What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5388971 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Pride Property Management Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 5388971?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Inside Painting: $6,204.25 awarded to landlord; Power Connection: $152.76 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $423.47 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $198.95 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $3,783.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5388971?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5388971?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13103931-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5388971 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Pride Property Management Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 5388971?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Inside Painting: $6,204.25 awarded to landlord; Power Connection: $152.76 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $423.47 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $198.95 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $3,783.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5388971?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5388971?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13103931-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

53 Grace Street, Appleby, Invercargill 9812 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5388971 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5388971 — net $14,040.93 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal: Outside clean up, curtian removal and Shelving removal	$3,783.50	Rubbish removal: Outside clean up, curtian removal and Shelving removal
Inside painting	$6,204.25	Inside painting
Power connection	$152.76	Power connection
Electrical fittings replacement/repair	$423.47	Electrical fittings replacement/repair
Lock/key replacement	$198.95	Lock/key replacement
Insurance excess for Hotwater cylinder	$750.00	Insurance excess for Hotwater cylinder
Insurance excess for decontamination	$2,500.00	Insurance excess for decontamination
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$14,040.93
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$14,040.93

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Pride Property Management Limited As Agent For Gek Choo Lim $14,040.93 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The tenant failed to make herself available for todays hearing.
By way of background, this tenancy first came to an end when the tenant failed to pay rent and the tenancy Tribunal ordered the termination of the tenancy for the arrears. However, the landlord allowed the tenant to remain in the property giving her another chance thus a further fixed term tenancy was entered into on 9 April 2025 and was to end on 14 April 2026.
However, the property managers became concerned that rent was again not being met and when property inspections took place, the tenant was not available but other people appeared to be in occupation, although one present at the property indicated that they knew the tenant.
The tenant was given notice to terminate the tenancy, and the property managers found the property to have been abandoned as most of the belongings were missing.
Given the knowledge of one particular person seen at the property, and concerns raised by neighbours of illegal activity occurring at night, the property was tested for Methamphetamine. The application before me is to consider the costs associated with the clean-up of the property.
The previous order of the Tribunal deal with the return of the bond and that order has been filed for enforcement therefore I am not required to incorporate it into this order.

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 tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The photo evidence submitted confirms this. The outside of the property was also left in a very poor condition and significant clean up was required.
The tenant did not return the keys. The locks needed to be replaced, as evidenced in the fact that there were other people present in the property and there was a suspicion of subletting. There is however no application before me for exemplary damages for subletting.
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.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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:
The hot water cylinder had been removed from the property. Whilst the insurance paid out for the cost of the replacement cylinder the excess of $750.00 was a cost the landlord should not be out of pocket for.
There was a significant amount of damage to the interior walls of the property. The tenant or associates appeared to have attempted to repaint walls without the landlord’s permission. They were not completed to a tradesmen like standard. Further there were a significant number of large nails protruding out of the walls. The damage would have resulted in the insurance excess being paid on each occasion; therefore, it was a lesser cost to the tenant to have the amount sought for the repairs rather than the number of different excesses that would have been payable.
This is damage that occurred over and above the decontamination costs.
As stated, the property was tested for methamphetamine. However, there was no base line test at the commencement of the tenancy. The evidence to support that such methamphetamine use occurred during the tenancy is the very high level that came back on the testing of the oven and kitchen area. The oven was newly installed during the tenancy. Further the shelves that the tenant had screwed to the walls during tenancy were also tested and came back positive.
I am therefore satisfied that the methamphetamine contamination occurred during this tenancy.
In relation to the testing and decontamination costs the report showed significantly high readings of over 15 ug/100cm in the laundry, (20.4), Hallway (71.3), hallway (20.9), bedroom 1,(60.7) and kitchen (176). All other 16 tests samples showed readings of between .02 -13.9, with only 5 of the samples not recommending remediation.
The report from CPINZ, Contaminated Property Investigations NZ Limited who carried out the testing concluded: “The levels of meth identified in the property are consistent with High Levels of Meth related activity. The presence of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine in a number of the samples along with the level of meth contamination are reason to suspect attempts at manufacture have been made. The NZ Standard and the Gluckman Meth Report note that where manufacture has occurred or is suspected to have occurred decontamination below 1.5 ug/100cm2 should occur in all areas where meth is present.”
I accept that the decontamination clean-up costs as sought are appropriate in this case. The costs were not itemised to each area, however given the evidence it is appropriate to award the full amount of the costs accordingly.
There was further damage to the range that, as I stated, had been installed during the tenancy and the electrical work required to fix the damage should also be ordered against the tenant.
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. 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 Pride Property Management Limited As Agent For Gek Choo Lim has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5388971 — net $14,040.93 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal: Outside clean up, curtian removal and Shelving removal	$3,783.50	Rubbish removal: Outside clean up, curtian removal and Shelving removal
Inside painting	$6,204.25	Inside painting
Power connection	$152.76	Power connection
Electrical fittings replacement/repair	$423.47	Electrical fittings replacement/repair
Lock/key replacement	$198.95	Lock/key replacement
Insurance excess for Hotwater cylinder	$750.00	Insurance excess for Hotwater cylinder
Insurance excess for decontamination	$2,500.00	Insurance excess for decontamination
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$14,040.93
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$14,040.93

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Pride Property Management Limited As Agent For Gek Choo Lim $14,040.93 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The tenant failed to make herself available for todays hearing.
By way of background, this tenancy first came to an end when the tenant failed to pay rent and the tenancy Tribunal ordered the termination of the tenancy for the arrears. However, the landlord allowed the tenant to remain in the property giving her another chance thus a further fixed term tenancy was entered into on 9 April 2025 and was to end on 14 April 2026.
However, the property managers became concerned that rent was again not being met and when property inspections took place, the tenant was not available but other people appeared to be in occupation, although one present at the property indicated that they knew the tenant.
The tenant was given notice to terminate the tenancy, and the property managers found the property to have been abandoned as most of the belongings were missing.
Given the knowledge of one particular person seen at the property, and concerns raised by neighbours of illegal activity occurring at night, the property was tested for Methamphetamine. The application before me is to consider the costs associated with the clean-up of the property.
The previous order of the Tribunal deal with the return of the bond and that order has been filed for enforcement therefore I am not required to incorporate it into this order.

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 tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The photo evidence submitted confirms this. The outside of the property was also left in a very poor condition and significant clean up was required.
The tenant did not return the keys. The locks needed to be replaced, as evidenced in the fact that there were other people present in the property and there was a suspicion of subletting. There is however no application before me for exemplary damages for subletting.
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.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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:
The hot water cylinder had been removed from the property. Whilst the insurance paid out for the cost of the replacement cylinder the excess of $750.00 was a cost the landlord should not be out of pocket for.
There was a significant amount of damage to the interior walls of the property. The tenant or associates appeared to have attempted to repaint walls without the landlord’s permission. They were not completed to a tradesmen like standard. Further there were a significant number of large nails protruding out of the walls. The damage would have resulted in the insurance excess being paid on each occasion; therefore, it was a lesser cost to the tenant to have the amount sought for the repairs rather than the number of different excesses that would have been payable.
This is damage that occurred over and above the decontamination costs.
As stated, the property was tested for methamphetamine. However, there was no base line test at the commencement of the tenancy. The evidence to support that such methamphetamine use occurred during the tenancy is the very high level that came back on the testing of the oven and kitchen area. The oven was newly installed during the tenancy. Further the shelves that the tenant had screwed to the walls during tenancy were also tested and came back positive.
I am therefore satisfied that the methamphetamine contamination occurred during this tenancy.
In relation to the testing and decontamination costs the report showed significantly high readings of over 15 ug/100cm in the laundry, (20.4), Hallway (71.3), hallway (20.9), bedroom 1,(60.7) and kitchen (176). All other 16 tests samples showed readings of between .02 -13.9, with only 5 of the samples not recommending remediation.
The report from CPINZ, Contaminated Property Investigations NZ Limited who carried out the testing concluded: “The levels of meth identified in the property are consistent with High Levels of Meth related activity. The presence of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine in a number of the samples along with the level of meth contamination are reason to suspect attempts at manufacture have been made. The NZ Standard and the Gluckman Meth Report note that where manufacture has occurred or is suspected to have occurred decontamination below 1.5 ug/100cm2 should occur in all areas where meth is present.”
I accept that the decontamination clean-up costs as sought are appropriate in this case. The costs were not itemised to each area, however given the evidence it is appropriate to award the full amount of the costs accordingly.
There was further damage to the range that, as I stated, had been installed during the tenancy and the electrical work required to fix the damage should also be ordered against the tenant.
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. 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 Pride Property Management Limited As Agent For Gek Choo Lim has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5388971 — Property damage at 53 Grace Street, Appleby, Invercargill 9812

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5388971 — Property damage at 53 Grace Street, Appleby, Invercargill 9812

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

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