Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5371922 — Property damage at 306A Karaka Road, Thames, Thames 3500
Decided 5 March 2026 · Published 5 March 2026 · Application 5371922
Landlord favoured
- Property damage
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Thames
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
J Maher
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $4,649.18
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $4,649.18
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lock/key replacement | $329.00 | Lock/key replacement | |
| Meth testing | $3,310.61 | Meth testing | |
| Window repairs | $283.87 | Window repairs | |
| Replacement of meth contaminated door | $697.70 | Replacement of meth contaminated door | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $4,649.18 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $4,649.18 |
Claims and awards for application 5371922 — net $4,649.18 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Lock/key replacement
- Amount
- $329.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Lock/key replacement
Meth testing
- Amount
- $3,310.61
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Meth testing
Window repairs
- Amount
- $283.87
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Window repairs
Replacement of meth contaminated door
- Amount
- $697.70
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Replacement of meth contaminated door
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Landlord $4,649.18
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $4,649.18
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Penelope Holland must pay Complete Property Management Limited As Agent For Simon Todd $4,649.18 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
Reasons
- Only the applicant landlord attended the hearing.
- The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following 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 return the keys.
- 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B 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.
- A ranch slider window was broken. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage, which the landlord submits is likely caused by kicking.
- The amount ordered is proved. Tenant’s liability for meth contamination?
- The balance of the landlord’s claim is in relation to a meth contamination discovered at the property shortly after the tenancy ended.
- The evidence establishes (pre tenancy meth testing) that the property was free of meth at the commencement of the tenancy.
- Routine composite meth testing at the end of the tenancy confirmed that meth contamination was likely. Detailed testing then confirmed that the entry door was contaminated to a level of 15.7μg/100cm2. Five other tests were above
- 5μg/100cm2 but less than 15μg/100cm2.
- The landlord claims for decontamination of all areas and the testing costs.
- As it is likely the meth contamination occurred during the tenancy. The cost of the testing is awarded in full.
- The issue then arises as to whether decontamination was required in all areas or whether it was only necessary to decontaminate the front door?
- The answer to that question will determine the compensation that can be awarded and depend on the level at which decontamination is required.
- In following the relevant Tribunal and District Court decisions I find that damage occurs, and decontamination is necessary only when levels of methamphetamine contamination are above 15μg/100cm2 which is the level adopted by the authors of what is colloquially known as the Gluckman report dated 29 May 2018.
- The report concluded that there is no evidence of risk of harm from second or third hand exposure to methamphetamine residue measured at or less than 15μg/100cm2unless there is evidence to suggest that the premises have been used for manufacture.
- The Court has therefore held that the previously used New Zealand Standard NZS 8510:20173 (NZS) which recommended decontamination at a level of
- 5μg/100cm2 was a guideline only and not regulatory. See Full Circle Real Estate v Piper and Acme Realty Ltd v Alexander James Hogg, Tuitui Grace Polotu, Leigh Sharyn Coughlin [2021] NZDC 3231) and Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947).
- The Court findings were made in the face of significant opposition from the landlords appealing the Tribunal’s decisions on the grounds that the NZ standards were referred to on the Tenancy Services website and that companies involved in decontaminating premises were recommending the lower level in the NZ Standards be adopted.
- It is relevant to also note that the 15μg/100cm2 level recommended by the Gluckman report has now been enacted into Regulations effective from April 2026. The Regulations confirm that a rental property will be deemed contaminated only if methamphetamine residue exceeds 15μg/100cm² and must be decontaminated to or below that level only.
- Decontamination is not therefore required for low level methamphetamine levels below the 15μg.
- The claim for the cost of replacement of the entry door is proven by the invoice provided and awarded.
- I however dismiss the landlord’s claim for decontamination of all other effected areas.
- Because Complete Property Management Limited As Agent For Simon Todd has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s15, s3500, s40(1), s40(2), s49B(1), s8510
Key findings
- Dispute theme: property damage
Property management
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5371922?
The tribunal order states: Penelope Holland must pay Complete Property Management Limited As Agent
How much money was awarded in case 5371922?
Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing: $3,310.61 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $329.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $283.87 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $697.70 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5371922?
The primary dispute was Property damage.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5371922?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13232604-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.