What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5358973 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlords’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5358973?

Cleaning: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Individualised Testing For Meth Cont…: $724.10 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $437.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,576.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,316.67 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5358973?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5358973?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13280650-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5358973 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlords’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5358973?

Cleaning: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Individualised Testing For Meth Cont…: $724.10 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $437.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,576.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,316.67 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5358973?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5358973?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13280650-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5358973 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5358973. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 2/10/25	$5,316.67	Rent arrears to 2/10/25
Cleaning	$207.00	Cleaning
Wardrobe repairs	$437.00	Wardrobe repairs
Wall repairs	$2,576.00	Wall repairs
Individualised testing for meth contamination	$724.10	Individualised testing for meth contamination
Exemplary damages: unlawful use of premises	$1,200.00	unlawful use of premises
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

The landlords’ names and identifying details.
Jessica Fatu must pay [The landlord/s] $10,488.77 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears to 2/10/25$5,316.67 Cleaning$207.00 Wardrobe repairs$437.00 Wall repairs$2,576.00 Individualised testing for meth contamination$724.10 Exemplary damages: unlawful use of premises$1,200.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$10,488.77

Reasons

[The property manager] attended the hearing for the landlord.
The tenant did not attend. The hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation for cleaning, damage and methamphetamine contamination, exemplary damages for the tenant using the premises unlawfully, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much rent does the tenant owe the landlord?

The tenancy ended on 2 October 2025. The landlord provided a rent summary proving the arrears.

Did the tenant leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy?

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tiddy. 1
The landlord submitted an invoice proving that the landlord’s contractor charged it $207.00 to clean and tidy the premises.
The amount ordered are proved.

Is the tenant liable for the cost of repairing damage?

The landlord claims for its costs to repair a wardrobe and damaged walls.
To succeed in damage claim, the 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. 2 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) s 40(1)(e)(iii). 2 RTA ss 40(2)(a), 41, and 49B.
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. 3
The landlord produced a detailed report including many photographs and the property manager’s and tenant’s comments recording the condition of the premises at the beginning of the tenancy and at its end.
I am satisfied that the tenant damaged the premises as alleged during the tenancy. The is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Is the tenant liable for the landlord’s costs to test and clean due to methamphetamine?
The landlord claims for the cost of testing and cleaning methamphetamine residues.
The house was brand new at the beginning of the tenancy. The tenant was a solo mother who apparently go in with the “wrong crowd”. The landlords baseline testing for methamphetamine residues at the beginning of the tenancy was negative. However, a screening test at the end of the tenancy returned a result of 18μg/100cm 2 for seven samples tested together as a composition sample.
Individualised testing returned seven results ranging from 0.55 to 7.9μg/100cm 2 .
The landlord paid to have the premises decontaminated.
In May 2018 Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the then Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor, released a report, Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards that found there is a lack of scientific evidence to prove that low-level third-hand methamphetamine exposure poses a health risk to humans and exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm 2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect.
The report recommended decontamination to the level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 only where contamination resulted from manufacture due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the manufacturing process. 3 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The District Court has held that remediation should be carried out in accordance with the prevailing guidelines at the time. 4
The Tribunal has endorsed the Gluckman recommendations and has applied them for several years. The District Court has approved of that approach. 5
Given, the composite test was over the Gluckman level, the landlord property paid for individualised testing which cost $724.10. The tenant must reimburse the landlord for that. However, the tenant is not otherwise liable for the landlord’s costs. Because the individualised tests were under the Gluckman level, decontamination was not required although of course the landlord cannot be criticised for doing so.

Is the tenant liable for exemplary damages?

The landlord seeks exemplary damages for the tenant smoking or permitting methamphetamine use in the premises.
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. 6 Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. 7
It is unlawful to use premises to smoke or use methamphetamine under ss 7 and 12 of the Misuse of Drugs Act
The tenant clearly used or permitted the premises to be used for methamphetamine consumption. Therefore, they 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. 8
Having regard to the statutory factors I order the tenant to pay the landlord two-thirds of the maximum which is $1,200.00. The factors of the public interest in deterring such conduct and the effect on the landlord of the unlawful act have been particularly relevant in reaching this figure. 4 Diamond Real Estate Limited v Allan [2017] NZDC 833. 5 See Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 Acme Realty Limited v Hogg and others [2021] NZDC 3231 Barfoot and Thompson Limited v Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited [2021] NZTT Auckland 4276319. 6 RTA s 40(2)(b). 7 RTA s 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A. 8 RTA s109(3). Filing fee
The tenant must reimburse the landlord for the filing fee. 9 Non-publication
[The property manager] seeks non-publication of the landlord’s details including the premises’ address.
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 in its claim. Publication is not in the public interest or justified by the landlord’s conduct or any other circumstances. The address can be suppressed because the level of contamination was below the Gluckman threshold and in any event the landlord responsibly had the premises professionally decontaminated.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5358973. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 2/10/25	$5,316.67	Rent arrears to 2/10/25
Cleaning	$207.00	Cleaning
Wardrobe repairs	$437.00	Wardrobe repairs
Wall repairs	$2,576.00	Wall repairs
Individualised testing for meth contamination	$724.10	Individualised testing for meth contamination
Exemplary damages: unlawful use of premises	$1,200.00	unlawful use of premises
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

The landlords’ names and identifying details.
Jessica Fatu must pay [The landlord/s] $10,488.77 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears to 2/10/25$5,316.67 Cleaning$207.00 Wardrobe repairs$437.00 Wall repairs$2,576.00 Individualised testing for meth contamination$724.10 Exemplary damages: unlawful use of premises$1,200.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$10,488.77

Reasons

[The property manager] attended the hearing for the landlord.
The tenant did not attend. The hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation for cleaning, damage and methamphetamine contamination, exemplary damages for the tenant using the premises unlawfully, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much rent does the tenant owe the landlord?

The tenancy ended on 2 October 2025. The landlord provided a rent summary proving the arrears.

Did the tenant leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy?

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tiddy. 1
The landlord submitted an invoice proving that the landlord’s contractor charged it $207.00 to clean and tidy the premises.
The amount ordered are proved.

Is the tenant liable for the cost of repairing damage?

The landlord claims for its costs to repair a wardrobe and damaged walls.
To succeed in damage claim, the 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. 2 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) s 40(1)(e)(iii). 2 RTA ss 40(2)(a), 41, and 49B.
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. 3
The landlord produced a detailed report including many photographs and the property manager’s and tenant’s comments recording the condition of the premises at the beginning of the tenancy and at its end.
I am satisfied that the tenant damaged the premises as alleged during the tenancy. The is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Is the tenant liable for the landlord’s costs to test and clean due to methamphetamine?
The landlord claims for the cost of testing and cleaning methamphetamine residues.
The house was brand new at the beginning of the tenancy. The tenant was a solo mother who apparently go in with the “wrong crowd”. The landlords baseline testing for methamphetamine residues at the beginning of the tenancy was negative. However, a screening test at the end of the tenancy returned a result of 18μg/100cm 2 for seven samples tested together as a composition sample.
Individualised testing returned seven results ranging from 0.55 to 7.9μg/100cm 2 .
The landlord paid to have the premises decontaminated.
In May 2018 Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the then Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor, released a report, Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards that found there is a lack of scientific evidence to prove that low-level third-hand methamphetamine exposure poses a health risk to humans and exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm 2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect.
The report recommended decontamination to the level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 only where contamination resulted from manufacture due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the manufacturing process. 3 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The District Court has held that remediation should be carried out in accordance with the prevailing guidelines at the time. 4
The Tribunal has endorsed the Gluckman recommendations and has applied them for several years. The District Court has approved of that approach. 5
Given, the composite test was over the Gluckman level, the landlord property paid for individualised testing which cost $724.10. The tenant must reimburse the landlord for that. However, the tenant is not otherwise liable for the landlord’s costs. Because the individualised tests were under the Gluckman level, decontamination was not required although of course the landlord cannot be criticised for doing so.

Is the tenant liable for exemplary damages?

The landlord seeks exemplary damages for the tenant smoking or permitting methamphetamine use in the premises.
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. 6 Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. 7
It is unlawful to use premises to smoke or use methamphetamine under ss 7 and 12 of the Misuse of Drugs Act
The tenant clearly used or permitted the premises to be used for methamphetamine consumption. Therefore, they 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. 8
Having regard to the statutory factors I order the tenant to pay the landlord two-thirds of the maximum which is $1,200.00. The factors of the public interest in deterring such conduct and the effect on the landlord of the unlawful act have been particularly relevant in reaching this figure. 4 Diamond Real Estate Limited v Allan [2017] NZDC 833. 5 See Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 Acme Realty Limited v Hogg and others [2021] NZDC 3231 Barfoot and Thompson Limited v Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited [2021] NZTT Auckland 4276319. 6 RTA s 40(2)(b). 7 RTA s 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A. 8 RTA s109(3). Filing fee
The tenant must reimburse the landlord for the filing fee. 9 Non-publication
[The property manager] seeks non-publication of the landlord’s details including the premises’ address.
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 in its claim. Publication is not in the public interest or justified by the landlord’s conduct or any other circumstances. The address can be suppressed because the level of contamination was below the Gluckman threshold and in any event the landlord responsibly had the premises professionally decontaminated.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5358973 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5358973 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much rent does the tenant owe the landlord?

Did the tenant leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy?

Is the tenant liable for the cost of repairing damage?

Is the tenant liable for exemplary damages?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much rent does the tenant owe the landlord?

Did the tenant leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy?

Is the tenant liable for the cost of repairing damage?

Is the tenant liable for exemplary damages?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions