What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5455280 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,660.00 (BN-00151254) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 5455280?

Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5455280?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5455280?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13899111-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5455280 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,660.00 (BN-00151254) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 5455280?

Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5455280?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5455280?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13899111-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

5 Meadowvale Rise, Titirangi, Auckland 0604 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5455280 — Property damage

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5455280. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Damage Repair Excess	$300.00		Damage Repair Excess

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,660.00 (BN-00151254) immediately apportioned as follows:

The applicant seeks $2,500, being the insurance excess for meth decontamination costs. The applicant also seeks $550 for a damage repair insurance excess. The original insurance claim totalled $15,620.23 and included rubbish removal, locksmith costs, cleaning, and repairs. The tenancy ended by mutual consent. The landlord states that antisocial behaviour notices were issued during the tenancy. However, I have not examined the veracity of those incidents and I accept the parties' evidence that the tenancy ended by mutual consent.

Is the tenant liable for the meth decontamination insurance excess?

The thresholds for establishing tenant liability for meth-related decontamination are stringent. Eren Limited v Martin and Kukuruzsnayak [2021] NZDC 15210 establishes that, generally, liability requires consideration of both pre-tenancy and post-tenancy meth testing, together with evidence establishing causation.

In this case, the pre-tenancy meth test was conducted approximately four months before the tenancy commenced. However, that is not the determinative issue.

The determinative issue is the evidence from the property manager, as identified by the respondent. The exit inspection report records a neighbour statement indicating that, after this tenancy had ended, men entered the property, were reportedly naked and under the influence of drugs, and that the police attended the property.

The landlord submits that this occurred on the day the tenancy ended. However, the parties agree, and the property manager's contemporaneous notes confirm, that these events occurred after possession of the premises had been returned to the landlord.

Accordingly, I am not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that any contamination identified in the meth testing can be attributed to the respondent tenant.

In light of that finding, it is unnecessary for me to undertake a detailed assessment of the testing reports or the level of contamination. Causation has not been established to the required standard, and the claim for the meth decontamination insurance excess is therefore dismissed.

Is the tenant liable for the damage repair insurance excess?

The remaining claim relates to a single insurance excess for damage repairs.

The damage identified by the landlord relates to several areas where patching work had not been completed. The respondent says they required additional time before the tenancy ended to complete those repairs and the repairs identified were for reinstatement following the removal of shelving rather than intentional damage..

I have reviewed the exit inspection photographs. The inspection report acknowledges that the property was left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. However, there was damage present, and the respondent has acknowledged responsibility for some of that damage during the hearing.

Even if the damage resulted from the removal of shelves or similar fixtures, the landlord was entitled to have the premises properly reinstated at the conclusion of the tenancy.

The insurance excess incurred was $550. However, the landlord also obtained the benefit of repairs under that excess which have not been attributed to the respondent. In addition, the respondent is correct that the tenancy agreement records an insurance excess of $500.

Taking those matters into account, I am satisfied that it is fair and reasonable for the respondent to contribute $300 towards the insurance excess. H Ben Fayed 15 July 2026

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5455280. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Damage Repair Excess	$300.00		Damage Repair Excess

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,660.00 (BN-00151254) immediately apportioned as follows:
The applicant seeks $2,500, being the insurance excess for meth decontamination costs. The applicant also seeks $550 for a damage repair insurance excess. The original insurance claim totalled $15,620.23 and included rubbish removal, locksmith costs, cleaning, and repairs. The tenancy ended by mutual consent. The landlord states that antisocial behaviour notices were issued during the tenancy. However, I have not examined the veracity of those incidents and I accept the parties' evidence that the tenancy ended by mutual consent.

Is the tenant liable for the meth decontamination insurance excess?

The thresholds for establishing tenant liability for meth-related decontamination are stringent. Eren Limited v Martin and Kukuruzsnayak [2021] NZDC 15210 establishes that, generally, liability requires consideration of both pre-tenancy and post-tenancy meth testing, together with evidence establishing causation.
In this case, the pre-tenancy meth test was conducted approximately four months before the tenancy commenced. However, that is not the determinative issue.
The determinative issue is the evidence from the property manager, as identified by the respondent. The exit inspection report records a neighbour statement indicating that, after this tenancy had ended, men entered the property, were reportedly naked and under the influence of drugs, and that the police attended the property.
The landlord submits that this occurred on the day the tenancy ended. However, the parties agree, and the property manager's contemporaneous notes confirm, that these events occurred after possession of the premises had been returned to the landlord.
Accordingly, I am not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that any contamination identified in the meth testing can be attributed to the respondent tenant.
In light of that finding, it is unnecessary for me to undertake a detailed assessment of the testing reports or the level of contamination. Causation has not been established to the required standard, and the claim for the meth decontamination insurance excess is therefore dismissed.

Is the tenant liable for the damage repair insurance excess?

The remaining claim relates to a single insurance excess for damage repairs.
The damage identified by the landlord relates to several areas where patching work had not been completed. The respondent says they required additional time before the tenancy ended to complete those repairs and the repairs identified were for reinstatement following the removal of shelving rather than intentional damage..
I have reviewed the exit inspection photographs. The inspection report acknowledges that the property was left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. However, there was damage present, and the respondent has acknowledged responsibility for some of that damage during the hearing.
Even if the damage resulted from the removal of shelves or similar fixtures, the landlord was entitled to have the premises properly reinstated at the conclusion of the tenancy.
The insurance excess incurred was $550. However, the landlord also obtained the benefit of repairs under that excess which have not been attributed to the respondent. In addition, the respondent is correct that the tenancy agreement records an insurance excess of $500.
Taking those matters into account, I am satisfied that it is fair and reasonable for the respondent to contribute $300 towards the insurance excess. H Ben Fayed 15 July 2026

Tenancy Tribunal case 5455280 — Property damage at 5 Meadowvale Rise, Titirangi, Auckland 0604

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5455280 — Property damage at 5 Meadowvale Rise, Titirangi, Auckland 0604

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Is the tenant liable for the meth decontamination insurance excess?

Is the tenant liable for the damage repair insurance excess?

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Is the tenant liable for the meth decontamination insurance excess?

Is the tenant liable for the damage repair insurance excess?

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions