Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5387201 — Property damage
Decided 3 Jun 2026 · Published 3 Jun 2026 · Application 5387201
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s and the tenants’ name and identifying details.
- [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $917.73 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $917.73 [The tenant/s]: $882.27
- The landlord’s other claims are dismissed.
- The tenants’ claims for methamphetamine contamination is dismissed.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing. [Ms D] represented the landlord.
- The tenants applied for payment of the bond. They also expressed concerns regarding their belief that the premises had been contaminated by methamphetamine before their tenancy commenced on 5 November 2021.
- The landlord cross applied for compensation and payment of the bond following the end of the tenancy on 4 August 2025.
Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?
- I am satisfied that the tenants did not leave the carpets in the living room at the premises reasonably clean as required by section 40(1)(e) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). In particular, the carpets (which were new at the tenancy commencement) had several stains.
- The amount ordered has been established by the production of an invoice.
Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?
- To be successful in a claim for damage to the premises, the landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they or others at the premises with their permission did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage: sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
- 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 (here $400), or four weeks' rent: section 49B(3)(a) of the Act.
- The landlord claims the following damage occurred during the tenancy: • All curtains were damaged by rips, stains, pulls and cat fur • Shower curtain was missing • Carpet in living room was damaged by burn marks • Window in living room door broken
- I am satisfied that the landlord has established that the damage occurred during the tenancy, is beyond reasonable fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for it.
- The tenants accept that they broke the living room door window while they were moving out, but say that the door was eventually replaced by other doors and therefore did not require repair. However, I accept that the window was repaired before the doors were replaced, possibly to ensure the property was secure. I therefore find the tenants liable for the cost claimed to repair it.
- The cost claimed to replace the curtains has been reduced to account for depreciation and betterment. 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 curtains at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. The living room/dining room curtains were approximately 4 years old at the end of the tenancy and curtains are expected to last approximately 8 years before requiring replacement. I have therefore reduced the amount claimed for these curtains ($340.00) by 50%. The curtains in the sunroom and a bedroom were new in 2019 and therefore approximately 6 years old. The amount claimed for these curtains ($504.00) is therefore reduced by 75%. The age of the other curtains claimed in two of the bedrooms was unknown. The pre tenancy inspection report does not record any damage other than some pulls on the curtains in bedroom 2. In the circumstances I consider compensation of $77.00 (25% of the amount claimed) is reasonable to compensate the landlord for these curtains.
- The claim to replace the shower curtain is dismissed because it is likely well outside its useful life. The curtain was over 4 years old and the pre tenancy report records some mould on it at the tenancy commencement. Shower curtains are only expected to last approximately one year before requiring replacement.
- The claim to replace the living room carpet is dismissed because the landlord has not established that they have suffered any loss as a result of the damage to the carpet. The carpet was not replaced, and the property has since been sold. There is no evidence to support that the property was sold for a lesser sum because of the carpet damage. Methamphetamine contamination
- A methamphetamine test of the premises was completed in October 2021 and the testing of 10 samples showed a composite result of 2.00μg/100cm². The premises were cleaned and another test on 2 November 2021 (shortly before the tenancy commenced) confirms that no detectable methamphetamine was found (the result was less than 0.05μg/100cm² (the minimum detection level is
- 04μg/100cm²).
- Moreover, the 0.05μg/100cm² level is well below the recommended ‘safe’ level of 15 μg/100cm² as determined by Professor Sir Peter Gluckman in his report, Methamphetamine Contamination in Residential Properties: Exposures, Risk Levels, and Interpretation of Standards”. It is also well below the maximum acceptable level of 15 μg/100cm² set out in Residential Tenancies (Managing Methamphetamine Contamination) Regulations 2026.
- Thus, it is clear that the premises were not contaminated by methamphetamine at the tenancy commencement. The is claim is therefore dismissed. Tribunal application fee and suppression.
- Both parties have been partially successful, and I therefore make no award regarding payment of the Tribunal application fee paid by each. In other words each party should bear the loss of the fee paid by them.
- Both parties applied, in their respective applications, for a suppression order.
- Section 95A(1) of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply). Section 95A(4) of the Act provides that the Tribunal may, having regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest, order that the name and identifying details of that party be suppressed.
- Both parties have had partial success in their respective applications and the limited exceptions set out in s 95A do not apply. I therefore consider it appropriate to suppress both parties’ names and identifying details.