What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5477089 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 5477089?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5335061 D…: $2,098.51 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,090.87 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5477089?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5477089?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13730977-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5477089 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 5477089?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5335061 D…: $2,098.51 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,090.87 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5477089?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5477089?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13730977-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5477089 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5477089 — net $3,367.38 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 5335061 dated 17/12/2025	$2,098.51	Previous order application 5335061 dated 17/12/2025
Cleaning	$150.00	Cleaning
Repair wall and door	$1,090.87	Repair wall and door
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,367.38
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,367.38

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and the landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $3,367.38 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 17 December 2025 under application 5335061.
The landlord’s claim for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for costs to clean the premises, to repair a bedroom door, and to repair the bathroom wall at the end of the tenancy. The landlord also applied for exemplary damages for breach of section 40(2)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). That section provides that it is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be payable to use the premises, or permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose.
The tenant accepts the claim for damage to the wall and the door, but she disputes the other claims.

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

I am satisfied that the landlord has provided sufficient evidence (in particular the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy) to establish that the premises were not left reasonably clean as required by section 40(1)(e) of the Act.
The tenant claims that the oven and bathroom were not provided to her in a reasonably clean condition, but the photographs taken before the tenancy commenced do not support her claim.
The amount ordered has been established by the production of an invoice. Has the landlord established that the tenant is responsible for the methamphetamine contamination?
The premises were tested for methamphetamine after the tenancy ended on 5 January 2026. The Screening Assessment Reports completed by Meth Test Canterbury dated 15 January 2026 and 21 January 2026 record that the testing of the seven samples showed a composite result of 25 μg/100cm2, with individual levels of methamphetamine contamination ranging from 0.26 to 7.5μg/100cm2.
While no methamphetamine tests were completed before this tenancy commenced, the landlord claims that the contamination occurred during this tenancy because additional samples taken from fixtures installed in the premises during the tenancy also tested positive for methamphetamine. The fixtures tested were a piece of skirting board in the kitchen, an area of gib board in the lounge, and eight window latches throughout the premises. The testing of these items showed a composite result of 24 μg/100cm2.
I am not satisfied that the landlord has discharged its onus to prove that it was more likely than not that the methamphetamine contamination found at the premises occurred during this tenancy. The tenant denies that she used methamphetamine or that anyone else at the premises with her permission did so, and she gave me no reason to doubt her evidence.
I do not consider that the composite result of the testing of the skirting board, wall board, and window latches is sufficient to support the landlord’s claim that the contamination occurred during the tenancy. The skirting board was not installed during this tenancy. It was installed on 14 May 2025, nearly two weeks before the tenancy commenced. The evidence provided, in particular the invoice for the work, does not establish that the entire window latches were replaced during the tenancy. It only establishes that the wedges were replaced (not the lever part of the latches), but the testing as outlined in the Meth Test Canterbury report dated 27 January 2026 appears to have tested the entire latch, not just the wedges. Moreover, if the levers were contaminated by methamphetamine before the tenancy commenced it is likely that the contamination could have been transferred to the new wedges after they were installed. The tenant accepts that the small piece of wall board in the lounge was replaced during the tenancy. However, I she expressed her concerns that the board could have been contaminated before it was installed or while it was being installed.
Moreover, the detected level of methamphetamine on these items is a composite result only of the 10 samples taken. There is no evidence of the level of contamination on each of the individual items tested. It is therefore possible that all the methamphetamine detected was on the skirting board (which could have been contaminated before the tenancy commenced), or on the window latches (but not the wedges), with none on the lounge gib board.
The landlord has therefore not established that the tenant has breached section 40(2)(b) of the Act and the application for exemplary damages is dismissed. Tribunal application fee
The landlord has been partially successful in the claim, and I consider this an appropriate case to award it payment of the Tribunal application fee. Previous order
On 17 December 2025 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes. Suppression
In its order dated 17 December 2025, the Tribunal ordered suppression of the both the landlord’s and the tenant’s names and identifying details. The landlord’s and the tenant’s names and identifying details are suppressed under this order so as not to undermine the suppression order made on 17 December.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5477089 — net $3,367.38 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 5335061 dated 17/12/2025	$2,098.51	Previous order application 5335061 dated 17/12/2025
Cleaning	$150.00	Cleaning
Repair wall and door	$1,090.87	Repair wall and door
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,367.38
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,367.38

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and the landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $3,367.38 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 17 December 2025 under application 5335061.
The landlord’s claim for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for costs to clean the premises, to repair a bedroom door, and to repair the bathroom wall at the end of the tenancy. The landlord also applied for exemplary damages for breach of section 40(2)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). That section provides that it is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be payable to use the premises, or permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose.
The tenant accepts the claim for damage to the wall and the door, but she disputes the other claims.

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

I am satisfied that the landlord has provided sufficient evidence (in particular the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy) to establish that the premises were not left reasonably clean as required by section 40(1)(e) of the Act.
The tenant claims that the oven and bathroom were not provided to her in a reasonably clean condition, but the photographs taken before the tenancy commenced do not support her claim.
The amount ordered has been established by the production of an invoice. Has the landlord established that the tenant is responsible for the methamphetamine contamination?
The premises were tested for methamphetamine after the tenancy ended on 5 January 2026. The Screening Assessment Reports completed by Meth Test Canterbury dated 15 January 2026 and 21 January 2026 record that the testing of the seven samples showed a composite result of 25 μg/100cm2, with individual levels of methamphetamine contamination ranging from 0.26 to 7.5μg/100cm2.
While no methamphetamine tests were completed before this tenancy commenced, the landlord claims that the contamination occurred during this tenancy because additional samples taken from fixtures installed in the premises during the tenancy also tested positive for methamphetamine. The fixtures tested were a piece of skirting board in the kitchen, an area of gib board in the lounge, and eight window latches throughout the premises. The testing of these items showed a composite result of 24 μg/100cm2.
I am not satisfied that the landlord has discharged its onus to prove that it was more likely than not that the methamphetamine contamination found at the premises occurred during this tenancy. The tenant denies that she used methamphetamine or that anyone else at the premises with her permission did so, and she gave me no reason to doubt her evidence.
I do not consider that the composite result of the testing of the skirting board, wall board, and window latches is sufficient to support the landlord’s claim that the contamination occurred during the tenancy. The skirting board was not installed during this tenancy. It was installed on 14 May 2025, nearly two weeks before the tenancy commenced. The evidence provided, in particular the invoice for the work, does not establish that the entire window latches were replaced during the tenancy. It only establishes that the wedges were replaced (not the lever part of the latches), but the testing as outlined in the Meth Test Canterbury report dated 27 January 2026 appears to have tested the entire latch, not just the wedges. Moreover, if the levers were contaminated by methamphetamine before the tenancy commenced it is likely that the contamination could have been transferred to the new wedges after they were installed. The tenant accepts that the small piece of wall board in the lounge was replaced during the tenancy. However, I she expressed her concerns that the board could have been contaminated before it was installed or while it was being installed.
Moreover, the detected level of methamphetamine on these items is a composite result only of the 10 samples taken. There is no evidence of the level of contamination on each of the individual items tested. It is therefore possible that all the methamphetamine detected was on the skirting board (which could have been contaminated before the tenancy commenced), or on the window latches (but not the wedges), with none on the lounge gib board.
The landlord has therefore not established that the tenant has breached section 40(2)(b) of the Act and the application for exemplary damages is dismissed. Tribunal application fee
The landlord has been partially successful in the claim, and I consider this an appropriate case to award it payment of the Tribunal application fee. Previous order
On 17 December 2025 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes. Suppression
In its order dated 17 December 2025, the Tribunal ordered suppression of the both the landlord’s and the tenant’s names and identifying details. The landlord’s and the tenant’s names and identifying details are suppressed under this order so as not to undermine the suppression order made on 17 December.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5477089 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5477089 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions