Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5393521 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1, 250 Waihi Road, Judea, Tauranga 3110
Published 8 May 2026 · Application 5393521
Landlord favoured
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
- Exemplary damages
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Tauranga
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
A Macpherson
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $37,561.52
- Bond payment as ordered
- −$174.00
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $37,387.52
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lock/key replacement | $362.35 | Lock/key replacement | |
| Cleaning | $1,117.75 | Cleaning | |
| Rubbish removal | $434.18 | Rubbish removal | |
| Garden work | $366.84 | Garden work | |
| Repairs: Walls & doors | $2,921.76 | Repairs: Walls & doors | |
| Repairs: Carpets | $500.00 | Repairs: Carpets | |
| Repairs: Paintwork | $9,702.16 | Repairs: Paintwork | |
| Meth testing | $8,944.48 | Meth testing | |
| Meth remediation and damages (curtains | $12,184.00 | Meth remediation and damages (curtains | |
| Exemplary damages | $1,000.00 | Exemplary damages | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $37,387.52 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $37,387.52 |
Claims and awards for application 5393521 — net $37,387.52 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Lock/key replacement
- Amount
- $362.35
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Lock/key replacement
Cleaning
- Amount
- $1,117.75
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Cleaning
Rubbish removal
- Amount
- $434.18
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rubbish removal
Garden work
- Amount
- $366.84
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Garden work
Repairs: Walls & doors
- Amount
- $2,921.76
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs: Walls & doors
Repairs: Carpets
- Amount
- $500.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs: Carpets
Repairs: Paintwork
- Amount
- $9,702.16
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs: Paintwork
Meth testing
- Amount
- $8,944.48
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Meth testing
Meth remediation and damages (curtains
- Amount
- $12,184.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Meth remediation and damages (curtains
Exemplary damages
- Amount
- $1,000.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Landlord $37,387.52
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $37,387.52
Dismissed claims
- Rent Arrears — Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Alice Rebecca Tumanako Paula Taylor must pay Accessible Properties Limited $37,387.52 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $174.00 (3341932-005) to Accessible Properties Limited immediately.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing albeit the tenant arrived nearly 30 minutes into the hearing.
- The landlord has applied for $1,571.43 rent arrears, $362.35 for replacement locks/keys, $39,908.07 compensation for methamphetamine testing, remediation and damages, exemplary damages for using the premises for an unlawful purpose, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
- This matter was adjourned on 8 April 2025 to give the tenant additional time to gather her evidence in response to the methamphetamine claims. The tenant was in prison for the first hearing and attended via teleconference.
- No further evidence has been filed.
How much is owed for rent?
- This tenancy commenced on 15 June 2017 and ended on 29 August 2025 on foot of a Tribunal order which also awarded rent arrears.
- As the landlord already has an order for rent arrears, and no further arrears were incurred, the claim for rent arrears is dismissed.
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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
- The tenant does not dispute that she asked for a lock change in early March 2025 (before her incarceration) and is liable for the costs.
- The amounts ordered are proved.
Is the tenant responsible for general 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: the majority of walls were damaged and had to be patch repaired and painted, carpets were stained beyond cleaning, and there were holes in walls and damage to doors. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The tenant did not dispute any of this damage except for the hall carpet which she says was damaged by a leak from the bathroom.
- I award $9,702.16 for the paintwork, and $2,921.76 for damage to doors and walls. I award only a nominal amount of $500.00 for the carpets (excluding the hallway) as they were fully depreciated but still held some residual value.
- The amounts ordered are proved.
Is the tenant liable for the methamphetamine related claims?
- Section 138C RTA provides for regulations to be made prescribing the maximum acceptable level for contaminants. On 16 April 2026, the Residential Tenancies (Managing Methamphetamine Contamination) Regulations 2026 came into force.
- The regulations make it clear that when methamphetamine levels are above 15μg per 100cm 2 a rental property will need to be decontaminated.
- This property was tested in September 2025 therefore before the regulations came into effect. However, the same levels have already been adopted by the Tribunal in accordance with the Gluckman Report. 1
- In accordance with Gluckman, levels around or exceeding 30μg are regarded as strongly suggestive of manufacturing activity therefore remediation of the premises is necessary using the NZS 8510:2017 standard as a guide.
- The landlord carried out ingoing or baseline tests (composite x 2) for methamphetamine at the premises on 31 May 2017. The results are recorded as 0.04μg/100cm and 0.10μg/100cm.
- On 5 September 2025, the landlord carried out further testing at the premises. High levels of methamphetamine were found in multiple areas with the highest level of 55.6μg recorded in bedroom 3.
- In this case, 8 out of 19 samples recorded levels over 30μg therefore it was necessary to remediate the premises using the above NZS standard. As the report by CPINZ dated 9 September 2025 notes, 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. It should also be noted that 13 of the areas sampled were recorded as having levels of methamphetamine residues greater than 15μg/100cm2.
- 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.
- 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.
- The tenant was arrested and in custody from 18 April 2025. The tenant says she was told there were squatters at the premises, and she contacted Police, and her sister, to have them removed and the locks changed. The tenant says she does not know who was at the premises and she has no knowledge of any drug use.
- I am satisfied that the methamphetamine damage occurred during this tenancy and the tenant is liable because this is intentional damage, and it results from drug activity that is an imprisonable offence. I am satisfied that the tenant has 1 Report entitled, ‘Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards,’ 29 May 2018, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman. either used the premises or permitted the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose.
- The landlord provided a letter from the tenant dated 2 August 2025. In that letter, the tenant states that she wants the tenancy to continue therefore the tenancy was ongoing after her incarceration.
- The tenant failed to notify the landlord that she was in prison although she was able to contact her family, Citizen’s Advice, her lawyer, and her auntie who was looking after her children.
- On 5 June 2026, the landlord was contacted by Corrections to approve a bail request for another person (male) who stated that they were living at the premises and wanted to return. Despite the landlord declining the request, this person was bailed to the address. There were no signs of any forced entry to the premises. I therefore find it unlikely that the tenant had no knowledge of this person as she claims.
- The amounts ordered are proved. Multiple rounds of testing and remediation were required due to the high levels of methamphetamine found at the premises indicative of manufacture. I award $8,944.48 for testing and $11,684.00 for decontamination/remediation work as sought. I award only a nominal amount of $500.00 for replacement curtains due to depreciation. The landlord did not seek any other damages related to methamphetamine. Exemplary damages
- A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- Any use or possession of a Class A drug is unlawful and may be subject to a period of 6 months imprisonment (sections 3A, 7(1)(a) & (2)(a) and Schedule 1 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975).
- The results of the methamphetamine testing indicate unlawful drug activity at the premises. I am satisfied that the tenant has either used the premises or permitted the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose as discussed above.
- Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- Bearing in mind the factors mentioned above and in particular, the considerable financial detrimental effects on the landlord, and the high public interest in ensuring rental properties are not used for illegal drug activities, I consider it ‘just’ to make an award of $1,500.00 exemplary damages. Filing fee
- As Accessible Properties Limited have partly succeeded with the claim, the tenant must reimburse the filing fee.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s0, s1, s109(3), s138C, s2026, s34, s3A, s40(1), s40(2), s40(3A), s49B(1), s49B(3), s49B(3A), s8510
Key findings
- Dispute theme: property damage
- Dispute theme: cleaning
- Dispute theme: exemplary damages
Property management
- ACCESSIBLE PROPERTIES LIMITED (applicant)
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5393521?
The tribunal order states: Alice Rebecca Tumanako Paula Taylor must pay Accessible Properties Limited
How much money was awarded in case 5393521?
Cleaning: $1,117.75 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $366.84 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing: $8,944.48 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $362.35 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $12,184.00 awarded to landlord; Carpets: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Paintwork: $9,702.16 awarded to landlord; Walls & Doors: $2,921.76 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $434.18 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5393521?
The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Exemplary damages.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5393521?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13535603-Tribunal_Order.pdf.