What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5379702?

The tribunal order states: Sharla Jane Henderson must pay Lyndsay Anne Searle $953.54 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5379702?

Cleaning: $161.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $148.75 awarded to landlord; Electricity: $355.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Internet: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $123.49 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Shower Curtain: $17.30 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5379702?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5379702?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13285921-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5379702?

The tribunal order states: Sharla Jane Henderson must pay Lyndsay Anne Searle $953.54 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5379702?

Cleaning: $161.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $148.75 awarded to landlord; Electricity: $355.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Internet: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $123.49 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Shower Curtain: $17.30 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5379702?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5379702?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13285921-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 74 Benn Road, Cambridge, RD 3, Cambridge Tenancy Tribunal Case 5379702 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5379702 — net $953.54 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$148.75	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$161.00	Carpet Cleaning
Replace furnishings: shower curtain	$17.30	Replace furnishings: shower curtain
Lock/key replacement	$123.49	Lock/key replacement
Internet	$120.00	Internet
Electricity	$355.00	Electricity
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$953.54
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$953.54

Order

Sharla Jane Henderson must pay Lyndsay Anne Searle $953.54 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Cleaning$148.75 Carpet Cleaning$161.00 Replace furnishings: shower curtain$17.30 Lock/key replacement$123.49 Internet$120.00 Electricity$355.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$953.54 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$953.54
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord appeared. There was no appearance by the tenant.
The tenancy commenced on 02 June 2025 for a fixed term ending 02 June 2026. On 22 September 2025, the landlord filed an application with the Tribunal seeking termination on the grounds of abandonment. On 20 October 2025, the Tribunal dismissed the abandonment claim.
The Tribunal determined that the tenant had nevertheless breached the terms of the agreement, and that the tenancy had ended on 28 September 2025. The Tribunal awarded the landlord rent arrears to 28 September 2025 and ordered release of the bond.
At the hearing, the landlord raised claims that were not included in the original application. The Tribunal declined to hear these claims, and on 03 November 2025 the landlord filed a fresh application.
These claims were initially scheduled for hearing before me on 09 February 2026. On that date the landlord believed that some evidence provided with their application was missing. As the evidence may be relevant to the claims, and I was satisfied that the landlord honestly believed the evidence in question had been provided, I adjourned the matter to give the landlord the opportunity to submit all evidence they intended to rely on.
The landlord’s claims are that the tenant is responsible for methamphetamine contamination during the tenancy and seeks compensation for testing and decontamination. The landlord also claims lost rent for the period the property was unable to be re tenanted due to contamination, from the date of termination and possession on 28 September 2025 to 20 October 2025, along with costs of advertising the property.
The landlord further claims outstanding electricity and internet charges, alleges that the tenant failed to return the keys, and failed to leave the property in a reasonably clean condition, including the carpet. They also claim that the shower curtain was damaged and required replacement.
The property is an open plan self-contained one bedroom unit with a small annex containing a laundry.
The landlord stated that on 03 October 2025; while packing the tenant’s possessions, they discovered items they believed associated with the use of illicit substances. A photograph of the items has been produced. On or about 08 October 2025, they obtained a methamphetamine testing kit and conducted testing of the property themselves. The landlord stated the samples were sent for analysis and returned a composite reading of 6 μg/100cm² (ug). The landlord sought advice and believed that they were legally required to return the property to levels of 1.5 ug or less, before it was re let. The landlord engaged a cleaner. On 22 October 2025, the landlord conducted post decontamination testing. A composite sample returned a reading of less than 0.02ug.
The landlord is claiming general cleaning and rubbish removal costs of $297.50. This includes general cleaning and decontamination cleaning, which involved wiping down the walls with a sugar soap solution. The landlord also claims the costs of the testing kits and analysis of $147.50. Invoices have been produced.
The landlord has produced some photographs of the property taken at the end of the tenancy.
No pre tenancy testing was completed. The sampling method used by the landlord is not described, the results have not been provided.
The landlord has produced a photograph of a large reddish stain to the carpet taken at the end of the tenancy. The landlord has provided a photograph taken and used for advertising purposes in May 2025 showing the area concerned, stating that no stain is evident. The landlord is claiming $161.00 to remove the stain. An invoice has been produced.
The landlord states that at the commencement of the tenancy the tenant was provided with a key to the main door and a second door. They stated that neither key was returned. An invoice for $123.49 to rekey the locks has been produced.
The tenancy agreement contained a term that the tenant pay $10.00 per week toward the internet connection. The landlord has provided a record showing that the tenant made the first payment only. The landlord is seeking internet charges to 01 September 2025 of $120.00.
The property has a check meter installed which records the electricity usage attributable to the tenant. The electricity account is in the landlord’s name. The landlord has provided a breakdown of the charges in a spreadsheet. The landlord claims electricity charges for the period 02 June 2025 to 20 October 2025. In addition, to the usage the landlord is claiming the daily connection fee of 53 cents from 02 June 2025 to 31 August 2025, which then increased to 55 cents from 01 September 2025.
The landlord produced a photograph of the shower curtain, which had been tidied in a knot while wet and shows signs of mould staining. The landlord stated that the mould could not be removed, and the curtain required replacement. The landlord has produced a photograph of the curtain taken at the start of the tenancy which they claim shows it in an undamaged state. The landlord purchased a replacement curtain and has produced a receipt for $58.98. Law
The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (Act)
The New Zealand Standard 8510:2017 “Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine-contaminated properties,” provides industry guidance on good practice methods in the testing and clean-up of methamphetamine contamination in houses. The standard was released on 29 June 2017 and adopts a single level of 1.5 μg/100cm² (“ug”). The standard recommends that, at or above this level, ‘high use areas’ of affected properties should be decontaminated.
However, on 29 May 2018, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the Prime Minister’s then Chief Science Advisor, determined that there was little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption below a certain level, (Report entitled ‘Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards’, 29 May 2018). The Gluckman Report concluded that, in the absence of evidence of manufacture, any levels below 15ug were highly unlikely to present adverse effects, and remediation would not be required.
The tribunal has adopted the threshold of 15ug. This level has been confirmed by the Court.
To be satisfied that contamination occurred during the tenancy, the Tribunal must be in a position to make an accurate pre tenancy and end of tenancy comparison. This will involve comparing the results of a pre tenancy test with that conducted at the end of the tenancy. Sites sampled pre tenancy should be the same, or in close proximity to, those at the end.
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) of the Act.
The Act does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, and not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. Determining whether the tenant has failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, and remove all rubbish, will involve an objective assessment.
Chattels, subject to fair wear and tear, should be returned in the same condition they were at the commencement of the tenancy. when awarding compensation for missing or damaged chattels, the Tribunal must also consider betterment and depreciation. 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 betterment and depreciation, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their estimated useful life.
Under section 39 of the Act, the tenant is responsible for outgoings that are exclusively attributable to their occupation of the premises, such as electricity, gas, telephone, and water charges (if separately metered). Analysis and decision
In reaching my decision I have considered all evidence placed before the Tribunal, even if I do not specifically refer to it.
There was no pre tenancy methamphetamine test completed. The Tribunal is unable to make a before and after comparison. The items located may or may not be associated with the use of illicit substances in the property. There is insufficient evidence to be satisfied the required standard that the tenant is responsible for methamphetamine contamination.
I am satisfied that the tenant failed to leave the property reasonably clean. The cleaning invoice also includes the methamphetamine decontamination, which I am not satisfied the tenant is liable. The invoice does not separate the decontamination cleaning from the general cleaning. I award the landlord half of the amount claimed, $148.75.
I am satisfied that the tenant failed to return the keys provided. The pre and end of tenancy photographs establish that the stain on the carpet occurred during the tenancy. The tenant agreed to pay $10.00 week for internet. I am satisfied that only the one payment was made, and that the landlord is entitled to the amount sought. The landlord’s spreadsheet established the tenant’s electricity usage from 02 June 2025 to the end of tenancy on 28 September 2025. In this case the line charge is attributable to the tenant. No charges are awarded beyond this date. The compensation claimed for stain removal, re keying the locks, internet, and electricity charges are awarded.
The curtain was damaged during the tenancy, likely by leaving it tied in a knot. Curtains in residential rental properties have an expected useful life span of approximately five years. The curtain was approximately four to five years at the commencement of the tenancy and in a reasonable condition. Considering betterment, I reduce the claim by two thirds and award the landlord $17.30. Other claims
Regarding the landlord’s claim for the rent from 28 September 2025 to 20 October 2025. I am unable to revisit the previous Tribunals decision to decline the landlord’s claim for abandonment and determine that tenancy ended on 28 September 2025 and awarded rent arrears to that date. That matter was decided based on the facts determined by the Tribunal.
Where there has been a breach of the tenancy agreement or provisions of the Act, the party committing the breach is liable for losses that naturally arise from the breach, that is, losses that are reasonably foreseeable.
The claims that were found proved and are relevant to the landlord’s claim for compensation for lost rent relate to the allegations that the tenant failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, failed to remove all rubbish, and caused a stain on the carpet.
However, these breaches do not support the award of damages for lost rent. Objectively assessed these breaches did not delay the landlord’s ability to re let the property. Accordingly, the claimed lost rent does not naturally flow from the breaches and are not reasonably foreseeable consequences of them.
The tenancy agreement was for a fixed term and contains a clause stating, “if your tenancy is shorter than 6 months you are liable to pay Trade Me advertisement”. The landlord claims that as the tenancy ended within 6 months that the tenant is liable for the $99.00 advertising cost. Advertising costs may be recoverable where the parties end the tenancy early and the costs are reasonable. In this case however, the Tribunal ended the tenancy by order rather than the tenant. Accordingly, the claim for advertising costs is declined. Costs
Because Lyndsay Anne Searle has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
Name suppression has not been sought.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5379702 — net $953.54 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$148.75	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$161.00	Carpet Cleaning
Replace furnishings: shower curtain	$17.30	Replace furnishings: shower curtain
Lock/key replacement	$123.49	Lock/key replacement
Internet	$120.00	Internet
Electricity	$355.00	Electricity
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$953.54
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$953.54

Order

Sharla Jane Henderson must pay Lyndsay Anne Searle $953.54 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Cleaning$148.75 Carpet Cleaning$161.00 Replace furnishings: shower curtain$17.30 Lock/key replacement$123.49 Internet$120.00 Electricity$355.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$953.54 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$953.54
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord appeared. There was no appearance by the tenant.
The tenancy commenced on 02 June 2025 for a fixed term ending 02 June 2026. On 22 September 2025, the landlord filed an application with the Tribunal seeking termination on the grounds of abandonment. On 20 October 2025, the Tribunal dismissed the abandonment claim.
The Tribunal determined that the tenant had nevertheless breached the terms of the agreement, and that the tenancy had ended on 28 September 2025. The Tribunal awarded the landlord rent arrears to 28 September 2025 and ordered release of the bond.
At the hearing, the landlord raised claims that were not included in the original application. The Tribunal declined to hear these claims, and on 03 November 2025 the landlord filed a fresh application.
These claims were initially scheduled for hearing before me on 09 February 2026. On that date the landlord believed that some evidence provided with their application was missing. As the evidence may be relevant to the claims, and I was satisfied that the landlord honestly believed the evidence in question had been provided, I adjourned the matter to give the landlord the opportunity to submit all evidence they intended to rely on.
The landlord’s claims are that the tenant is responsible for methamphetamine contamination during the tenancy and seeks compensation for testing and decontamination. The landlord also claims lost rent for the period the property was unable to be re tenanted due to contamination, from the date of termination and possession on 28 September 2025 to 20 October 2025, along with costs of advertising the property.
The landlord further claims outstanding electricity and internet charges, alleges that the tenant failed to return the keys, and failed to leave the property in a reasonably clean condition, including the carpet. They also claim that the shower curtain was damaged and required replacement.
The property is an open plan self-contained one bedroom unit with a small annex containing a laundry.
The landlord stated that on 03 October 2025; while packing the tenant’s possessions, they discovered items they believed associated with the use of illicit substances. A photograph of the items has been produced. On or about 08 October 2025, they obtained a methamphetamine testing kit and conducted testing of the property themselves. The landlord stated the samples were sent for analysis and returned a composite reading of 6 μg/100cm² (ug). The landlord sought advice and believed that they were legally required to return the property to levels of 1.5 ug or less, before it was re let. The landlord engaged a cleaner. On 22 October 2025, the landlord conducted post decontamination testing. A composite sample returned a reading of less than 0.02ug.
The landlord is claiming general cleaning and rubbish removal costs of $297.50. This includes general cleaning and decontamination cleaning, which involved wiping down the walls with a sugar soap solution. The landlord also claims the costs of the testing kits and analysis of $147.50. Invoices have been produced.
The landlord has produced some photographs of the property taken at the end of the tenancy.
No pre tenancy testing was completed. The sampling method used by the landlord is not described, the results have not been provided.
The landlord has produced a photograph of a large reddish stain to the carpet taken at the end of the tenancy. The landlord has provided a photograph taken and used for advertising purposes in May 2025 showing the area concerned, stating that no stain is evident. The landlord is claiming $161.00 to remove the stain. An invoice has been produced.
The landlord states that at the commencement of the tenancy the tenant was provided with a key to the main door and a second door. They stated that neither key was returned. An invoice for $123.49 to rekey the locks has been produced.
The tenancy agreement contained a term that the tenant pay $10.00 per week toward the internet connection. The landlord has provided a record showing that the tenant made the first payment only. The landlord is seeking internet charges to 01 September 2025 of $120.00.
The property has a check meter installed which records the electricity usage attributable to the tenant. The electricity account is in the landlord’s name. The landlord has provided a breakdown of the charges in a spreadsheet. The landlord claims electricity charges for the period 02 June 2025 to 20 October 2025. In addition, to the usage the landlord is claiming the daily connection fee of 53 cents from 02 June 2025 to 31 August 2025, which then increased to 55 cents from 01 September 2025.
The landlord produced a photograph of the shower curtain, which had been tidied in a knot while wet and shows signs of mould staining. The landlord stated that the mould could not be removed, and the curtain required replacement. The landlord has produced a photograph of the curtain taken at the start of the tenancy which they claim shows it in an undamaged state. The landlord purchased a replacement curtain and has produced a receipt for $58.98. Law
The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (Act)
The New Zealand Standard 8510:2017 “Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine-contaminated properties,” provides industry guidance on good practice methods in the testing and clean-up of methamphetamine contamination in houses. The standard was released on 29 June 2017 and adopts a single level of 1.5 μg/100cm² (“ug”). The standard recommends that, at or above this level, ‘high use areas’ of affected properties should be decontaminated.
However, on 29 May 2018, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the Prime Minister’s then Chief Science Advisor, determined that there was little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption below a certain level, (Report entitled ‘Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards’, 29 May 2018). The Gluckman Report concluded that, in the absence of evidence of manufacture, any levels below 15ug were highly unlikely to present adverse effects, and remediation would not be required.
The tribunal has adopted the threshold of 15ug. This level has been confirmed by the Court.
To be satisfied that contamination occurred during the tenancy, the Tribunal must be in a position to make an accurate pre tenancy and end of tenancy comparison. This will involve comparing the results of a pre tenancy test with that conducted at the end of the tenancy. Sites sampled pre tenancy should be the same, or in close proximity to, those at the end.
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) of the Act.
The Act does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, and not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. Determining whether the tenant has failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, and remove all rubbish, will involve an objective assessment.
Chattels, subject to fair wear and tear, should be returned in the same condition they were at the commencement of the tenancy. when awarding compensation for missing or damaged chattels, the Tribunal must also consider betterment and depreciation. 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 betterment and depreciation, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their estimated useful life.
Under section 39 of the Act, the tenant is responsible for outgoings that are exclusively attributable to their occupation of the premises, such as electricity, gas, telephone, and water charges (if separately metered). Analysis and decision
In reaching my decision I have considered all evidence placed before the Tribunal, even if I do not specifically refer to it.
There was no pre tenancy methamphetamine test completed. The Tribunal is unable to make a before and after comparison. The items located may or may not be associated with the use of illicit substances in the property. There is insufficient evidence to be satisfied the required standard that the tenant is responsible for methamphetamine contamination.
I am satisfied that the tenant failed to leave the property reasonably clean. The cleaning invoice also includes the methamphetamine decontamination, which I am not satisfied the tenant is liable. The invoice does not separate the decontamination cleaning from the general cleaning. I award the landlord half of the amount claimed, $148.75.
I am satisfied that the tenant failed to return the keys provided. The pre and end of tenancy photographs establish that the stain on the carpet occurred during the tenancy. The tenant agreed to pay $10.00 week for internet. I am satisfied that only the one payment was made, and that the landlord is entitled to the amount sought. The landlord’s spreadsheet established the tenant’s electricity usage from 02 June 2025 to the end of tenancy on 28 September 2025. In this case the line charge is attributable to the tenant. No charges are awarded beyond this date. The compensation claimed for stain removal, re keying the locks, internet, and electricity charges are awarded.
The curtain was damaged during the tenancy, likely by leaving it tied in a knot. Curtains in residential rental properties have an expected useful life span of approximately five years. The curtain was approximately four to five years at the commencement of the tenancy and in a reasonable condition. Considering betterment, I reduce the claim by two thirds and award the landlord $17.30. Other claims
Regarding the landlord’s claim for the rent from 28 September 2025 to 20 October 2025. I am unable to revisit the previous Tribunals decision to decline the landlord’s claim for abandonment and determine that tenancy ended on 28 September 2025 and awarded rent arrears to that date. That matter was decided based on the facts determined by the Tribunal.
Where there has been a breach of the tenancy agreement or provisions of the Act, the party committing the breach is liable for losses that naturally arise from the breach, that is, losses that are reasonably foreseeable.
The claims that were found proved and are relevant to the landlord’s claim for compensation for lost rent relate to the allegations that the tenant failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, failed to remove all rubbish, and caused a stain on the carpet.
However, these breaches do not support the award of damages for lost rent. Objectively assessed these breaches did not delay the landlord’s ability to re let the property. Accordingly, the claimed lost rent does not naturally flow from the breaches and are not reasonably foreseeable consequences of them.
The tenancy agreement was for a fixed term and contains a clause stating, “if your tenancy is shorter than 6 months you are liable to pay Trade Me advertisement”. The landlord claims that as the tenancy ended within 6 months that the tenant is liable for the $99.00 advertising cost. Advertising costs may be recoverable where the parties end the tenancy early and the costs are reasonable. In this case however, the Tribunal ended the tenancy by order rather than the tenant. Accordingly, the claim for advertising costs is declined. Costs
Because Lyndsay Anne Searle has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
Name suppression has not been sought.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5379702 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 1, 74 Benn Road, Cambridge, RD 3, Cambridge

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5379702 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 1, 74 Benn Road, Cambridge, RD 3, Cambridge

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions