What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5340103 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ and the landlords’ names and

How much money was awarded in case 5340103?

Property Damage: $270.73 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5340103?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5340103?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12849781-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5340103 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ and the landlords’ names and

How much money was awarded in case 5340103?

Property Damage: $270.73 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5340103?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5340103?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12849781-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5340103 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5340103 — net $270.73 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet repair	$270.73	Carpet repair
Net award	$270.73
Bond	$2,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$270.73

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ and the landlords’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $270.73 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $270.73 [The tenant/s]: $2,129.27
The landlords’ other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [Ms F and Ms G] represented the landlords.
The landlords have applied for costs to repair the carpet at the premises. They also claim costs associated with methamphetamine contamination and exemplary damages.
The tenants, [Ms P and Ms M], accept the claim to repair the carpet (which they say was caused by their cat) but deny the methamphetamine claim. Have the landlords established that the tenants are responsible for the methamphetamine contamination?
The premises were tested for methamphetamine after the tenancy ended on 5 August 2025 to establish baseline levels before the next tenancy commenced. The Screening Assessment Report completed by All Clear records levels of methamphetamine contamination ranging from 2.3 μg/100cm2 (in the garage) to 59 μg/100cm2 (in the hallway). Of the 12 areas tested eight exceeded the recommended ‘safe’ level of 15 μg/100cm².
The landlords lodged a claim for the damage with their insurer and decontamination work was completed. The landlords were paid out by their insurer for the decontamination work up to the policy limit of $30,000.00 and they claim the insurance excess payable plus costs/losses they say they incurred above the $30,000.00 policy limit or not covered by insurance.
While no methamphetamine tests were completed before this tenancy commenced, the landlords claim that the contamination occurred during this tenancy because samples taken from items installed in the tenancy after it commenced also tested positive for methamphetamine (laundry lightbulb 0.05 μg/100cm² and garage smoke alarm 1.72 μg/100cm²). A blind in bedroom 2 which was installed shortly before the tenancy commenced also tested positive (26 μg/100cm²).
I am not satisfied that the landlords have discharged their onus to prove that it was more likely than not that the methamphetamine contamination found at the premises occurred during this tenancy. [Ms P] and her mother, [Ms M], were consistent in their denial that they did not and do not use methamphetamine or know of anyone else, who was at the premises with their permission, who used it while at the premises and they gave me no reason to doubt their evidence. As mentioned no pre-tenancy methamphetamine testing was completed and there was no other evidence of methamphetamine use or concerns expressed by the property manager during the tenancy.
I do not consider that the small levels of contamination found on the light bulb and the garage smoke alarm are sufficient to support the landlords’ claim that the contamination elsewhere in the premises occurred during the tenancy. These items could have been contaminated by the contractor installing the smoke alarm or transferred from existing contamination in the property. The blind in bedroom 2 was installed in August 2023 (two months before this tenancy commenced) and during the previous tenancy (the previous tenancy ended on 15 December 2023 and this tenancy commenced on 22 December 2023). Thus, it could have been contaminated during that tenancy or in the seven-day period the premises were unoccupied.
The claim for methamphetamine damage is therefore dismissed. Tribunal application fee
The landlords have been mostly unsuccessful in their claims, the only claim they are successful in is the claim accepted by the tenants. I therefore do not consider this an appropriate case to award them payment of the Tribunal application fee. Suppression
Section 95A(4) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal may, having regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest, order that the name and identifying details of a party be suppressed.
I consider that this is an appropriate case to exercise my discretion in both the landlords’ and the tenants’ favour and order suppression of their names and identifying details. Given the nature of the claims and the stigma that may attach to the tenants and to the property, I do not consider there is any public interest in their names being published, particularly given that the premises have been decontaminated and pre decontamination testing show the levels to be well below 1.5 μg/100cm2 level provided for in the Ministry of Health Guidelines.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5340103 — net $270.73 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet repair	$270.73	Carpet repair
Net award	$270.73
Bond	$2,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$270.73

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ and the landlords’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $270.73 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $270.73 [The tenant/s]: $2,129.27
The landlords’ other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [Ms F and Ms G] represented the landlords.
The landlords have applied for costs to repair the carpet at the premises. They also claim costs associated with methamphetamine contamination and exemplary damages.
The tenants, [Ms P and Ms M], accept the claim to repair the carpet (which they say was caused by their cat) but deny the methamphetamine claim. Have the landlords established that the tenants are responsible for the methamphetamine contamination?
The premises were tested for methamphetamine after the tenancy ended on 5 August 2025 to establish baseline levels before the next tenancy commenced. The Screening Assessment Report completed by All Clear records levels of methamphetamine contamination ranging from 2.3 μg/100cm2 (in the garage) to 59 μg/100cm2 (in the hallway). Of the 12 areas tested eight exceeded the recommended ‘safe’ level of 15 μg/100cm².
The landlords lodged a claim for the damage with their insurer and decontamination work was completed. The landlords were paid out by their insurer for the decontamination work up to the policy limit of $30,000.00 and they claim the insurance excess payable plus costs/losses they say they incurred above the $30,000.00 policy limit or not covered by insurance.
While no methamphetamine tests were completed before this tenancy commenced, the landlords claim that the contamination occurred during this tenancy because samples taken from items installed in the tenancy after it commenced also tested positive for methamphetamine (laundry lightbulb 0.05 μg/100cm² and garage smoke alarm 1.72 μg/100cm²). A blind in bedroom 2 which was installed shortly before the tenancy commenced also tested positive (26 μg/100cm²).
I am not satisfied that the landlords have discharged their onus to prove that it was more likely than not that the methamphetamine contamination found at the premises occurred during this tenancy. [Ms P] and her mother, [Ms M], were consistent in their denial that they did not and do not use methamphetamine or know of anyone else, who was at the premises with their permission, who used it while at the premises and they gave me no reason to doubt their evidence. As mentioned no pre-tenancy methamphetamine testing was completed and there was no other evidence of methamphetamine use or concerns expressed by the property manager during the tenancy.
I do not consider that the small levels of contamination found on the light bulb and the garage smoke alarm are sufficient to support the landlords’ claim that the contamination elsewhere in the premises occurred during the tenancy. These items could have been contaminated by the contractor installing the smoke alarm or transferred from existing contamination in the property. The blind in bedroom 2 was installed in August 2023 (two months before this tenancy commenced) and during the previous tenancy (the previous tenancy ended on 15 December 2023 and this tenancy commenced on 22 December 2023). Thus, it could have been contaminated during that tenancy or in the seven-day period the premises were unoccupied.
The claim for methamphetamine damage is therefore dismissed. Tribunal application fee
The landlords have been mostly unsuccessful in their claims, the only claim they are successful in is the claim accepted by the tenants. I therefore do not consider this an appropriate case to award them payment of the Tribunal application fee. Suppression
Section 95A(4) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal may, having regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest, order that the name and identifying details of a party be suppressed.
I consider that this is an appropriate case to exercise my discretion in both the landlords’ and the tenants’ favour and order suppression of their names and identifying details. Given the nature of the claims and the stigma that may attach to the tenants and to the property, I do not consider there is any public interest in their names being published, particularly given that the premises have been decontaminated and pre decontamination testing show the levels to be well below 1.5 μg/100cm2 level provided for in the Ministry of Health Guidelines.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5340103 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5340103 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions