What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5392904 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5392904?

Labour And GST: $1,054.50 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,100.00 awarded to landlord; Floor Fixing: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Wall: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Stairwall Patching: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Upstairs Wall: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $219.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $86.91 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5392904?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5392904?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13054742-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5392904 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5392904?

Labour And GST: $1,054.50 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,100.00 awarded to landlord; Floor Fixing: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Wall: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Stairwall Patching: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Upstairs Wall: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $219.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $86.91 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5392904?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5392904?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13054742-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5392904 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5392904 — net $5,060.41 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears by consent	$4,100.00	2. The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water rates arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of t…
Repairs: Kitchen wall	$300.00	Repairs: Kitchen wall
Repairs: Upstairs wall	$1,200.00	Repairs: Upstairs wall
Repairs: Stairwall patching	$400.00	Repairs: Stairwall patching
Repairs: Floor fixing	$200.00	Repairs: Floor fixing
Replace furnishings: Front door rug replacement	$150.00	Replace furnishings: Front door rug replacement
Rubbish removal	$180.00	Rubbish removal
Labour and GST	$1,054.50	Labour and GST
Lawns and Garden work	$450.00	Lawns and Garden work
Rubbish removal	$219.00	Rubbish removal
Water rates: By consent	$86.91	Water rates: By consent
Net award	$5,060.41
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,060.41

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlords name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $5,060.41 immediately, being rent arrears to 12 December 2025.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,280.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water rates arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
At the hearing the parties agreed to the Tenant paying the Landlord rent arrears of $4100.00 and water rates arrears of $86.91.
The parties have both filed evidence which has been considered but for brevity, only those documents that were relevant to the decisions made will be referred to.

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 Landlord claimed $759.00 for cleaning costs following decontamination of the property. This included deep cleaning of the carpets due to alleged stains in several rooms, particularly bedroom 1, which the Landlord attributed to cat urine. The Landlord also submitted that animal hair was found in the kitchen. Photographs of carpet staining were provided; however, no entry condition report or photographs were supplied to establish that the stains were not present at the commencement of the tenancy. Further, the cleaning invoice did not itemise the cost of carpet cleaning.
The Tenant disputed the claim and submitted that the cat was permitted under the Tenancy Agreement. The Tenant further stated that the odour in bedroom 1 resulted from rainwater leaking through the ranch slider and soaking the carpet, which had been reported to the Landlord during the tenancy.
In considering the evidence, I am not satisfied that the Landlord has established the claim. The Landlord did not provide entry condition evidence to demonstrate that the carpet staining absent at the start of the tenancy, nor was there an invoice confirming the presence of urine stains or itemising the cost of carpet cleaning. In addition, no photographic or other evidence was provided to justify why the entire property required cleaning following decontamination.
For these reasons, the claim is dismissed. Garden tidy-up
The Landlord claimed $450.00 for a garden tidy-up. The Landlord submitted that during a mid-tenancy inspection the gardens were significantly overgrown, with the grass described as knee-high and the garden edges unmaintained. The property manager advised the Tenant during the tenancy that the gardens required attention. An email from the Tenant dated 8 December 2025 confirms her agreement to a gardener attending to carry out the work at a reasonable cost. The Landlord further submitted that the gardener advised the grass was yellow due to it not being regularly trimmed. An invoice and exit inspection photographs were provided in support of the claim.
The Landlord also claimed $219.00 for the removal of approximately two square metres of rubbish, including items left behind at the property and rubbish bags stored in the garage.
The Tenant submitted that she was not provided with the gardening invoice until the Landlord filed the application. She stated that the only waste she recalled leaving behind was grass clippings. While she agreed to contributing towards lawn maintenance, she submitted that the gardens were in a tidier condition at the end of the tenancy than at the commencement. She further acknowledged that although she mowed the lawns, she could not afford to do so on a weekly basis due to the cost.
Having considered the evidence, including the exit inspection photographs and invoices, I am satisfied that the gardening work was required and that rubbish removal was necessary. I also note the Tenant’s acknowledgment that she was unable to maintain the lawns on a regular basis during the tenancy.
The amounts ordered are proved. Methamphetamine contamination
The Landlord applied for compensation of $7,233.50 for the costs of methamphetamine testing and remediation. The Landlord undertook standard pre-tenancy methamphetamine testing on 16 August 2024, which showed no detectable contamination. On 29 November 2025, prior to the end of the tenancy, the Landlord arranged composite methamphetamine testing. That testing returned a positive result, with a reading of 5.99 micrograms, and the property was deemed unsuitable for occupation, requiring further investigation and testing.
In accordance with New Zealand Standard NZS 8510:2017, individual room testing was carried out on 7 December 2025. The results showed varying levels of methamphetamine contamination in every room, ranging from 0.10 micrograms to 14.2 micrograms, with the highest reading recorded in bedroom 2. The Landlord submitted that contamination of property is deemed unsuitable for living when readings are above 1.5 micrograms.
As a result of the test findings, the Landlord arranged for professional decontamination of the property. Post-remediation testing was subsequently undertaken, which confirmed that the property met the standard for occupation as of 14 December 2025. Copies of all testing reports were provided in evidence.
The Tenant denied any use of methamphetamine on the premises and stated that she was not aware of anyone using the substance at the property. She submitted that she resided there with her two children and, previously, her ex- partner. The Tenant acknowledged that a friend of her ex-partner had a history of drug use, but she had never observed anyone using methamphetamine at the property. The Tenant further submitted that decontamination should not be required unless readings exceed 15 micrograms.
The landlord must prove that the tenant caused or permitted the contamination, or that it was caused by someone at the premises with the tenant’s consent. The landlord must also prove that, as a result of the contamination, the premises have been damaged or are not reasonably clean.
Section 138C Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides for regulations to be made prescribing the maximum acceptable level for contaminants, but as yet no regulations have been made in relation to methamphetamine.
There are currently two sources of guidance on the issue of a safe level of methamphetamine contamination in residential premises. In June 2017 Standards New Zealand published NZS 8510:2017. The standard recommended a maximum contamination level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 for high use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture. It recommended a higher level of 3.8μg/100cm 2 for limited use areas.
In May 2018 Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the then Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor, released a report "Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards”. The report noted that there is a lack of scientific evidence to prove that low-level third-hand methamphetamine exposure poses a health risk to humans. It stated that guidelines should be proportionate to risk and that exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm 2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect. It recommended retaining the level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 where contamination resulted from manufacture, due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the process.
The District Court has held that remediation should be carried out in accordance with the prevailing guidelines at the time (Diamond Real Estate Limited v Allan [2017] NZDC 833, Judge Kellar).
The Tribunal has generally applied the Gluckman recommendation. This approach was approved by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947, where the Court stated (at para [36]): The Tenancy Tribunal was in a difficult position. 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 took a similar approach in Acme Realty Limited v Hogg and others [2021] NZDC 3231, where the Court referred to the Full Circle case and held that, because NZS 8510:2017 has not been adopted into law, the Tribunal was not bound to apply the 1.5μg standard.
More recently, in Barfoot and Thompson Limited v Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited [2021] NZTT Auckland 4276319, both parties presented scientific evidence at a hearing before the Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that there was no new scientific research to change the conclusions reached in the Gluckman Report.
In considering the evidence, I find that the methamphetamine readings were all below 15 micrograms. Applying the Gluckman approach, the contamination levels in the property do not render it unsafe, and the property is therefore suitable for occupation.
For this reason, the Landlord’s claim is dismissed.

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: kitchen wall, upstairs corner wall, downstairs side of the stairs, front rug.
The Landlord claimed compensation for damage to the kitchen wall arising from the removal of floating shelves installed by the Tenant during the tenancy. The exit condition report photographs demonstrate that although the Tenant attempted to repair the holes, the patching was poorly finished, visibly uneven, and did not match the surrounding wall colour. The Tenant acknowledged installing the shelves but submitted that the damage had been repaired.
The Landlord further claimed compensation for damage to an upstairs corner wall, which was visibly chipped. Photographic evidence was provided in support. The Landlord stated that this damage was raised with the Tenant during the tenancy, however no response or remedial action was undertaken by the Tenant. The Tenant submitted that the damage constituted fair wear and tear and provided a quote from a building expert that had viewed the damage via the photographs provided. This quote was less expensive.
The Landlord also claimed for scratch damage to the side of the staircase. The Tenant acknowledged that the damage occurred during the tenancy and stated that she had attempted to repair it by plastering.
After considering the evidence, including the photographic material, I am satisfied that the damage exceeds fair wear and tear. The patching to the kitchen wall remains clearly visible in the photographs, indicating an inadequate repair. The damage to the upstairs corner wall is localised to a specific area, while the remainder of the wall is intact, which is inconsistent with general wear and tear. Further, the Tenant’s acknowledgment that she attempted repairs supports the conclusion that the damage was not minor or incidental.
In relation to the quotes provided, I am persuaded by the Landlord’s quotation rather than the Tenants. The builder’s quote was based on a first-hand inspection of the damage, rather than solely from photographs, and therefore provides a more reliable assessment of the work required. I find that the Landlord has established the claim, and the amounts ordered are proved.
The Landlord claimed compensation for damage to the front door carpet, which exhibited tearing. The Landlord submitted that this damage was not reported during the tenancy and was only identified at the exit inspection. The Tenant submitted that the rug was located in a high-traffic area and that she did not report the damage. The exit condition photographs show that the tearing is confined to a small, concentrated area of the rug.
The Tenant provided photographs of carpets that were purportedly similar and of lower cost; however, there is no evidence to confirm that these carpets are the same as, or comparable to, the original carpet.
I find that if the damage were the result of fair wear and tear, it would reasonably be expected to be more evenly distributed across the rug. As this is not the case, I am satisfied that the damage exceeds fair wear and tear.
The amounts ordered are proved. Curtain replacement
The Landlord claimed $769.96 for the replacement of blinds because she was advised by the decontamination company that the blinds could not be fully cleaned.
The Tenant submitted that she had supplied the kitchen and toilet curtains herself.
Having considered the evidence, I find that the methamphetamine levels detected were not sufficiently high to result in contamination of the blinds or to render their replacement reasonably necessary.
The claim is dismissed.
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.
As the Landlord and Tenant have been successful to some extent, name suppression is granted to both parties and the Landlord shall pay their own filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5392904 — net $5,060.41 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears by consent	$4,100.00	2. The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water rates arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of t…
Repairs: Kitchen wall	$300.00	Repairs: Kitchen wall
Repairs: Upstairs wall	$1,200.00	Repairs: Upstairs wall
Repairs: Stairwall patching	$400.00	Repairs: Stairwall patching
Repairs: Floor fixing	$200.00	Repairs: Floor fixing
Replace furnishings: Front door rug replacement	$150.00	Replace furnishings: Front door rug replacement
Rubbish removal	$180.00	Rubbish removal
Labour and GST	$1,054.50	Labour and GST
Lawns and Garden work	$450.00	Lawns and Garden work
Rubbish removal	$219.00	Rubbish removal
Water rates: By consent	$86.91	Water rates: By consent
Net award	$5,060.41
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,060.41

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlords name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $5,060.41 immediately, being rent arrears to 12 December 2025.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,280.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water rates arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
At the hearing the parties agreed to the Tenant paying the Landlord rent arrears of $4100.00 and water rates arrears of $86.91.
The parties have both filed evidence which has been considered but for brevity, only those documents that were relevant to the decisions made will be referred to.

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 Landlord claimed $759.00 for cleaning costs following decontamination of the property. This included deep cleaning of the carpets due to alleged stains in several rooms, particularly bedroom 1, which the Landlord attributed to cat urine. The Landlord also submitted that animal hair was found in the kitchen. Photographs of carpet staining were provided; however, no entry condition report or photographs were supplied to establish that the stains were not present at the commencement of the tenancy. Further, the cleaning invoice did not itemise the cost of carpet cleaning.
The Tenant disputed the claim and submitted that the cat was permitted under the Tenancy Agreement. The Tenant further stated that the odour in bedroom 1 resulted from rainwater leaking through the ranch slider and soaking the carpet, which had been reported to the Landlord during the tenancy.
In considering the evidence, I am not satisfied that the Landlord has established the claim. The Landlord did not provide entry condition evidence to demonstrate that the carpet staining absent at the start of the tenancy, nor was there an invoice confirming the presence of urine stains or itemising the cost of carpet cleaning. In addition, no photographic or other evidence was provided to justify why the entire property required cleaning following decontamination.
For these reasons, the claim is dismissed. Garden tidy-up
The Landlord claimed $450.00 for a garden tidy-up. The Landlord submitted that during a mid-tenancy inspection the gardens were significantly overgrown, with the grass described as knee-high and the garden edges unmaintained. The property manager advised the Tenant during the tenancy that the gardens required attention. An email from the Tenant dated 8 December 2025 confirms her agreement to a gardener attending to carry out the work at a reasonable cost. The Landlord further submitted that the gardener advised the grass was yellow due to it not being regularly trimmed. An invoice and exit inspection photographs were provided in support of the claim.
The Landlord also claimed $219.00 for the removal of approximately two square metres of rubbish, including items left behind at the property and rubbish bags stored in the garage.
The Tenant submitted that she was not provided with the gardening invoice until the Landlord filed the application. She stated that the only waste she recalled leaving behind was grass clippings. While she agreed to contributing towards lawn maintenance, she submitted that the gardens were in a tidier condition at the end of the tenancy than at the commencement. She further acknowledged that although she mowed the lawns, she could not afford to do so on a weekly basis due to the cost.
Having considered the evidence, including the exit inspection photographs and invoices, I am satisfied that the gardening work was required and that rubbish removal was necessary. I also note the Tenant’s acknowledgment that she was unable to maintain the lawns on a regular basis during the tenancy.
The amounts ordered are proved. Methamphetamine contamination
The Landlord applied for compensation of $7,233.50 for the costs of methamphetamine testing and remediation. The Landlord undertook standard pre-tenancy methamphetamine testing on 16 August 2024, which showed no detectable contamination. On 29 November 2025, prior to the end of the tenancy, the Landlord arranged composite methamphetamine testing. That testing returned a positive result, with a reading of 5.99 micrograms, and the property was deemed unsuitable for occupation, requiring further investigation and testing.
In accordance with New Zealand Standard NZS 8510:2017, individual room testing was carried out on 7 December 2025. The results showed varying levels of methamphetamine contamination in every room, ranging from 0.10 micrograms to 14.2 micrograms, with the highest reading recorded in bedroom 2. The Landlord submitted that contamination of property is deemed unsuitable for living when readings are above 1.5 micrograms.
As a result of the test findings, the Landlord arranged for professional decontamination of the property. Post-remediation testing was subsequently undertaken, which confirmed that the property met the standard for occupation as of 14 December 2025. Copies of all testing reports were provided in evidence.
The Tenant denied any use of methamphetamine on the premises and stated that she was not aware of anyone using the substance at the property. She submitted that she resided there with her two children and, previously, her ex- partner. The Tenant acknowledged that a friend of her ex-partner had a history of drug use, but she had never observed anyone using methamphetamine at the property. The Tenant further submitted that decontamination should not be required unless readings exceed 15 micrograms.
The landlord must prove that the tenant caused or permitted the contamination, or that it was caused by someone at the premises with the tenant’s consent. The landlord must also prove that, as a result of the contamination, the premises have been damaged or are not reasonably clean.
Section 138C Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides for regulations to be made prescribing the maximum acceptable level for contaminants, but as yet no regulations have been made in relation to methamphetamine.
There are currently two sources of guidance on the issue of a safe level of methamphetamine contamination in residential premises. In June 2017 Standards New Zealand published NZS 8510:2017. The standard recommended a maximum contamination level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 for high use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture. It recommended a higher level of 3.8μg/100cm 2 for limited use areas.
In May 2018 Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the then Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor, released a report "Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards”. The report noted that there is a lack of scientific evidence to prove that low-level third-hand methamphetamine exposure poses a health risk to humans. It stated that guidelines should be proportionate to risk and that exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm 2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect. It recommended retaining the level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 where contamination resulted from manufacture, due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the process.
The District Court has held that remediation should be carried out in accordance with the prevailing guidelines at the time (Diamond Real Estate Limited v Allan [2017] NZDC 833, Judge Kellar).
The Tribunal has generally applied the Gluckman recommendation. This approach was approved by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947, where the Court stated (at para [36]): The Tenancy Tribunal was in a difficult position. 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 took a similar approach in Acme Realty Limited v Hogg and others [2021] NZDC 3231, where the Court referred to the Full Circle case and held that, because NZS 8510:2017 has not been adopted into law, the Tribunal was not bound to apply the 1.5μg standard.
More recently, in Barfoot and Thompson Limited v Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited [2021] NZTT Auckland 4276319, both parties presented scientific evidence at a hearing before the Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that there was no new scientific research to change the conclusions reached in the Gluckman Report.
In considering the evidence, I find that the methamphetamine readings were all below 15 micrograms. Applying the Gluckman approach, the contamination levels in the property do not render it unsafe, and the property is therefore suitable for occupation.
For this reason, the Landlord’s claim is dismissed.

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: kitchen wall, upstairs corner wall, downstairs side of the stairs, front rug.
The Landlord claimed compensation for damage to the kitchen wall arising from the removal of floating shelves installed by the Tenant during the tenancy. The exit condition report photographs demonstrate that although the Tenant attempted to repair the holes, the patching was poorly finished, visibly uneven, and did not match the surrounding wall colour. The Tenant acknowledged installing the shelves but submitted that the damage had been repaired.
The Landlord further claimed compensation for damage to an upstairs corner wall, which was visibly chipped. Photographic evidence was provided in support. The Landlord stated that this damage was raised with the Tenant during the tenancy, however no response or remedial action was undertaken by the Tenant. The Tenant submitted that the damage constituted fair wear and tear and provided a quote from a building expert that had viewed the damage via the photographs provided. This quote was less expensive.
The Landlord also claimed for scratch damage to the side of the staircase. The Tenant acknowledged that the damage occurred during the tenancy and stated that she had attempted to repair it by plastering.
After considering the evidence, including the photographic material, I am satisfied that the damage exceeds fair wear and tear. The patching to the kitchen wall remains clearly visible in the photographs, indicating an inadequate repair. The damage to the upstairs corner wall is localised to a specific area, while the remainder of the wall is intact, which is inconsistent with general wear and tear. Further, the Tenant’s acknowledgment that she attempted repairs supports the conclusion that the damage was not minor or incidental.
In relation to the quotes provided, I am persuaded by the Landlord’s quotation rather than the Tenants. The builder’s quote was based on a first-hand inspection of the damage, rather than solely from photographs, and therefore provides a more reliable assessment of the work required. I find that the Landlord has established the claim, and the amounts ordered are proved.
The Landlord claimed compensation for damage to the front door carpet, which exhibited tearing. The Landlord submitted that this damage was not reported during the tenancy and was only identified at the exit inspection. The Tenant submitted that the rug was located in a high-traffic area and that she did not report the damage. The exit condition photographs show that the tearing is confined to a small, concentrated area of the rug.
The Tenant provided photographs of carpets that were purportedly similar and of lower cost; however, there is no evidence to confirm that these carpets are the same as, or comparable to, the original carpet.
I find that if the damage were the result of fair wear and tear, it would reasonably be expected to be more evenly distributed across the rug. As this is not the case, I am satisfied that the damage exceeds fair wear and tear.
The amounts ordered are proved. Curtain replacement
The Landlord claimed $769.96 for the replacement of blinds because she was advised by the decontamination company that the blinds could not be fully cleaned.
The Tenant submitted that she had supplied the kitchen and toilet curtains herself.
Having considered the evidence, I find that the methamphetamine levels detected were not sufficiently high to result in contamination of the blinds or to render their replacement reasonably necessary.
The claim is dismissed.
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.
As the Landlord and Tenant have been successful to some extent, name suppression is granted to both parties and the Landlord shall pay their own filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5392904 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5392904 — Rent arrears

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

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

Frequently asked questions