What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5464862 about?

The tribunal order states: Sara-Kay Lewis must pay Fahey Property Management Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 5464862?

Cleaning: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,365.71 awarded to landlord; Vanity: $166.66 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $166.66 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5464862?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5464862?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13826140-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5464862 about?

The tribunal order states: Sara-Kay Lewis must pay Fahey Property Management Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 5464862?

Cleaning: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,365.71 awarded to landlord; Vanity: $166.66 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $166.66 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5464862?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5464862?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13826140-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

36B Moore Street, Leamington, Cambridge 3432 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5464862 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

36B Moore Street, Leamington, Cambridge 3432 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5464862 — Rent arrears | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5464862 — net $1,449.03 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 1 February 2026	$3,365.71	Rent arrears to 1 February 2026
Repairs: Vanity	$166.66	Repairs: Vanity
Rubbish removal	$166.66	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$150.00	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning	$80.00	Cleaning
Net award	$1,449.03
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,449.03

Claims and awards for application 5464862 — net $1,449.03 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 1 February 2026

Amount: $3,365.71
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 1 February 2026

Repairs: Vanity

Amount: $166.66
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Vanity

Rubbish removal

Amount: $166.66
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $150.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Cleaning

Amount: $80.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Property damage Rent arrears Rubbish Removal

Order

Sara-Kay Lewis must pay Fahey Property Management Limited As Agent For Callum Otway $1,449.03 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,480.00 (BN-17589069) to Fahey Property Management Limited As Agent For Callum Otway immediately.

Reasons

Both parties 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 tenancy ended on 1 February 2026 by mutual agreement as ordered by consent in a prior order (TT5412308 dated 12 January 2026). The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy is as ordered. Ms Lewis did not dispute the rent arrears total.

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.
The statutory requirement is that tenants leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. The RTA allows for fair wear and tear. A tenant is not required to leave a property spotless or even in a condition where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. What is required is that premises including the stove and bathroom fittings are cleaned and all personal items removed. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, ceilings lightshades, skirtings, behind appliances or the outside of the house. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this “extra” level so that they can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
The tenant did leave much of the premises reasonably clean and tidy but some areas were shown by photos to have been missed, with a further clean required. The landlord provided an invoice for general cleaning of these areas but also for window cleansing and blinds wiping – neither of these tasks were evidenced in what was a short but tumultuous tenancy. I award the $80.00 line item for cleaning but dismiss the claims for window cleaning and blinds wiping
The tenant did not remove all rubbish. The photos prove this. The invoice was for $500.00 but included three tasks: rubbish removal, vanity repair and repair to a blind. The landlord proposed a 1/3 rd allocation to each and I accept that as reasonable. On that basis I award $166.66 for the cost of rubbish removal.
The tenant did return the keys but due to threats made against the landlord and other by the tenant the landlord had the locks changed. The threats were evidenced, serious, and totally unacceptable. I accept and award the claim of $150.00, as invoiced, in full.
The landlord claimed $800.00 for cleaning of methamphetamine contamination.
The New Zealand Standard 8510:2017 Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine-contaminated properties (“NZS8510:2017”) provides industry guidance on good practice methods in the testing and clean-up of methamphetamine contamination in houses. NZS8510:2017 was released on 29 June 2017. The standard adopts a single level of 1.5μg/100cm² (1.5 micrograms of methamphetamine per 100 square centimetres of surface sampled) that ‘high use areas’ of affected properties should be decontaminated to, regardless of whether the properties were involved in the production or use of methamphetamine. Consider high use areas as those areas that can be easily accessed by the occupants.
On 29 May 2018, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman (the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor at that time) determined that there was little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption at such levels.
His report concluded that in the absence of other evidence of manufacture, any levels below 15μg/100cm² are highly unlikely to present adverse effects therefore there should be no need for remediation. Where there is evidence of manufacture the NZS8510:2017 standard is appropriate (noting there is no suggestion of manufacturing during this tenancy).
In 2019 there was a judgement in the District Court which dismissed an appeal after the Tribunal adopted the Gluckman Report to determine whether the tenant had caused damage to the premises or permitted any other person to do so (Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947).
Finally, I consider further validating are the 2019 comments of the Court of Appeal in Smith v Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited [2019] NZCA 38 where, in paragraph [16], with reference to the Gluckman Report, the decision stated: “We acknowledge that the testing in this case yielded results now considered not to raise any health and safety concerns.”
In April 2026, but after this tenancy ended, the government has regulated minimum safety levels (see Housing and Urban Development explanation here). Essentially, when methamphetamine residue levels are above 15μg/100cm2 (micrograms per hundred square centimetres), the property is considered contaminated and needs to be decontaminated.
The property must be decontaminated until methamphetamine residue levels are no longer above 15μg/100cm2 (until they are 15μg/100cm2 or less).
Contamination will be determined on a room-by-room basis. An example given by HUD is if the bedroom is above 15μg/100cm2 but the kitchen is below 15μg/100cm2, only the bedroom needs to be decontaminated.

Was there a need to decontaminate/clean?

A composite test was conducted for methamphetamine, after the tenancy commenced, on 11 December 2025 and again after the tenancy ended.. The composite test at entry identified a theoretical maximum contamination of
23μg/100cm² based on the samples taken. This is well below the levels considered unsafe in the Gluckman Report, and by this Tribunal. The landlord offered to conduct cleaning but that required the tenant to remove possession sto facilitate such a clean. No cleaning occurred. The tenant has previously made an application to the Tribunal regarding entry issues but this was withdrawn afterwards before any hearing.
The landlord conducted an exit test (composite) on 4 February 2026, some three days after the tenancy ended. This found increased contamination, with the theoretical maximum contamination now 9.06μg/100cm². The owner arranged a methamphetamine clean of the premises. This cost $800.00 and involved a full washdown of the surfaces using sugar soap as well as carpet cleaning.
Section 40(1)(e) (iii) of the RTA requires the tenant to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. Section 41 assigns the tenant the responsibility for the actions of others.
Given the low levels of methamphetamine at the end of the tenancy I needed to determine if the tenant was responsible for the cost of cleaning incurred.
The landlord faces a challenge in arguing “cleanliness” has not been met in this situation as the residues do not exceed the level currently adopted as safe. The residue itself is an unseen chemical, not that dissimilar to other possible residual contaminants like nicotine or chemicals from harsh cleaning products.
The testing shows a possible increase in contamination and there is a possibility a future tenant may be responsible for consumption such that the minimum safety threshold is crossed. That, however, is not considered grounds for cleaning at this time when the level is clearly below such as here.
I find the landlord has not been able to establish the cost of $800.00 for cleaning as incurred was required due to the level of methamphetamine contamination as evidenced. I decline the claim.

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.
The landlord had two repairs made after possession returned. One was for a vanity draw, the other for a blind. The landlord accepted at the hearing the blind repair was not established as more than wear and tear and did not pursue that claim.
The tenant accepted the damage and cost of repair to the vanity draw was her responsibility. The cost of repair was $166.66 for the reason explained previously regarding the allocation of the $500.00 multi-task invoice.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee
Because Fahey Property Management Limited As Agent For Callum Otway has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5464862 — net $1,449.03 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 1 February 2026	$3,365.71	Rent arrears to 1 February 2026
Repairs: Vanity	$166.66	Repairs: Vanity
Rubbish removal	$166.66	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$150.00	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning	$80.00	Cleaning
Net award	$1,449.03
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,449.03

Claims and awards for application 5464862 — net $1,449.03 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 1 February 2026

Amount: $3,365.71
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 1 February 2026

Repairs: Vanity

Amount: $166.66
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Vanity

Rubbish removal

Amount: $166.66
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $150.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Cleaning

Amount: $80.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Property damage Rent arrears Rubbish Removal

Order

Sara-Kay Lewis must pay Fahey Property Management Limited As Agent For Callum Otway $1,449.03 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,480.00 (BN-17589069) to Fahey Property Management Limited As Agent For Callum Otway immediately.

Reasons

Both parties 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 tenancy ended on 1 February 2026 by mutual agreement as ordered by consent in a prior order (TT5412308 dated 12 January 2026). The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy is as ordered. Ms Lewis did not dispute the rent arrears total.

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.
The statutory requirement is that tenants leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. The RTA allows for fair wear and tear. A tenant is not required to leave a property spotless or even in a condition where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. What is required is that premises including the stove and bathroom fittings are cleaned and all personal items removed. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, ceilings lightshades, skirtings, behind appliances or the outside of the house. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this “extra” level so that they can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
The tenant did leave much of the premises reasonably clean and tidy but some areas were shown by photos to have been missed, with a further clean required. The landlord provided an invoice for general cleaning of these areas but also for window cleansing and blinds wiping – neither of these tasks were evidenced in what was a short but tumultuous tenancy. I award the $80.00 line item for cleaning but dismiss the claims for window cleaning and blinds wiping
The tenant did not remove all rubbish. The photos prove this. The invoice was for $500.00 but included three tasks: rubbish removal, vanity repair and repair to a blind. The landlord proposed a 1/3 rd allocation to each and I accept that as reasonable. On that basis I award $166.66 for the cost of rubbish removal.
The tenant did return the keys but due to threats made against the landlord and other by the tenant the landlord had the locks changed. The threats were evidenced, serious, and totally unacceptable. I accept and award the claim of $150.00, as invoiced, in full.
The landlord claimed $800.00 for cleaning of methamphetamine contamination.
The New Zealand Standard 8510:2017 Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine-contaminated properties (“NZS8510:2017”) provides industry guidance on good practice methods in the testing and clean-up of methamphetamine contamination in houses. NZS8510:2017 was released on 29 June 2017. The standard adopts a single level of 1.5μg/100cm² (1.5 micrograms of methamphetamine per 100 square centimetres of surface sampled) that ‘high use areas’ of affected properties should be decontaminated to, regardless of whether the properties were involved in the production or use of methamphetamine. Consider high use areas as those areas that can be easily accessed by the occupants.
On 29 May 2018, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman (the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor at that time) determined that there was little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption at such levels.
His report concluded that in the absence of other evidence of manufacture, any levels below 15μg/100cm² are highly unlikely to present adverse effects therefore there should be no need for remediation. Where there is evidence of manufacture the NZS8510:2017 standard is appropriate (noting there is no suggestion of manufacturing during this tenancy).
In 2019 there was a judgement in the District Court which dismissed an appeal after the Tribunal adopted the Gluckman Report to determine whether the tenant had caused damage to the premises or permitted any other person to do so (Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947).
Finally, I consider further validating are the 2019 comments of the Court of Appeal in Smith v Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited [2019] NZCA 38 where, in paragraph [16], with reference to the Gluckman Report, the decision stated: “We acknowledge that the testing in this case yielded results now considered not to raise any health and safety concerns.”
In April 2026, but after this tenancy ended, the government has regulated minimum safety levels (see Housing and Urban Development explanation here). Essentially, when methamphetamine residue levels are above 15μg/100cm2 (micrograms per hundred square centimetres), the property is considered contaminated and needs to be decontaminated.
The property must be decontaminated until methamphetamine residue levels are no longer above 15μg/100cm2 (until they are 15μg/100cm2 or less).
Contamination will be determined on a room-by-room basis. An example given by HUD is if the bedroom is above 15μg/100cm2 but the kitchen is below 15μg/100cm2, only the bedroom needs to be decontaminated.

Was there a need to decontaminate/clean?

A composite test was conducted for methamphetamine, after the tenancy commenced, on 11 December 2025 and again after the tenancy ended.. The composite test at entry identified a theoretical maximum contamination of
23μg/100cm² based on the samples taken. This is well below the levels considered unsafe in the Gluckman Report, and by this Tribunal. The landlord offered to conduct cleaning but that required the tenant to remove possession sto facilitate such a clean. No cleaning occurred. The tenant has previously made an application to the Tribunal regarding entry issues but this was withdrawn afterwards before any hearing.
The landlord conducted an exit test (composite) on 4 February 2026, some three days after the tenancy ended. This found increased contamination, with the theoretical maximum contamination now 9.06μg/100cm². The owner arranged a methamphetamine clean of the premises. This cost $800.00 and involved a full washdown of the surfaces using sugar soap as well as carpet cleaning.
Section 40(1)(e) (iii) of the RTA requires the tenant to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. Section 41 assigns the tenant the responsibility for the actions of others.
Given the low levels of methamphetamine at the end of the tenancy I needed to determine if the tenant was responsible for the cost of cleaning incurred.
The landlord faces a challenge in arguing “cleanliness” has not been met in this situation as the residues do not exceed the level currently adopted as safe. The residue itself is an unseen chemical, not that dissimilar to other possible residual contaminants like nicotine or chemicals from harsh cleaning products.
The testing shows a possible increase in contamination and there is a possibility a future tenant may be responsible for consumption such that the minimum safety threshold is crossed. That, however, is not considered grounds for cleaning at this time when the level is clearly below such as here.
I find the landlord has not been able to establish the cost of $800.00 for cleaning as incurred was required due to the level of methamphetamine contamination as evidenced. I decline the claim.

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.
The landlord had two repairs made after possession returned. One was for a vanity draw, the other for a blind. The landlord accepted at the hearing the blind repair was not established as more than wear and tear and did not pursue that claim.
The tenant accepted the damage and cost of repair to the vanity draw was her responsibility. The cost of repair was $166.66 for the reason explained previously regarding the allocation of the $500.00 multi-task invoice.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee
Because Fahey Property Management Limited As Agent For Callum Otway has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5464862 — Rent arrears at 36B Moore Street, Leamington, Cambridge 3432

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5464862 — Rent arrears at 36B Moore Street, Leamington, Cambridge 3432

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?

Was there a need to decontaminate/clean?

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?

Was there a need to decontaminate/clean?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions