How much money was awarded in case 5384381?

Cleaning: $2,734.06 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Front Door Light Fitting: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Methamphetamine Testing: $588.80 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $713.82 awarded to landlord; Bathroom Tiles: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Replace 6 Blinds: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Bedroom Carpet: $1,312.15 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $190.80 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5384381?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5384381?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13213928-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5384381?

Cleaning: $2,734.06 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Front Door Light Fitting: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Methamphetamine Testing: $588.80 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $713.82 awarded to landlord; Bathroom Tiles: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Replace 6 Blinds: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Bedroom Carpet: $1,312.15 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $190.80 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5384381?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5384381?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13213928-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 4, 36 Griffiths Street, Putaruru, Putaruru 3411 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5384381 — Cleanliness

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5384381 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5384381 — net $4,827.63 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Window repairs	$713.82	Window repairs
Replace 6 blinds	$500.00	Replace 6 blinds
Carpet Cleaning: painting house interior	$2,734.06	Carpet Cleaning: painting house interior
Methamphetamine testing	$588.80	Methamphetamine testing
Front door light fitting	$60.00	Front door light fitting
Replace furnishings: bedroom carpet	$1,312.15	Replace furnishings: bedroom carpet
Repairs: bathroom tiles	$300.00	Repairs: bathroom tiles
Rubbish removal: ¼ share of total cost	$190.80	Rubbish removal: ¼ share of total cost
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,827.63
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,827.63

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.

Samuel Mason must pay [The landlord/s] $4,827.63 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

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

The tenancy began on 12 August 2022 and the management of the tenancy by the applicant ended on 17June 2025. Methamphetamine claim

A new property management company took over management of the premises on 16 June 2025 and at the end of the tenancy with them, on 20 August 2025, conducted a methamphetamine test discovering evidence of methamphetamine at the premises. The applicants, with approval of the owner and new tenancy management, undertook further testing and decontamination believing that it was their responsibility to purse this claim as they conducted the pre tenancy test and the use probably occurred during their management.

“NZS8510:2017 - Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine- contaminated properties” was released in July 2017 and set one level, 1.5 μg/100cm² as the maximum amount of methamphetamine present before decontamination was required. This did not distinguish between the sources of the residues, whether use or manufacturing occurred.

In May 2018, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the then-Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Scientific Advisor released his report Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards. The report concluded that NZS8510:2017 was unnecessarily cautious.

The Gluckman report recommended a maximum level of 15 μg/100cm² and suggested that, without evidence that manufacturing had occurred, people should not be concerned with conducting methamphetamine testing in their properties at all.

Judge Kellar in considering an appeal from the tenancy Tribunal, Full Circle Realty Limited v Danielle Piper [2019]NZDC,4947, civ-2018-009-2490,DC Chch, at para [36] held that, in considering what evidence an adjudicator can rely on when deciding contamination claims,”...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.’

This decision confirms that the level to be applied is that stated by the Gluckman report. Where contamination levels are below 15 μg/100cm² premises do not present a risk and are not considered to require remediation, therefore no damage to the premises has been established.

Although the test results were under 15 μg/100cm² and therefore did not warrant decontamination, a claim for testing costs was made. The Gluckman threshold is relevant for determining habitability and remediation, but not necessarily for awarding testing costs where use is proven.

A pre tenancy methamphetamine test was conducted on 7 July 2022 reporting that a composite swab recorded <0.04 μg/100cm² of methamphetamine or precursors. The composite methamphetamine test conducted on 20 August 2025 found a theoretical maximum of 29.9 μg/100cm².

The landlord was required the landlord to conduct discrete/individual area testing on 9 September 2025, which recorded levels between 1.5 and 15 μg/100cm² .

The landlord decontaminated the premises using their own agent and retested to ensure the premises were under 1.5 μg/100cm² .

I find that, although not at a level that required decontamination, there was sufficient evidence that methamphetamine was used during the tenancy. This is an unlawful act.

A landlord usually conducts a methamphetamine test at the end of a tenancy they are responsible for the cost of this. The additional cost of discrete testing and post decontamination testing I find are extra costs borne by the landlord and they are entitled to claim them.

Compensation for the tests conducted on 9 September and 6 October 2025 and awarded. Rubbish

Prior to the end of the tenancy the tenant was charged a quarter share for removal of rubbish found in a carport. There were 4 separate tenancies in the units and the cost was divided equally between them. Some payment had been made but the balance was outstanding. Photographs were supplied

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.

Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.

Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) 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.

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: •2 windows were broken in a sliding door •The whole interior of the house was repainted by the tenant to a poor standard •Blind and coverings over 6 windows were removed •Front door light fitting was broken •Bathroom floor tiles were cracked in 3 places •The carpet had been removed from the landing and 2 bedrooms

The landlord provided pre and post photographs establishing the damages.

The tenant had without the consent of the owner or landlord repainted most of the interior of the premises, failing to cut in properly, stopping halfway up walls, leaving streaks and patch areas on doors, adding grey feature walls and spilling paint on handles. The landlord said that the walls had been painted just prior to the tenancy starting so minimal depreciation had been applied.

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

The amounts ordered are proved.

I have taken into account betterment and depreciation for the new blinds, light fitting and floor tiles. The carpet claim had already been reduced by the landlord due to the age of the carpet.

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 depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and granted name suppression as requested.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5384381 — net $4,827.63 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Window repairs	$713.82	Window repairs
Replace 6 blinds	$500.00	Replace 6 blinds
Carpet Cleaning: painting house interior	$2,734.06	Carpet Cleaning: painting house interior
Methamphetamine testing	$588.80	Methamphetamine testing
Front door light fitting	$60.00	Front door light fitting
Replace furnishings: bedroom carpet	$1,312.15	Replace furnishings: bedroom carpet
Repairs: bathroom tiles	$300.00	Repairs: bathroom tiles
Rubbish removal: ¼ share of total cost	$190.80	Rubbish removal: ¼ share of total cost
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,827.63
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,827.63

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.

Samuel Mason must pay [The landlord/s] $4,827.63 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

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

The tenancy began on 12 August 2022 and the management of the tenancy by the applicant ended on 17June 2025. Methamphetamine claim

The landlord was required the landlord to conduct discrete/individual area testing on 9 September 2025, which recorded levels between 1.5 and 15 μg/100cm² .

The landlord decontaminated the premises using their own agent and retested to ensure the premises were under 1.5 μg/100cm² .

I find that, although not at a level that required decontamination, there was sufficient evidence that methamphetamine was used during the tenancy. This is an unlawful act.

Compensation for the tests conducted on 9 September and 6 October 2025 and awarded. Rubbish

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord provided pre and post photographs establishing the damages.

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

The amounts ordered are proved.

I have taken into account betterment and depreciation for the new blinds, light fitting and floor tiles. The carpet claim had already been reduced by the landlord due to the age of the carpet.

Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and granted name suppression as requested.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5384381 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat Flat 4, 36 Griffiths Street, Putaruru, Putaruru 3411

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5384381 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat Flat 4, 36 Griffiths Street, Putaruru, Putaruru 3411

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions