What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5407508 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 5407508?

Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Garage Door: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,495.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5407508?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5407508?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13494067-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5407508 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 5407508?

Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Garage Door: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,495.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5407508?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5407508?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13494067-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Flat 2, 14 Clementine Lane, Mount Pleasant, Christchurch 8081 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5407508 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5407508 — net $4,173.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 17 December 2025	$4,495.71	Rent arrears to 17 December 2025
Carpet Cleaning	$250.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$150.00	Cleaning
Plumbing repairs	$500.00	Plumbing repairs
Garage door	$100.00	Garage door
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,173.71
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,173.71

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Courtenay Susan Wright and Jason Dardir Wright must pay [The landlord/s] $4,173.71 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The parties’ claims are otherwise dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord and Ms Wright attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and payment of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants have applied for exemplary damages for breach of their quiet enjoyment of the premises and unlawful entry. Rent
The tenancy ended on 17 December 2025. The Tribunal’s previous order confirmed that the rent claim was proved. I have now formally awarded it. The tenant confirmed that she accepted the claim. Landlord’s Other Claims Law
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The tenant must not carelessly or intentionally damage 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.
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).
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).
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. Claims Carpet Cleaning
The landlord produced photographs showing stains on the carpet in some areas and an invoice for carpet cleaning in the sum of $250. The ingoing condition report signed by the parties did not note any carpet damage.
This satisfies me that the carpets needed professional cleaning. The claim is reasonable in amount and so I have awarded it. Cleaning
The landlord’s photographs showed that the premises were not left reasonably clean in some respects. The claim is for compensation for the landlord’s own time spent cleaning the premises. I find the claim to be reasonable and so I have awarded it. Plumbing Work
The landlord claims $855.36 based on an invoice for repairing the flushing mechanism of a toilet cistern and the basket waste to the kitchen sink.
The tenant said that she was not aware of any problem with the operation of the toilet.
The invoice records that the flush valve was missing and the flush button damaged. They were replaced.
I am satisfied that there was damage to the toilet during the tenancy that exceeds fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for it. The tenant is therefore liable for the cost of repair.
The tenant was aware of a problem with the sink basket waste. She said that there was a leak there and her husband tried to repair it by putting some sealant around it. She said that the waste was old and rusted. They did not report it to the landlord because they could deal with it themselves.
The landlord did not produce any photographs showing the damaged waste. Without photographic evidence I cannot be satisfied that the damage was beyond fair wear and tear. The tenants would have been better to report the problem to the landlord, but it is likely that the repair would have been necessary in any event. The tenant is therefore not liable for the repair of the waste.
There is no breakdown of the cost between the waste and the toilet, but my sense is that the toilet repair was the larger share of the cost. I have therefore awarded $500 for that repair. Garage Door
The landlord produced a photograph showing what appears to be minor impact damage to the insulation on the inside of the garage door. The tenant said that she has no knowledge of it. But I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and that it is beyond fair wear and tear.
The landlord has no evidence of the cost of repairing the damage. It is still under consideration by the suppliers of the door. It may be limited to improving the appearance of it.
I find that compensation is warranted and an award of $100 is appropriate. Methamphetamine Contamination
The landlord claims compensation relating to methamphetamine (meth) contamination of the premises during the tenancy. The main claim is for loss of rent during the time it took to have the premises decontaminated. The costs of decontamination were considerable, but they were covered by insurance and the tenant does not claim them.
The landlord had the premises tested for meth following the end of the tenancy and it was found to have meth residue is excess of 15μmg/100cm² in some areas. That is the level at which it is considered unacceptable.
The landlord did not conduct an ingoing test and so there is no base level to compare the test results to. It is possible that the premises were already contaminated at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord said that there have been three tenancies prior to this one since she has owned the premises. After the first two, she had the two bathrooms in the premises completely renovated. The testing found meth contamination in the bathrooms although not at levels above 15μ/100cm².
She produced a sworn statement from the tenant of the third tenancy, after the renovations, stating that neither she, her husband or any visitors to the premises used meth in the premises during their tenancy.
The landlord produced some other evidence, but it did not add anything of significance. I note that during the tenancy the landlord had no concerns regarding drug use at the premises.
The tenant denied that she or anyone else in the premises used meth.
What we are left with is the word of the tenant against the word of the previous tenant. The Tribunal requires compelling evidence to prove that a tenant is responsible for meth contamination of the premises during the tenancy. That is because it is a very serious allegation and constitutes a serious criminal offence. The evidence needed to prove it on the balance of probabilities (i.e. that it is more likely than not) must be substantial.
The evidence in this case falls well short of what is required and so this claim must be dismissed. The Tenants’ Claims
The tenants’ claim that the landlord entered the premises and interfered with their belongings before the end of the day on 17 December and that their cleaners were prevented from completing their cleaning because the landlord locked them out.
The evidence is clear that the tenant agreed to be out of the premises and to have completed cleaning and rubbish removal by 3pm on 17 December. The landlord arrived at the premises at that time. The tenant’s cleaners were still there at that time and the tenant’s brother also arrived to remove some items.
In these circumstances, there has been no breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises or any unlawful entry because the tenant had permitted it. I also do not accept that the landlord locked the tenant’s cleaners or her brother out of the premises. I accept the landlord’s evidence that she left the keys for the cleaners when she left the premises. I note as well that the tenant could have contacted her by telephone at any time.
The tenant has taken her concerns about the landlord sharing her private information with others to the Privacy Commissioner which is the correct place her them.
The tenant’s claims must therefore be dismissed. Filing Fees
Because the landlord has had some success, I have awarded her the filing fee. Suppression
For the same reason I have granted her name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5407508 — net $4,173.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 17 December 2025	$4,495.71	Rent arrears to 17 December 2025
Carpet Cleaning	$250.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$150.00	Cleaning
Plumbing repairs	$500.00	Plumbing repairs
Garage door	$100.00	Garage door
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,173.71
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,173.71

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Courtenay Susan Wright and Jason Dardir Wright must pay [The landlord/s] $4,173.71 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The parties’ claims are otherwise dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord and Ms Wright attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and payment of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants have applied for exemplary damages for breach of their quiet enjoyment of the premises and unlawful entry. Rent
The tenancy ended on 17 December 2025. The Tribunal’s previous order confirmed that the rent claim was proved. I have now formally awarded it. The tenant confirmed that she accepted the claim. Landlord’s Other Claims Law
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The tenant must not carelessly or intentionally damage 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.
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).
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).
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. Claims Carpet Cleaning
The landlord produced photographs showing stains on the carpet in some areas and an invoice for carpet cleaning in the sum of $250. The ingoing condition report signed by the parties did not note any carpet damage.
This satisfies me that the carpets needed professional cleaning. The claim is reasonable in amount and so I have awarded it. Cleaning
The landlord’s photographs showed that the premises were not left reasonably clean in some respects. The claim is for compensation for the landlord’s own time spent cleaning the premises. I find the claim to be reasonable and so I have awarded it. Plumbing Work
The landlord claims $855.36 based on an invoice for repairing the flushing mechanism of a toilet cistern and the basket waste to the kitchen sink.
The tenant said that she was not aware of any problem with the operation of the toilet.
The invoice records that the flush valve was missing and the flush button damaged. They were replaced.
I am satisfied that there was damage to the toilet during the tenancy that exceeds fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for it. The tenant is therefore liable for the cost of repair.
The tenant was aware of a problem with the sink basket waste. She said that there was a leak there and her husband tried to repair it by putting some sealant around it. She said that the waste was old and rusted. They did not report it to the landlord because they could deal with it themselves.
The landlord did not produce any photographs showing the damaged waste. Without photographic evidence I cannot be satisfied that the damage was beyond fair wear and tear. The tenants would have been better to report the problem to the landlord, but it is likely that the repair would have been necessary in any event. The tenant is therefore not liable for the repair of the waste.
There is no breakdown of the cost between the waste and the toilet, but my sense is that the toilet repair was the larger share of the cost. I have therefore awarded $500 for that repair. Garage Door
The landlord produced a photograph showing what appears to be minor impact damage to the insulation on the inside of the garage door. The tenant said that she has no knowledge of it. But I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and that it is beyond fair wear and tear.
The landlord has no evidence of the cost of repairing the damage. It is still under consideration by the suppliers of the door. It may be limited to improving the appearance of it.
I find that compensation is warranted and an award of $100 is appropriate. Methamphetamine Contamination
The landlord claims compensation relating to methamphetamine (meth) contamination of the premises during the tenancy. The main claim is for loss of rent during the time it took to have the premises decontaminated. The costs of decontamination were considerable, but they were covered by insurance and the tenant does not claim them.
The landlord had the premises tested for meth following the end of the tenancy and it was found to have meth residue is excess of 15μmg/100cm² in some areas. That is the level at which it is considered unacceptable.
The landlord did not conduct an ingoing test and so there is no base level to compare the test results to. It is possible that the premises were already contaminated at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord said that there have been three tenancies prior to this one since she has owned the premises. After the first two, she had the two bathrooms in the premises completely renovated. The testing found meth contamination in the bathrooms although not at levels above 15μ/100cm².
She produced a sworn statement from the tenant of the third tenancy, after the renovations, stating that neither she, her husband or any visitors to the premises used meth in the premises during their tenancy.
The landlord produced some other evidence, but it did not add anything of significance. I note that during the tenancy the landlord had no concerns regarding drug use at the premises.
The tenant denied that she or anyone else in the premises used meth.
What we are left with is the word of the tenant against the word of the previous tenant. The Tribunal requires compelling evidence to prove that a tenant is responsible for meth contamination of the premises during the tenancy. That is because it is a very serious allegation and constitutes a serious criminal offence. The evidence needed to prove it on the balance of probabilities (i.e. that it is more likely than not) must be substantial.
The evidence in this case falls well short of what is required and so this claim must be dismissed. The Tenants’ Claims
The tenants’ claim that the landlord entered the premises and interfered with their belongings before the end of the day on 17 December and that their cleaners were prevented from completing their cleaning because the landlord locked them out.
The evidence is clear that the tenant agreed to be out of the premises and to have completed cleaning and rubbish removal by 3pm on 17 December. The landlord arrived at the premises at that time. The tenant’s cleaners were still there at that time and the tenant’s brother also arrived to remove some items.
In these circumstances, there has been no breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises or any unlawful entry because the tenant had permitted it. I also do not accept that the landlord locked the tenant’s cleaners or her brother out of the premises. I accept the landlord’s evidence that she left the keys for the cleaners when she left the premises. I note as well that the tenant could have contacted her by telephone at any time.
The tenant has taken her concerns about the landlord sharing her private information with others to the Privacy Commissioner which is the correct place her them.
The tenant’s claims must therefore be dismissed. Filing Fees
Because the landlord has had some success, I have awarded her the filing fee. Suppression
For the same reason I have granted her name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5407508 — Rent arrears at Flat 2, 14 Clementine Lane, Mount Pleasant, Christchurch 8081

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5407508 — Rent arrears at Flat 2, 14 Clementine Lane, Mount Pleasant, Christchurch 8081

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions