How much money was awarded in case 5481555?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $137.21 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5481555?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5481555?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14183472-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5481555?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $137.21 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5481555?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5481555?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14183472-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5481555 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5481555 about?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5481555. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$137.21	Water rates
Repairs	$172.50	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement

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

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $337.71 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Omokoroa Property Management Limited As Agents For Anton & Gulnaz Mitchell immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,062.29 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Ms Lenny, Property Manager, appeared for the landlord. Both named tenants appeared. Although one of the tenants, who is the mother of the other, is in fact the guarantor and did not reside at the property, there is no dispute that she is a party. All parties appeared via video link.

The tenancy commenced on 07 August 2025 and ended on 31 January 2026.

On 10 April 2026, the landlord filed the following claims: i. Water rates ($137.21) ii. Damage to the ceiling in the bedroom ($172.50) iii. Methamphetamine contamination causing damage ($500.00) iv. Using, or allowing the property to be used for, the consumption of methamphetamine (exemplary damages of $1,800.00)

At the commencement of the hearing, the tenant confirmed that the claims for water rates and damage to the bedroom ceiling are not disputed. Accordingly, those matters are proved, and I award the compensation claimed. Methamphetamine claims

The landlord states that the property was built in April 2025 and that the tenant was the first occupant. The landlord also states that the property was empty between April 2025 and 07 August 2025.

The landlord provided a letter signed and dated 21 October 2025. They state they are the developer of the subdivision in which the property is located. They state that after the tenancy commenced, they had reports from contractors of suspicious activity at the property, including a constant stream of visitors and that the curtains were continually closed.

The landlord stated they formed the view that the property might be a drug house. They state that they visited the police, who advised the property was under police surveillance, the tenant and their partner had criminal connections and were under investigation, and that the tenant’s partner had been linked to a robbery. Police recommended testing the property for methamphetamine.

On 01 October 2025, based on what they had been told, the property manager issued a 14-day breach notice. Shortly afterwards, the property manager themselves visited the police and were advised that the property was a place of interest.

The landlord issued a notice to conduct a routine inspection in which methamphetamine testing would be undertaken. The inspection was the second to be completed following the commencement of the tenancy.

No baseline testing had been conducted at the commencement of the tenancy.

On 03 October 2025, the landlord visited and conducted testing. Ten samples were taken. These were grouped together, analysed, and returned a composite reading of 4.8 μg/100cm² (μg) with a maximum theoretical level of 48 ug. During the inspection, it was noted that the tenant had removed and washed the rangehood filters, which were located drying on a bench nearby. One of the sites sampled was inside the rangehood itself.

On 07 October 2026, twelve of the samples were sent for individual discrete testing. Analysis returned the following readings: inside the kitchen rangehood (28 μg), dining room (3.9 μg), lounge (3.5 μg), entrance (0.94 μg), garage A (0.89 μg), bathroom (3.0 μg), bedroom one (1.69 μg), master bedroom (1.63 μg), ensuite (1.21 μg), bedroom three (2.2 μg), hallway (1.84 μg), and garage B (1.5 μg).

As the tenant had a newborn baby, the property manager felt compelled to make a notification to Oranga Tamariki.

Following advice of the results, composite testing was arranged for five similar properties in the subdivision that were built by the landlord around the same time. All of the properties were subject to tenancies and were occupied at the time of testing. [The party] of the properties had been baseline tested at the commencement of those tenancies. All properties returned a negative result for methamphetamine. In one property, the inside of the rangehood was also sampled.

The landlord stated that the rangehood was purchased new in late March 2025 and installed into the property shortly before construction was completed in early April 2025.

In their statement, the landlord states that they use a core group of contractors and subcontractors and that there have been no previous issues with drugs.

The tenant stated that upon receiving the landlord’s test results, they were shocked and on 13 October 2025 arranged for their own testing to be carried out. Ten samples were taken and analysed, returning a reading of 0.97 μg with a maximum theoretical reading of 9.71 μg, less than the composite reading obtained by the landlord.

Although the tenant had been provided with a copy of the landlord’s report showing the sampled sites, they did not share this with their tester, preferring the tester to take samples from places they felt were appropriate. The tenant’s testing did not include sampling inside the rangehood, but a sample was taken from a surface nearby. After the results had been provided, the tenant disclosed the fact of the previous testing and that the inside of the rangehood had been sampled. The tenant states their tester said taking a sample from inside the rangehood was not usual.

The landlord noted that four of the sites sampled by their tester were proximate to those sampled by the tenant’s tester. However, no comparison can be made as the tenant’s samples had not been tested individually.

The landlord submitted that the level of contamination equated to 1007 smoked doses of methamphetamine between 07 August 2025 and 03 October 2025, which was consistent with high habitual use.

In summary, while the landlord acknowledged that there was no pre-tenancy baseline testing completed, the Tribunal can look to other evidence: the frequent visitors, the criminal connections, the rangehood filters being removed, and the negative test results for five of the other nearby properties built by the landlord. The contractors and sub-contractors used by the landlord had been the same for all properties, yet the tenants were the only ones of the five whose property was contaminated. The landlord stated that in one of the other properties, the inside of the rangehood had been tested and returned a negative result. The readings and the number of smoke doses required to achieve the reading suggested high use, which was inconsistent with use over a short period during construction.

The tenant denied any involvement with methamphetamine. The tenant stated that they had never been questioned by police, had no criminal connections, and questioned the claims made by the landlord.

They stated that they had recently moved into the property with a newborn baby who had recently been hospitalised with RSV and bronchitis, was extremely vulnerable, and they would not place the baby at risk of harm. The tenant stated that over the course of the tenancy they had had numerous visitors come to see themselves and the baby, including Plunket and district nurses. They stated that there was no ability to install net curtains to some of the windows and to provide privacy and screen the sun; they had either kept those curtains drawn or applied a temporary tinted film over the windows.

The tenant stated that they were not in a relationship with the father of the child. They stated that the father of the child did not reside at the property but had stayed overnight at the property only twice, to help care for the baby after the tenant had fractured their wrist. The tenant stated that they were present during each stay and that no drugs were consumed.

The tenant stated that Oranga Tamariki completed a brief investigation but took no action.

The tenant stated that no drug paraphernalia was located at the property.

The tenant stated that the landlord’s inspection checklist included checking the rangehood filters. The tenant stated, that as they had done for a previous inspection, they had again removed and cleaned the filters. They stated that this was not to conceal the presence of methamphetamine.

The tenant questioned whether without a baseline test, the Tribunal could be satisfied that contamination had occurred during the tenancy. The tenant filed written submissions in which they referred to the Tribunal case of Yan v Weggery, TT 4303380, where the Tribunal considered that the fact that a property was new was by itself insufficient to prove that contamination had occurred during the tenancy.

The tenant submitted that apart from the reading taken from inside the rangehood, that all other readings were below the level of 15 μg.

The tenant’s mother stated that they were the guarantor for the tenancy, had been named on the agreement as a joint tenant, although they did not reside at the property. This was not disputed by the landlord.

She stated that there had been regular visitors to the property as stated by the tenant, including herself. She stated that the father of the baby had visited the property and had stayed a couple of nights when the tenant had broken her wrist. She stated she had been present while he had been at the property and did not witness any drug taking or suspicious behaviour. She confirmed that the baby had suffered respiratory issues and had been hospitalised prior to the tenancy. She was unaware of any criminal involvement or police investigations. Law

Under section 40(2)(b) of the Act a tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. The possession of methamphetamine or allowing it to be consumed on the property are both offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A) (c) and Schedule 1A of the Act.

The regulations for methamphetamine contamination in residential tenancies are now set out in the Residential Tenancies (Managing Methamphetamine Contamination) Regulations 2026.

Regulation 5 provides that the maximum acceptable level in residential properties is 15 ug. If methamphetamine is present above this level, the premises are considered damaged by contamination for the purposes of the Act. This aligns with the approach taken by the Tribunal following the Gluckman Report, which was subsequently confirmed by the Court. A property is deemed uninhabitable if the level exceeds 30 ug.

In determining liability for damage by contamination, the landlord must establish that the contamination occurred during the tenancy.

To be satisfied that contamination occurred during the tenancy, the Tribunal must be able to make an accurate pre- and post-tenancy comparison. While the pre- and post-tenancy testing sites do not necessarily have to be in exactly the same position, they should at least be in close proximity.

The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is the balance of probabilities. The landlord must show that it is more likely than not that the tenant has used, or permitted the property to be used, for an unlawful purpose and is liable for contamination occurring during the tenancy.

A baseline test for the presence of methamphetamine at the commencement of the tenancy is the best evidence. Without a baseline test, evidence of contamination detected during the tenancy may be insufficient to establish liability, as the contamination may have occurred before the tenancy. However, the Tribunal must consider any other relevant evidence. Analysis and decision

The issue in this claim is whether, without baseline testing, there is sufficient evidence to establish more likely than not that the tenant is responsible for the contamination.

Having considered the evidence, I am not satisfied to the required standard that the tenant is responsible.

I find it unlikely that the police would have disclosed to the landlord that the property and its occupants were the subject of an active criminal investigation. However, having made a report, it is unsurprising that when the property manager visited the police a few days later, they were advised that the property was a place of interest. There is no evidence from the police that this was in fact the case. What the witnesses told the landlord, what the landlord told the police, what the police told the landlord, and what the property manager was told are all hearsay. While the Tribunal may accept hearsay evidence, the weight it places on such evidence will be a matter for it to determine. In this case, in the absence of confirmation from police, I place little weight on this evidence.

The making of a Police 105 complaint does not prove the alleged facts contained in that report.

The landlord’s submissions refer to 34 properties built by the landlord in the subdivision, of which 5, including the tenants, were tested. Although the landlord states they used the same trustworthy contractors and sub-contractors to build the properties, and that those nearby tested negative, without baseline testing it cannot be ruled out that the contamination may have occurred prior to the tenancy.

In Yan v Weggery, the Tribunal considered a claim for methamphetamine damage where the premises concerned were brand new at the start of the tenancy. It was accepted that this, in itself, did not prove that there could not have been methamphetamine contamination before the start of the tenancy. The Tribunal noted that methamphetamine use does occur among tradespeople, just as it does in almost any element of society. The fact that the property was new at the start of the tenancy was insufficient to prove that the contamination occurred during the tenancy.

I accept the tenant’s submission that the readings are generally low, and that the usage required to produce such results could have occurred over the duration of the tenancy, or equally during its construction, or over the five months it remained untenanted.

I find the tenant to be a credible witness. I accept the tenant’s evidence that their newborn baby suffered respiratory issues and was vulnerable, and that they would not put the baby, or allow others to place the baby at risk.

I accept the tenant’s and the tenant’s mother’s explanation regarding the reasons for frequent visitors, and the outcome of Oranga Tamariki’s involvement. There is also no reliable evidence that the father of the tenant’s baby is involved in drugs.

I accept the tenant’s explanation concerning the rangehood filters being cleaned for inspections.

There is no evidence as to how long any contamination, once deposited, can remain on a surface before it is removed by cleaning or, if applicable, by the passage of time.

The contamination located inside the rangehood may have been present from manufacture, transport, storage, or installation at the property. Once again, the absence of any baseline testing of the rangehood is an issue.

The claims for contamination causing damage and using or allowing the property to be used for an unlawful purpose are dismissed. Costs

As the landlord has been partly successful, I order reimbursement of the filing fee. Name suppression

The tenant has been substantially successful in these proceedings, seeks, and is granted name suppression. See section 95A of the Act. There are no grounds to order suppression of the landlord’s name.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5481555. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$137.21	Water rates
Repairs	$172.50	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement