What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5396619 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 163 Collingwood Street, Nelson,

How much money was awarded in case 5396619?

Cleaning: $1,460.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,720.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5396619?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5396619?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13085117-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5396619 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 163 Collingwood Street, Nelson,

How much money was awarded in case 5396619?

Cleaning: $1,460.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,720.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5396619?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5396619?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13085117-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

163 Collingwood Street, Nelson, Nelson 7010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5396619 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5396619 — net $6,558.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$5,720.00		Rent arrears
Exemplary damages; unlawful use of premises	$500.00		Exemplary damages; unlawful use of premises
Meth testing/Cleaning	$1,460.50		Meth testing/Cleaning
Meth testing/Cleaning: Insurance excess	$2,500.00		Meth testing/Cleaning: Insurance excess
Curtains; insurance excess	$550.00		Curtains; insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages		$2,000.00	landlord promptly withdrew the defective notice. The landlord is ordered to pay $2,000.00.
Total award	$10,758.50	$2,000.00
Net award	$6,558.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,558.50

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 163 Collingwood Street, Nelson, Nelson 7010 is terminated, and possession is granted to The Rent Shop Ltd - Nelson As Agent For Mr & Mrs Richards, at 11.59 pm on Wednesday 18 February 2026.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 (6071781-012) to The Rent Shop Ltd - Nelson As Agent For Mr & Mrs Richards immediately.

[The tenant/s] must pay The Rent Shop Ltd - Nelson As Agent For Mr & Mrs Richards $6,558.50 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 5 February 2026.

The landlord was represented by Ms Lupton.

The tenancy commenced on 11 December 2020 and was current at the date of the hearing.

The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for orders: • Termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenancy agreement or Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) which is incapable of remedy. The breach being the use of the premises for an unlawful purpose (s.40(2)(b) RTA). • Exemplary damages. • Rent arrears • Compensation for costs related to methamphetamine testing • Damage to windows • Damage to curtains • Reimbursement of the filing fee • Release of the bond.

The tenant has filed a cross claim for orders; • Breach of quiet enjoyment. • Failure to maintain • Mould • Landlord acting to terminate the tenancy without grounds • Exemplary damages • Release of the bond. Law

The party bringing the claim is not required to prove their claim to a mathematical certainty. They must prove all elements of the claim on the balance of probabilities; i.e., more probable than not.

In T v M [1984] 2 NZFLR, the Court of Appeal confirmed that, while ‘balance of probabilities’ is a constant standard: It is the principle of good common sense that the more serious the issue the greater should be the care used in assessing it.”

This approach was confirmed by the majority of the Supreme Court in Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, where the Court stated: [102] ... In New Zealand it has been emphasised that no intermediate standard of proof exists, between the criminal and civil standards, for application in certain types of civil case. Balance of probabilities still simply means more probable than not. Allowing the civil standard to be applied flexibly has not meant that the degree of probability required to meet this standard changes in serious cases. Rather, the civil standard is flexibly applied because it accommodates serious allegations through the natural tendency to require stronger evidence before being satisfied to the balance of probabilities standard.

Section 97(4) RTA provides that: “... the Tribunal may call for and receive as evidence any statement, document, information, matter, or thing that in its opinion may assist it to deal effectually with the matters before it, whether or not the same would be admissible in a court of law.” It follows that, although the Tribunal is not bound by the usual rules of evidence when admitting evidence, where the allegation is serious, it is likely to require stronger evidence before finding the claim proved on the balance of probabilities. Termination

Section 40(2)(b) RTA Provides that the tenant shall not use the premises, or permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose; The use and or possession of methamphetamine is unlawful under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.

The RTA does not limit lability to the actions of the tenant. Section 41 RTA provides that the tenant will be responsible for anything done by any person who is in the premises with the tenant’s permission, if the act or omission would have constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement had it been the act or omission of the tenant.

The landlord provided evidence of three tests for the presence of methamphetamine.

The first test is a baseline test carried out at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord provided a copy of a report from Methscreen Ltd. The report is dated 4 November 2020 and records the results of testing carried out at the premises on 2 November 2020. The test records that Methamphetamine was not detected. The tenancy commenced 9 days later. There were no tenants residing at the premises in the interim. I accept the results as confirming that there was no methamphetamine residue present at the commencement of the tenancy.

In October 2025, a contractor attended at the premises to carry out repairs. Whilst at the premises the contractor saw what he believed to be a “meth pipe”. The contractor took a photo of the utensils and sent it to the landlord.

The landlord arranged for testing to be conducted at the premises for the presence of methamphetamine by Methscreen Ltd.

The landlord provided a copy of a report from Methscreen Ltd. Testing for methamphetamine residue had been conducted on 13 November 2025.

The residue was sent to Hills Laboratories for testing. The test was a composite test which shows a potential maximum in a single sample calculation based on the scenario whereby all the methamphetamine in a composite is attributed to a single sample. The result showed a composite reading for methamphetamine of 73 microgrammes per 100cm2.

Discrete sampling was then conducted by Hills Laboratories. The test results are dated 3 December 2025. The results of the eight samples are shown below;( all results are microgrammes per 100cm2) Living Room 15.2 Hallway31 Dining room12.3 Bedroom 11.27 Bathroom0.93 Kitchen 11.2 Bedroom 23.5 Bedroom 32.7

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for the unlawful act of using methamphetamine and for compensation for the cost methamphetamine testing and remediation.

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 RTA 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/100cm2 for high use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture. It recommended a higher level of 3.8μg/100cm2 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/100cm2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect. It recommended retaining the level of 1.5μg/100cm2 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.

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.

The test results indicate the presence of Methamphetamine at levels above the Gluckman contamination levels in two areas and the presence of methamphetamine residue at lower levels in all other tests results.

The tenant’s evidence on this point was brief. The tenant was adamant that she had not used methamphetamine during the course of the tenancy. Her only explanation for the presence of methamphetamine was that her flatmates may have used methamphetamine, which she accepted did not alter her liability.

I find that the landlord has proven that it is more likely than not that the premises have been used for an unlawful purpose during the tenancy which is a breach of both the tenancy agreement and the RTA.

The breach is serious and of such a nature that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy. The tenancy is terminated. Exemplary Damages

The landlord seeks exemplary damages for the breach. Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: “Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct”.

Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has, with intent, committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must consider the factors set out in section 109 (3) RTA. Those factors are: • The intention of the person • The effect of the unlawful act • The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and • The public interest.

Using the premises for an unlawful purpose is an unlawful act (s.40(3A)(c) RTA. The maximum award of exemplary damages for this breach is $1,500.00.

The tenant accepted that the use of methamphetamine, either by herself or by her flat mates, was a breach of the tenancy agreement and the RTA.

The effect of the unlawful act has been substantial and is shown in the compensation claim costs by the landlord. It is in the interest of this landlord and landlords generally for tenants not to use premises for unlawful purposes. I am not aware of any previous breaches by this tenant. In those circumstances, I consider in award of exemplary damages of $500.00 is appropriate.

The landlord seeks compensation for testing and remediation costs. The landlord is entitled to proven compensation for the reasons referred to above. The landlord has provided invoices from Methscreen as follows; 13 November 2025$264.50 2 December 2025$1,196.00 $1,460.50

The landlord is insured for methamphetamine contamination. The landlord’s policy of insurance carries an excess of $2,500.00 on each and every claim.

The remediation costs exceed the insurance excess by a considerable sum. The landlord seeks the excess for remediation of $2,500.00.

The tenant is ordered to pay compensation of $3,960.50 for testing and remediation costs.

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. The landlord is insured. The standard excess is $550.00 on each and every claim.

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 stained glass in the front door was broken. The landlord said that they were advised by the tenant that this had occurred when the door had slammed shut. The landlord was unable to provide any evidence as to the cost of repair. Compensation cannot be awarded where there is insufficient evidence to make an assessment of the compensation required. The claim is dismissed. Curtains in two bedrooms were drenched with water. They had been rehung by the tenant. The claim is for the insurance excess of $550.00. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The tenant is ordered to pay compensation of $550.00.

The amounts ordered are proven. Rent arrears

The landlord provided a rent summary showing that the rent arrears on the date of the hearing were $4,500.00. The arrears on the date of termination of the tenancy will be $5,720.00. The tenant is to pay rent arrears of $5,720.00. Tenant’s claims Breach of quiet enjoyment

The tenant claims that the landlord has harassed her.

A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises (see s 38(2) RTA 1986). Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00 (see s 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA).

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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 s 109(3) RTA).

Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person" (MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010).

Black’s Law Dictionary defines harassment as: “Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose”. Actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However, in Whatiura v Shoulder [1987] NZTT Palmerston North TT 12/87, the Adjudicator noted that: “although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness”.

The tenant’s evidence on this matter was vague and difficult to follow. She raised concerns about the meth testing process and that it disempowered her as a person. She considered the testing procedure to be invasive. She said that she had evidence to support the concerns raised but had not had time to prepare and file the evidence. I record that the tenant had applied for an adjournment of this hearing. That application was dismissed as the tenant had approximately 6 weeks to prepare, from the time when a notice of the hearing was served on the tenant.

No coherent or probative evidence of a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment, other than the testing procedure itself, was provided to the Tribunal. The tenant has not proven that it is more likely than not that her quiet enjoyment was breached by the landlord. Failure to maintain

A landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises. The landlord’s obligation of repair is not absolute. A landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage and a tenant must notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises and the need for repair. A landlord therefore must repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair.

The burden of proving the claim to the required civil standard is on the tenant. There is an obligation on the tenant to provide some evidence to support the allegations made. Often this will be by way of photographs or evidence from contractors. No supporting evidence was provided by the tenant to support her claims.

The landlord provided a maintenance schedule for the property. It showed that remedial work had been completed from time to time during the tenancy. A copy of Healthy Homes report was also provided. The landlord said that they had no evidence of any reports from the tenant relating to the issues raised by the tenant in her claim.

I am simply not persuaded that the tenant has proven that it is more likely than not that the landlord has failed to maintain the premises. The claim is dismissed. Notice to terminate

Section 60 AA RTA provides that a landlord commits an unlawful act if they give or purport to give a notice to terminate to the tenant knowing that they are not entitled, under this act, to give the notice.

The Tribunal may award exemplary damages to a maximum of $6,500.00 for a breach of this section.

On 18 November 2025, the tenant was issued with a 7 day notice to terminate the tenancy under section 59A RTA by the landlord. The landlord was not entitled to issue the notice at that time as evidence of the discrete test results had not been provided. As a result, the landlord could not say that the premises were so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable.

On 22 November 2025, the tenant was advised by the landlord that the notice was retracted.

The tenant said that when she received this notice, she suffered great psychological distress.

Parties are deemed to be aware of the law. The tenants are property managers. It is in the best interests of this tenant and tenants generally for property managers to act within the requirements of the RTA.

Taking all relevant factors into account, I consider that an award of exemplary damages is appropriate. The only mitigating factor being that the landlord promptly withdrew the defective notice. The landlord is ordered to pay $2,000.00.

As The Rent Shop Ltd - Nelson As Agent For Mr & Mrs Richards has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5396619 — net $6,558.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$5,720.00		Rent arrears
Exemplary damages; unlawful use of premises	$500.00		Exemplary damages; unlawful use of premises
Meth testing/Cleaning	$1,460.50		Meth testing/Cleaning
Meth testing/Cleaning: Insurance excess	$2,500.00		Meth testing/Cleaning: Insurance excess
Curtains; insurance excess	$550.00		Curtains; insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages		$2,000.00	landlord promptly withdrew the defective notice. The landlord is ordered to pay $2,000.00.
Total award	$10,758.50	$2,000.00
Net award	$6,558.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,558.50