What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5395656 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 5395656?

Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $211.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $350.75 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Door Handles: $187.50 awarded to landlord; Garage Door: $281.75 awarded to landlord; Holes In Doors And Wall: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Cylinder: $2,639.49 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Section Tidy And Weed Spray: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Water Removal From Carpet: $166.12 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5395656?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5395656?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13228846-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5395656 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 5395656?

Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $211.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $350.75 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Door Handles: $187.50 awarded to landlord; Garage Door: $281.75 awarded to landlord; Holes In Doors And Wall: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Cylinder: $2,639.49 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Section Tidy And Weed Spray: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Water Removal From Carpet: $166.12 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5395656?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5395656?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13228846-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5395656 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5395656 — net $4,595.11 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 13 November 2025	$500.00	Rent arrears to 13 November 2025
Carpet Cleaning	$500.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$500.00	Carpet Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$500.00	Rubbish removal
Section tidy and weed spray	$80.00	Section tidy and weed spray
Water removal from carpet	$166.12	Water removal from carpet
Lock/key replacement	$211.50	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: replace cylinder	$2,639.49	Repairs: replace cylinder
Window repairs	$350.75	Window repairs
Repairs: garage door	$281.75	Repairs: garage door
Repairs: door handles	$187.50	Repairs: door handles
Repairs: holes in doors and wall	$650.00	Repairs: holes in doors and wall
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,595.11
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,595.11

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Kura-Irirangi-Marama Hoana Tumai must pay [The landlord/s] $4,595.11 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance for the tenant
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The onus is on the landlord to prove their claims. The standard of proof requires is on the balance of probabilities.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 13 November 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

Were the premises contaminated?

Because there was evidence of drug use in the premises, the landlord had the premises tested for methamphetamine and returned an average composite result of 6.2 μg/100 cm. 2
Under section 2 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), methamphetamine is a contaminant. Landlords have certain obligations and privileges in relation to decontamination and inspections for contaminants. 1
Until a report of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman in May 2018, 2 (the Gluckman Report), the New Zealand Standard NZS 8510:2017 of 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 was accepted as evidence of methamphetamine contamination, requiring remediation. In the Gluckman report, it was considered that there was little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption. The report concluded that any levels below 15 μg/100 cm 2 were unlikely to present adverse effects.
Since the Gluckman report, in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947, the District Court needed to determine which level should be applied. The Court discussed the conflict between the New Zealand Standard and Chief Science Advisors report, and said: 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. 1 See for example, sections 45 and 48. 2 ‘Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards’, 29 May 2018.
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.
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 Acme Realty Limited v Hogg, Polotu and Coughlin [2021] NZDC 3231, Judge Harrison noted that “At issue is a short legal point, namely whether New Zealand Standard 8510:2017 has the force for law”. The appeal arose from a decision of the Tenancy Tribunal which applied the Gluckman report level of 15 μg/100 cm 2 . The Court concluded that: ...for the reasons I have given that standard has not been passed into the law of this country and consequently the Adjudicator was not bound by the level it prescribes in reaching her conclusion.
Therefore, it is settled that the District Court has confirmed that the level to be applied is the level expressed by the Chief Science Advisor, which is that there is no risk when levels of contamination are below 15 μg/100 cm 2 .
On the basis of these decisions, the landlord has not established that the premises were required decontamination.

Were the premises uses for an unlawful purpose?

The next question is whether the presence of methamphetamine proves that the the tenant has breached her obligations under section 40(1)(b) of the Act, which says that the tenant must not use the premises, or permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose. Contravention of this provision is an “unlawful act” which may attract an order for exemplary damages of up to $1,800. 3
There are two pieces of evidence which may support that claim that the tenant used, or permitted the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. The first is the presence of methamphetamine residue as found in the testing. The difficulty is that there were no tests undertaken at the start of the tenancy. Therefore, it is possible that the residue was present at the beginning. In Eren Limited v Martin and Kukuruzsnayak [2021] NZDC 15210, 4 the District Court said: the lack of methamphetamine testing at the start of the tenancy significantly weakens the circumstantial case against the tenants to the point where it is not possible to conclude on the balance of probabilities that it was the tenants who 3 See section 40(3A) and Schedule 1A. 4 The same approach was taken in Brooking and Hodges v Imrie NZDC 16976 were responsible for the methamphetamine residue located at the premises at the end of their tenancy.
The other piece of evidence is a pipe and bong that were left at the house. That indicates that someone might have used the premises to smoke illegal drugs, but it does not establish that it is more likely than not that tenant engaged in unlawful activity at the premises or allowed someone else to do so. It simply means that someone left those items at the house.
Therefore, the claims in relation to methamphetamine are dismissed.

Were the premises reasonably clean and tidy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, and return all keys and security devices, See section 40(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided photographs showing the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. In fact, the lawns were very overgrown, clothes and rubbish had been abandoned, along with items of furniture. No cleaning had been done. In the final inspection report, the landlord noted marks on the carpet.
Because the landlord had the premises decontaminated, that firm took responsibility for disposing of all of the items in the house. The landlord then arranged for a final clean, post contamination. The invoice for that is $146.62.
If the landlord had not engaged the decontamination service, they would have had to organise rubbish removal and cleaning. As indicated at the hearing, an amount of $500 should be ordered for removal of rubbish.
It was reasonable for the carpets to be cleaned. I have ordered a nominal amount of $500 for carpet cleaning.
I am satisfied, based on the photographs provided, in the absence of any concerns about methamphetamine, the landlord would have spent at least $500.00 on cleaning. Therefore it is reasonable that the tenant is ordered to pay that amount.
An invoice for $730 from New Life Property Solutions included $80 including GST for a section tidy and weed spray. That amount is ordered.

Did the tenant return the keys?

The tenant did not return the keys. The landlord has provided an invoice for $211.50 from an invoice for replacement locks.
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 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.
As indicated above, the landlord has not established that the premises were contaminated and so no order is made for the cost of replacement carpet or the cost of decontamination.
However, I am satisfied that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. The hot water cylinder has been removed, leaving water on the carpet. The landlord has provided copies of invoices for a replacement cylinder $2,639.49 and $166.12 for removal of water from the carpet. Those amounts are ordered. b. Two door handles were missing along with some wardrobe door handles. An invoice for $187.50 was provided. That amount is ordered. c. The garage door could not close properly as the result of a dent/warp in the door. An invoice for $281.75 was submitted. That amount is ordered. d. There were numerous holes in wardrobe doors. After the furniture was removed, a further hole was discovered in the lounge wall. An invoice for $650 including GST from New Life Property solutions was submitted. That amount is ordered. e. A broken window in bedroom one. The landlord has provided an invoice for $350.75. That amount is ordered.
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 [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5395656 — net $4,595.11 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 13 November 2025	$500.00	Rent arrears to 13 November 2025
Carpet Cleaning	$500.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$500.00	Carpet Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$500.00	Rubbish removal
Section tidy and weed spray	$80.00	Section tidy and weed spray
Water removal from carpet	$166.12	Water removal from carpet
Lock/key replacement	$211.50	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: replace cylinder	$2,639.49	Repairs: replace cylinder
Window repairs	$350.75	Window repairs
Repairs: garage door	$281.75	Repairs: garage door
Repairs: door handles	$187.50	Repairs: door handles
Repairs: holes in doors and wall	$650.00	Repairs: holes in doors and wall
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,595.11
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,595.11

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Kura-Irirangi-Marama Hoana Tumai must pay [The landlord/s] $4,595.11 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance for the tenant
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The onus is on the landlord to prove their claims. The standard of proof requires is on the balance of probabilities.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 13 November 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

Were the premises contaminated?

Because there was evidence of drug use in the premises, the landlord had the premises tested for methamphetamine and returned an average composite result of 6.2 μg/100 cm. 2
Under section 2 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), methamphetamine is a contaminant. Landlords have certain obligations and privileges in relation to decontamination and inspections for contaminants. 1
Until a report of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman in May 2018, 2 (the Gluckman Report), the New Zealand Standard NZS 8510:2017 of 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 was accepted as evidence of methamphetamine contamination, requiring remediation. In the Gluckman report, it was considered that there was little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption. The report concluded that any levels below 15 μg/100 cm 2 were unlikely to present adverse effects.
Since the Gluckman report, in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947, the District Court needed to determine which level should be applied. The Court discussed the conflict between the New Zealand Standard and Chief Science Advisors report, and said: 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. 1 See for example, sections 45 and 48. 2 ‘Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards’, 29 May 2018.
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.
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 Acme Realty Limited v Hogg, Polotu and Coughlin [2021] NZDC 3231, Judge Harrison noted that “At issue is a short legal point, namely whether New Zealand Standard 8510:2017 has the force for law”. The appeal arose from a decision of the Tenancy Tribunal which applied the Gluckman report level of 15 μg/100 cm 2 . The Court concluded that: ...for the reasons I have given that standard has not been passed into the law of this country and consequently the Adjudicator was not bound by the level it prescribes in reaching her conclusion.
Therefore, it is settled that the District Court has confirmed that the level to be applied is the level expressed by the Chief Science Advisor, which is that there is no risk when levels of contamination are below 15 μg/100 cm 2 .
On the basis of these decisions, the landlord has not established that the premises were required decontamination.

Were the premises uses for an unlawful purpose?

The next question is whether the presence of methamphetamine proves that the the tenant has breached her obligations under section 40(1)(b) of the Act, which says that the tenant must not use the premises, or permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose. Contravention of this provision is an “unlawful act” which may attract an order for exemplary damages of up to $1,800. 3
There are two pieces of evidence which may support that claim that the tenant used, or permitted the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. The first is the presence of methamphetamine residue as found in the testing. The difficulty is that there were no tests undertaken at the start of the tenancy. Therefore, it is possible that the residue was present at the beginning. In Eren Limited v Martin and Kukuruzsnayak [2021] NZDC 15210, 4 the District Court said: the lack of methamphetamine testing at the start of the tenancy significantly weakens the circumstantial case against the tenants to the point where it is not possible to conclude on the balance of probabilities that it was the tenants who 3 See section 40(3A) and Schedule 1A. 4 The same approach was taken in Brooking and Hodges v Imrie NZDC 16976 were responsible for the methamphetamine residue located at the premises at the end of their tenancy.
The other piece of evidence is a pipe and bong that were left at the house. That indicates that someone might have used the premises to smoke illegal drugs, but it does not establish that it is more likely than not that tenant engaged in unlawful activity at the premises or allowed someone else to do so. It simply means that someone left those items at the house.
Therefore, the claims in relation to methamphetamine are dismissed.

Were the premises reasonably clean and tidy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, and return all keys and security devices, See section 40(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided photographs showing the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. In fact, the lawns were very overgrown, clothes and rubbish had been abandoned, along with items of furniture. No cleaning had been done. In the final inspection report, the landlord noted marks on the carpet.
Because the landlord had the premises decontaminated, that firm took responsibility for disposing of all of the items in the house. The landlord then arranged for a final clean, post contamination. The invoice for that is $146.62.
If the landlord had not engaged the decontamination service, they would have had to organise rubbish removal and cleaning. As indicated at the hearing, an amount of $500 should be ordered for removal of rubbish.
It was reasonable for the carpets to be cleaned. I have ordered a nominal amount of $500 for carpet cleaning.
I am satisfied, based on the photographs provided, in the absence of any concerns about methamphetamine, the landlord would have spent at least $500.00 on cleaning. Therefore it is reasonable that the tenant is ordered to pay that amount.
An invoice for $730 from New Life Property Solutions included $80 including GST for a section tidy and weed spray. That amount is ordered.

Did the tenant return the keys?

The tenant did not return the keys. The landlord has provided an invoice for $211.50 from an invoice for replacement locks.
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 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.
As indicated above, the landlord has not established that the premises were contaminated and so no order is made for the cost of replacement carpet or the cost of decontamination.
However, I am satisfied that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. The hot water cylinder has been removed, leaving water on the carpet. The landlord has provided copies of invoices for a replacement cylinder $2,639.49 and $166.12 for removal of water from the carpet. Those amounts are ordered. b. Two door handles were missing along with some wardrobe door handles. An invoice for $187.50 was provided. That amount is ordered. c. The garage door could not close properly as the result of a dent/warp in the door. An invoice for $281.75 was submitted. That amount is ordered. d. There were numerous holes in wardrobe doors. After the furniture was removed, a further hole was discovered in the lounge wall. An invoice for $650 including GST from New Life Property solutions was submitted. That amount is ordered. e. A broken window in bedroom one. The landlord has provided an invoice for $350.75. That amount is ordered.
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 [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5395656 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5395656 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Were the premises contaminated?

Were the premises uses for an unlawful purpose?

Were the premises reasonably clean and tidy?

Did the tenant return the keys?

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

How much is owed for rent?

Were the premises contaminated?

Were the premises uses for an unlawful purpose?

Were the premises reasonably clean and tidy?

Did the tenant return the keys?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions