What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5488629 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 5488629?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5488629?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5488629?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13841420-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5488629 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 5488629?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5488629?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5488629?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13841420-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

53 Tainui Street, Tokoroa 3420 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5488629 — Cleanliness

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,760.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The landlord’s application for exemplary damages is dismissed.
The landlord’s application for compensation is withdrawn.
The tenant’s application for refund of the rent credit is withdrawn.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on 2 July 2026 remotely.
The tenancy began on 24 May 2021 and ended on 7 December 2025.
The landlord applied for compensation for methamphetamine testing and exemplary damages. The tenant applied for refund of a rent credit.
An earlier hearing was held on 13 April 2026. That hearing was adjourned to enable the tenant to file her cross application, and the landlord was directed to file correspondence from the insurance company related to the methamphetamine contamination claim and a rent summary.
The tenant filed her application soon after the first hearing.
The landlord failed to file either of the documents directed by the Tribunal.
At the hearing the tenant advised that the landlord had refunded the rent credit in June 2026, two months after she had filed her application and six months after the tenancy ended. That is presumably the reason why the landlord did not file the rent summary with the Tribunal.
At the hearing the landlord advised that the claim for compensation for methamphetamine testing was withdrawn which would not have been able to proceed without the insurance claim documentation. The landlord wished to pursue a claim for exemplary damages for the tenant permitting the premises to be used for unlawful purposes. Exemplary damages
The landlord claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully by allowing methamphetamine to be used.
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose 1 .
Methamphetamine is classified as a class A controlled drug 2 . The use of methamphetamine is an offence 3 . Using the premises for any activity prohibited by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 is considered using the premises for an unlawful purpose.
The landlord produced evidence showing that there was no methamphetamine detected at the premises at the beginning of the tenancy. After the tenancy ended testing was carried out which showed methamphetamine contamination in the garage at the premises. The evidence produced shows that at the end of the tenancy methamphetamine was detected at a level of 43μg/100cm² in the garage. 1 Section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 2 Schedule 1 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 3 Section 7 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975
Under new regulations 4 the maximum acceptable level of methamphetamine 5 for premises is 15μg/100cm². That means that any level of methamphetamine at or above 15μg/100cm² is considered as contamination.
The landlord did not seek any compensation related to the contamination. At the first hearing the landlord advised that an insurance claim had been accepted but no evidence of that was provided to the Tribunal. The landlord did not seek the insurance excess and while he originally sought compensation for testing for methamphetamine, that is a cost usually included in a successful insurance claim. That claim was withdrawn.
In considering whether to grant an award of exemplary damages the Tribunal must consider: (i)The intent of the person committing the unlawful act; (ii)The effect of the unlawful act; (iii)The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed; (iv)The public interest; and (v)Whether it is just to make the award 6 .
At the hearing the tenant said she was sorry and that she would take accountability for the situation. She said that she did not know about the methamphetamine contamination until she was advised by the property manager. She said that she knew people were coming and going to the property and they were there with her permission, but she was not aware of what they were doing. She acknowledged that the house was in her name.
I note that the tenant is responsible for anything done by any person who is in the premises with the tenant’s permission if the act would have constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement had it been the act of the tenant 7 .
In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is sought. There must be evidence that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it.
In a 2021 decision 8 the District Court considered the issue of the intent of the person committing the unlawful act. That case related to the failure of the 4 Residential Tenancies (Managing Methamphetamine Contamination) Regulations 2026 5 Regulation 5(2) Residential Tenancies (Managing Methamphetamine Contamination) Regulations 2026 6 Section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 7 Section 41(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 8 TMT New Zealand Limited T/A Strata Property Management v Sweeney & Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182 landlord to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness which is an unlawful act 9 . The District Court concluded: “Applying the statutory test I consider on the basis of those findings (from which I am not prepared to differ) that there was insufficient evidence of the landlord having intentionally (in the sense of deliberately and with full knowledge) let premises that were not in a reasonable state of cleanliness.” 10
In this situation there is no evidence that the tenant acted intentionally. The facts before me do not show that this tenant intentionally used the premises for an unlawful purpose.
The landlord’s claim for exemplary damages is dismissed. Filing fee and suppression
The Tribunal must reimburse the filing fee where a party has been wholly successful with their application and may reimburse the filing fee where a party has been partly successful with their application 11 .
The landlord was not successful with their application and the Tribunal did not consider the tenant’s application. Therefore, the application fee is not reimbursed to either party.
The landlord did not seek name suppression, but the tenant did. While the tenant’s application was not determined by the Tribunal she has had some success with her defence of the landlord’s claim. Section 95A 12 provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that party’s name not be published.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,760.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The landlord’s application for exemplary damages is dismissed.
The landlord’s application for compensation is withdrawn.
The tenant’s application for refund of the rent credit is withdrawn.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on 2 July 2026 remotely.
The tenancy began on 24 May 2021 and ended on 7 December 2025.
The landlord applied for compensation for methamphetamine testing and exemplary damages. The tenant applied for refund of a rent credit.
An earlier hearing was held on 13 April 2026. That hearing was adjourned to enable the tenant to file her cross application, and the landlord was directed to file correspondence from the insurance company related to the methamphetamine contamination claim and a rent summary.
The tenant filed her application soon after the first hearing.
The landlord failed to file either of the documents directed by the Tribunal.
At the hearing the tenant advised that the landlord had refunded the rent credit in June 2026, two months after she had filed her application and six months after the tenancy ended. That is presumably the reason why the landlord did not file the rent summary with the Tribunal.
At the hearing the landlord advised that the claim for compensation for methamphetamine testing was withdrawn which would not have been able to proceed without the insurance claim documentation. The landlord wished to pursue a claim for exemplary damages for the tenant permitting the premises to be used for unlawful purposes. Exemplary damages
The landlord claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully by allowing methamphetamine to be used.
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose 1 .
Methamphetamine is classified as a class A controlled drug 2 . The use of methamphetamine is an offence 3 . Using the premises for any activity prohibited by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 is considered using the premises for an unlawful purpose.
The landlord produced evidence showing that there was no methamphetamine detected at the premises at the beginning of the tenancy. After the tenancy ended testing was carried out which showed methamphetamine contamination in the garage at the premises. The evidence produced shows that at the end of the tenancy methamphetamine was detected at a level of 43μg/100cm² in the garage. 1 Section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 2 Schedule 1 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 3 Section 7 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975
Under new regulations 4 the maximum acceptable level of methamphetamine 5 for premises is 15μg/100cm². That means that any level of methamphetamine at or above 15μg/100cm² is considered as contamination.
The landlord did not seek any compensation related to the contamination. At the first hearing the landlord advised that an insurance claim had been accepted but no evidence of that was provided to the Tribunal. The landlord did not seek the insurance excess and while he originally sought compensation for testing for methamphetamine, that is a cost usually included in a successful insurance claim. That claim was withdrawn.
In considering whether to grant an award of exemplary damages the Tribunal must consider: (i)The intent of the person committing the unlawful act; (ii)The effect of the unlawful act; (iii)The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed; (iv)The public interest; and (v)Whether it is just to make the award 6 .
At the hearing the tenant said she was sorry and that she would take accountability for the situation. She said that she did not know about the methamphetamine contamination until she was advised by the property manager. She said that she knew people were coming and going to the property and they were there with her permission, but she was not aware of what they were doing. She acknowledged that the house was in her name.
I note that the tenant is responsible for anything done by any person who is in the premises with the tenant’s permission if the act would have constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement had it been the act of the tenant 7 .
In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is sought. There must be evidence that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it.
In a 2021 decision 8 the District Court considered the issue of the intent of the person committing the unlawful act. That case related to the failure of the 4 Residential Tenancies (Managing Methamphetamine Contamination) Regulations 2026 5 Regulation 5(2) Residential Tenancies (Managing Methamphetamine Contamination) Regulations 2026 6 Section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 7 Section 41(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 8 TMT New Zealand Limited T/A Strata Property Management v Sweeney & Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182 landlord to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness which is an unlawful act 9 . The District Court concluded: “Applying the statutory test I consider on the basis of those findings (from which I am not prepared to differ) that there was insufficient evidence of the landlord having intentionally (in the sense of deliberately and with full knowledge) let premises that were not in a reasonable state of cleanliness.” 10
In this situation there is no evidence that the tenant acted intentionally. The facts before me do not show that this tenant intentionally used the premises for an unlawful purpose.
The landlord’s claim for exemplary damages is dismissed. Filing fee and suppression
The Tribunal must reimburse the filing fee where a party has been wholly successful with their application and may reimburse the filing fee where a party has been partly successful with their application 11 .
The landlord was not successful with their application and the Tribunal did not consider the tenant’s application. Therefore, the application fee is not reimbursed to either party.
The landlord did not seek name suppression, but the tenant did. While the tenant’s application was not determined by the Tribunal she has had some success with her defence of the landlord’s claim. Section 95A 12 provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that party’s name not be published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5488629 — Cleanliness at 53 Tainui Street, Tokoroa 3420

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5488629 — Cleanliness at 53 Tainui Street, Tokoroa 3420

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions