Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5403849 — Rent arrears at 203 Carlyle Street, Napier South, Napier 4110
Decided 19 May 2026 · Published 19 May 2026 · Application 5403849
- Rent arrears
- Cleanliness
Order
- [The tenant/s] and [The party] must pay [The party] and [The landlord/s] $3,315.50 immediately, calculated below.
- 50 Total award$5,000.00$364.50 Net award Minus bond $4,635.50 -$1,320.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$3,315.50
- Within 14 days from the date of this Order, the tenants must provide to the landlords, records from their electricity supplier showing the line charges for the period of the tenancy. Fifty percent of the total line charges must be deducted from the sum payable by the tenants under this Order. Leave is reserved to either party to bring a further application if the amount is not agreed.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,320.00 (BN-16145385) to [The party] and [The landlord/s], immediately.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing. Background
- This was quite a lengthy tenancy, having begun on 23 February 2018.
- It ended on 16 February 2026. 1
- For almost the whole of the tenancy the parties seem to have had an amicable and co-operative relationship.
- The landlords brought an application to the Tribunal in December 2025 seeking removal of a structure erected on the property. 2 The structure was removed and the application was withdrawn.
- This application was brought by the landlords on 2 December 2025, seeking termination of the tenancy for rent arrears. The tenancy was then ended by notice as the landlords’ son was to move into the premises. On 9 February 2026, the Tribunal adjourned the hearing so evidence of rent arrears to the end of the tenancy could be provided and any claims arising from the end of tenancy inspection could be considered.
- On 9 April 2026 the Tribunal adjourned to an in person hearing, after the landlord’s claim was amended to include compensation for the costs of methamphetamine remediation and the tenants advised their intention to bring a cross application. The Claims
- The Landlords claim: a. rent arrears of $2,500.00; and b. compensation for the insurance excess on an insurance claim for methamphetamine remediation costs.
- The tenants claim: a. compensation for costs incurred by them for maintenance/ repair items they say were the landlords’ responsibility; b. compensation for line charges and electricity used by the landlords but paid for by the tenants; and c. exemplary damages for harassment. 1 Confirmed by Tribunal Order dated 9 April 2026 2 Application 5405359
How much is owed for rent?
- The landlords have provided a rent summary and bank records which enable specific identification of the dates and amounts where they say the rent was not paid or was under paid.
- The tenants accepted that they had missed two rent payments and short paid once but say no more was owed.
- During the hearing the tenants were able to reconcile the landlords’ rent summary with their bank records and confirmed that they align with the landlord’s records. The amount awarded allows for a rent overpayment of $30.00 made in 2023. Are the tenants responsible for the cost of remediating methamphetamine contamination of 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. 3
- The landlords have provided the results of a methamphetamine screening test on 8 samples taken on 9 May 2018, after the tenancy had begun. The composite result shows methamphetamine traces of 0.03μg per 100cm 2 , well below the level at which health concerns arise.
- A further screening test was taken on 24 February 2024. The composite result showed significant traces of methamphetamine. The landlords spoke to their insurers who required that detailed testing be carried out. The results of the detailed testing show contamination at levels ranging from 0.23μg per 100cm 2 in the bathroom to 46 and 165μg per 100cm 2 respectively in the entranceway and main bedroom (next to the entranceway).
- The landlords’ insurance claim was accepted and remediation work was carried out. The landlords’ evidence shows that they were paid $27,500.00, being the methamphetamine limit under the policy (less than the actual remediation cost), less the excess of $2,500.00. 3 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
- The tenants’ evidence, given directly and under promise, is that neither they, not anybody else to their knowledge had brought methamphetamine into or used methamphetamine in the premises, at any time during the tenancy.
- They have provided evidence of tests done at previous rentals, of their having no criminal records of any kind and of sustaining employment where drug tests are required. They have provided photographs showing the premises to have been kept in clean and tidy condition throughout the tenancy. The evidence shows no hesitation on their part to the testing being carried out.
- The tenants say they were made aware that the property has a history of use for methamphetamine manufacture and that the methamphetamine contamination found at the end of their tenancy could have resulted from that past activity, temporarily masked by painting or other short term remediation before the 2018 screening test was carried out.
What does the evidence show?
- It proves, on the balance of probabilities, that the premises: a. had no significant contamination on 9 May 2028; but b. was contaminated on 24 February 2026; and that c. the level of contamination at 24 February 2026 was such that remediation was required to meet both NZS8510:2017 and the recommendations of the Gluckman report. 4
- The evidence does not show: a. that manufacturing was carried out at the premises; b. that the tenants’ evidence is untrue; or c. how contamination of the premises occurred. Findings
- The evidence provided by the landlord proves on balance that the premises were damaged by methamphetamine contamination during the tenancy. That damage was not fair wear and tear.
- The obligation then falls to the tenants to prove that the damage was not carelessly or intentionally caused by them or by persons whose actions they are responsible for. The evidence does not provide that proof. 4 Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards: OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER’S CHIEF SCIENCE ADVISOR Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, ONZ KNZM FRSNZ FMedSci FRS Chief Science Advisor - 29 May 2018
- I must therefore find that the tenants are liable for the remediation costs, limited in this case to the amount of the insurance excess. Other
- The tenants say they have not been able, in the time available, to pull together the Council records for the property which they believe will show a likelihood of past contamination. The haven’t either been able to provide expert evidence about the possibility of a previous contamination being temporarily “masked”, consistent with the test evidence.
- I have considered whether to adjourn the hearing to allow the tenants to gather and file that evidence. On balance my view is that given the previous adjournments and directions about filing evidence for this hearing, it would not be just the delay determining these claims. If the tenants are able to obtain evidence that they say sheds doubt about the findings in this Order, that they could not reasonably have made available before now, they can bring an application for a rehearing. Tenants’ Claims Maintenance/ repair
- Landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of maintenance and repair. Failing to do so is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $7,200.00 may be awarded. 5
- As claimants, the tenants must provide evidence that proves a breach of those obligations, on the balance of probabilities.
- The tenants have provided correspondence that shows questions were raised with the landlord regarding maintenance/ repair items such as installation of a heat pump, repair of downpipes, draught stopping and locks. The evidence falls short of proving that the landlord failed to reasonably attend to those issues. For instance, no notices to remedy were issued. I do not find that claim proved.
- The tenants claim compensation for a number of expenses they say they incurred, which were properly the landlord’s responsibility.
- Heat pump servicing – this is the landlord’s responsibility. The tenants claim compensation for Mr Lock-Wright having completed 7 x services @ $150.00 through his employment with Hillmac Electrical. It seems to me likely that the landlords have benefited from Mr Lock-Wright having done that work – which the landlord would otherwise have had to pay for. However, to claim 5 S.45(1)(b), (1A) and Schedule 1A RTA compensation, the tenants must prove a loss. Here the work was carried out by Mr Lock-Wright as employee for Hillmac. The tenants themselves have suffered no loss to compensate.
- Replacement HWC thermostats – the tenants claim compensation for the cost of 4 x HWC thermostats and an element @ $35.00. This is an actual cost incurred by the tenants from which the landlords have benefitted by saving them that cost. The tenants should be compensated. The landlords say that they were not made aware by the tenants of the need for that work as required. 6 The evidence does not suggest that any failure by the tenants to let the landlords know about the need for that work added to the cost.
- Downlights – the tenants claim compensation for the cost of replacing 4 x LED downlights. Tenants are responsible for the cost of replacing light bulbs but not the fittings themselves. The landlords say they were not told the fittings needed to be replaced and if they had been, the fittings could have been replaced out of stock held by the landlords who have a building business. For the reasons given in relation to the claim for heat pump servicing, the tenants have not proved a loss relating to the installation costs. A modest amount of compensation should be paid for the cost to the tenants of the fittings themselves which, wherever they were sourced from would have been a cost to the landlords if they had provided them
- Plumbing call outs – the tenants’ evidence persuades me that the callouts were necessary to address overflowing drains. They should be compensated for the cost, from which the landlords benefitted.
- Grounds – the landlords were responsible for lawns and gardens. They had a contractor who did the work as and when required. The tenants say that the contractor did not do a very good job and they spent time on lawns and garden work that they should not have had to. Compensation is claimed calculated at 4 x 5 hours work @ $25.00per hour.
- The evidence does not prove the need for the tenants to do that work or that they notified the landlord about their dissatisfaction with the contractor – enabling the landlords to raise those concerns with him.
- Electricity – electricity supply to the premises was paid for by the tenants. It was also supplied to a shed used by the landlords for their business. A check meter was installed to measure the usage.
- The tenants claim compensation for what they say was electricity used by the landlords at the shed at the tenants’ cost and for line charges. 6 See s.40(1)(d) RTA
- Landlords are responsible for providing the infrastructure to ensure that tenants are only required to pay for electricity used by them. 7 Check meters are often used for that purpose and should have enabled the tenants to measure and recover from the landlords the cost of electricity used in the shed. The evidence does not prove that the tenants have not been able to recover the cost of electricity paid for by them but used by the landlord.
- The landlords have benefitted from the provision of electricity paid for by the tenants, through the line charges paid by the tenants. The landlords do not dispute that they should pay for 50% of the line charges paid during the tenancy. Harassment
- The tenants say that the landlords wrongly made defamatory statements about them to mutual acquaintance and to Mr Lock-Wright’s employer, alleging they had used the premises to manufacture methamphetamine. The evidence shows that is not true. The tenants issued the landlords a “cease and desist notice” on 9 March 2026.
- The people to whom those statements were said to have been made, did not give evidence.
- The tenants also suspect that Mr Reid is responsible for a hit and run crash into their vehicle.
- A landlord must not interfere with tenants’ peace comfort or privacy in their use of the premises. Breaching that obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment, is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $3,000.00 may be awarded. 8
- I make no findings about whether the landlords have engaged in the conduct alleged by the tenants. Those are matters being investigated by the police. If proved, that conduct may constitute harassment, defamation or privacy breaches.
- However, the RTA is concerned with tenants’ right to peace comfort or privacy, “...in their use of the premises...” It is only harassment in breach of that right, which is an unlawful act under the RTA.
- Here, the landlords’ alleged conduct occurred after the tenancy had ended so cannot have been a breach of the tenants’ right to peace comfort or privacy .......in their use of the premises. By that point they had no right to use of the premises. 7 S.39 RTA 8 S.38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA
- That claim is therefore dismissed. I again emphasise that does not mean the Tribunal finds the tenants’ claims to be unfounded but that even if proved they are not claims within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
- The tenants say that the way the landlords exercised their right to use the shed adjacent to the premises, breached their right to quiet enjoyment. With respect, that does seem to be a claim coloured by the current state of the parties’ relationship rather than by issues arising during the tenancy. The evidence does not show the tenants having raised any concerns during the tenancy about how frequently the landlords or their employees were coming to the shed or about disturbance, disruption or breaches the tenants’ privacy while they were there. The evidence available does not prove that claim.
- Both parties have had claims upheld and no order is made about the filing fees paid.