

The tenant agreed to the claims for cleaning and rubbish removal. The amounts ordered are proved.

The tenant did not return the keys. She said she could not return them at the end of the tenancy because the keys were in a storage unit rented by her mother and the tenant did not have access. While I understand that the tenant would have returned the keys if she could have, the landlord was entitled to get the locks changed and was not obliged to wait. The amount claimed is reasonable.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

There is a claim for the cost of testing for methamphetamine contamination. The landlord must prove that the damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.

The tenant said she should not have to pay for the cost of testing. Her mother lived in the unit next door which needed decontamination work. The mother wrote an email for the hearing stating she was solely responsible for any methamphetamine contamination, and that she used methamphetamine in the tenancy premises without the tenant’s knowledge or consent. The mother did not attend as a witness so we could not question her about the statement. I have accepted the statement as evidence mostly because the landlord agreed the unit the mother rented had much higher levels of methamphetamine contamination.

The landlord proved there was no contamination when the tenancy premises was tested as part of a pre purchase process in October last year. I find the standard composite testing done at the end of the tenancy (and before the new tenancy) to be a landlord cost.

The second testing of discrete samples showed contamination of less than 1 microgram in three areas in the unit. I would consider this to be an extremely low level of contamination. No remedial work was required for the unit. I find the tenant should pay for this second lot of testing which was only necessary because methamphetamine was used during the tenancy. The tenant should pay $297 plus GST. Other orders

Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Both parties made an application for suppression. The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. See section 95A RTA.

The landlord’s application for suppression is allowed because the landlord is the most successful party. I find the tenant’s name should be published because there is public interest when tenants owe money at the end of a tenancy.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5331600 — net $842.33 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$295.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$414.00	Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$144.95	Lock/key replacement
Meth testing/Cleaning: stage two (discrete testing	$341.55	Meth testing/Cleaning: stage two (discrete testing
Rubbish removal	$110.40	Rubbish removal
Rent arrears to 28 July 2025	$1,308.43	Rent arrears to 28 July 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$842.33
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$842.33

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Ariaan Tiare Shanielle Thomas must pay [The landlord/s] $842.33 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
All other clams are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended 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.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 28 July 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with her obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The tenant agreed to the claims for cleaning and rubbish removal. The amounts ordered are proved.
The tenant did not return the keys. She said she could not return them at the end of the tenancy because the keys were in a storage unit rented by her mother and the tenant did not have access. While I understand that the tenant would have returned the keys if she could have, the landlord was entitled to get the locks changed and was not obliged to wait. The amount claimed is reasonable.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

There is a claim for the cost of testing for methamphetamine contamination. The landlord must prove that the damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The tenant said she should not have to pay for the cost of testing. Her mother lived in the unit next door which needed decontamination work. The mother wrote an email for the hearing stating she was solely responsible for any methamphetamine contamination, and that she used methamphetamine in the tenancy premises without the tenant’s knowledge or consent. The mother did not attend as a witness so we could not question her about the statement. I have accepted the statement as evidence mostly because the landlord agreed the unit the mother rented had much higher levels of methamphetamine contamination.
The landlord proved there was no contamination when the tenancy premises was tested as part of a pre purchase process in October last year. I find the standard composite testing done at the end of the tenancy (and before the new tenancy) to be a landlord cost.
The second testing of discrete samples showed contamination of less than 1 microgram in three areas in the unit. I would consider this to be an extremely low level of contamination. No remedial work was required for the unit. I find the tenant should pay for this second lot of testing which was only necessary because methamphetamine was used during the tenancy. The tenant should pay $297 plus GST. Other orders
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Both parties made an application for suppression. The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. See section 95A RTA.
The landlord’s application for suppression is allowed because the landlord is the most successful party. I find the tenant’s name should be published because there is public interest when tenants owe money at the end of a tenancy.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5331600 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5331600 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with her obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with her obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions