What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5495096 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 5495096?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $327.49 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $178.57 awarded to landlord; Repainting A Block Wall: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Exterior Fence: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5495096?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5495096?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13841620-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5495096 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 5495096?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $327.49 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $178.57 awarded to landlord; Repainting A Block Wall: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Exterior Fence: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5495096?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5495096?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13841620-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 6, 48A Merton Street, Trentham, Upper Hutt 5018, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5495096 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Unit/Flat 6, 48A Merton Street, Trentham, Upper Hutt 5018, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5495096 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5495096 — net $884.06 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 14.3.2026	$178.57	Rent arrears to 14.3.2026
Lock/key replacement	$327.49	Lock/key replacement
Repainting a block wall	$250.00	Repainting a block wall
Repairs: Exterior fence	$100.00	Repairs: Exterior fence
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$884.06
Bond	$1,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$884.06

Claims and awards for application 5495096 — net $884.06 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 14.3.2026

Amount: $178.57
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 14.3.2026

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $327.49
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Repainting a block wall

Amount: $250.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repainting a block wall

Repairs: Exterior fence

Amount: $100.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Exterior fence

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Wolfbrook Property Management Limited As Agent For Carl & Rachel Fransen $884.06 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Wolfbrook Property Management Limited As Agent For Carl & Rachel Fransen: $884.06 [The tenant/s]: $915.94

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing with Ms Moore representing the landlord.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 14 March 2026. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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 (RTA).
The tenant did not return the keys. The landlord is entitled to the cost of replacing the keys.

Is the tenant responsible for 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. 1
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). 2
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This 1 Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA 2 Section 49B(3)(a) RTA applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person for whom they are responsible. 3
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. I consider each of the claims for damages in turn. Methamphetamine damage
The use or possession of methamphetamine is an imprisonable offence. 4
Regulations have now come into force prescribing the maximum acceptable level of methamphetamine for premises for the purpose of the definition of “contaminated” in section 2 RTA. 5 The maximum acceptable level is 15μg/100cm².
If a landlord proves that the tenant is responsible for contamination of the premises by methamphetamine during the tenancy, then the tenant is liable for the costs of “making good the damage” and any other reasonably foreseeable losses that flow from the damage. 6
The standard of proof that applies is the civil standard “on the balance of probabilities”. This means I do not have to be completely certain, but I must be satisfied that what is alleged is “more probable than not.”
Generally, the more serious the claim, the stronger the evidence that is required. 7
The landlord conducted testing for the presence of methamphetamine at the end of the tenancy and detected levels of methamphetamine in several areas of the house that exceeded the maximum acceptable level.
However, in this case, the landlord did not test the premises for methamphetamine prior to the tenancy starting. If there is no testing of the premises before, or at the start of the tenancy, as is the case here, the immediate hurdle is proving that the contamination at the end of the tenancy was caused by the tenant. In the absence of a baseline test, it is much harder for a landlord to establish that the contamination occurred during the tenancy.
The District Court has held that the absence of pre-let testing at the start of the tenancy significantly weakens the circumstantial case against a tenant. The 3 Section 49B(1) RTA 4 See sections 7 and 12 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 5 Regulation 5 Residential Tenancies (Managing Methamphetamine Contamination) Regulations 2026 6 Sections 49A and 49B(1)(b) RTA 7 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55 absence of a pre-tenancy methamphetamine test means other evidence is particularly important and must be strong. 8
In these circumstances, the landlord must prove that it is more probable than not that the tenant, or a person at the premises for whom they are responsible, used, or allowed the use of, methamphetamine at the premises during the tenancy.
The landlord advised that the premises were last tested for methamphetamine before the previous tenancy which lasted 2 years. Therefore, this was likely in late 2023. It appears from the evidence that the previous tenancy ended on or about 17 October 2025 (when the bond inspection was completed) and this tenancy started on 28 November 2025.
Given that there was no pre-let testing, I asked the landlord on what basis it was alleged that the contamination of the premises could be attributed to this tenancy. The landlord referred to other damage caused at the premises by the tenant and reports from a neighbour of a loud dispute at the premises. Neither of those factors, if proved, are evidence of methamphetamine use at the premises and the landlord could not point to any other strong evidence that might be persuasive.
In summary, I am not satisfied that the evidence is strong enough to establish that it was more likely than not that the tenant was responsible for the presence of methamphetamine at the premises during the tenancy.
It follows that the following claims must be dismissed: a. Methamphetamine testing costs; b. Decontamination costs; c. Costs of replacing contaminated carpets and curtains; d. Exemplary damages for using the premises for an unlawful purpose. Bedroom wall damage
The tenant accepted that graffiti was painted on one of the block walls in a bedroom during the tenancy. She tried to wash it off and paint over it, but it was still visible. The wall needs to be repainted. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant is liable for the damage.
The landlord provided a quote from a professional painter for the cost of repainting the wall in the amount of $790 plus GST. They seek the insurance excess of $750. However, Ms Moore advised that the contractors who prepared 8 Eren Limited v Martin and Kukuruzsnayak [2021] NZDC 15210 and Brooking and Hodges v Imrie [2021] NZDC 16976 the quote to repaint the wall did not do the work and she understood the owners did the painting work. She took instructions from the owners during the hearing. They advised that another company repainted the entire house. They estimated that painting the wall would have been approximately $500 plus paint cost of $150. There was no evidence from the painter itemising this amount. They did not advise when the wall was last painted.
While I accept that the wall was damaged and required repainting, I am not persuaded that the amount claimed is justified. Furthermore, I do not know when the wall was last painted.
I must consider 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 must consider the age and condition of the painted wall at the start of the tenancy and its likely useful lifespan.
Taking into account the available evidence and all relevant circumstances, I award $250 towards the repainting of the wall which I consider is justified. Exterior fence damage
The tenant accepted that she crashed her car into the exterior fence causing some damage to a fence rail. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant is liable for the damage.
The landlord provided a quote to repair and repaint the fence of $488.75. The fence has not yet been repaired but the landlord says that the owners intend to use the contractor who provided the quote. The landlord says the fence was last painted prior to this tenancy.
Looking at the photo of the fence, the damage appears very minor, and Ms Moore says she believes the fence is not structurally damaged. Therefore, I am not persuaded that the quoted repair costs are reasonable. I consider the cost of repair is a disproportionate remedy.
Taking into account the available evidence and all relevant circumstances, I award $100 towards the repainting of the fence which I consider is justified. Filing fee and suppression
As the landlord has succeeded with parts of their claim, they are entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee.
Neither the landlord or the tenant sought suppression of their names and identifying details.
The Tribunal may, on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. 9
In this case there is a suggestion that the tenant used or allowed methamphetamine to be used at the premises. However, the claim was not proved. I consider that even the allegation may have a negative effect on the tenant. For that reason, I consider that publication of her details is not in the public interest and should be suppressed.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5495096 — net $884.06 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 14.3.2026	$178.57	Rent arrears to 14.3.2026
Lock/key replacement	$327.49	Lock/key replacement
Repainting a block wall	$250.00	Repainting a block wall
Repairs: Exterior fence	$100.00	Repairs: Exterior fence
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$884.06
Bond	$1,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$884.06

Claims and awards for application 5495096 — net $884.06 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 14.3.2026

Amount: $178.57
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 14.3.2026

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $327.49
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Repainting a block wall

Amount: $250.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repainting a block wall

Repairs: Exterior fence

Amount: $100.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Exterior fence

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Wolfbrook Property Management Limited As Agent For Carl & Rachel Fransen $884.06 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Wolfbrook Property Management Limited As Agent For Carl & Rachel Fransen: $884.06 [The tenant/s]: $915.94

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing with Ms Moore representing the landlord.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 14 March 2026. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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 (RTA).
The tenant did not return the keys. The landlord is entitled to the cost of replacing the keys.

Is the tenant responsible for 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. 1
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). 2
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This 1 Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA 2 Section 49B(3)(a) RTA applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person for whom they are responsible. 3
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. I consider each of the claims for damages in turn. Methamphetamine damage
The use or possession of methamphetamine is an imprisonable offence. 4
Regulations have now come into force prescribing the maximum acceptable level of methamphetamine for premises for the purpose of the definition of “contaminated” in section 2 RTA. 5 The maximum acceptable level is 15μg/100cm².
If a landlord proves that the tenant is responsible for contamination of the premises by methamphetamine during the tenancy, then the tenant is liable for the costs of “making good the damage” and any other reasonably foreseeable losses that flow from the damage. 6
The standard of proof that applies is the civil standard “on the balance of probabilities”. This means I do not have to be completely certain, but I must be satisfied that what is alleged is “more probable than not.”
Generally, the more serious the claim, the stronger the evidence that is required. 7
The landlord conducted testing for the presence of methamphetamine at the end of the tenancy and detected levels of methamphetamine in several areas of the house that exceeded the maximum acceptable level.
However, in this case, the landlord did not test the premises for methamphetamine prior to the tenancy starting. If there is no testing of the premises before, or at the start of the tenancy, as is the case here, the immediate hurdle is proving that the contamination at the end of the tenancy was caused by the tenant. In the absence of a baseline test, it is much harder for a landlord to establish that the contamination occurred during the tenancy.
The District Court has held that the absence of pre-let testing at the start of the tenancy significantly weakens the circumstantial case against a tenant. The 3 Section 49B(1) RTA 4 See sections 7 and 12 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 5 Regulation 5 Residential Tenancies (Managing Methamphetamine Contamination) Regulations 2026 6 Sections 49A and 49B(1)(b) RTA 7 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55 absence of a pre-tenancy methamphetamine test means other evidence is particularly important and must be strong. 8
In these circumstances, the landlord must prove that it is more probable than not that the tenant, or a person at the premises for whom they are responsible, used, or allowed the use of, methamphetamine at the premises during the tenancy.
The landlord advised that the premises were last tested for methamphetamine before the previous tenancy which lasted 2 years. Therefore, this was likely in late 2023. It appears from the evidence that the previous tenancy ended on or about 17 October 2025 (when the bond inspection was completed) and this tenancy started on 28 November 2025.
Given that there was no pre-let testing, I asked the landlord on what basis it was alleged that the contamination of the premises could be attributed to this tenancy. The landlord referred to other damage caused at the premises by the tenant and reports from a neighbour of a loud dispute at the premises. Neither of those factors, if proved, are evidence of methamphetamine use at the premises and the landlord could not point to any other strong evidence that might be persuasive.
In summary, I am not satisfied that the evidence is strong enough to establish that it was more likely than not that the tenant was responsible for the presence of methamphetamine at the premises during the tenancy.
It follows that the following claims must be dismissed: a. Methamphetamine testing costs; b. Decontamination costs; c. Costs of replacing contaminated carpets and curtains; d. Exemplary damages for using the premises for an unlawful purpose. Bedroom wall damage
The tenant accepted that graffiti was painted on one of the block walls in a bedroom during the tenancy. She tried to wash it off and paint over it, but it was still visible. The wall needs to be repainted. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant is liable for the damage.
The landlord provided a quote from a professional painter for the cost of repainting the wall in the amount of $790 plus GST. They seek the insurance excess of $750. However, Ms Moore advised that the contractors who prepared 8 Eren Limited v Martin and Kukuruzsnayak [2021] NZDC 15210 and Brooking and Hodges v Imrie [2021] NZDC 16976 the quote to repaint the wall did not do the work and she understood the owners did the painting work. She took instructions from the owners during the hearing. They advised that another company repainted the entire house. They estimated that painting the wall would have been approximately $500 plus paint cost of $150. There was no evidence from the painter itemising this amount. They did not advise when the wall was last painted.
While I accept that the wall was damaged and required repainting, I am not persuaded that the amount claimed is justified. Furthermore, I do not know when the wall was last painted.
I must consider 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 must consider the age and condition of the painted wall at the start of the tenancy and its likely useful lifespan.
Taking into account the available evidence and all relevant circumstances, I award $250 towards the repainting of the wall which I consider is justified. Exterior fence damage
The tenant accepted that she crashed her car into the exterior fence causing some damage to a fence rail. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant is liable for the damage.
The landlord provided a quote to repair and repaint the fence of $488.75. The fence has not yet been repaired but the landlord says that the owners intend to use the contractor who provided the quote. The landlord says the fence was last painted prior to this tenancy.
Looking at the photo of the fence, the damage appears very minor, and Ms Moore says she believes the fence is not structurally damaged. Therefore, I am not persuaded that the quoted repair costs are reasonable. I consider the cost of repair is a disproportionate remedy.
Taking into account the available evidence and all relevant circumstances, I award $100 towards the repainting of the fence which I consider is justified. Filing fee and suppression
As the landlord has succeeded with parts of their claim, they are entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee.
Neither the landlord or the tenant sought suppression of their names and identifying details.
The Tribunal may, on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. 9
In this case there is a suggestion that the tenant used or allowed methamphetamine to be used at the premises. However, the claim was not proved. I consider that even the allegation may have a negative effect on the tenant. For that reason, I consider that publication of her details is not in the public interest and should be suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5495096 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 6, 48A Merton Street, Trentham, Upper Hutt 5018,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5495096 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 6, 48A Merton Street, Trentham, Upper Hutt 5018,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions