How much money was awarded in case 5338625?

6/7 Of Carpet Drying Cost: $3,555.15 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $7,521.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $517.50 awarded to landlord; Freight To Replace Furnishings: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing: 2nd Test: $711.85 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing: Ist Test: $373.75 awarded to landlord; Multiple Breaches Body Corp Rules: $1,236.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $547.27 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $319.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $862.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $450.01 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: 2 Double beds a…: $1,055.70 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Couch - depreci…: $345.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5338625?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5338625?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12754553-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5338625?

6/7 Of Carpet Drying Cost: $3,555.15 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $7,521.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $517.50 awarded to landlord; Freight To Replace Furnishings: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing: 2nd Test: $711.85 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing: Ist Test: $373.75 awarded to landlord; Multiple Breaches Body Corp Rules: $1,236.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $547.27 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $319.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $862.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $450.01 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: 2 Double beds a…: $1,055.70 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Couch - depreci…: $345.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5338625?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5338625?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12754553-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5338625 — Cleanliness

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5338625 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 5338625 — net $17,187.24 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$450.01	Rent arrears
Multiple breaches Body Corp rules	$1,236.25	Multiple breaches Body Corp rules
Glass repairs	$547.27	Glass repairs
6/7 of Carpet drying cost	$3,555.15	6/7 of Carpet drying cost
Meth testing: Ist test	$373.75	Meth testing: Ist test
Meth testing: 2nd test	$711.85	Meth testing: 2nd test
Lock and key replacement	$319.00	Lock and key replacement
Methamphetamine residue cleaning	$7,521.00	Methamphetamine residue cleaning
Replace furnishings: 2 Double beds and mattresses	$1,055.70	Replace furnishings: 2 Double beds and mattresses
Replace furnishings: Couch - depreciated 2/3	$345.00	Replace furnishings: Couch - depreciated 2/3
Freight to replace furnishings	$115.00	Freight to replace furnishings
Carpet replacement depreciated 25	$862.50	Carpet replacement depreciated 25
Cleaning	$517.50	Cleaning
Net award	$17,187.24
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$17,187.24

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

Adam Robinson must pay the landlord $17,187.24 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$450.01 Multiple breaches Body Corp rules$1,236.25 Glass repairs$547.27 6/7 of Carpet drying cost$3,555.15 Meth testing: Ist test$373.75 Meth testing: 2nd test$711.85 Lock and key replacement$319.00 Methamphetamine residue cleaning$7,521.00 Replace furnishings: 2 Double beds and mattresses$1,055.70 Replace furnishings: Couch - depreciated 2/3$345.00 Freight to replace furnishings$115.00 Carpet replacement depreciated 25%$862.50 Cleaning$517.50 Loss of rent$0.00 Total award$17,609.98 Bond$422.74 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$17,187.24

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $422.74 ([Bond number suppressed]) to the landlord immediately.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not link into the video hearing. The tenant was phoned but the call went to voicemail.

The landlord has applied for compensation and rent arrears.

How much does the tenant owe?

The Tribunal terminated the tenancy on 17 September 2025. $1,377.26 of the bond of $1,800.00 was paid to the landlord for rent arrears and the filing fee on 17 September. $422.74 remained at the Bond Centre. The tenant remained in possession after 17 September and had to be evicted from the property. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing to the date of the eviction.

The locks were changed at the eviction. The cost of the lock change is ordered.

The landlord has claimed the court cost for the eviction. That cost is automatically added to the tenant’s liability by the Collections Unit of the Ministry of Justice and is therefore not ordered by the Tribunal. Loss for the landlord during the tenancy

The tenancy was in an apartment that is a unit in a Body Corporate. Tenants are required to abide by Body Corp rules. The tenant breached Body Corp security rules on seven occasions. On each occasion the landlord was charged for the cost of security attending. The tenant is liable to pay the landlord for those losses.

Did the tenant comply with their 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.

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and did not remove all rubbish.

The property was contaminated by methamphetamine residue and required a significant amount of cleaning.

Two beds, carpet and a couch required replacement because of the level of methamphetamine residue in the premises.

Regarding the beds, couch and carpet I have taken 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 have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.

The tenant is liable for the cost to repair glass damage caused by the tenant’s visitor. Loss of rental income

The landlord has claimed $900.00 for loss of rental income due to the time taken to clean the premises after the eviction. The landlord has submitted that the property could not be advertised for two weeks because of the state it was in after the eviction.

The landlord has proved that the property was not suitable to be advertised however the landlord must prove that there was a tenancy that could have been in place in the two weeks after the eviction. The eviction was on 24 September 2025. The cleaning was completed by 8 October 2025. However the property was not tenanted until November 2025. This does not support the landlord’s claim that the property could have been tenanted in September 2025 and therefore the claim must be dismissed. Suppression

The landlord has applied for name suppression. Section 95A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.

The landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim and therefore name suppression is granted.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5338625 — net $17,187.24 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$450.01	Rent arrears
Multiple breaches Body Corp rules	$1,236.25	Multiple breaches Body Corp rules
Glass repairs	$547.27	Glass repairs
6/7 of Carpet drying cost	$3,555.15	6/7 of Carpet drying cost
Meth testing: Ist test	$373.75	Meth testing: Ist test
Meth testing: 2nd test	$711.85	Meth testing: 2nd test
Lock and key replacement	$319.00	Lock and key replacement
Methamphetamine residue cleaning	$7,521.00	Methamphetamine residue cleaning
Replace furnishings: 2 Double beds and mattresses	$1,055.70	Replace furnishings: 2 Double beds and mattresses
Replace furnishings: Couch - depreciated 2/3	$345.00	Replace furnishings: Couch - depreciated 2/3
Freight to replace furnishings	$115.00	Freight to replace furnishings
Carpet replacement depreciated 25	$862.50	Carpet replacement depreciated 25
Cleaning	$517.50	Cleaning
Net award	$17,187.24
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$17,187.24

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Adam Robinson must pay the landlord $17,187.24 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$450.01 Multiple breaches Body Corp rules$1,236.25 Glass repairs$547.27 6/7 of Carpet drying cost$3,555.15 Meth testing: Ist test$373.75 Meth testing: 2nd test$711.85 Lock and key replacement$319.00 Methamphetamine residue cleaning$7,521.00 Replace furnishings: 2 Double beds and mattresses$1,055.70 Replace furnishings: Couch - depreciated 2/3$345.00 Freight to replace furnishings$115.00 Carpet replacement depreciated 25%$862.50 Cleaning$517.50 Loss of rent$0.00 Total award$17,609.98 Bond$422.74 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$17,187.24
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $422.74 ([Bond number suppressed]) to the landlord immediately.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not link into the video hearing. The tenant was phoned but the call went to voicemail.
The landlord has applied for compensation and rent arrears.

How much does the tenant owe?

The Tribunal terminated the tenancy on 17 September 2025. $1,377.26 of the bond of $1,800.00 was paid to the landlord for rent arrears and the filing fee on 17 September. $422.74 remained at the Bond Centre. The tenant remained in possession after 17 September and had to be evicted from the property. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing to the date of the eviction.
The locks were changed at the eviction. The cost of the lock change is ordered.
The landlord has claimed the court cost for the eviction. That cost is automatically added to the tenant’s liability by the Collections Unit of the Ministry of Justice and is therefore not ordered by the Tribunal. Loss for the landlord during the tenancy
The tenancy was in an apartment that is a unit in a Body Corporate. Tenants are required to abide by Body Corp rules. The tenant breached Body Corp security rules on seven occasions. On each occasion the landlord was charged for the cost of security attending. The tenant is liable to pay the landlord for those losses.

Did the tenant comply with their 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.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and did not remove all rubbish.
The property was contaminated by methamphetamine residue and required a significant amount of cleaning.
Two beds, carpet and a couch required replacement because of the level of methamphetamine residue in the premises.
Regarding the beds, couch and carpet I have taken 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 have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The tenant is liable for the cost to repair glass damage caused by the tenant’s visitor. Loss of rental income
The landlord has claimed $900.00 for loss of rental income due to the time taken to clean the premises after the eviction. The landlord has submitted that the property could not be advertised for two weeks because of the state it was in after the eviction.
The landlord has proved that the property was not suitable to be advertised however the landlord must prove that there was a tenancy that could have been in place in the two weeks after the eviction. The eviction was on 24 September 2025. The cleaning was completed by 8 October 2025. However the property was not tenanted until November 2025. This does not support the landlord’s claim that the property could have been tenanted in September 2025 and therefore the claim must be dismissed. Suppression
The landlord has applied for name suppression. Section 95A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim and therefore name suppression is granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5338625 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5338625 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much does the tenant owe?

Did the tenant comply with their 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 does the tenant owe?

Did the tenant comply with their 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