What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5459670 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5459670?

Cleaning: $1,395.97 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Exterior Works: $1,113.72 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Methamphetamine Testing: $2,945.61 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $8,030.11 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $4,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $3,288.21 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $3.51 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5459670?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5459670?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13752873-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5459670 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5459670?

Cleaning: $1,395.97 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Exterior Works: $1,113.72 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Methamphetamine Testing: $2,945.61 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $8,030.11 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $4,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $3,288.21 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $3.51 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5459670?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5459670?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13752873-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

2 Corinna Street, Welcome Bay, Tauranga 3112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5459670 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5459670 — net $21,789.13 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates to 18 January 2026	$3.51	Water rates to 18 January 2026
Rubbish removal	$3,288.21	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$1,395.97	Cleaning
Exterior works	$1,113.72	Exterior works
Repairs (damages	$8,030.11	Repairs (damages
Repairs (redecorating	$4,000.00	Repairs (redecorating
Replacement curtains	$500.00	Replacement curtains
Methamphetamine testing	$2,945.61	Methamphetamine testing
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages	$1,000.00	Exemplary damages
Net award	$21,789.13
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$21,789.13

The landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenant and the hearing proceeded in their absence.

The landlord has applied for outgoings, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenancy commenced on 20 December 2021 and ended on 18 January 2026.

How much is owed for water rates?

The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing of $3.51 at the end of the tenancy.

The amount ordered is proved.

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 (RTA).

The landlord says that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. They claim for rubbish removal costs of $3,288.21, general cleaning of $1,395.97, and exterior works of $1,113.72 (including grass lash and cut) and evidence has been provided in support of these claims.

On review of the evidence, I consider that the property did not meet the statutory standards and the amounts claimed appear to reasonably reflect the works required.

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 claims $8,030.11 for extensive damage caused to the property. This includes repairs being required in most rooms; such as hinges, latches, curtain track repairs, stripping ripped wallpaper, light switches, wardrobe doors repairs. It also includes bathroom repairs (for example, the shower curtain and plumbing repairs), kitchen repairs and laundry repairs.

In addition, the landlord also claims $11,466.27 for what is described as decorating (including painting walls, remedying ripped off wallpaper, door frame repair) as a result of the extensive damage caused to the property. The landlord says that even without the methamphetamine damage to the property (discussed further below), this work would have been required as a result of the wall damage caused by the tenant, however, I note that the annotation in the costing records states this amount is for meth decontaminated, Damage & wear on all surfaces.

The landlord also claims for replacement curtains of $1,202.87. The landlord says that the curtains were new at the commencement of the tenancy, and at the end of the tenancy they were missing or severely damaged.

Photographs and evidence of costings have been provided in support of these claims, and the landlord has advised that no insurance was available to meet these costs.

On review of the evidence, I am satisfied that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: Damage to the walls, doors, kitchen, curtains, bathroom and laundry. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

Some wear and tear would be expected to the walls, doors, cupboards and curtains at the end of the tenancy. The walls were also not in a perfect condition at the commencement of the tenancy. 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 taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

I have therefore reduced the amounts awarded to $500.00 for the curtains and $4,000.00 for the wall decorating. The wall decorating amount is also reduced to reflect that some of this cost does appear to relate to methamphetamine decontamination and for reasons I discuss further below, is therefore not recoverable by the landlord.

The amount of $8,030.11 for the repairs for damages is awarded.

The landlord claims for methamphetamine decontamination costs of $4,155.81, and methamphetamine testing costs of $2,945.61.

Section 13C of the RTA provides for regulations to be made prescribing maximum acceptable level for contaminants. On 16 April 2026, the Residential Tenancies (Managing Methamphetamine Contamination) Regulations 2026 came into force.

The regulations make it clear that when methamphetamine levels are above 15μg per 100cm 2 a rental property will need to be contaminated.

This property was tested in January 2026 therefore before the regulations came into effect. However, the same levels have already been adopted by the Tribunal in accordance with the Gluckman Report and several preceding Tribunal cases. 1

The landlord carried out an ingoing or baseline test for methamphetamine at the premises on 29 October 2021. There was no notable methamphetamine detected.

On 14 January 2026, the landlord carried out further testing at the premises. A composite test (of five surface wipes) showed a result of 15.8μg/100cm 2 . 1 Report entitled, ‘Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards,’ 29 May 2018, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman.

Individual testing was then carried out and the certificate of analysis from that testing of 29 January 2026 showed the highest level as 9.21μg/100cm 2 (in the lounge), with other readings including 7.44μg/100cm 2 (Bedroom 1) and

12μg/100cm 2 (dining room).

As the composite test was over the Gluckman level, the landlord properly paid for individualised testing which cost $2,945.61. I consider that the tenant must reimburse the landlord for that.

However, the tenant is not otherwise liable for the decontamination costs, as there is no individualised testing showing results above the Gluckman level. A composite result above the threshold only indicates areas may be contaminated but does not establish which area(s) or the extent of the contamination. The subsequent individual or discrete samples did not show any levels above the Gluckman level (or the 2026 regulations).

The Tribunal therefore cannot be satisfied, on the evidence provided, that the premises (or any specific part of the premises) are contaminated above the maximum acceptable levels.

Accordingly, the landlord’s claim for decontaminations costs is dismissed. Exemplary damages

A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) RTA.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A RTA.

Any use or possession of a Class A drug is unlawful and may be subject to a period of 6 months imprisonment (sections 3A, 7(1)(a) & (2)(a) and Schedule 1 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975).

Despite me finding that I have insufficient evidence to show that the property was contaminated, the comparative results of the testing do indicate unlawful drug activity at the premises during the tenancy. I am satisfied that the tenant has either used the premises or permitted the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose.

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA

Considering the severe financial detriment to the landlord, and the high public interest in ensuring rental properties are not used for illegal drug purposes, I consider it just to make of award of $1,000.00 exemplary damages.

Because Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have also reimbursed the filing fee. R Harvey-Lane 5 July 2026

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5459670 — net $21,789.13 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates to 18 January 2026	$3.51	Water rates to 18 January 2026
Rubbish removal	$3,288.21	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$1,395.97	Cleaning
Exterior works	$1,113.72	Exterior works
Repairs (damages	$8,030.11	Repairs (damages
Repairs (redecorating	$4,000.00	Repairs (redecorating
Replacement curtains	$500.00	Replacement curtains
Methamphetamine testing	$2,945.61	Methamphetamine testing
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages	$1,000.00	Exemplary damages
Net award	$21,789.13
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$21,789.13

The landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenant and the hearing proceeded in their absence.

The landlord has applied for outgoings, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenancy commenced on 20 December 2021 and ended on 18 January 2026.

How much is owed for water rates?

The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing of $3.51 at the end of the tenancy.

The amount ordered is proved.

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

On review of the evidence, I consider that the property did not meet the statutory standards and the amounts claimed appear to reasonably reflect the works required.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Photographs and evidence of costings have been provided in support of these claims, and the landlord has advised that no insurance was available to meet these costs.

The amount of $8,030.11 for the repairs for damages is awarded.

The landlord claims for methamphetamine decontamination costs of $4,155.81, and methamphetamine testing costs of $2,945.61.

The regulations make it clear that when methamphetamine levels are above 15μg per 100cm 2 a rental property will need to be contaminated.

The landlord carried out an ingoing or baseline test for methamphetamine at the premises on 29 October 2021. There was no notable methamphetamine detected.

12μg/100cm 2 (dining room).

As the composite test was over the Gluckman level, the landlord properly paid for individualised testing which cost $2,945.61. I consider that the tenant must reimburse the landlord for that.

The Tribunal therefore cannot be satisfied, on the evidence provided, that the premises (or any specific part of the premises) are contaminated above the maximum acceptable levels.

Accordingly, the landlord’s claim for decontaminations costs is dismissed. Exemplary damages

A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) RTA.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A RTA.

Any use or possession of a Class A drug is unlawful and may be subject to a period of 6 months imprisonment (sections 3A, 7(1)(a) & (2)(a) and Schedule 1 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975).

Because Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have also reimbursed the filing fee. R Harvey-Lane 5 July 2026

Tenancy Tribunal case 5459670 — Property damage at 2 Corinna Street, Welcome Bay, Tauranga 3112

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5459670 — Property damage at 2 Corinna Street, Welcome Bay, Tauranga 3112

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

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

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

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

At a glance

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Is the tenant liable for the methamphetamine related claims?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Is the tenant liable for the methamphetamine related claims?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions