What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5476543 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5476543?

Rubbish Removal: $1,250.00 awarded to landlord; Credit Held By Landlord From Guarant…: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Meth testing: composite meth testing…: $340.40 awarded to landlord; Meth testing: detailed site assessme…: $1,264.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5476543?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5476543?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13802439-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5476543 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5476543?

Rubbish Removal: $1,250.00 awarded to landlord; Credit Held By Landlord From Guarant…: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Meth testing: composite meth testing…: $340.40 awarded to landlord; Meth testing: detailed site assessme…: $1,264.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5476543?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5476543?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13802439-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5476543 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5476543 — net $354.40 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Meth testing: detailed site assessment by AllClear on 16	$1,264.00		Meth testing: detailed site assessment by AllClear on 16
Meth testing: composite meth testing on 3 Feb 2026	$340.40		Meth testing: composite meth testing on 3 Feb 2026
Cleaning: including rubbish removal, to a reasonably	$1,250.00		Cleaning: including rubbish removal, to a reasonably
Credit held by landlord from guarantor's goodwill payment		$2,500.00	Credit held by landlord from guarantor's goodwill payment
Total award	$2,854.40	$2,500.00
Net award	$354.40
Bond	$2,760.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$354.40

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both the tenant’s and landlord’s names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $354.40 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,760.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $354.40 [The tenant/s]: $2,405.60

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for the return of her bond.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord’s claims are centered on the tenant’s father B who broke into the premises causing damage. The landlord based their claims on the tenant allowing her father to be on the property and under sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’), tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission.
In considering the landlord’s claims, I have had regard to these salient facts.
On 6 January 2026, the tenant took over tenancy from her twin sisters, entering into a new tenancy agreement with the landlord. The tenant moved into the property with her partner and baby on 8 January 2026.
The undisputed fact is that the tenant is estranged from her father and there is an active protection order in place where the father is not allowed to associate with his daughter J.
The tenant’s father came to the property to visit J 2 weeks’ later on 21 January. He showed up unannounced and was refused entry after an altercation with J’s partner. The police were called and the father left before police arrived.
Fearing further visits and encounter from her father, the tenant J then moved out of the property to live with her mother.
J had the locks changed on 28 January 2026 in the meantime.
While the father was a caregiver to J’s twin sisters who were the former tenants prior to 6 January 2026, it is clear to me that their father no longer lived at the premises from 6 January 2026.
I reject the landlord’s assertions that J had permitted her father to live or associate with her. The father was bound by the terms of the protection order and it would be breached if he tried to associate himself with J.
The fact that some of her father’s belonging were still on the premises after J had taken over the tenancy only showed that the previous tenants had allowed her father to be there as their caregiver which the landlord has expressly permitted during the last tenancy.
My focus now remained on the current tenancy between J and the landlord.
After 28 January 2026, J’s partner broke a window and broke into the premises while J and her partner were not at home.
I find that the tenant is not liable for the criminal trespass that occurred because at no time has the tenant allowed her father to be on the property. I reiterate that under sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA, tenants are only liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission.
J’s father was not on the property with J’s permission at any time, and for that reason alone, the property damage claims and resulting security personnel charges incurred by the landlord cannot be passed on to the tenant.
The landlord’s grievance stem from being unaware of the father’s criminal past. If they knew about the father’s character, it is clear that the landlord would not have expressly allowed the previous tenants (J’s twin sisters) to be at the property as their caregiver.
However, the facts are also clear in that J is estranged from her father and she had no reason to have her father live at the property. There was an existing protection order in place.
The texts do not show that J was aware of the father living there at the time of J’s tenancy. The texts only show that J was aware of her father’s belongings left behind prior to her tenancy and that she was proactively trying to get rid of them.
Accordingly, I reject the landlord’s allegation that J was aware of her father living there. I also reject the landlord’s assertion that the landlord had been “deceived” by J or her guarantor to sign a tenancy agreement with the landlord.

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 tenant and her guarantor say that there was no pre-tenancy inspection conducted, therefore it cannot be established that the premises were reasonably clean and tidy at the start of the J’s tenancy.
I find however that the premises were reasonably clean at the start of J’s tenancy. The emails sent by the landlord to J’s twin sisters confirm that they have professionally cleaned the premises prior to J moving in.
The tenant J did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish, at the end of her tenancy.
The landlord provided a cleaning quote for $2,750. However, the photos provided do not show the extent of cleaning and rubbish removal required to support the landlord’s claim.
I find on balance that reasonable cleaning and rubbish removal costs, based on the evidence adduced are $1,250.00.
Only the amounts ordered in the table above 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.
There is no evidence before me that the landlord has filed an insurance claim for carpet damage. Accordingly, I am unable to find whether the tenant's liability can be limited to the lesser of the insurance excess. There is also no invoice being provided on the carpet repairs/replacement claim by the landlord. For those reasons, I reject the landlord’s carpet repair claims.
The landlord’s claim for deck repairs also fails. The landlord sought $517.50 for deck repairs after the father used the deck as chopping board. If the tenant’s father had used the deck like a chopping board for firewood as contended, it is unclear when the damage occurred.
The landlord did not pick up on any deck damage prior to 6 January 2026. The landlord’s email to the outgoing twin tenants prior to 6 January confirm that the landlord was satisfied with the condition of the property.
If the damage to the deck occurred after 6 January 2026, it must have occurred after Justis was away from the property and her father having trespassed and broken into the property after the locks had been changed on 28 January 2026.
I reiterate that the tenant is not liable for criminal trespass and resulting damage by her father who was not on the property with the tenant’s permission. Please see sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
For those reasons, I dismiss the landlord’s claim for property damage to the carpet and the deck. The tenant has disproved liability for the damage.
I allow the landlord’s claim for methamphetamine testing costs. The positive methamphetamine composite test result gave the landlord a basis to seek a more detailed testing which ultimately yielded results of less than 1.5μg (micrograms) of methamphetamine.
In 2017, the Standards New Zealand released Standard NZS 8510:2017 “Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine-contaminated properties”. At that time, this standard set the definitive levels at which properties which had methamphetamine contamination, required remediation. The Standard confirmed that: After seeking expert advice on exposure risk from Environmental Science and Research Ltd (ESR) and the Ministry of Health, and reviewing a large number of public comments on a draft of this standard, the committee has decided to set the maximum acceptable level of methamphetamine in an affected property at
5μg/100cm2 after decontamination. While this level is greater than the Ministry of Health 2010 guideline value of 0.5μg/100cm2 for properties used as clandestine laboratories, there are a number of reasons why the committee decided to adopt the single value of 1.5μg/100cm2 in this standard.
So there is no requirement to clean or remediate the premises from methamphetamine ultimately.
The guarantor of the tenants has in good faith paid the landlord $2,500.00 towards the methamphetamine testing costs, and potential costs of remediation which ultimately proved unnecessary. I consider it fair that the landlord be allowed to keep the money towards the testing costs and other costs proved to be owed to the landlord as set out in the table above.
Only the amounts ordered are proved.
The bond will be disbursed to the parties as set out above.
Both parties have some measure of success to the claims and defence of the claims. I order name suppression of both parties accordingly.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5476543 — net $354.40 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Meth testing: detailed site assessment by AllClear on 16	$1,264.00		Meth testing: detailed site assessment by AllClear on 16
Meth testing: composite meth testing on 3 Feb 2026	$340.40		Meth testing: composite meth testing on 3 Feb 2026
Cleaning: including rubbish removal, to a reasonably	$1,250.00		Cleaning: including rubbish removal, to a reasonably
Credit held by landlord from guarantor's goodwill payment		$2,500.00	Credit held by landlord from guarantor's goodwill payment
Total award	$2,854.40	$2,500.00
Net award	$354.40
Bond	$2,760.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$354.40

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both the tenant’s and landlord’s names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $354.40 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,760.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $354.40 [The tenant/s]: $2,405.60

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for the return of her bond.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord’s claims are centered on the tenant’s father B who broke into the premises causing damage. The landlord based their claims on the tenant allowing her father to be on the property and under sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’), tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission.
In considering the landlord’s claims, I have had regard to these salient facts.
On 6 January 2026, the tenant took over tenancy from her twin sisters, entering into a new tenancy agreement with the landlord. The tenant moved into the property with her partner and baby on 8 January 2026.
The undisputed fact is that the tenant is estranged from her father and there is an active protection order in place where the father is not allowed to associate with his daughter J.
The tenant’s father came to the property to visit J 2 weeks’ later on 21 January. He showed up unannounced and was refused entry after an altercation with J’s partner. The police were called and the father left before police arrived.
Fearing further visits and encounter from her father, the tenant J then moved out of the property to live with her mother.
J had the locks changed on 28 January 2026 in the meantime.
While the father was a caregiver to J’s twin sisters who were the former tenants prior to 6 January 2026, it is clear to me that their father no longer lived at the premises from 6 January 2026.
I reject the landlord’s assertions that J had permitted her father to live or associate with her. The father was bound by the terms of the protection order and it would be breached if he tried to associate himself with J.
The fact that some of her father’s belonging were still on the premises after J had taken over the tenancy only showed that the previous tenants had allowed her father to be there as their caregiver which the landlord has expressly permitted during the last tenancy.
My focus now remained on the current tenancy between J and the landlord.
After 28 January 2026, J’s partner broke a window and broke into the premises while J and her partner were not at home.
I find that the tenant is not liable for the criminal trespass that occurred because at no time has the tenant allowed her father to be on the property. I reiterate that under sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA, tenants are only liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission.
J’s father was not on the property with J’s permission at any time, and for that reason alone, the property damage claims and resulting security personnel charges incurred by the landlord cannot be passed on to the tenant.
The landlord’s grievance stem from being unaware of the father’s criminal past. If they knew about the father’s character, it is clear that the landlord would not have expressly allowed the previous tenants (J’s twin sisters) to be at the property as their caregiver.
However, the facts are also clear in that J is estranged from her father and she had no reason to have her father live at the property. There was an existing protection order in place.
The texts do not show that J was aware of the father living there at the time of J’s tenancy. The texts only show that J was aware of her father’s belongings left behind prior to her tenancy and that she was proactively trying to get rid of them.
Accordingly, I reject the landlord’s allegation that J was aware of her father living there. I also reject the landlord’s assertion that the landlord had been “deceived” by J or her guarantor to sign a tenancy agreement with the landlord.

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 tenant and her guarantor say that there was no pre-tenancy inspection conducted, therefore it cannot be established that the premises were reasonably clean and tidy at the start of the J’s tenancy.
I find however that the premises were reasonably clean at the start of J’s tenancy. The emails sent by the landlord to J’s twin sisters confirm that they have professionally cleaned the premises prior to J moving in.
The tenant J did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish, at the end of her tenancy.
The landlord provided a cleaning quote for $2,750. However, the photos provided do not show the extent of cleaning and rubbish removal required to support the landlord’s claim.
I find on balance that reasonable cleaning and rubbish removal costs, based on the evidence adduced are $1,250.00.
Only the amounts ordered in the table above 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.
There is no evidence before me that the landlord has filed an insurance claim for carpet damage. Accordingly, I am unable to find whether the tenant's liability can be limited to the lesser of the insurance excess. There is also no invoice being provided on the carpet repairs/replacement claim by the landlord. For those reasons, I reject the landlord’s carpet repair claims.
The landlord’s claim for deck repairs also fails. The landlord sought $517.50 for deck repairs after the father used the deck as chopping board. If the tenant’s father had used the deck like a chopping board for firewood as contended, it is unclear when the damage occurred.
The landlord did not pick up on any deck damage prior to 6 January 2026. The landlord’s email to the outgoing twin tenants prior to 6 January confirm that the landlord was satisfied with the condition of the property.
If the damage to the deck occurred after 6 January 2026, it must have occurred after Justis was away from the property and her father having trespassed and broken into the property after the locks had been changed on 28 January 2026.
I reiterate that the tenant is not liable for criminal trespass and resulting damage by her father who was not on the property with the tenant’s permission. Please see sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
For those reasons, I dismiss the landlord’s claim for property damage to the carpet and the deck. The tenant has disproved liability for the damage.
I allow the landlord’s claim for methamphetamine testing costs. The positive methamphetamine composite test result gave the landlord a basis to seek a more detailed testing which ultimately yielded results of less than 1.5μg (micrograms) of methamphetamine.
In 2017, the Standards New Zealand released Standard NZS 8510:2017 “Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine-contaminated properties”. At that time, this standard set the definitive levels at which properties which had methamphetamine contamination, required remediation. The Standard confirmed that: After seeking expert advice on exposure risk from Environmental Science and Research Ltd (ESR) and the Ministry of Health, and reviewing a large number of public comments on a draft of this standard, the committee has decided to set the maximum acceptable level of methamphetamine in an affected property at
5μg/100cm2 after decontamination. While this level is greater than the Ministry of Health 2010 guideline value of 0.5μg/100cm2 for properties used as clandestine laboratories, there are a number of reasons why the committee decided to adopt the single value of 1.5μg/100cm2 in this standard.
So there is no requirement to clean or remediate the premises from methamphetamine ultimately.
The guarantor of the tenants has in good faith paid the landlord $2,500.00 towards the methamphetamine testing costs, and potential costs of remediation which ultimately proved unnecessary. I consider it fair that the landlord be allowed to keep the money towards the testing costs and other costs proved to be owed to the landlord as set out in the table above.
Only the amounts ordered are proved.
The bond will be disbursed to the parties as set out above.
Both parties have some measure of success to the claims and defence of the claims. I order name suppression of both parties accordingly.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5476543 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5476543 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Frequently asked questions