What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5481509 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Tpm Rotorua Limited As Agent For Benfields

How much money was awarded in case 5481509?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $201.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $168.91 awarded to landlord; French Door: $168.91 awarded to landlord; Painting: $900.00 awarded to landlord; Toilet Roll Holder: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Towel Rail: $70.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $242.08 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5481509?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5481509?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14178367-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5481509 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Tpm Rotorua Limited As Agent For Benfields

How much money was awarded in case 5481509?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $201.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $168.91 awarded to landlord; French Door: $168.91 awarded to landlord; Painting: $900.00 awarded to landlord; Toilet Roll Holder: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Towel Rail: $70.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $242.08 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5481509?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5481509?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14178367-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 201 Sunset Road, Sunnybrook, Rotorua 3015 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5481509 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5481509 — net $1,958.90 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$150.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$242.08	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$201.00	Lock/key replacement
Window repairs	$168.91	Window repairs
Repairs: French door	$168.91	Repairs: French door
Repairs: Towel rail	$70.00	Repairs: Towel rail
Repairs: Toilet roll holder	$30.00	Repairs: Toilet roll holder
Repairs: Painting	$900.00	Repairs: Painting
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,958.90
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,958.90

The landlord attended the hearing and was represented by Hayley Birdger. Ms Bridger was the property manager for this tenancy. The tenant did not attend the hearing.

The tenancy began on 23 April 2025 and ended on 12 November 2025. The landlord claims the tenant did not comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy. The landlord also claims the tenant is responsible for damage that occurred to the premises during the tenancy, including methamphetamine contamination. These are the issues I must determine. Standard of proof

As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.

As noted by the District Court in Katipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ...[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit of not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

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

The law

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. 1

“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 2 It does not mean commercially clean, 3 spotless 4 or to a hotel or motel standard. 5 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 6 Cleaning

The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, because the floors were not vacuumed, the shower was not cleaned, the oven was dirty and there were marks and scribbles on the wall.

The exit inspection photographs show dirt, debris and marks on the floor. The floor does not appear to have been vacuumed or mopped. The stovetop and oven are dirty. There are lots of marks on the walls, including what appears to be spillage form food or drink. The toilet and shower are dirty. For all of these reasons, I find the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy.

The landlord seeks $245.00 for their time and labour. They submitted an invoice from themselves for this amount. The landlord has charged themselves out at $35.00 per hour for 7 hours of cleaning. The Tribunal sees numerous claims for cleaning involving professional cleaning companies. The average hourly rate is $35.00 - $50.00 per hour.

The landlord has tried to mitigate their loss by completing the cleaning themselves. They cannot then seek to recover from the tenant an amount equivalent to the cost it would have been if the landlord had hired a professional to complete the job. The landlord has not proven a loss of $245.00, because they did not pay someone this amount to clean the premises. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(ii) – (v). 2 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 3 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 4 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 5 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 6 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770].

For all of these reasons, the landlord’s claim for cleaning is granted for $150.00. I find this amount fairly and reasonably reflects the nature and extent of the breach, as well as the likely time it would have taken to return the premises to a reasonable clean and tidy condition. Rubbish

The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show white wear, a chilli bin and table were left behind at the end of the tenancy. Other rubbish and personal belongings were also left behind, including a broken chair and miscellaneous household items. The recycling bin is full of rubbish, including non-recyclable material. For these reasons, I find the tenant did not remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy.

The landlord submitted an invoice from Mike The Handyman for $242.08 to remove the rubbish. The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for this amount. Keys

The landlord claims the tenant did not return the keys at the end of the tenancy. The exit inspection report completed on 13 November 2025 records that the keys were not returned. On the balance of probabilities, I find the tenant did not return the keys at the end of the tenancy.

The landlord submitted an invoice from Key Accessories Rotorua Limited for $201.00 to change the keys and locks. The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for this amount. Is the tenant responsible for damage that occurred to the premises during the tenancy? The law

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 the did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. 7 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B.

Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. 8

The purpose of compensation is to restore the landlord to the same position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations. The landlord must not be any better or worse off. To achieve this, there may need to be a reduction to the total amount of compensation sought to reflect betterment and depreciation. This is particularly the case where full replacement or reinstatement has been undertaken. Window

The landlord claims the window in bedroom 2 was damaged during the tenancy. The landlord only submitted 3 photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy. Bedroom 2 does not feature in any of these photographs. Notwithstanding this, the landlord submitted a copy of a routine inspection report dated 25 June 2025. It shows the windows in bedroom 2 are not damaged. The exit inspection photographs were taken after repairs to the window were completed however, another routine inspection dated 13 August 2025, shows one of the windows in bedroom 2 is missing a glass pane and is covered in gladwrap. A comparison of the inspection reports dated 25 June 2025 and 13 August 2025, convinces me on the balance of probabilities that the window in bedroom 2 was damaged during the tenancy.

The damage exceeds fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.

The landlord submitted an invoice for $337.83 from The Glass Guys. The invoice is for repairs to the window and a wooden frame door. The wooden frame door is discussed below. In respect of the window, the landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $168.91, which is half the invoice. Wooden frame door

The landlord claims a glass pane in the dining room French doors was damaged during the tenancy. The landlord only submitted 3 photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy. The dining room French doors do not feature in any of these photographs. Notwithstanding this, the landlord submitted a copy of a routine inspection report dated 13 August 2025. It shows all of the glass panes in the dining room French door to be intact. Another routine inspection report, dated 1 October 2025, shows one of the glass panes in the French doors to be damaged 8 See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403. and covered with cardboard or paper. A comparison of the inspection reports dated 13 August 2025 and 10 October 2025, convinces me that a glass pane in the dining room French doors was damaged during the tenancy.

The damage exceeds fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.

The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $168.91, which represents the other half of the invoice from The Glass Guys. Kitchen cabinet doors

The landlord claims one of the kitchen cabinet doors was broken and hung off its hinge when opened.

The entry inspection report includes a photograph of the kitchen. All of the cupboards are closed. The exit inspection report includes photographs of the cupboards, including when they are opened. The alleged damage is not able to be easily seen in the exit inspection photographs. Even if the kitchen cupboards were damaged in the way claimed by the landlord, I am not convinced the damage exceeds fair wear and tear. The cupboards are clearly quite old from the photographs. Kitchen cupboards are regularly opened and closed as part of everyday living. It is reasonably foreseeable that the hinges will deteriorate overtime, causing some cupboards to become loose or “hang” as described by the landlord.

For all of these reasons, the landlord has not proven this claim, and it is dismissed. Towel rail

The landlord claims a towel rail was present in the bathroom at the beginning of the tenancy and missing at the end. The entry inspection report does not include ay photographs of the bathroom however, a routine inspection report dated 13 August 2025 shows a towel rail is fixed to the wall in the bathroom. The exit inspection report shows the rail is missing. On the balance of probabilities, I find the towel rail was damaged during the tenancy. The damage exceeds fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.

The landlord repaired the towel rail themselves. They submitted an invoice from themselves for $617.69 for cleaning and repairs. The invoice does not itemise each repair.

The landlord’s claim for compensation in relation to the towel rail is granted for $70.00. I find this figure most likely reflects the cost to purchase a new towel rail and they time spent installing it. Toilet roll holder

The landlord claims the toilet roll holder was removed during the tenancy. The entry inspection report does not include any photographs of the toilet however, a routine inspection report dated 13 August 2025, shows there is a toilet roll holder fixed to the wall in the toilet. The exit inspection photographs show the toilet roll holder is missing. On the balance of probabilities, I find the toilet roll holder was damaged during the tenancy. The damage exceeds fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.

The landlord repaired the toilet roll holder themselves. They submitted an invoice from themselves for $617.69 for cleaning and repairs. The invoice does not itemise each repair.

The landlord’s claim for compensation in relation to the toilet roll holder is granted for $30.00. I find this figure most likely reflects the time spent to install a new toilet roll holder. I note that the old toilet roll holder was located in a bathroom drawer. Toilet seat

The landlord claims the right clip on the toilet seat was broken during the tenancy. The exit inspection photographs show a photograph of the toilet seat. A right clip or hinge appears to be missing. I am not convinced the damage exceeds fair wear and tear. The toilet seat is made from plastic, not porcelain. No evidence was given about its age. A toilet seat is lifted and put back down regularly as part of everyday living. It is reasonably foreseeable that its hinges or clips might deteriorate in condition overtime as a result of this reasonable use. For this reason, the landlord has not proven this claim, and it is dismissed. Security latch in bathroom

Ms Bridger was unable to explain this claim at the hearing and I did not receive any evidence or submissions on it. For this reason, it is dismissed. Painting

The landlord claims all of the walls needed to be painted at the end of the tenancy, because they were badly chipped, marked and worn.

The entry inspection photographs are not helpful in proving the state of the walls at beginning of the tenancy. Only three photographs are included in the entry inspection report.

The landlord claims the premises were freshly painted before the tenancy began. The landlord claims they completed the painting themselves and submitted a timesheet for this. The timesheet relates to work completed between 5 February 2025 – 27 March 2025. It details each room of the premises and the work undertaken to it. By a slim margin, I am convinced on the balance of probabilities, that this timesheet proves the walls and doors inside the premises were freshly painted and in good condition before the tenancy began on 23 April 2025.

The exit inspection photographs show lots of scuff marks, scratches and scribbles on the walls and doors. Some of these are fair wear and tear however, others are not. This was only a 7 month tenancy. The number of scratches and marks to the walls and doors are higher than one would reasonably foresee accruing within such a short amount of time. There is also a moderate – large sized hole in the wall in the lounge and a small hole in the hallway. The wardrobe door in bedroom 1 is also badly dented. In bedroom 2 there are pink spots on the wall. On the balance of probabilities, I find that all of this damage occurred during the tenancy. Most of it exceeds fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.

The landlord has painted the walls themselves. They submitted an invoice from themselves for $1,793.34. Their claim for compensation is granted for $900.00, which I think reasonably reflects the damage that is not fair wear and tear, as well as the likely time spent painting the walls.

All of the amounts ordered are proved.

I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. 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. Did the tenant or a person at the premises with the tenant’s permission, use methamphetamine inside the premises during the tenancy? The law

A tenant must not use, or permit the use of, the premises for any unlawful purpose. 9

The use of methamphetamine is a criminal offence that carries a maximum penalty of 6 months imprisonment. 10 A tenant who consumes methamphetamine inside a premises will be found to have used the premises for an unlawful purpose. 9 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(2)(b). 10 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, section 7(1)(a) & (2)(a).

Tenants are responsible for the actions of other people in the premises with their permission. 11 For this reason, the tenant will be found to have permitted the use of the premises for an unlawful purpose if a person in the premises with the tenant’s permission consumes methamphetamine.

Where a tenant uses or permits the use of the premises for an unlawful purpose, they commit an unlawful act for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,800.00 may be granted. 12

Where a landlord claims the tenant has used the premises for an unlawful purpose that has led to damage, a landlord may also seek compensation. A landlord must prove that the premises have been damaged during the tenancy and that the damage is the result of an 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. 13 If a landlord proves this, then a tenant is liable for the costs of “making good the damage” and other reasonably foreseeable losses related to the damage. 14

There is a significant history as it relates to levels of methamphetamine contamination in residential premises, or more particularly, the levels at which premises are deemed to be uninhabitable or requiring remediation.

In 2010 the New Zealand Ministry of Health produced guidelines for the remediation of clandestine methamphetamine laboratories and determined that remediation was required if the environmental level of methamphetamine was 0.5 μg/100 cm 2 . While that related to laboratories, it is the case that the 0.5 level became the de facto level at which premises were considered to require decontamination at that time.

In 2017 the level was increased when 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 decontamination was required for levels of contamination above 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 .

Later still, in 2018 the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman determined that there was little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption (Report entitled ‘Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards’, 29 May 2018). The report concluded that any levels below 15μg/100cm 2 were unlikely to present adverse effects. 11 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 41(1). 12 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(b), 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A. 13 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49B(8)(a). 14 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 49A & 49B(1)(b).

However, the Gluckman report confirms that where there is suspected manufacture, then the premises should be remediated to 1.5μg/100cm : Remediation down to the 1.5μg/100cm 2 standard may be prudent if there is also sound reason to suspect previous meth lab activities. This would only be a precautionary measure to remove other toxicants that may be present but not measured.

More recently still, the matter was addressed by way of Regulations, that was the Residential Tenancies (Managing Methamphetamine Contamination) Regulations 2016. The regulations confirm that the “maximum acceptable level of methamphetamine” in premises is 15μg/100cm 2 , and the level at which premises become uninhabitable is 30μg/100 cm 2 . What this means is that if the level of contamination falls below 15μg/100cm², then the premises can still be lived in, and decontamination is not required.

While I have recorded the situation with the Regulations for context, given the fact that the tenancy ended on 12 November 2025, before the Regulations came into effect, it is the levels established in the Gluckman report that apply to this case.

In Full Circle Real Estate v Piper, the District Court considered whether the Tribunal erred in applying the Gluckman level of 15mcg/100cm² instead of the NZS of 1.5mcg/100cm². The District Court held: 15 It would have been bold for the adjudicator to have ignored that report (the Gluckman Report) in favour of the New Zealand Standard given that the Gluckman report represents the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination in dwellings. Analysis

The landlord claims the premises needed to be decontaminated at the end of the tenancy and seeks $2,500.00 to cover their insurance excess.

The first issue I must determine is whether the landlord has proven, on the balance of probabilities, that the tenant, or a person at the premises with the tenant’s permission, consumed methamphetamine inside the premises during the tenancy. To answer this question, the Tribunal is usually assisted by evidence of methamphetamine levels sampled shortly before the tenancy began or at some point during the tenancy. This provides a baseline test for the presence of methamphetamine inside the premises. Where methamphetamine levels are 15 Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 479 at [36]. sampled shortly after the tenancy has ended and are higher than those recorded in the baseline test, the Tribunal is usually able to infer that the increase is due to methamphetamine use during the tenancy.

In the cases of Eren Limited v Louise Martin [2021] NZDC 15210 and Anthony James Brooking and Dani Hodges v Colin Imrie [2021] NZDC 16976, the District Court held that the absence of baseline methamphetamine tests were determinative in failing to prove that methamphetamine levels in a post-tenancy test were deposited during the tenancy.

In this case, the landlord did not undertake a baseline methamphetamine test. No evidence of methamphetamine use during the tenancy was submitted either such as, evidence of drug paraphernalia having been found at the premises during a routine inspection or at the end of the tenancy. No witnesses were called to give evidence that they had seen methamphetamine use at the premises during the tenancy. The only evidence the landlord has is two post-tenancy methamphetamine tests, completed by Active Testing Solutions (ATS) on 21 and 27 November 2025.

The first test on 21 November 2025 involved composite samples taken from a variety of locations, which produced an average result of 5.49mcg/100cm² across all sample sites. The theoretical maximum was 43.9mcg/100cm².

The second test involved a site specific test of the kitchen rangehood on 27 November 2025. The result for this area was 8.4mcg/100cm². The rangehood was not one of the areas tested as part of the composite testing on 21 November 2025. The area of the kitchen that was tested on this date was the kitchen window frame.

The landlord claims the fact that the rangehood returned any result for the presence of methamphetamine is proof that methamphetamine was consumed inside the premises during the tenancy. This is because the landlord claims the rangehood was newly installed shortly before the tenancy began. The problem for the landlord, however, is that this submission assumes there was no contamination to the rangehood prior to its installation. No evidence was given as to when or where the rangehood was manufactured, stored and transported. It is reasonably possible that methamphetamine could have been deposited on it during manufacture, storage or transportation. Further, no receipt for the purchase of the rangehood was submitted. No evidence as to when the rangehood was installed in the premises was given either. I do not know if it was installed immediately before the tenancy began or a couple of weeks or months prior. If it was installed a couple of weeks or months prior, it is reasonably possible that contractors or other people who had access to the premises, might be responsible for any methamphetamine deposited on it. For all of these reasons, I am not satisfied that the reading of 8.4mcg/100cm² on the rangehood proves, on the balance of probabilities, that the tenant or a person at the premises with the tenant’s permission, consumed methamphetamine inside the premises during the tenancy.

The absence of a baseline methamphetamine test is a significant weakness in the landlord’s case. Insufficient evidence was submitted to convince me that the tenant or a person at the premises with the tenant’s permission consumed methamphetamine inside the premises during the tenancy. For all of these reasons, this claim is dismissed.

I pause to note that even if the landlord had proven that the tenant, or a person at the premises with the tenant’s permission, consumed methamphetamine inside the premises during the tenancy, more thorough site specific testing would be required to prove that decontamination was required. The only site specific test completed was for the rangehood, which returned a reading of

4mcg/100cm². This is below the level of 15mcg/100cm², which is the level the Tribunal generally considers decontamination is required. Filing fee

Because the landlord has been substantially successful with their claim, I must reimburse the filing fee.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5481509 — net $1,958.90 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$150.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$242.08	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$201.00	Lock/key replacement
Window repairs	$168.91	Window repairs
Repairs: French door	$168.91	Repairs: French door
Repairs: Towel rail	$70.00	Repairs: Towel rail
Repairs: Toilet roll holder	$30.00	Repairs: Toilet roll holder
Repairs: Painting	$900.00	Repairs: Painting
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,958.90
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,958.90