How much money was awarded in case 5474792?

Rent Arrears: $450.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5474792?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5474792?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13648963-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5474792?

Rent Arrears: $450.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5474792?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5474792?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13648963-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5474792 — Rent arrears

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5474792 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5474792 — net $450.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$450.00	Rent arrears
Net award	$450.00
Bond	$1,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$450.00

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.

[The tenant/s] to pay Impression Real Estate Limited $450.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Impression Real Estate Limited: $450.00 [The tenant/s]: $1,150.00

All other applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing on 21 May 2026.

The landlord seeks rent arrears and costs incurred for methamphetamine testing, methamphetamine contamination remediation costs, reimbursement of the filing fee and release of the bond.

The tenancy commenced on 8 March 2022 and ended on 21 April 2026.

The landlord provided rent records which prove that the arrears of rent as at the date the tenancy terminated were $420.00. The tenant accepted this. Methamphetamine Contamination

Testing for methamphetamine contamination was carried out by the landlord on the tenant’s unit. Testing was completed by ALS Food and Environmental NZ. The test results showed readings of between 0.98 and 75.5 micrograms per 100cm2. The test results exceed the levels where the Tribunal considers premises contaminated (15 micrograms per 100cm2).

The landlord claims compensation relating to the presence of methamphetamine residue at the premises during the tenancy. The main claim is for contamination testing and remediation of the premises. The costs of decontamination are considerable, and the landlord says that they are not covered by insurance.

The landlord did not conduct an ingoing test for Methamphetamine contamination and so there is no base level to compare the test results to. It is possible that the premises were already contaminated at the start of the tenancy.

The landlord’s evidence was that when the levels of contamination were put to the tenant, the tenant said that his friend had been staying at the premises over Christmas and that his friend had used methamphetamine.

At the hearing, when that was put to the tenant, the tenant said that he had merely assumed that it must have been his friend who had used methamphetamine, as he himself did not use methamphetamine and no one else had stayed at the premises.

At the hearing, the landlord said that during the course of the tenancy testing for methamphetamine had been done and those tests had returned a negative result. No evidence of those test results was provided by the landlord at the hearing.

The landlord produced one email for the body corporate in reply to an enquiry about drug testing during the tenancy. The response states “I don’t think there was a meth test done for 212 in August last year, which means it was not one of the units of interest from drug dog screening”. No evidence of the drug dog screening and how it was conducted was given and I do not consider that this evidence substantially assists the landlord.

The Tribunal requires compelling evidence to prove that a tenant is responsible for meth contamination of the premises during the tenancy. That is because it is a very serious allegation and constitutes a serious criminal offence. The evidence needed to prove it on the balance of probabilities (i.e. that it is more likely than not) must be substantial.

The evidence in this case falls well short of what is required and so this claim as it relates to methamphetamine contamination must be dismissed.

The landlord has not been substantially successful in this hearing and I make no order with regards to the reimbursement of the filing fee.

Both parties applied for name suppression. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing. No order is made for suppression of the landlord’s name. The tenant has been substantially successful in this hearing. The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name in details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5474792 — net $450.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$450.00	Rent arrears
Net award	$450.00
Bond	$1,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$450.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Impression Real Estate Limited $450.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Impression Real Estate Limited: $450.00 [The tenant/s]: $1,150.00

All other applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing on 21 May 2026.
The landlord seeks rent arrears and costs incurred for methamphetamine testing, methamphetamine contamination remediation costs, reimbursement of the filing fee and release of the bond.
The tenancy commenced on 8 March 2022 and ended on 21 April 2026.
The landlord provided rent records which prove that the arrears of rent as at the date the tenancy terminated were $420.00. The tenant accepted this. Methamphetamine Contamination
Testing for methamphetamine contamination was carried out by the landlord on the tenant’s unit. Testing was completed by ALS Food and Environmental NZ. The test results showed readings of between 0.98 and 75.5 micrograms per 100cm2. The test results exceed the levels where the Tribunal considers premises contaminated (15 micrograms per 100cm2).
The landlord claims compensation relating to the presence of methamphetamine residue at the premises during the tenancy. The main claim is for contamination testing and remediation of the premises. The costs of decontamination are considerable, and the landlord says that they are not covered by insurance.
The landlord did not conduct an ingoing test for Methamphetamine contamination and so there is no base level to compare the test results to. It is possible that the premises were already contaminated at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord’s evidence was that when the levels of contamination were put to the tenant, the tenant said that his friend had been staying at the premises over Christmas and that his friend had used methamphetamine.
At the hearing, when that was put to the tenant, the tenant said that he had merely assumed that it must have been his friend who had used methamphetamine, as he himself did not use methamphetamine and no one else had stayed at the premises.
At the hearing, the landlord said that during the course of the tenancy testing for methamphetamine had been done and those tests had returned a negative result. No evidence of those test results was provided by the landlord at the hearing.
The landlord produced one email for the body corporate in reply to an enquiry about drug testing during the tenancy. The response states “I don’t think there was a meth test done for 212 in August last year, which means it was not one of the units of interest from drug dog screening”. No evidence of the drug dog screening and how it was conducted was given and I do not consider that this evidence substantially assists the landlord.
The Tribunal requires compelling evidence to prove that a tenant is responsible for meth contamination of the premises during the tenancy. That is because it is a very serious allegation and constitutes a serious criminal offence. The evidence needed to prove it on the balance of probabilities (i.e. that it is more likely than not) must be substantial.
The evidence in this case falls well short of what is required and so this claim as it relates to methamphetamine contamination must be dismissed.
The landlord has not been substantially successful in this hearing and I make no order with regards to the reimbursement of the filing fee.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing. No order is made for suppression of the landlord’s name. The tenant has been substantially successful in this hearing. The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name in details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5474792 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5474792 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions