What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5435908?

The tribunal order states: Crystal Maria Reihana must pay Te Ahuru Mowai Limited Partnership $7,312.29

How much money was awarded in case 5435908?

Cleaning: $168.44 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Less Amount To Adjust For The Maximu…: $105.00 awarded to tenant; Methamphetamine Decontamination Cost…: $4,456.00 awarded to landlord; Mowing The Lawn: $99.62 awarded to landlord; To 3 Holes In Walls: $409.07 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $152.16 awarded to landlord; Slashing The Very Long Grass And Rem…: $1,600.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5435908?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5435908?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13362313-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5435908?

The tribunal order states: Crystal Maria Reihana must pay Te Ahuru Mowai Limited Partnership $7,312.29

How much money was awarded in case 5435908?

Cleaning: $168.44 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Less Amount To Adjust For The Maximu…: $105.00 awarded to tenant; Methamphetamine Decontamination Cost…: $4,456.00 awarded to landlord; Mowing The Lawn: $99.62 awarded to landlord; To 3 Holes In Walls: $409.07 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $152.16 awarded to landlord; Slashing The Very Long Grass And Rem…: $1,600.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5435908?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5435908?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13362313-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

27 Downes Street, Titahi Bay, Porirua 5022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5435908 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5435908 — net $7,312.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rubbish removal: overload from the skip	$152.16		Rubbish removal: overload from the skip
Rubbish removal: basement - includes labour and tipping	$700.00		Rubbish removal: basement - includes labour and tipping
Methamphetamine decontamination costs	$4,456.00		Methamphetamine decontamination costs
Oven/stove cleaning	$168.44		Oven/stove cleaning
Slashing the very long grass and removing clippings	$1,600.00		Slashing the very long grass and removing clippings
Mowing the lawn	$99.62		Mowing the lawn
Repairs: to 3 holes in walls	$409.07		Repairs: to 3 holes in walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Bond refunded already		$196.00	Bond refunded already
Less amount to adjust for the maximum claimed		$105.00	Less amount to adjust for the maximum claimed
Total award	$7,613.29	$301.00
Net award	$7,312.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,312.29

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The landlord has chosen to limit the claims to $7,508.

The claims for the cabbage tree, the rangehood, the light decontamination of bedroom one, and for new carpets and curtains were withdrawn at the hearing.

The tenant accepted all the claims made against her.

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

There are claims for returning the house to a reasonable condition. At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, and return all keys and security devices. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

This is the landlord’s claim to prove. The landlord provided me with photos taken at the end of the tenancy. Even though the tenant has agreed to the claims I am required to consider if the amounts claimed are reasonable.

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The amount claimed for rubbish removal from the basement has been reduced to an amount that seems fair to me, based on the photos of what was left in the basement.

I have reduced the amounts for slashing the very long grass to an amount that seems reasonable. The tenant does not have to pay for the hedge maintenance because the hedges were too large and high for the tenant to manage.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

There are claims for damage including a large claim for methamphetamine contamination. The 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.

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 tenant accepted the damage to the walls happened during the tenancy. I find the damage is more than fair wear and tear and the amount claimed is reasonable.

The landlord has proved there was methamphetamine contamination at the end of the tenancy. The landlord carried out a test in 2021, part way through the tenancy, and there was no contamination at that time. Methamphetamine contamination is considered to be damage. I find the landlord has proved there was damage during this tenancy.

Section 138C RTA provides for regulations to be made prescribing the maximum acceptable level for contaminants, but the regulations are not in force yet. The other source of guidance is the Gluckman Report, "Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards”. The report stated that guidelines should be proportionate to risk and that exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm 2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect. It recommended retaining the level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 where contamination resulted from manufacture, due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the process. This approach was recently accepted by the High Court in Nisbet v Te Ahuru Mowai Limited Partnership CIV-[2025] NZHC 2467.

The Hill Labs results show contamination of 30 μg in the kitchen, 10.3 μg in the dining area, 34 μg in the hallway, 15.2 μg and 23 μg in the lounge, and 23 μg in the laundry.

The landlord has claimed the cost of decontaminating the whole house, even though 4 of the 9 rooms have methamphetamine levels of less than 15 μg. However there is no evidence there is an adverse risk of exposure in the other rooms. I accept the dining area is in the same room as the kitchen and should also be decontaminated because of the high test result in the kitchen. I find the tenant should pay for the cost of decontaminating the five rooms with levels over 15 μg. I have apportioned the invoice to reflect my decision.

The claim for replacement carpets and curtains was withdrawn at the hearing after a discussion about age, betterment and depreciation. I find the associated claim for removing the carpet, curtains and tracks should be dismissed for the same reasons. Other orders

Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

There is an application for suppression. Section 95A RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest.

The landlord’s application for suppression is not allowed because there is public interest in social housing. The tenant’s name will be published because there is public interest when tenants owe money at the end of a tenancy and when there is methamphetamine contamination.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5435908 — net $7,312.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rubbish removal: overload from the skip	$152.16		Rubbish removal: overload from the skip
Rubbish removal: basement - includes labour and tipping	$700.00		Rubbish removal: basement - includes labour and tipping
Methamphetamine decontamination costs	$4,456.00		Methamphetamine decontamination costs
Oven/stove cleaning	$168.44		Oven/stove cleaning
Slashing the very long grass and removing clippings	$1,600.00		Slashing the very long grass and removing clippings
Mowing the lawn	$99.62		Mowing the lawn
Repairs: to 3 holes in walls	$409.07		Repairs: to 3 holes in walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Bond refunded already		$196.00	Bond refunded already
Less amount to adjust for the maximum claimed		$105.00	Less amount to adjust for the maximum claimed
Total award	$7,613.29	$301.00
Net award	$7,312.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,312.29

Order

Crystal Maria Reihana must pay Te Ahuru Mowai Limited Partnership $7,312.29 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The landlord has chosen to limit the claims to $7,508.
The claims for the cabbage tree, the rangehood, the light decontamination of bedroom one, and for new carpets and curtains were withdrawn at the hearing.
The tenant accepted all the claims made against her.

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

There are claims for returning the house to a reasonable condition. At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, and return all keys and security devices. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. The landlord provided me with photos taken at the end of the tenancy. Even though the tenant has agreed to the claims I am required to consider if the amounts claimed are reasonable.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The amount claimed for rubbish removal from the basement has been reduced to an amount that seems fair to me, based on the photos of what was left in the basement.
I have reduced the amounts for slashing the very long grass to an amount that seems reasonable. The tenant does not have to pay for the hedge maintenance because the hedges were too large and high for the tenant to manage.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

There are claims for damage including a large claim for methamphetamine contamination. The 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.
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 tenant accepted the damage to the walls happened during the tenancy. I find the damage is more than fair wear and tear and the amount claimed is reasonable.
The landlord has proved there was methamphetamine contamination at the end of the tenancy. The landlord carried out a test in 2021, part way through the tenancy, and there was no contamination at that time. Methamphetamine contamination is considered to be damage. I find the landlord has proved there was damage during this tenancy.
Section 138C RTA provides for regulations to be made prescribing the maximum acceptable level for contaminants, but the regulations are not in force yet. The other source of guidance is the Gluckman Report, "Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards”. The report stated that guidelines should be proportionate to risk and that exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm 2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect. It recommended retaining the level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 where contamination resulted from manufacture, due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the process. This approach was recently accepted by the High Court in Nisbet v Te Ahuru Mowai Limited Partnership CIV-[2025] NZHC 2467.
The Hill Labs results show contamination of 30 μg in the kitchen, 10.3 μg in the dining area, 34 μg in the hallway, 15.2 μg and 23 μg in the lounge, and 23 μg in the laundry.
The landlord has claimed the cost of decontaminating the whole house, even though 4 of the 9 rooms have methamphetamine levels of less than 15 μg. However there is no evidence there is an adverse risk of exposure in the other rooms. I accept the dining area is in the same room as the kitchen and should also be decontaminated because of the high test result in the kitchen. I find the tenant should pay for the cost of decontaminating the five rooms with levels over 15 μg. I have apportioned the invoice to reflect my decision.
The claim for replacement carpets and curtains was withdrawn at the hearing after a discussion about age, betterment and depreciation. I find the associated claim for removing the carpet, curtains and tracks should be dismissed for the same reasons. Other orders
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
There is an application for suppression. Section 95A RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest.
The landlord’s application for suppression is not allowed because there is public interest in social housing. The tenant’s name will be published because there is public interest when tenants owe money at the end of a tenancy and when there is methamphetamine contamination.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5435908 — Property damage at 27 Downes Street, Titahi Bay, Porirua 5022

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5435908 — Property damage at 27 Downes Street, Titahi Bay, Porirua 5022

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions