Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5342616 — Property damage at 3 Ben Keys Street, Te Puke, Te Puke 3119
Published 11 February 2026 · Application 5342616
Landlord favoured
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
- Exemplary damages
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Te Puke
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
A Macpherson
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $52,717.91
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $52,717.91
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cleaning and garden work | $1,808.11 | Cleaning and garden work | |
| Rubbish removal | $4,578.91 | Rubbish removal | |
| Meth testing/Cleaning | $15,813.13 | Meth testing/Cleaning | |
| Replace furnishings: Carpets | $1,277.18 | Replace furnishings: Carpets | |
| Replace furnishings: Curtains | $1,065.07 | Replace furnishings: Curtains | |
| Repairs: General damages | $19,035.85 | Repairs: General damages | |
| Exemplary damages | $1,000.00 | Exemplary damages | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Paintwork/decoration costs | $8,111.66 | Paintwork/decoration costs | |
| Net award | $52,717.91 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $52,717.91 |
Claims and awards for application 5342616 — net $52,717.91 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Cleaning and garden work
- Amount
- $1,808.11
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Cleaning and garden work
Rubbish removal
- Amount
- $4,578.91
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rubbish removal
Meth testing/Cleaning
- Amount
- $15,813.13
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Meth testing/Cleaning
Replace furnishings: Carpets
- Amount
- $1,277.18
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Replace furnishings: Carpets
Replace furnishings: Curtains
- Amount
- $1,065.07
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Replace furnishings: Curtains
Repairs: General damages
- Amount
- $19,035.85
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs: General damages
Exemplary damages
- Amount
- $1,000.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Paintwork/decoration costs
- Amount
- $8,111.66
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Paintwork/decoration costs
Net award
Landlord $52,717.91
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $52,717.91
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Manahi Paul must pay Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited $52,717.91 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
Reasons
- The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not appear.
- The absence of a party does not prevent the matter from being heard and determined.
- The landlord has applied for compensation for cleaning and garden work, rubbish removal, methamphetamine related damage, general damage, exemplary damages, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
- This tenancy commenced on 14 June 2013 and ended on 17 July 2025.
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 tidy, (including the gardens), and did not remove a significant amount of rubbish.
- The amounts ordered are proved.
Is the tenant responsible for general damages 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.
- 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). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
- 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). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
- 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. See section 49B(1) RTA.
- Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
- The following damage was caused during the tenancy: extensive damage throughout the premises including, but not limited to, multiple holes in doors, walls, floors, kitchen cupboards smashed, and shower lining broken.
- The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
- The amount ordered are proved. For the record, the replacement of kitchen cupboards alone amounts to $13,436.14. Methamphetamine related claims
- The landlord commissioned methamphetamine testing at the premises in 2017 which recorded a level of 0.58 (composite).
- At the end of the tenancy, the landlord commissioned composite testing which led to individual or discrete room testing.
- Traces of methamphetamine were found in 21 of the 22 areas tested, with 18 samples above 1.5ug/100cm and the highest at 17.5 in bedroom 2.
- Section 138C RTA provides for regulations to be made prescribing the maximum acceptable level for contaminants, but as yet no regulations have been made in relation to methamphetamine.
- There is an established position in the Tenancy Tribunal that in dealing with claims relating to methamphetamine contamination, the Gluckman Report 1 is to be adopted. I am therefore satisfied that the current level to be applied is the level of 15μg/100cm2 as expressed by the Gluckman Report. Levels around or exceeding 30μg are regarded as strongly suggestive of manufacturing activity therefore remediation of the premises is necessary using the NZS 8510:2017 standard as a guide.
- There is no evidence of manufacture in this case.
- Applying the Gluckman levels, I find that the premises were damaged or contaminated with methamphetamine during this tenancy.
- I award $3,674.25 for testing costs, and $12,138.88 for decontamination costs as claimed.
- I also make an award of $1,065.07 for replacement curtains, and $1,277.18 for replacement carpets taking into account betterment and depreciation.
- I award $8,111.66 for paintwork and re-decoration relating to both methamphetamine damage and general damages as fair, reasonable and 1 Report entitled ‘Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards,’ 29 May 2018, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman. proportionate compensation. I have applied a one-third general deduction to take into account betterment and depreciation. Exemplary damages
- A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- Any use or possession of a Class A drug is unlawful and may be subject to a period of 6 months imprisonment (sections 3A, 7(1)(a) & (2)(a) and Schedule 1 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975).
- The test results for methamphetamine allow me to reasonably draw an inference of methamphetamine use at the premises during this tenancy. I am satisfied that the tenant has either used the premises or permitted the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose.
- I find the tenant has committed an unlawful act.
- Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- Bearing in mind the factors mentioned above and in particular, the considerable financial detrimental effect on the landlord, and the high public interest in ensuring rental properties are not used for illegal drug activities, I consider it ‘just’ to make an award of $1000.00 exemplary damages.
- As the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, the tenant must reimburse the filing fee.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s109(3), s138C, s16, s26, s3A, s40(1), s40(2), s40(3A), s49B(1), s49B(3), s49B(3A), s8510
Key findings
- Dispute theme: cleaning
- Dispute theme: property damage
- Dispute theme: exemplary damages
Property management
- ACCESSIBLE PROPERTIES NEW ZEALAND LIMITED (applicant)
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5342616?
The tribunal order states: Manahi Paul must pay Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited $52,717.91
How much money was awarded in case 5342616?
Cleaning: $15,813.13 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $1,808.11 awarded to landlord; Paintwork/Decoration Costs: $8,111.66 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $19,035.85 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpets: $1,277.18 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Curtains: $1,065.07 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $4,578.91 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5342616?
The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Exemplary damages.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5342616?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13103905-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.