What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5443388 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Seddon Street Property Management Limited As

How much money was awarded in case 5443388?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $195.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Methamphetamine Tests: $784.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $487.55 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $4,704.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,767.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5443388?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5443388?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13698024-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5443388 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Seddon Street Property Management Limited As

How much money was awarded in case 5443388?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $195.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Methamphetamine Tests: $784.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $487.55 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $4,704.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,767.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5443388?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5443388?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13698024-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

17C Graham Street, Levin, Levin 5510 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5443388 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5443388 — net $6,186.91 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,767.86	Rent arrears
Lock/key replacement	$487.55	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning	$195.50	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$200.00	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs	$4,704.00	Repairs
Methamphetamine tests	$784.00	Methamphetamine tests
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,186.91
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,186.91

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Seddon Street Property Management Limited As Agent For Zeacow Investment Trust $6,186.91 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,980.00 (BN-17507944) to Seddon Street Property Management Limited As Agent For Zeacow Investment Trust immediately. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$1,767.86 Lock/key replacement$487.55 Cleaning$195.50 Carpet Cleaning$200.00 Repairs$4,704.00 Methamphetamine tests$784.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$8,166.91 Bond$1,980.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$6,186.91

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
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 tenant gave notice by text on 4 November 2025 that she was moving out. The tenant is required to give 21-days’ notice. The end date of the tenancy was 25 November 2025. 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 landlord provided photographic evidence that the tenant did not leave all of the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove a small amount of rubbish. The landlord’s evidence showed that there were surfaces which required wiping and the floors required extensive cleaning. The property was new at the start of the tenancy and so the tenant was required to return the premises cleaned to the same standard as shown in the ingoing report. The photographic evidence showed that the carpets were extensively stained.
The tenant returned some keys to the landlord. The landlord gave evidence that she was advised by neighbours that the tenant had returned to the premises with friends after the keys were returned and gained access to the property. The landlord advised that there was no sign of forced entry and so the landlord reasonably believed that the tenant had not returned all keys and that it was necessary for her to change the locks.
A curtain in the kitchen missing at the end of the tenancy.
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 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 provided photographic evidence that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. In bedroom 1: i. Both wardrobe doors had holes which had been inexpertly patched. ii. There were multiple holes in the walls which had been inexpertly patched and painted over. iii. There was a broken light switch. b. In bedroom 2: i. There was extensive damage to every wall and the ceiling which had been inexpertly patched and painted. ii. There was damage to the inside of a wardrobe door. iii. The original door was missing and the tenant had replaced it with an unpainted door which she had inexpertly painted and hung. Correct installation required hanging the door back as it was originally, repairing the door framing and the doo handle. c. In the living room: i. A light switch was broken. ii. The walls had been inexpertly painted and repainted in various, nonmatching shades. iii. Holes in the ceiling had been inexpertly repaired and painted. d. The laundry door was cracked and the tenant had inexpertly attempted a repair. e. In the bathroom: i. The door frame and the striker were damaged. ii. There was damage to the walls. f. Window latches throughout the property required tightening.
The photographic evidence shows that the damage was intentional. It is reasonable to conclude that the holes in the walls are at punch and kick height and the doors and door frames had been subjected to significant, violent force.
The damage is 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. AS the property was new at the start of the tenancy, the landlord is entitled to have the property restored to the condition it was in. The amounts claimed are modest and at the lower end of charges which the Tribunal sees for similar work in this area. The Tribunal concludes that it is not necessary to reduce the amounts claimed by the landlord as there has been no betterment. Methamphetamine contamination
The landlord provided evidence from an independent, qualified contractor that: a. The premises were free of methamphetamine contamination at the start of the tenancy. b. A presumptive test at the end of the tenancy showed the presence of methamphetamine in the bathroom. c. The laboratory test for the bathroom showed the presence of 0.26 μg. d. After cleaning the bathroom, it was free from methamphetamine.
The landlord provided a photograph of what appeared to be drug paraphernalia on the bench of the kitchen at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord believes that the extensive painting of walls and ceilings may have been an attempt by the tenant to mask the drug use.
On the evidence before the Tribunal, it is persuaded on the balance of probabilities that methamphetamine was consumed on the premises during the tenancy. The level of methamphetamine detected is less than that prescribed in the New Zealand Standards and the Residential Tenancies (Managing Methamphetamine Contamination) Regulations 2026.
The landlord has produced evidence that the tenant has engaged in an unlawful activity which is a breach of the tenant’s obligation under section 40(2)(b) RTA. It is therefore reasonable that the tenant meets the landlord’s costs of obtaining the presumptive, laboratory and clear tests. Filing fee
Because Seddon Street Property Management Limited As Agent For Zeacow Investment Trust has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5443388 — net $6,186.91 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,767.86	Rent arrears
Lock/key replacement	$487.55	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning	$195.50	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$200.00	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs	$4,704.00	Repairs
Methamphetamine tests	$784.00	Methamphetamine tests
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,186.91
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,186.91

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Seddon Street Property Management Limited As Agent For Zeacow Investment Trust $6,186.91 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,980.00 (BN-17507944) to Seddon Street Property Management Limited As Agent For Zeacow Investment Trust immediately. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$1,767.86 Lock/key replacement$487.55 Cleaning$195.50 Carpet Cleaning$200.00 Repairs$4,704.00 Methamphetamine tests$784.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$8,166.91 Bond$1,980.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$6,186.91

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
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 tenant gave notice by text on 4 November 2025 that she was moving out. The tenant is required to give 21-days’ notice. The end date of the tenancy was 25 November 2025. 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 landlord provided photographic evidence that the tenant did not leave all of the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove a small amount of rubbish. The landlord’s evidence showed that there were surfaces which required wiping and the floors required extensive cleaning. The property was new at the start of the tenancy and so the tenant was required to return the premises cleaned to the same standard as shown in the ingoing report. The photographic evidence showed that the carpets were extensively stained.
The tenant returned some keys to the landlord. The landlord gave evidence that she was advised by neighbours that the tenant had returned to the premises with friends after the keys were returned and gained access to the property. The landlord advised that there was no sign of forced entry and so the landlord reasonably believed that the tenant had not returned all keys and that it was necessary for her to change the locks.
A curtain in the kitchen missing at the end of the tenancy.
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 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 provided photographic evidence that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. In bedroom 1: i. Both wardrobe doors had holes which had been inexpertly patched. ii. There were multiple holes in the walls which had been inexpertly patched and painted over. iii. There was a broken light switch. b. In bedroom 2: i. There was extensive damage to every wall and the ceiling which had been inexpertly patched and painted. ii. There was damage to the inside of a wardrobe door. iii. The original door was missing and the tenant had replaced it with an unpainted door which she had inexpertly painted and hung. Correct installation required hanging the door back as it was originally, repairing the door framing and the doo handle. c. In the living room: i. A light switch was broken. ii. The walls had been inexpertly painted and repainted in various, nonmatching shades. iii. Holes in the ceiling had been inexpertly repaired and painted. d. The laundry door was cracked and the tenant had inexpertly attempted a repair. e. In the bathroom: i. The door frame and the striker were damaged. ii. There was damage to the walls. f. Window latches throughout the property required tightening.
The photographic evidence shows that the damage was intentional. It is reasonable to conclude that the holes in the walls are at punch and kick height and the doors and door frames had been subjected to significant, violent force.
The damage is 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. AS the property was new at the start of the tenancy, the landlord is entitled to have the property restored to the condition it was in. The amounts claimed are modest and at the lower end of charges which the Tribunal sees for similar work in this area. The Tribunal concludes that it is not necessary to reduce the amounts claimed by the landlord as there has been no betterment. Methamphetamine contamination
The landlord provided evidence from an independent, qualified contractor that: a. The premises were free of methamphetamine contamination at the start of the tenancy. b. A presumptive test at the end of the tenancy showed the presence of methamphetamine in the bathroom. c. The laboratory test for the bathroom showed the presence of 0.26 μg. d. After cleaning the bathroom, it was free from methamphetamine.
The landlord provided a photograph of what appeared to be drug paraphernalia on the bench of the kitchen at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord believes that the extensive painting of walls and ceilings may have been an attempt by the tenant to mask the drug use.
On the evidence before the Tribunal, it is persuaded on the balance of probabilities that methamphetamine was consumed on the premises during the tenancy. The level of methamphetamine detected is less than that prescribed in the New Zealand Standards and the Residential Tenancies (Managing Methamphetamine Contamination) Regulations 2026.
The landlord has produced evidence that the tenant has engaged in an unlawful activity which is a breach of the tenant’s obligation under section 40(2)(b) RTA. It is therefore reasonable that the tenant meets the landlord’s costs of obtaining the presumptive, laboratory and clear tests. Filing fee
Because Seddon Street Property Management Limited As Agent For Zeacow Investment Trust has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5443388 — Property damage at 17C Graham Street, Levin, Levin 5510

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5443388 — Property damage at 17C Graham Street, Levin, Levin 5510

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions