What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5381701?

The tribunal order states: Rebecca Clarke must pay Cutlers Limited $7,132.08 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5381701?

Cleaning: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $1,322.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $310.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,885.08 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,380.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $506.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5381701?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5381701?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13114591-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5381701?

The tribunal order states: Rebecca Clarke must pay Cutlers Limited $7,132.08 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5381701?

Cleaning: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $1,322.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $310.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,885.08 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,380.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $506.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5381701?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5381701?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13114591-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

27 Clariton Avenue, Green Island, Dunedin 9018 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5381701 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5381701 — net $7,132.08 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 3/11/2025	$3,380.00	Rent arrears to 3/11/2025
Insurance excess for cleaning due to methamphetamine	$2,500.00	Insurance excess for cleaning due to methamphetamine
Lawns and Garden work	$1,322.50	Lawns and Garden work
Rubbish removal/skip hire	$506.00	Rubbish removal/skip hire
Lock/key replacement	$310.50	Lock/key replacement
Repairs & replacements	$1,885.08	Repairs & replacements
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,132.08
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,132.08

Order

Rebecca Clarke must pay Cutlers Limited $7,132.08 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
This order incorporates the rent arrears in Order dated 23/10/2025, application 5306188.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 (BN-00051398) to Cutlers Limited immediately as per the previous Order dated 21/1/2026.

Reasons

The landlord attended the rescheduled hearing.
On 19/11/2025 the landlord applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The initial hearing was held on 21/1/2026 and adjourned for further evidence.
The tenancy was for a fixed term from 22/1/2025 at $700.00 rent per week and ended on 2/11/2025 when the landlord obtained possession.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
This order includes the rent arrears ordered by the Tribunal on 23/10/2025 under application 5306188.

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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord sought compensation of $2,139.00 as follows: a. $1,322.50 section tidy, b. $506.00 skip hire for rubbish removal, c. $310.50 for lock change.
In support of the claim the landlord provided entry and exit reports, with photographs dated 21/1/2025 and 4/11/2025 respectively and invoices.
I am persuaded by the evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
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.
The landlord sought compensation of $4,385.08 as follows: a. $2,500.00 for cleaning due to methamphetamine contamination, b. $1,885.08 for repairs to a fence and walls, and replacement of a shower hose and toilet seat.
In support of the claim the landlord provided methamphetamine contamination and cleaning reports, invoices and information from the insurance company about the claim.
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.
I consider the evidence supports that damage was caused during the tenancy to the fence, walls, shower hose and toilet seat.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
In addition, I am satisfied that at least seven areas of the premises required decontamination cleaning due to high levels of methamphetamine contamination between 18.50ug/100m2 and 35.00ug/100m2
The New Zealand Standard 8510:2017 Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine-contained properties (“NZS8510”) recommended an acceptable level of methamphetamine contamination in an affected property of
5ug/100cm2 for high use areas. Beyond that level a property was regarded as needing decontamination. If a property needed decontamination, then for the purposes of the Residential Tenancies Act the property is damaged.
On 29 May 2018 the Prime Minister’s then Chief Science Advisor Professor Sir Peter Gluckman released a report “Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposure, risk levels and interpretation of standards” (“the Gluckman Report”). This concluded that, in the case of third hand contact, exposure to methamphetamine levels below 15ug/100cm2 is unlikely to have an adverse effect.
Since the Gluckman Report many decisions by the Tribunal have found that applicants were unable to prove that methamphetamine contamination below 15ug/100cm2 posed a health risk and amounted to damage.
This position is consistent with the comments of the Court of Appeal in Smith v Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited [2019] NZCA 38. At paragraph [16] in reference to the Gluckman Report the Court stated, “We acknowledge that the testing in this case yielded results now considered not to raise any health issues and safety concerns.”
Moreover, the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947, when considering an appeal of the Tribunal which adopted the Gluckman Report stated at paragraph [36] “the best state of knowledge of risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination available to the adjudicator was the Gluckman report. It would have been bold for the adjudicator to have ignored that report in favour of the New Zealand Standard given that the Gluckman report represents the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination in dwellings”.
The District Court in Acme Realty Ltd v Alexander James Hogg, Tuitui Grace Polotu, Leigh Sharyn Coughlin [2021] NZDC 3231 considered the specific question of whether the New Zealand Standard NZS8510 had any force of law given it was the current New Zealand Standard around methamphetamine levels in residential dwellings. His Honour Judge Harrison confirmed there was no force of law with the New Zealand Standard.
The Gluckman Report and several District Court decisions have confirmed that methamphetamine levels below 15ug/100cm2 are not injurious to health.
Although not required by the majority of the levels to do so the landlord has prudently claimed on insurance and had extensive cleaning undertaken.
As the costs of cleaning amounted to $12,167.00, excluding the costs of testing, I consider it reasonable that the tenant pays a contribution amounting to the insurance excess because of the levels over 15ug/100m2.
As Cutlers Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5381701 — net $7,132.08 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 3/11/2025	$3,380.00	Rent arrears to 3/11/2025
Insurance excess for cleaning due to methamphetamine	$2,500.00	Insurance excess for cleaning due to methamphetamine
Lawns and Garden work	$1,322.50	Lawns and Garden work
Rubbish removal/skip hire	$506.00	Rubbish removal/skip hire
Lock/key replacement	$310.50	Lock/key replacement
Repairs & replacements	$1,885.08	Repairs & replacements
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,132.08
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,132.08

Order

Rebecca Clarke must pay Cutlers Limited $7,132.08 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
This order incorporates the rent arrears in Order dated 23/10/2025, application 5306188.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 (BN-00051398) to Cutlers Limited immediately as per the previous Order dated 21/1/2026.

Reasons

The landlord attended the rescheduled hearing.
On 19/11/2025 the landlord applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The initial hearing was held on 21/1/2026 and adjourned for further evidence.
The tenancy was for a fixed term from 22/1/2025 at $700.00 rent per week and ended on 2/11/2025 when the landlord obtained possession.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
This order includes the rent arrears ordered by the Tribunal on 23/10/2025 under application 5306188.

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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord sought compensation of $2,139.00 as follows: a. $1,322.50 section tidy, b. $506.00 skip hire for rubbish removal, c. $310.50 for lock change.
In support of the claim the landlord provided entry and exit reports, with photographs dated 21/1/2025 and 4/11/2025 respectively and invoices.
I am persuaded by the evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
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.
The landlord sought compensation of $4,385.08 as follows: a. $2,500.00 for cleaning due to methamphetamine contamination, b. $1,885.08 for repairs to a fence and walls, and replacement of a shower hose and toilet seat.
In support of the claim the landlord provided methamphetamine contamination and cleaning reports, invoices and information from the insurance company about the claim.
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.
I consider the evidence supports that damage was caused during the tenancy to the fence, walls, shower hose and toilet seat.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
In addition, I am satisfied that at least seven areas of the premises required decontamination cleaning due to high levels of methamphetamine contamination between 18.50ug/100m2 and 35.00ug/100m2
The New Zealand Standard 8510:2017 Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine-contained properties (“NZS8510”) recommended an acceptable level of methamphetamine contamination in an affected property of
5ug/100cm2 for high use areas. Beyond that level a property was regarded as needing decontamination. If a property needed decontamination, then for the purposes of the Residential Tenancies Act the property is damaged.
On 29 May 2018 the Prime Minister’s then Chief Science Advisor Professor Sir Peter Gluckman released a report “Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposure, risk levels and interpretation of standards” (“the Gluckman Report”). This concluded that, in the case of third hand contact, exposure to methamphetamine levels below 15ug/100cm2 is unlikely to have an adverse effect.
Since the Gluckman Report many decisions by the Tribunal have found that applicants were unable to prove that methamphetamine contamination below 15ug/100cm2 posed a health risk and amounted to damage.
This position is consistent with the comments of the Court of Appeal in Smith v Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited [2019] NZCA 38. At paragraph [16] in reference to the Gluckman Report the Court stated, “We acknowledge that the testing in this case yielded results now considered not to raise any health issues and safety concerns.”
Moreover, the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947, when considering an appeal of the Tribunal which adopted the Gluckman Report stated at paragraph [36] “the best state of knowledge of risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination available to the adjudicator was the Gluckman report. It would have been bold for the adjudicator to have ignored that report in favour of the New Zealand Standard given that the Gluckman report represents the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination in dwellings”.
The District Court in Acme Realty Ltd v Alexander James Hogg, Tuitui Grace Polotu, Leigh Sharyn Coughlin [2021] NZDC 3231 considered the specific question of whether the New Zealand Standard NZS8510 had any force of law given it was the current New Zealand Standard around methamphetamine levels in residential dwellings. His Honour Judge Harrison confirmed there was no force of law with the New Zealand Standard.
The Gluckman Report and several District Court decisions have confirmed that methamphetamine levels below 15ug/100cm2 are not injurious to health.
Although not required by the majority of the levels to do so the landlord has prudently claimed on insurance and had extensive cleaning undertaken.
As the costs of cleaning amounted to $12,167.00, excluding the costs of testing, I consider it reasonable that the tenant pays a contribution amounting to the insurance excess because of the levels over 15ug/100m2.
As Cutlers Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5381701 — Property damage at 27 Clariton Avenue, Green Island, Dunedin 9018

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5381701 — Property damage at 27 Clariton Avenue, Green Island, Dunedin 9018

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions