What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5421059 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 5421059?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $146.94 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,435.71 awarded to landlord; Front Door Window: $2,908.08 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5421059?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5421059?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13470150-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5421059 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 5421059?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $146.94 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,435.71 awarded to landlord; Front Door Window: $2,908.08 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5421059?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5421059?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13470150-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5421059 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5421059 — net $5,818.73 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 16/07/25	$2,435.71	Rent arrears to 16/07/25
Meth testing/Cleaning: Insurance Excess	$2,500.00	Meth testing/Cleaning: Insurance Excess
Repairs: Front door window	$2,908.08	Repairs: Front door window
Lock/key replacement	$146.94	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,818.73
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,818.73

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.

Jade Breeze Kelly Grayling must pay [The landlord] $5,818.73 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
I am satisfied that the tenant had received proper notice of the hearing time, date and place and chose not to attend.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 16 July 2025, when the landlord got vacant possession back of the premise, after changing the locks when the keys were not returned after the tenant moved out. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not return the keys.
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 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.
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 landlord has proven the tenant broke the glass in the front door after being locked out of the premise. This damage was more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have considered 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 considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

Did the tenant use the premise for unlawful purposes?

[The landlord] claims the tenant has used the premise for an unlawful purpose, by using methamphetamine in the premise or allowing a person in the premises with the tenant’s permission to use methamphetamine inside the premise.
The landlord sought $2,500.00 insurance excess for the methamphetamine testing costs and for the decontamination costs.
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
It is an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 for any person to have in their possession or consume any controlled drug and to allow any premises to be used for the commission of an offence under that Act and (sections 7 and 12). “Methamphetamine” is included as a controlled drug under Schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Act. Therefore, using or allowing the premise to be used for the consumption or manufacture of methamphetamine would be considered an unlawful purpose.
To make a successful claim for methamphetamine testing and/or remediation costs, 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, because of the contamination, the premises have been damaged or are not reasonably clean.
Section 138C Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides for regulations to be made prescribing the maximum acceptable level for contaminants. From 16 April 2026, new methamphetamine regulations for residential tenancies in New Zealand have come into force. The Residential Tenancies (Managing Methamphetamine Contamination) Regulations 2026 establish clear thresholds for contamination, mandatory decontamination, and strict rules for testing.
The methamphetamine regulations state: a. If methamphetamine residue exceeds 15μg/100cm2, the property is deemed contaminated and must be decontaminated; b. If methamphetamine residue exceeds 30μg/100cm2, the property is considered uninhabitable, allowing landlords and tenants to end the tenancy; c. Screening assessments can be done by anyone (including landlords/tenants) using approved methods to detect the presence of residue; d. Landlords must use qualified professionals for detailed screening, and testing/decontamination must follow NZS 8510:2017; e. Landlords must notify tenants of methamphetamine test results within seven days; and f. Tenants are liable for damage caused by manufacturing or smoking methamphetamine.
The landlord produced a pre-tenancy methamphetamine composite test that proves the premise was free from methamphetamine contamination at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord produced the results of a composite test, that was carried out by the landlord on 16 July 2025, after the tenancy ended. This test result showed contamination of 310μg across 10 high use sample areas, making it highly likely at least one of these sample areas was above the 15μg/100cm2 contamination level set out in the methamphetamine regulations. This result led to the insurance company carrying out comprehensive testing and decontaminating the areas testing higher than 15μg/100cm2.
I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has provided sufficient evidence to support its claims for compensation for the insurance excess for the testing and decontamination costs. The landlord is awarded the $2,500.00 insurance excess. Reimbursement of filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because [The applicant] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
The landlord applies for non-publication of his name and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has substantially succeeded in his proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5421059 — net $5,818.73 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 16/07/25	$2,435.71	Rent arrears to 16/07/25
Meth testing/Cleaning: Insurance Excess	$2,500.00	Meth testing/Cleaning: Insurance Excess
Repairs: Front door window	$2,908.08	Repairs: Front door window
Lock/key replacement	$146.94	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,818.73
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,818.73

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.

Jade Breeze Kelly Grayling must pay [The landlord] $5,818.73 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
I am satisfied that the tenant had received proper notice of the hearing time, date and place and chose not to attend.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 16 July 2025, when the landlord got vacant possession back of the premise, after changing the locks when the keys were not returned after the tenant moved out. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not return the keys.
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 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.
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 landlord has proven the tenant broke the glass in the front door after being locked out of the premise. This damage was more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have considered 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 considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

Did the tenant use the premise for unlawful purposes?

[The landlord] claims the tenant has used the premise for an unlawful purpose, by using methamphetamine in the premise or allowing a person in the premises with the tenant’s permission to use methamphetamine inside the premise.
The landlord sought $2,500.00 insurance excess for the methamphetamine testing costs and for the decontamination costs.
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
It is an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 for any person to have in their possession or consume any controlled drug and to allow any premises to be used for the commission of an offence under that Act and (sections 7 and 12). “Methamphetamine” is included as a controlled drug under Schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Act. Therefore, using or allowing the premise to be used for the consumption or manufacture of methamphetamine would be considered an unlawful purpose.
To make a successful claim for methamphetamine testing and/or remediation costs, 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, because of the contamination, the premises have been damaged or are not reasonably clean.
Section 138C Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides for regulations to be made prescribing the maximum acceptable level for contaminants. From 16 April 2026, new methamphetamine regulations for residential tenancies in New Zealand have come into force. The Residential Tenancies (Managing Methamphetamine Contamination) Regulations 2026 establish clear thresholds for contamination, mandatory decontamination, and strict rules for testing.
The methamphetamine regulations state: a. If methamphetamine residue exceeds 15μg/100cm2, the property is deemed contaminated and must be decontaminated; b. If methamphetamine residue exceeds 30μg/100cm2, the property is considered uninhabitable, allowing landlords and tenants to end the tenancy; c. Screening assessments can be done by anyone (including landlords/tenants) using approved methods to detect the presence of residue; d. Landlords must use qualified professionals for detailed screening, and testing/decontamination must follow NZS 8510:2017; e. Landlords must notify tenants of methamphetamine test results within seven days; and f. Tenants are liable for damage caused by manufacturing or smoking methamphetamine.
The landlord produced a pre-tenancy methamphetamine composite test that proves the premise was free from methamphetamine contamination at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord produced the results of a composite test, that was carried out by the landlord on 16 July 2025, after the tenancy ended. This test result showed contamination of 310μg across 10 high use sample areas, making it highly likely at least one of these sample areas was above the 15μg/100cm2 contamination level set out in the methamphetamine regulations. This result led to the insurance company carrying out comprehensive testing and decontaminating the areas testing higher than 15μg/100cm2.
I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has provided sufficient evidence to support its claims for compensation for the insurance excess for the testing and decontamination costs. The landlord is awarded the $2,500.00 insurance excess. Reimbursement of filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because [The applicant] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
The landlord applies for non-publication of his name and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has substantially succeeded in his proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5421059 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5421059 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenant use the premise for unlawful purposes?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenant use the premise for unlawful purposes?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions