What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5343162?

The tribunal order states: Sharnie Cumming must pay F&N Brown Trustees Limited $12,927.87

How much money was awarded in case 5343162?

____________________________________…: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $370.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Re Paint Bedroom 1: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Reinstate Fence And Remove Graffiti…: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Remove Paint From Extractor Fan: $45.98 awarded to landlord; Remove Shelf In Bathroom: $65.00 awarded to landlord; Repaint Garage Ceiling And Walls: $550.00 awarded to landlord; 2 Holes Dining/Hallway: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $125.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Laundry Shelf: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Ranch Slider: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Remove Graffiti Kitchen Windowsill: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $299.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Window Framing In Lounge To Reseal: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Carpet Bedroom And Hallway: $812.50 awarded to landlord; Replace Painted Vanity: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Sink In Garage: $185.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $59.39 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5343162?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5343162?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13008770-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5343162?

The tribunal order states: Sharnie Cumming must pay F&N Brown Trustees Limited $12,927.87

How much money was awarded in case 5343162?

____________________________________…: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $370.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Re Paint Bedroom 1: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Reinstate Fence And Remove Graffiti…: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Remove Paint From Extractor Fan: $45.98 awarded to landlord; Remove Shelf In Bathroom: $65.00 awarded to landlord; Repaint Garage Ceiling And Walls: $550.00 awarded to landlord; 2 Holes Dining/Hallway: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $125.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Laundry Shelf: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Ranch Slider: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Remove Graffiti Kitchen Windowsill: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $299.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Window Framing In Lounge To Reseal: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Carpet Bedroom And Hallway: $812.50 awarded to landlord; Replace Painted Vanity: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Sink In Garage: $185.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $59.39 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5343162?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5343162?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13008770-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 110 Chadwick Road, Greerton, Tauranga 3112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5343162 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5343162 — net $12,927.87 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$59.39	Water rates
Meth testing/Cleaning	$2,500.00	Meth testing/Cleaning
Window repairs: toilet window	$250.00	Window repairs: toilet window
Repairs: garage door repairs	$800.00	Repairs: garage door repairs
Repairs: cleaning cobblestones	$125.00	Repairs: cleaning cobblestones
Lock/key replacement: front security door	$550.00	Lock/key replacement: front security door
Repairs: ranch slider	$550.00	Repairs: ranch slider
Lock/key replacement: side security door	$550.00	Lock/key replacement: side security door
repair holes in hallway	$550.00	repair holes in hallway
re paint bedroom 1	$550.00	re paint bedroom 1
replace painted vanity	$550.00	replace painted vanity
Repairs: window framing in lounge to reseal	$550.00	Repairs: window framing in lounge to reseal
Repairs: remove graffiti kitchen windowsill	$550.00	Repairs: remove graffiti kitchen windowsill
Repairs: replace damaged mesh screens	$299.00	Repairs: replace damaged mesh screens
repairs to 2 doors in hallway	$370.00	repairs to 2 doors in hallway
Repairs: 2 holes dining/hallway	$550.00	Repairs: 2 holes dining/hallway
repair wall corner in hallway	$550.00	repair wall corner in hallway
replace carpet bedroom and hallway	$812.50	replace carpet bedroom and hallway
__________________________________________________________________________________ 53431622 repaint bedroom 2	$550.00	__________________________________________________________________________________ 53431622 repaint bedroom 2
Repairs: to bedroom door - remove lock and repair hole	$550.00	Repairs: to bedroom door - remove lock and repair hole
repair hole behind taps in bathroom and replace splash boards	$550.00	repair hole behind taps in bathroom and replace splash boards
remove shelf in bathroom	$65.00	remove shelf in bathroom
remove paint from extractor fan	$45.98	remove paint from extractor fan
repaint garage ceiling and walls	$550.00	repaint garage ceiling and walls
Repairs: laundry shelf	$450.00	Repairs: laundry shelf
Replace sink in garage	$185.00	Replace sink in garage
Reinstate fence and remove graffiti from garage door and external structure	$550.00	Reinstate fence and remove graffiti from garage door and external structure
Rubbish removal	$250.00	Rubbish removal
Exemplary damages – permitting premises to be used for unlawful purpose	$750.00	Exemplary damages – permitting premises to be used for unlawful purpose
Filing fee reimbursement this application	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement this application
Filing fee reimbursement application 5294880	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement application 5294880
Net award	$12,927.87
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$12,927.87

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5343162 — net $12,927.87 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.

Claim

Landlord

Tenant

Reason

Water rates

$59.39

Water rates

Meth testing/Cleaning

$2,500.00

Meth testing/Cleaning

Window repairs: toilet window

$250.00

Window repairs: toilet window

Repairs: garage door repairs

$800.00

Repairs: garage door repairs

Repairs: cleaning cobblestones

$125.00

Repairs: cleaning cobblestones

Lock/key replacement: front security door

$550.00

Lock/key replacement: front security door

Repairs: ranch slider

$550.00

Repairs: ranch slider

Lock/key replacement: side security door

$550.00

Lock/key replacement: side security door

repair holes in hallway

$550.00

repair holes in hallway

re paint bedroom 1

$550.00

re paint bedroom 1

replace painted vanity

$550.00

replace painted vanity

Repairs: window framing in lounge to reseal

$550.00

Repairs: window framing in lounge to reseal

Repairs: remove graffiti kitchen windowsill

$550.00

Repairs: remove graffiti kitchen windowsill

Repairs: replace damaged mesh screens

$299.00

Repairs: replace damaged mesh screens

repairs to 2 doors in hallway

$370.00

repairs to 2 doors in hallway

Repairs: 2 holes dining/hallway

$550.00

Repairs: 2 holes dining/hallway

repair wall corner in hallway

$550.00

repair wall corner in hallway

replace carpet bedroom and hallway

$812.50

replace carpet bedroom and hallway

__________________________________________________________________________________ 53431622 repaint bedroom 2

$550.00

__________________________________________________________________________________ 53431622 repaint bedroom 2

Repairs: to bedroom door - remove lock and repair hole

$550.00

Repairs: to bedroom door - remove lock and repair hole

repair hole behind taps in bathroom and replace splash boards

$550.00

repair hole behind taps in bathroom and replace splash boards

remove shelf in bathroom

$65.00

remove shelf in bathroom

remove paint from extractor fan

$45.98

remove paint from extractor fan

repaint garage ceiling and walls

$550.00

repaint garage ceiling and walls

Repairs: laundry shelf

$450.00

Repairs: laundry shelf

Replace sink in garage

$185.00

Replace sink in garage

Reinstate fence and remove graffiti from garage door and external structure

$550.00

Reinstate fence and remove graffiti from garage door and external structure

Rubbish removal

$250.00

Rubbish removal

Exemplary damages – permitting premises to be used for unlawful purpose

$750.00

Exemplary damages – permitting premises to be used for unlawful purpose

Filing fee reimbursement this application

$28.00

Filing fee reimbursement this application

Filing fee reimbursement application 5294880

$28.00

Filing fee reimbursement application 5294880

Net award

$12,927.87

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

$12,927.87

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for exemplary damages, water arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenant has applied for exemplary damages. 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.

In practical terms this means that the applicant must provide sufficient evidence to prove the claim. 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 party, and it is not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”

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.

How much is owed for rent and water arrears?

The tenancy ended on 13 July 2025 pursuant to a Tribunal order that terminated the tenancy as the premises were uninhabitable due to a significant methamphetamine contamination and required extensive decontamination.

The landlord confirmed that there was no rent owing but claimed water arrears.

The water arrears awarded include only the charges for water that can be attributed exclusively to the tenant’s occupation, in other words water used during the tenancy as required by s39. The final water invoice is excluded as the Tribunal is not able to apportion water charges as requested by the landlord, an actual reading is required at the end of the tenancy.

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 and did not remove all rubbish.

The tenant did not return all keys. Some locks were added and others damaged.

The amounts ordered are proved.

The landlord has also claimed $2,500 which is the insurance excess applied with respect to testing and decontamination of the property due to a methamphetamine contamination that occurred during the tenancy.

The tenant is liable to pay this insurance excess, which is the landlord’s “out of pocket cost” with respect to cleaning/decontaminating the property due to the methamphetamine contamination.

The evidence establishes that it is highly likely the methamphetamine contamination occurred during the tenancy (the pre tenancy methamphetamine testing clearly showing the property was free of methamphetamine at the commencement of the tenancy as established in the previous Tribunal order) and then had levels that mean decontamination was required at the end of the tenancy in order to ensure it was free of methamphetamine and therefore clean and safe to live in.

The actual costs incurred considerable exceed the excess; the invoices confirm the costs were $1,525.95 for testing, $8,107.50 for decontamination and $6,278.05 for replacement of carpet in one bedroom and the lounge dining area. The tenant is fortunate that the landlord’s insurance cover has reduced the award against her to the excess which is awarded. Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises and if so what is the appropriate level of compensation to award?

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 property is a two-bedroom unit and the evidence establishes that it was extensively damaged during the tenancy. In awarding the damage listed above I have where appropriate limited the compensation to the insurance excess noting that the insurance company has treated each claim as a separate event in applying the excess and determined that the damage was caused by intentional tenant actions.

I have not allowed some claims despite the insurance assessment report, including replacement of the toilet seat and toilet roll holder, the shower head attachment and some damage in the bathroom as likely to be more fairly attributed to fair wear and tear. While the tenant said the cracked window in the toilet was caused when an intruder tried to enter, she has not provided any evidence to support this claim. As the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage I have awarded the $250 excess.

The amounts ordered are proved.

I have taken into account betterment and depreciation when assessing the claim for replacement of the carpet in the bedroom and hallway (not covered by the methamphetamine insurance payout). 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 that the carpet was 5 years old age at the start of the tenancy and that it had a likely useful lifespan of 10 years. That claim is therefore reduced by 50%.

The insurance excess is less than the depreciated cost of repairs to the doors and walls and is therefore awarded as set out above. Exemplary damages

F&N Brown Trustees Limited claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by using or permitting others to use methamphetamine at the property during the tenancy, thereby causing it to be damaged/contaminated.

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.

The use or possession of methamphetamine is an imprisonable offence; see the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.

The detailed testing that occurred on 27 June 2025 confirmed that methamphetamine had been used in several rooms at the property.

The tenant noted that the contamination did not occur in the master bedroom which she said she found “odd”. She also said she did not use methamphetamine at the property.

I have no evidence to confirm that she did use the methamphetamine herself. There is however no evidence to rebut a presumption that she permitted the unlawful activity. The evidence establishes the person that she allowed to reside in the garage caused some damage to that area.

The evidence establishes that an unlawful act has occurred at the property and that it is likely the unlawful activity was performed in multiple rooms and probably over a period of time.

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.

I am satisfied that an award of exemplary damages is appropriate. The nature of the offending causing contamination in multiple rooms means that intentionality can be inferred. The offending has caused considerable distress for the owner of the property and significant cost and time to rectify. There is a significant public interest in sending a strong message that unlawful drug use will be punished. Methamphetamine contamination of homes is an issue that society takes seriously, particularly when the levels of contamination are high.

As there is no evidence to suggest that the tenant here is a repeat offender or that she was herself responsible for the contamination the $750 awarded is considered the appropriate level of exemplary damages.

I have dismissed the other landlord claims for exemplary damages for failing to quit the premises at the end of the tenancy and general stress and inconvenience with dealing with repairs and remediation at the end of the tenancy. The compensation awarded is considered appropriate compensation.

The tenancy ended by Tribunal order and the tenant left the premises in accordance with that order. The compensation awarded for the tenant’s failure to reinstate the premises have been properly and fairly considered when awarding compensation. It is relevant that the tenant had little time to remove her fixtures and reinstate the property.

I have also dismissed the tenants claim for exemplary damages for breach of privacy and quiet enjoyment.

While satisfied that the tenant was significantly distressed when her grandparents, from whom she was long estranged, visited the property, I am not satisfied either that the landlord invited them to visit or that he was even aware of the significant distress the visit may cause. He denied either occurrence, while confirming that he was aware of the relationship and had confirmed to them that the tenant was likely to be related.

In the absence of a finding of intentionality I am unable to award exemplary damages and decline to do so. I also note that the required element of harassment would not be satisfied by a one-off event as a pattern of behaviour is generally required.

Because F&N Brown Trustees Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee paid for this application and the previous Tribunal application that successfully resulted in the termination order.

The tenant’s request for name suppression is declined. Her application is not successful, and the nature and extent of the large compensation awards made against her because of the landlord’s claim, mean that the public interest requires her name is published.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5343162 — net $12,927.87 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$59.39	Water rates
Meth testing/Cleaning	$2,500.00	Meth testing/Cleaning
Window repairs: toilet window	$250.00	Window repairs: toilet window
Repairs: garage door repairs	$800.00	Repairs: garage door repairs
Repairs: cleaning cobblestones	$125.00	Repairs: cleaning cobblestones
Lock/key replacement: front security door	$550.00	Lock/key replacement: front security door
Repairs: ranch slider	$550.00	Repairs: ranch slider
Lock/key replacement: side security door	$550.00	Lock/key replacement: side security door
repair holes in hallway	$550.00	repair holes in hallway
re paint bedroom 1	$550.00	re paint bedroom 1
replace painted vanity	$550.00	replace painted vanity
Repairs: window framing in lounge to reseal	$550.00	Repairs: window framing in lounge to reseal
Repairs: remove graffiti kitchen windowsill	$550.00	Repairs: remove graffiti kitchen windowsill
Repairs: replace damaged mesh screens	$299.00	Repairs: replace damaged mesh screens
repairs to 2 doors in hallway	$370.00	repairs to 2 doors in hallway
Repairs: 2 holes dining/hallway	$550.00	Repairs: 2 holes dining/hallway
repair wall corner in hallway	$550.00	repair wall corner in hallway
replace carpet bedroom and hallway	$812.50	replace carpet bedroom and hallway
__________________________________________________________________________________ 53431622 repaint bedroom 2	$550.00	__________________________________________________________________________________ 53431622 repaint bedroom 2
Repairs: to bedroom door - remove lock and repair hole	$550.00	Repairs: to bedroom door - remove lock and repair hole
repair hole behind taps in bathroom and replace splash boards	$550.00	repair hole behind taps in bathroom and replace splash boards
remove shelf in bathroom	$65.00	remove shelf in bathroom
remove paint from extractor fan	$45.98	remove paint from extractor fan
repaint garage ceiling and walls	$550.00	repaint garage ceiling and walls
Repairs: laundry shelf	$450.00	Repairs: laundry shelf
Replace sink in garage	$185.00	Replace sink in garage
Reinstate fence and remove graffiti from garage door and external structure	$550.00	Reinstate fence and remove graffiti from garage door and external structure
Rubbish removal	$250.00	Rubbish removal
Exemplary damages – permitting premises to be used for unlawful purpose	$750.00	Exemplary damages – permitting premises to be used for unlawful purpose
Filing fee reimbursement this application	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement this application
Filing fee reimbursement application 5294880	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement application 5294880
Net award	$12,927.87
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$12,927.87

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5343162 — net $12,927.87 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.

Claim

Landlord

Tenant

Reason

Water rates

$59.39

Water rates

Meth testing/Cleaning

$2,500.00

Meth testing/Cleaning

Window repairs: toilet window

$250.00

Window repairs: toilet window

Repairs: garage door repairs

$800.00

Repairs: garage door repairs

Repairs: cleaning cobblestones

$125.00

Repairs: cleaning cobblestones

Lock/key replacement: front security door

$550.00

Lock/key replacement: front security door

Repairs: ranch slider

$550.00

Repairs: ranch slider

Lock/key replacement: side security door

$550.00

Lock/key replacement: side security door

repair holes in hallway

$550.00

repair holes in hallway

re paint bedroom 1

$550.00

re paint bedroom 1

replace painted vanity

$550.00

replace painted vanity

Repairs: window framing in lounge to reseal

$550.00

Repairs: window framing in lounge to reseal

Repairs: remove graffiti kitchen windowsill

$550.00

Repairs: remove graffiti kitchen windowsill

Repairs: replace damaged mesh screens

$299.00

Repairs: replace damaged mesh screens

repairs to 2 doors in hallway

$370.00

repairs to 2 doors in hallway

Repairs: 2 holes dining/hallway

$550.00

Repairs: 2 holes dining/hallway

repair wall corner in hallway

$550.00

repair wall corner in hallway

replace carpet bedroom and hallway

$812.50

replace carpet bedroom and hallway

__________________________________________________________________________________ 53431622 repaint bedroom 2

$550.00

__________________________________________________________________________________ 53431622 repaint bedroom 2

Repairs: to bedroom door - remove lock and repair hole

$550.00

Repairs: to bedroom door - remove lock and repair hole

repair hole behind taps in bathroom and replace splash boards

$550.00

repair hole behind taps in bathroom and replace splash boards

remove shelf in bathroom

$65.00

remove shelf in bathroom

remove paint from extractor fan

$45.98

remove paint from extractor fan

repaint garage ceiling and walls

$550.00

repaint garage ceiling and walls

Repairs: laundry shelf

$450.00

Repairs: laundry shelf

Replace sink in garage

$185.00

Replace sink in garage

Reinstate fence and remove graffiti from garage door and external structure

$550.00

Reinstate fence and remove graffiti from garage door and external structure

Rubbish removal

$250.00

Rubbish removal

Exemplary damages – permitting premises to be used for unlawful purpose

$750.00

Exemplary damages – permitting premises to be used for unlawful purpose

Filing fee reimbursement this application

$28.00

Filing fee reimbursement this application

Filing fee reimbursement application 5294880

$28.00

Filing fee reimbursement application 5294880

Net award

$12,927.87

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

$12,927.87

Order

Sharnie Cumming must pay F&N Brown Trustees Limited $12,927.87 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,340.00 (3364124-007) to F&N Brown Trustees Limited immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for exemplary damages, water arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for exemplary damages. 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.
In practical terms this means that the applicant must provide sufficient evidence to prove the claim. 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 party, and it is not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
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.

How much is owed for rent and water arrears?

The tenancy ended on 13 July 2025 pursuant to a Tribunal order that terminated the tenancy as the premises were uninhabitable due to a significant methamphetamine contamination and required extensive decontamination.
The landlord confirmed that there was no rent owing but claimed water arrears.
The water arrears awarded include only the charges for water that can be attributed exclusively to the tenant’s occupation, in other words water used during the tenancy as required by s39. The final water invoice is excluded as the Tribunal is not able to apportion water charges as requested by the landlord, an actual reading is required at the end of the tenancy.

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 and did not remove all rubbish.
The tenant did not return all keys. Some locks were added and others damaged.
The amounts ordered are proved.

The landlord has also claimed $2,500 which is the insurance excess applied with respect to testing and decontamination of the property due to a methamphetamine contamination that occurred during the tenancy.
The tenant is liable to pay this insurance excess, which is the landlord’s “out of pocket cost” with respect to cleaning/decontaminating the property due to the methamphetamine contamination.
The evidence establishes that it is highly likely the methamphetamine contamination occurred during the tenancy (the pre tenancy methamphetamine testing clearly showing the property was free of methamphetamine at the commencement of the tenancy as established in the previous Tribunal order) and then had levels that mean decontamination was required at the end of the tenancy in order to ensure it was free of methamphetamine and therefore clean and safe to live in.
The actual costs incurred considerable exceed the excess; the invoices confirm the costs were $1,525.95 for testing, $8,107.50 for decontamination and $6,278.05 for replacement of carpet in one bedroom and the lounge dining area. The tenant is fortunate that the landlord’s insurance cover has reduced the award against her to the excess which is awarded. Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises and if so what is the appropriate level of compensation to award?
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 property is a two-bedroom unit and the evidence establishes that it was extensively damaged during the tenancy. In awarding the damage listed above I have where appropriate limited the compensation to the insurance excess noting that the insurance company has treated each claim as a separate event in applying the excess and determined that the damage was caused by intentional tenant actions.
I have not allowed some claims despite the insurance assessment report, including replacement of the toilet seat and toilet roll holder, the shower head attachment and some damage in the bathroom as likely to be more fairly attributed to fair wear and tear. While the tenant said the cracked window in the toilet was caused when an intruder tried to enter, she has not provided any evidence to support this claim. As the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage I have awarded the $250 excess.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation when assessing the claim for replacement of the carpet in the bedroom and hallway (not covered by the methamphetamine insurance payout). 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 that the carpet was 5 years old age at the start of the tenancy and that it had a likely useful lifespan of 10 years. That claim is therefore reduced by 50%.
The insurance excess is less than the depreciated cost of repairs to the doors and walls and is therefore awarded as set out above. Exemplary damages
F&N Brown Trustees Limited claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by using or permitting others to use methamphetamine at the property during the tenancy, thereby causing it to be damaged/contaminated.
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.
The use or possession of methamphetamine is an imprisonable offence; see the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
The detailed testing that occurred on 27 June 2025 confirmed that methamphetamine had been used in several rooms at the property.
The tenant noted that the contamination did not occur in the master bedroom which she said she found “odd”. She also said she did not use methamphetamine at the property.
I have no evidence to confirm that she did use the methamphetamine herself. There is however no evidence to rebut a presumption that she permitted the unlawful activity. The evidence establishes the person that she allowed to reside in the garage caused some damage to that area.
The evidence establishes that an unlawful act has occurred at the property and that it is likely the unlawful activity was performed in multiple rooms and probably over a period of time.
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.
I am satisfied that an award of exemplary damages is appropriate. The nature of the offending causing contamination in multiple rooms means that intentionality can be inferred. The offending has caused considerable distress for the owner of the property and significant cost and time to rectify. There is a significant public interest in sending a strong message that unlawful drug use will be punished. Methamphetamine contamination of homes is an issue that society takes seriously, particularly when the levels of contamination are high.
As there is no evidence to suggest that the tenant here is a repeat offender or that she was herself responsible for the contamination the $750 awarded is considered the appropriate level of exemplary damages.
I have dismissed the other landlord claims for exemplary damages for failing to quit the premises at the end of the tenancy and general stress and inconvenience with dealing with repairs and remediation at the end of the tenancy. The compensation awarded is considered appropriate compensation.
The tenancy ended by Tribunal order and the tenant left the premises in accordance with that order. The compensation awarded for the tenant’s failure to reinstate the premises have been properly and fairly considered when awarding compensation. It is relevant that the tenant had little time to remove her fixtures and reinstate the property.
I have also dismissed the tenants claim for exemplary damages for breach of privacy and quiet enjoyment.
While satisfied that the tenant was significantly distressed when her grandparents, from whom she was long estranged, visited the property, I am not satisfied either that the landlord invited them to visit or that he was even aware of the significant distress the visit may cause. He denied either occurrence, while confirming that he was aware of the relationship and had confirmed to them that the tenant was likely to be related.
In the absence of a finding of intentionality I am unable to award exemplary damages and decline to do so. I also note that the required element of harassment would not be satisfied by a one-off event as a pattern of behaviour is generally required.
Because F&N Brown Trustees Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee paid for this application and the previous Tribunal application that successfully resulted in the termination order.
The tenant’s request for name suppression is declined. Her application is not successful, and the nature and extent of the large compensation awards made against her because of the landlord’s claim, mean that the public interest requires her name is published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5343162 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1, 110 Chadwick Road, Greerton, Tauranga 3112

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5343162 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1, 110 Chadwick Road, Greerton, Tauranga 3112

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water arrears?

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water arrears?

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

At a glance

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water arrears?

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

Is the tenant liable for costs related to methamphetamine contamination?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water arrears?

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

Is the tenant liable for costs related to methamphetamine contamination?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions