What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5420510 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay Te Ahuru Mowai Limited Partnership the sum of $8,270.93

How much money was awarded in case 5420510?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5420510?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5420510?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14186418-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5420510 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay Te Ahuru Mowai Limited Partnership the sum of $8,270.93

How much money was awarded in case 5420510?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5420510?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5420510?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14186418-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

13 Owhiti Street, Titahi Bay, Porirua 5022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5420510 — Property damage

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay Te Ahuru Mowai Limited Partnership the sum of $8,270.93 immediately, calculated as follows: ItemAmount Carpet cleaning$477.60 Rubbish removal $1696.44 Garden work$1095.36 Oven cleaning$168.44 Interior repairs$1677.18 Interior repairs$3497.91 Filing fee$28.00 Minus bond$(370.00) Total amount payable by the tenant$8270.93
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $370.00 (BN-00075394) to Te Ahuru Mowai Limited Partnership immediately.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord against the tenant. The hearing was convene today in Porirua.
Only the landlord appeared at the hearing. I am satisfied that the tenant has been properly notified of the hearing, and therefore I will proceed to consider the claims in her absence.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy agreement records that this tenancy commenced on 16 April 2025, as a periodic tenancy. [The tenant/s] tenant/s] was the sole tenant. The landlord is Te Āhuru Mōwai.
It is relevant to note that prior to this tenancy commencing, the premises were fire damaged. The landlord provided photographs which show the extent of that damage, which was significant.
Prior to the remediation from the fire, the landlord had the premises methamphetamine tested, and the results show no appreciable methamphetamine levels.
The landlord undertook extensive redecoration throughout the dwelling. Pre-tenancy photographs have been provided, which show the premises to be completely renovated internally. The carpet and curtains appear new, as does the kitchen and bathrooms, the walls and doors are all freshly repainted.
The landlord confirmed that once the redecoration was completed, [The tenant/s] tenant/s] was the first tenant in the premises, and as above, her tenancy started on 16 April 2025.
On 7 October 2025 the tenant gave notice ending the tenancy. The reason given on the notice was “Relocation”. According to the application form submitted by the landlord, the tenancy ended on 14 October 2025.
The post tenancy photographs have been provided. Those demonstrate that the premises were not returned to the landlord in good condition, I will discuss this further below.
The landlord also had the premises methamphetamine tested, and that returned positive results, again I will discuss this below.
The landlord filed an application with the Tribunal seeking a range of compensation, which is the subject of this decision. Procedural note
A hearing was originally scheduled before the Tribunal on 8 July 2026.
On 7 July 2026, the tenant emailed the Tribunal seeking an adjournment of the hearing, and that request was supported by the landlord. In the tenants email she advised she was in hospital with her daughter and also raised issues with defects with the premises, and a lack of maintenance. The landlord supported the adjournment so it could consider the maintenance concerns, and the photographs the tenant provided. The hearing was adjourned.
The hearing was rescheduled 29 September 2026, for a full day hearing in Porirua. The landlord attended the hearing as scheduled, there was no appearance by the tenant. Because I was satisfied the tenant had been notified of the hearing, the hearing proceeded as scheduled.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

ANALYSIS

I will consider the landlords claims in turn. Claim 1-Methamphetamine cleaning
The landlord seeks compensation for cleaning the premises, to bring the methamphetamine levels down to 1.5 μg/100cm 2 . The landlord seeks costs of $2,400.00, being cleaning at $400.00 per room. Analysis
The landlord has claimed various costs in relation to decontaminating the premises from methamphetamine contamination.
Following the fire, the landlord had the premises methamphetamine tested on 22 November 2024. The testing report from Hills laboratories has been provided, which shows testing in 15 locations throughout the premises, and I accept there was no appreciable contamination reported. The highest level of methamphetamine detected was 0.06 μg/sample, not much higher than the minimum detection limit of the testing.
After the Tenancy of [The tenant/s] tenant/s] ended, the landlord had the premises tested again for methamphetamine, and that did return positive results then all rooms were tested. The testing was undertaken on 7 October 2025, and returned the following results as reported by Hills Laboratories: AreaLevel μg/sample Lounge 10.58 Lounge 24.5 Dinning room6.9 Kitchen5 Entrance 3.5 Laundry0.3 Bedroom 11.99 Bedroom 20.94 Bedroom 30.62 Bathroom0.64
The landlord then had the premises decontaminated. At the hearing the landlord advised that the landlord's policy was to remediate premises down to the New Zealand Standard of 1.5 μg/100cm 2 . Following that decontamination, further testing was undertaken on 21 October 2025, again reported by Hills Laboratories as follows: AreaLevel μg/sample Bedroom 10.31 Bedroom 24.9 Bedroom 31.02 Bathroom3.6 Hallway1.19 Lounge 10.07 Lounge 20.25 Dinning room0.21 Kitchen0.58 Entrance0.1 25.
The final testing was on 29 October 2025, where Hills Laboratories reported: AreaLevel μg/sample Laundry0.11 Bedroom 21.51 Bathroom0.9
Accordingly, there are two questions to be determined, that is: a. Whether the premises were likely to have been methamphetamine contaminated during the tenancy; and. b. Whether the tenant is liable for the decontamination cost.

Were the premises contaminated during the tenancy?

Prior to the premises being redecorated, the landlord had the premises tested for methamphetamine, and from that I accept there was no evidence of contamination. The landlord then had the premises redecorated, and following that [The tenant/s] tenant/s] moved in as the tenant. After [The tenant/s] tenant/s] moved out, the testing clearly showed methamphetamine contamination.
The question then, is whether the evidence favour is a conclusion that the premises were contaminated when [The tenant/s] tenant/s] moved into the property. On balance, I am not persuaded that there is evidence to show that the premises were contaminated prior. The post tenancy testing was undertaken on freshly painted surfaces, and in order to accept the premises were contaminated before [The tenant/s] tenant/s]'s tenancy, I would need to accept that sometime after the walls and surfaces were repainted, they were contaminated. The level of contamination particularly in the dining room lounge, kitchen and entrance, are reasonably significant. I am not persuaded that the evidence to shows tradesmen or the like, had caused that level of contamination in the short period before the tenant moved in.
I am also minded that while the tenant disputes in her email to the Tribunal on 7 July 2026 that she used methamphetamine, but the tenant did not attend the hearing and advanced that, or provide evidence on that matter. In the earlier email the tenant said. I am also concerned about the methamphetamine testing carried out during my final inspection. I have never used methamphetamine in the property. I was told there was evidence of meth use, yet when I questioned the results I was simply told it did not matter because there was evidence. I was advised the reading at the start of the tenancy was zero and later readings were approximately 2 or 3. I genuinely question the accuracy and reliability of those results and do not believe they reflect what actually occurred in the property.
The Tribunal must determine in the matter on the balance of probabilities, and I am satisfied on the evidence available, that it is more likely than not that the contamination occurred during the tenancy.

Is the tenant liable for the decontamination costs?

The question then becomes, whether the Tribunal can order the decontamination cost be paid by the tenant.
It is necessary to consider the history regarding methamphetamine levels in residential premises in New Zealand.
In 2017 Standards New Zealand released Standard NZS 8510:2017 “Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine-contaminated properties”. At that time, this standard set the definitive levels at which properties which had methamphetamine contamination, required remediation. The Standard confirmed that: After seeking expert advice on exposure risk from Environmental Science and Research Ltd (ESR) and the Ministry of Health, and reviewing a large number of public comments on a draft of this standard, the committee has decided to set the maximum acceptable level of methamphetamine in an affected property at 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 after decontamination. While this level is greater than the Ministry of Health 2010 guideline value of 0.5 μg/100 cm 2 for properties used as clandestine laboratories, there are a number of reasons why the committee decided to adopt the single value of 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 in this standard.
In short, this standard confirmed that the level at which habitation of residential premises was considered safe, was a level of 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 . The expectation on landlords arising from this Standard, was to remediate premises contaminated with methamphetamine, to a level of less than 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 .
In more recent times, the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman determined that there was little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption (Report entitled ‘Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards’, 29 May 2018). The report concluded that any levels below 15 μg/100 cm 2 were unlikely to present adverse effects: Taken together, these factors indicate that methamphetamine levels that exceed the NZS 8510:2017 clean-up standard of 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 should not be regarded as signalling a health risk. Indeed, exposure to methamphetamine levels below 15 μg/100 cm 2 would be unlikely to give rise to any adverse effects. This level still incorporates a 30-fold safety buffer on a conservative estimate of risk.
The difficulty for the landlord in this case, is that the assessed levels of methamphetamine are well below the level at which the Prime Minister's chief science advisor, considered that health risks would arise. The approach taken by the Tribunal since that report was released, was to determine that residential premises were not deemed to be an unclean, when the level is less than 15 μg/100cm 2 , and because of that, there would be no basis for the Tribunal to order that [The tenant/s] tenant/s] pay the remediation cost where the levels were below that level.
While I accept the landlord's policy is to remediate the premises to the level of the New Zealand Standard, that of itself does not mean the tenant is liable to pay for that work.
I note that following the testing and work which is the subject of this application, the government introduced the Residential Tenancies (Managing Methamphetamine Contamination) Regulations 2026, which came into force on 16 April 2026 and prescribes two important levels. a. 15 μg/100cm 2 is deemed to be “[t]he maximum acceptable level of methamphetamine for premises”; and b. 30 μg/100cm 2 is deemed to be “[t]he maximum inhabitable level of methamphetamine for premises”.
What that means, is that if the levels were below 15 μg/100cm 2 then a person could continue living in the premises, without additional cleaning being required, but if the levels were between 15 and 30 μg/100cm 2 then the premises would require decontamination. For levels over 30 μg/100cm 2 then the premises are uninhabitable.
Those regulations do not apply in this case, because they only came into force after this Tenancy ended. However, the regulations do provide guidance now for tenant liability based on the level of contamination. Nevertheless, if this case was measured against the regulations, the outcome would be no different.
For those reasons, while I consider it more likely than not that the contamination arose during the tenancy, I find the tenant is not liable to pay the decontamination cost because the premises are not unclean. Claim 2 - Carpet cleaning
The landlord seeks costs for carpet cleaning to the sum of $477.60 Analysis
At the end of the tenancy, the tenant is required to return the premises to the landlord in a reasonably clean and tidy state. Section s40 of the RTA set out the tenants responsibilities, which includes that: on the termination of the tenancy,— (i) quit the premises; and (ii) remove all his or her goods from the premises; and (iii) leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish;
The landlord has provided photographs which were taken at the end of the tenancy, which show extensive staining throughout the carpets. I am entirely satisfied the premises were not returned reasonably clean, and the tenant is therefore liable for this cleaning cost in full. I note further that given the extent of the staining, the amount claimed is reasonable. Claim 3 - Rubbish removal
The landlord has claimed rubbish removal costs to the sum of $1,696.44. Analysis
Again that the landlord has provided photographs which show extensive rubbish at the end of the tenancy. That includes a fridge, bed, old furniture, large metal safety barrier, extensive small items of rubbish throughout the exterior of the property, rubbish inside the dwelling, armchair, couch, old television, pellets.
The invoice has been provided for the rubbish removal, which again is commensurate with the amount of rubbish that would have needed to be removed. This claim is established and has ordered in full. Claim 4 - Lawns and gardens
The landlord has claimed gardening costs to the sum of $1,095.36, with reference to an invoice from Ratonga Property Limited. Analysis
As set out above, the RTA requires that the tenant returned the premises to the landlord reasonably clean and tidy, and that includes the exterior of the premises.
The photograph show that the exterior of the premises was very overgrown, the lawns were long, there were extensive weeds throughout the premises.
I have no reason to conclude that the amount charged was not a commercial rate, and finding as I do that the tenant did not return the grounds of the premises tidy, she must be liable for this cost. Claim 5 - Oven cleaning
The landlord claims $168.44 for oven cleaning. Analysis
The landlord refers to the invoice from BOE Property Services Limited, which record a charge of $168.44 for oven cleaning. The oven was new at the start of the tenancy. The photographs indicate that cleaning was required. Again I have no reason not to accept that the cleaning was reasonably necessary, on the basis of the oven not being returned reasonably clean, this claim is ordered in full. Claim 6 - Interior repainting
The landlord claims costs of $3,354.35 for undertaking repainting inside the premises. Analysis
The landlord's position is that repainting was required inside the dwelling, because of minor damage caused during the tenancy. The landlord points to photographs which show some areas of paint damage to painted corners, with a number of holes in walls, which are reasonably small, and I presume from hanging items on the wall, being about screw size. There is also damage most likely from impact damage on walls.
The landlord refers to an invoice provided by Ratonga Property Limited to the sum of $3,354.35. That relates to painting walls, painting ceilings, paint pictures, painting, skirtings, architraves, mouldings door faces, and windows.
With any compensation claim, to receive an order the party must incur a loss. In short, the compensation is intended as best money can do, to compensate for the actual loss incurred.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must first prove the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and that it occurred during the tenancy. 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, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' 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. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional when a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The obligation sits with the landlord to establish the claim. That means, the landlord must prove to the Tribunal that damage has been caused to the interior of the premises during the tenancy. In this case the interior of the premises was in very good condition at the start of the tenancy, the property had just been re-decorated. To that extent, I accept that any subsequent damage could be apportioned to this tenant.
Certainly there is damage which I would accept is intentional damage, such as the holes to the wall, although some of that damage would be careless. The tenant has not disproven liability for that damage, I am satisfied she is liable to pay for that remediation work.
I am not persuaded that the landlord has established the entirety of the repair invoice. For example, the landlord has claimed cost for painting doors, skirting boards, and a ceiling, but has not provided evidence to the tribunal to show that these areas for example, have been damaged by the tenant.
Overall, I consider it reasonable that the tenant pay a portion of the repair charges, and taking into account the damage shown on the photographs that would be intentional or careless damage, I have determined that a fair outcome would be for the tenant to pay half of the invoiced cost, I therefore order the tenant to pay $1,677.18. Claim 7 - Repairs
The final claim from the landlord relates to a range of repairs to the Tenancy. The invoice from Ratonga Property Limited totals $4,016.26, which is the landlords claim. Analysis
I have sent out the law that applies above, but again, the initial onus sits with the landlord to establish that the damage occurred during the tenancy, and that it is beyond fair wear and tear. It is only if the landlord establishes that, will the onus then shift to the tenant to prove that the damage was not careless or intentional damage.
Taking those considerations into account, I find the landlord has established the following damage to the premises, which is beyond fair wear and tear, for which the tenant has not established that the damage was anything other than careless or intentional damage: ItemAmount Window stay$63.41 Window catch and strike$31.90 Window catch and strike$31.90 Window stay$63.41 Towel rail replacement$40.33 Bathroom door knob replacement$102.23 Window repair$1162.74 Toilet seat replacement$44.13 Reglaze windows x2$755.86 Window catch and strike$255.20 Rehang cupboard doors$124.76 Window stay$317.05 Wall hole repair$42.00 Supply plug and chain$12.99 Labour$450.00 Total $3497.91
In reaching those conclusions, I note: a. The photographs show instances of multiple broken window hardware, that would not have failed from fair wear and tear. b. The towel rail appears to have been pulled from the wall. c. A bathroom door knob was missing. d. Two windows were damaged, with the glass broken. e. The toilet appeared in good condition at the start of the tenancy. f. Multiple kitchen cupboard doors were missing. g. The photograph supports a wall hole that requires required repair. h. I have no reason to believe the plug and chain was missing.
I also note that the invoice records total labour charges as $718.94. Unfortunately, the invoice is not broken down per specific job, and therefore the charges would have included work that I find the tenant not liable for, as I will discuss next. I have determined that a fair approach, taking into consideration the work that I find the tenant liable for, would be a contribution of $450 payment toward the labour cost.
However, while I find the above amounts are the tenants liability, the landlord has not convinced me that the following work is beyond maintenance: a. Replacing an interior trim. b. Work to the vinyl flooring. c. Removing silicon sealant and applying fresh silicon. d. Removing hardware items not being replaced. e. Replacement of a magnetic pool gate latch.

FILING FEE

The applicant has been partly successful in their claim before the Tribunal. I find it is reasonable, therefore to award the filing fee paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5420510 — Property damage at 13 Owhiti Street, Titahi Bay, Porirua 5022

Tenancy Tribunal case 5420510 — Property damage at 13 Owhiti Street, Titahi Bay, Porirua 5022

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

Were the premises contaminated during the tenancy?

Is the tenant liable for the decontamination costs?

FILING FEE

Property management

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

Were the premises contaminated during the tenancy?

Is the tenant liable for the decontamination costs?

FILING FEE

Property management

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.