What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5348142 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5348142?

Cleaning: $747.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns: $368.00 awarded to landlord; Methamphetamine Testing: $4,367.92 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $120.37 awarded to landlord; Rent: $640.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $3,037.85 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5348142?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5348142?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13298413-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5348142 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5348142?

Cleaning: $747.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns: $368.00 awarded to landlord; Methamphetamine Testing: $4,367.92 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $120.37 awarded to landlord; Rent: $640.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $3,037.85 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5348142?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5348142?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13298413-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5348142 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5348142 — net $7,469.64 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent to 11 September 2025	$640.00	Rent to 11 September 2025
Cleaning	$747.50	Cleaning
Lawns	$368.00	Lawns
Methamphetamine testing	$4,367.92	Methamphetamine testing
Window repairs	$120.37	Window repairs
Rubbish removal, lock change, repairs	$3,037.85	Rubbish removal, lock change, repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,469.64
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,469.64

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 Long must pay [The landlord/s] $7,469.64 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The bond is reimbursed to the landlord.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing today in person. The tenant did not attend but requested an adjournment by email while the hearing was underway. (This is addressed at the end of this order).
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Rent
The tenancy ended on 11 September 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Cleaning, Rubbish Removal, Lawns
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.
The hard flooring, skirting boards and various cupboards were not left reasonably clean (see exit photographs 185-218 for example) and the bathroom needed cleaning (photographs 229-245 for example). A lot of rubbish and belongings were left behind (photographs 430-434 and 471-476 for example).
The lawns needed mowing. Damage
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.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, as in this case, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent for each act or omission causing damage. The weekly rent was $460.00.
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.
There was damage to the walls in the lounge and kitchen. The damage in the lounge had been repainted prior to the tenancy according to the exit inspection report. The damage is shown in photographs 39-42. The kitchen wall damage can be seen in photograph 165 and was not pre-existing. The tenant had put tape and some kind of film on the windows, which needed to be removed. Several windows in the garage were removed and a window in the laundry was cracked. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Contamination
A screening test for methamphetamine was performed on 19 June 2024, prior to commencement of the tenancy on 11 October 2024. The first composite sample detected 0.03 micrograms of meth residue. The second sample detected 0.02 micrograms.
At an inspection on 12 June 2025, the landlord identified drug-related apparatus at the premises. A meth test was performed on 16 June 2025. A further test was performed on 12 September 2025, after the tenant had vacated. The levels of contamination increased during this period. For example, the bedroom 2 door reading went from 4.0 to 6.6. micrograms, the bedroom 1 door went from 6.8 to
5 micrograms, and the living room door increased from 4.9 to 10.3 micrograms. I note that the reading for the hallway power box went down from
8 to 5.9 micrograms.
The highest readings were 9.7 micrograms on the hallway door and 10.3 micrograms on the living room door.
Section 40(2)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) provides that a tenant must not use, or permit the premises to be used, for an unlawful purpose.
It is an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 to manufacture, possess or use any controlled drug, or to knowingly permit any premises to be used for the purpose of consuming controlled drugs (sections 6, 7 and 12). It follows that methamphetamine use or manufacture at residential premises is a breach of section 40(2)(b) and an “unlawful act” for which exemplary damages may be awarded.
In reliance on the report of Professor Peter Gluckman and the District Court decision in Full Circle Real Estate v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947, the Tribunal has adopted 15 micrograms as being the level of contamination at which premises can be said to be damaged, and therefore, in need of decontamination. There are regulations coming into force in April 2026 which adopt 15 micrograms as the “maximum acceptable level” and 30 micrograms as the “maximum inhabitable level”. It follows that the claimed decontamination costs of $7,768.00 cannot be awarded: the premises are not contaminated and do not require decontamination under the Act.
I am, however, satisfied on the balance of probabilities that methamphetamine has been used at the premises. There was no methamphetamine detected prior to the tenancy. As described above, contamination was identified and increased during the tenancy. I find that methamphetamine was used contrary to the tenancy agreement and the Act.
I award the testing costs claimed. It was reasonable for the landlord to conduct methamphetamine testing after the inspection on 12 June 2025 and again following the end of the tenancy in September 2025. Filing Fee and Suppression
The landlord’s application has been largely successful. I award the filing fee and grant name suppression to the landlord. Procedural Note
The tenant emailed the Tribunal at 9.39am stating that he could not attend the hearing because he has Covid. He included a photograph of a Covid test. This notification came too late for the Tribunal to call the tenant or hear from him by videoconference. The hearing (scheduled for 9.30am) was in progress and the email was not seen until afterwards.
The tenant will have to file a rehearing application if he wishes to be heard, which can then be considered in the usual way. The tenant will need to satisfy the Tribunal, not only that he could not attend today, but also that he could not have notified the Tribunal earlier or requested remote attendance. The tenant will also need to explain the basis on which he disputes the landlord’s claims, to show that the matter merits further consideration.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5348142 — net $7,469.64 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent to 11 September 2025	$640.00	Rent to 11 September 2025
Cleaning	$747.50	Cleaning
Lawns	$368.00	Lawns
Methamphetamine testing	$4,367.92	Methamphetamine testing
Window repairs	$120.37	Window repairs
Rubbish removal, lock change, repairs	$3,037.85	Rubbish removal, lock change, repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,469.64
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,469.64

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 Long must pay [The landlord/s] $7,469.64 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The bond is reimbursed to the landlord.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing today in person. The tenant did not attend but requested an adjournment by email while the hearing was underway. (This is addressed at the end of this order).
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Rent
The tenancy ended on 11 September 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Cleaning, Rubbish Removal, Lawns
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.
The hard flooring, skirting boards and various cupboards were not left reasonably clean (see exit photographs 185-218 for example) and the bathroom needed cleaning (photographs 229-245 for example). A lot of rubbish and belongings were left behind (photographs 430-434 and 471-476 for example).
The lawns needed mowing. Damage
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.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, as in this case, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent for each act or omission causing damage. The weekly rent was $460.00.
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.
There was damage to the walls in the lounge and kitchen. The damage in the lounge had been repainted prior to the tenancy according to the exit inspection report. The damage is shown in photographs 39-42. The kitchen wall damage can be seen in photograph 165 and was not pre-existing. The tenant had put tape and some kind of film on the windows, which needed to be removed. Several windows in the garage were removed and a window in the laundry was cracked. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Contamination
A screening test for methamphetamine was performed on 19 June 2024, prior to commencement of the tenancy on 11 October 2024. The first composite sample detected 0.03 micrograms of meth residue. The second sample detected 0.02 micrograms.
At an inspection on 12 June 2025, the landlord identified drug-related apparatus at the premises. A meth test was performed on 16 June 2025. A further test was performed on 12 September 2025, after the tenant had vacated. The levels of contamination increased during this period. For example, the bedroom 2 door reading went from 4.0 to 6.6. micrograms, the bedroom 1 door went from 6.8 to
5 micrograms, and the living room door increased from 4.9 to 10.3 micrograms. I note that the reading for the hallway power box went down from
8 to 5.9 micrograms.
The highest readings were 9.7 micrograms on the hallway door and 10.3 micrograms on the living room door.
Section 40(2)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) provides that a tenant must not use, or permit the premises to be used, for an unlawful purpose.
It is an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 to manufacture, possess or use any controlled drug, or to knowingly permit any premises to be used for the purpose of consuming controlled drugs (sections 6, 7 and 12). It follows that methamphetamine use or manufacture at residential premises is a breach of section 40(2)(b) and an “unlawful act” for which exemplary damages may be awarded.
In reliance on the report of Professor Peter Gluckman and the District Court decision in Full Circle Real Estate v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947, the Tribunal has adopted 15 micrograms as being the level of contamination at which premises can be said to be damaged, and therefore, in need of decontamination. There are regulations coming into force in April 2026 which adopt 15 micrograms as the “maximum acceptable level” and 30 micrograms as the “maximum inhabitable level”. It follows that the claimed decontamination costs of $7,768.00 cannot be awarded: the premises are not contaminated and do not require decontamination under the Act.
I am, however, satisfied on the balance of probabilities that methamphetamine has been used at the premises. There was no methamphetamine detected prior to the tenancy. As described above, contamination was identified and increased during the tenancy. I find that methamphetamine was used contrary to the tenancy agreement and the Act.
I award the testing costs claimed. It was reasonable for the landlord to conduct methamphetamine testing after the inspection on 12 June 2025 and again following the end of the tenancy in September 2025. Filing Fee and Suppression
The landlord’s application has been largely successful. I award the filing fee and grant name suppression to the landlord. Procedural Note
The tenant emailed the Tribunal at 9.39am stating that he could not attend the hearing because he has Covid. He included a photograph of a Covid test. This notification came too late for the Tribunal to call the tenant or hear from him by videoconference. The hearing (scheduled for 9.30am) was in progress and the email was not seen until afterwards.
The tenant will have to file a rehearing application if he wishes to be heard, which can then be considered in the usual way. The tenant will need to satisfy the Tribunal, not only that he could not attend today, but also that he could not have notified the Tribunal earlier or requested remote attendance. The tenant will also need to explain the basis on which he disputes the landlord’s claims, to show that the matter merits further consideration.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5348142 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5348142 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions