What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5359761 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 5359761?

Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Dishwasher Replaced By Tenant: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Garage Door Remote: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $108.46 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $3,245.71 awarded to landlord; Heat Pump Bracket: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Hole In Bedroom Wall: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5359761?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5359761?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12878058-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5359761 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 5359761?

Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Dishwasher Replaced By Tenant: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Garage Door Remote: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $108.46 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $3,245.71 awarded to landlord; Heat Pump Bracket: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Hole In Bedroom Wall: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5359761?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5359761?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12878058-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5359761 — Rent arrears

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5359761 — net $2,034.67 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 24 August 2025	$3,245.71		Rent arrears to 24 August 2025
Dishwasher replaced by tenant	$250.00		Dishwasher replaced by tenant
Cleaning	$250.00		Cleaning
Garage door remote	$172.50		Garage door remote
Lock/key replacement	$108.46		Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Bond paid to landlord in full		$1,720.00	Bond paid to landlord in full
Shower seal replacement		$50.00	Shower seal replacement
Repairs: Heat pump bracket		$50.00	Repairs: Heat pump bracket
Repairs: Hole in bedroom wall		$50.00	Repairs: Hole in bedroom wall
Repairs: toilet cistern replacement		$150.00	Repairs: toilet cistern replacement
Total award	$4,054.67	$2,020.00
Net award	$2,034.67
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,034.67

The landlord attended the hearing by telephone. The tenant did not attend.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 24 August 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy, being $3,245.71.

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 under section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.

The landlord provided photographs to confirm that the tenant had not removed all rubbish from the property and had not finished cleaning the property to the required standard. The landlord completed the cleaning himself which involved multiple trips to the dump and work over at least two days.

The tenant did not return the keys in a timely way and the landlord was obliged to install replacement locks. The landlord claim is for the cost of parts only, being $108.46.

The tenant did not return the garage remote control which had to be replaced at a cost of $172.50.

The landlord completed the cleaning and rubbish removal himself and also installed the new locks.

Minimal amounts have been claimed by the landlord for his own time to keep costs to the tenant reasonable.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage 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 under sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Hole in bedroom wall ($50.00) b. Broken heat pump bracket ($50.00) c. Toilet cistern incorrectly installed and missing parts ($150.00)

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

A claim for repairs to a hole in the garage was withdrawn during the hearing as the repairs were not completed prior to the sale of the property.

The amounts ordered are proved.

The landlord has credited the tenant for a replacement dishwasher (second hand) and shower seal which the tenant installed during the tenancy (as previously agreed between the parties).

The bond has been paid to the landlord in full and is also credited to the tenant.

Did the property require methamphetamine decontamination?

In 2010, the New Zealand Ministry of Health produced guidelines for the remediation of methamphetamine laboratories which determined that remediation was required if the environmental level of methamphetamine was over 0.5μg/100cm². This became the level at which premises were deemed to require decontamination.

In 2017 the level was increased when Standards New Zealand released Standard NZS 8510:2017 “Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine- contaminated properties”. This Standard confirmed that the level at which habitation of residential premises was considered safe was 1.5μg/100cm². At that time, this Standard set the definitive levels at which properties required decontamination.

In 2018, the then Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, reported that there was little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption. 1 This report concluded that any levels below 15μg/100cm² were unlikely to present adverse effects.

Taken together these factors indicate that methamphetamine levels that exceed the NZS 8510:2017 clean-up standard of 1.5μg/100cm² should not be regarded as signalling a health risk. Indeed, exposure to methamphetamine levels below 1 Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards, 29 May 2018 15μg/100cm² would be unlikely to give rise to any adverse effects. This level still incorporates a 30-fold safety buffer on a conservative estimate of risk.

The matter was considered by the District Court, in relation to a Tenancy Tribunal order, in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 where Judge Keller stated that; “the Gluckman Report represents the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination in dwellings.”

This decision of the District Court has confirmed that the level to be applied by this Tribunal is that expressed by Professor Gluckman which is that there is no risk when levels of contamination are below 15μg/100cm².

The landlord became aware, during the process of selling the property, that it may be contaminated with methamphetamine. He completed testing which revealed a positive result for methamphetamine contamination with a maximum recorded level of 12.30μg/100cm².

Given that the highest contamination level is below the level specified in the Gluckman Report, objectively, the property did not require decontamination.

Additionally, there was no methamphetamine testing completed at the beginning of the tenancy or at any stage throughout the tenancy. In these circumstances, even had the levels exceeded the Gluckman level, further evidence would have been required to hold this tenant liable for the costs of decontamination.

The claim for methamphetamine decontamination costs is dismissed.

As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5359761 — net $2,034.67 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 24 August 2025	$3,245.71		Rent arrears to 24 August 2025
Dishwasher replaced by tenant	$250.00		Dishwasher replaced by tenant
Cleaning	$250.00		Cleaning
Garage door remote	$172.50		Garage door remote
Lock/key replacement	$108.46		Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Bond paid to landlord in full		$1,720.00	Bond paid to landlord in full
Shower seal replacement		$50.00	Shower seal replacement
Repairs: Heat pump bracket		$50.00	Repairs: Heat pump bracket
Repairs: Hole in bedroom wall		$50.00	Repairs: Hole in bedroom wall
Repairs: toilet cistern replacement		$150.00	Repairs: toilet cistern replacement
Total award	$4,054.67	$2,020.00
Net award	$2,034.67
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,034.67

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Alana Jones must pay [The landlord/s] $2,034.67 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by telephone. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 24 August 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy, being $3,245.71.

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 under section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided photographs to confirm that the tenant had not removed all rubbish from the property and had not finished cleaning the property to the required standard. The landlord completed the cleaning himself which involved multiple trips to the dump and work over at least two days.
The tenant did not return the keys in a timely way and the landlord was obliged to install replacement locks. The landlord claim is for the cost of parts only, being $108.46.
The tenant did not return the garage remote control which had to be replaced at a cost of $172.50.
The landlord completed the cleaning and rubbish removal himself and also installed the new locks.
Minimal amounts have been claimed by the landlord for his own time to keep costs to the tenant reasonable.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage 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 under sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Hole in bedroom wall ($50.00) b. Broken heat pump bracket ($50.00) c. Toilet cistern incorrectly installed and missing parts ($150.00)
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
A claim for repairs to a hole in the garage was withdrawn during the hearing as the repairs were not completed prior to the sale of the property.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The landlord has credited the tenant for a replacement dishwasher (second hand) and shower seal which the tenant installed during the tenancy (as previously agreed between the parties).
The bond has been paid to the landlord in full and is also credited to the tenant.

Did the property require methamphetamine decontamination?

In 2010, the New Zealand Ministry of Health produced guidelines for the remediation of methamphetamine laboratories which determined that remediation was required if the environmental level of methamphetamine was over 0.5μg/100cm². This became the level at which premises were deemed to require decontamination.
In 2017 the level was increased when Standards New Zealand released Standard NZS 8510:2017 “Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine- contaminated properties”. This Standard confirmed that the level at which habitation of residential premises was considered safe was 1.5μg/100cm². At that time, this Standard set the definitive levels at which properties required decontamination.
In 2018, the then Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, reported that there was little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption. 1 This report concluded that any levels below 15μg/100cm² were unlikely to present adverse effects.
Taken together these factors indicate that methamphetamine levels that exceed the NZS 8510:2017 clean-up standard of 1.5μg/100cm² should not be regarded as signalling a health risk. Indeed, exposure to methamphetamine levels below 1 Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards, 29 May 2018 15μg/100cm² would be unlikely to give rise to any adverse effects. This level still incorporates a 30-fold safety buffer on a conservative estimate of risk.
The matter was considered by the District Court, in relation to a Tenancy Tribunal order, in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 where Judge Keller stated that; “the Gluckman Report represents the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination in dwellings.”
This decision of the District Court has confirmed that the level to be applied by this Tribunal is that expressed by Professor Gluckman which is that there is no risk when levels of contamination are below 15μg/100cm².
The landlord became aware, during the process of selling the property, that it may be contaminated with methamphetamine. He completed testing which revealed a positive result for methamphetamine contamination with a maximum recorded level of 12.30μg/100cm².
Given that the highest contamination level is below the level specified in the Gluckman Report, objectively, the property did not require decontamination.
Additionally, there was no methamphetamine testing completed at the beginning of the tenancy or at any stage throughout the tenancy. In these circumstances, even had the levels exceeded the Gluckman level, further evidence would have been required to hold this tenant liable for the costs of decontamination.
The claim for methamphetamine decontamination costs is dismissed.
As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5359761 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5359761 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the property require methamphetamine decontamination?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the property require methamphetamine decontamination?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions