What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5497034 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Nice Place Property Management Limited As

How much money was awarded in case 5497034?

Cleaning: $1,725.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $1,260.00 awarded to landlord; Methamphetamine Testing: $1,528.75 awarded to landlord; Packing And Removal Of Belongings: $3,750.00 awarded to landlord; Storage Fees: $715.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5497034?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5497034?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13867606-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5497034 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Nice Place Property Management Limited As

How much money was awarded in case 5497034?

Cleaning: $1,725.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $1,260.00 awarded to landlord; Methamphetamine Testing: $1,528.75 awarded to landlord; Packing And Removal Of Belongings: $3,750.00 awarded to landlord; Storage Fees: $715.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5497034?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5497034?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13867606-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

60 Acacia Avenue, Maungaraki, Lower Hutt 5010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5497034 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5497034 — net $9,006.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$1,725.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$1,260.00	Lawns and Garden work
Packing and removal of belongings	$3,750.00	Packing and removal of belongings
Storage fees	$715.00	Storage fees
Methamphetamine testing	$1,528.75	Methamphetamine testing
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$9,006.75
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$9,006.75

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Nice Place Property Management Limited As The Agent For N.J. Arachchi $9,006.75 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing represented by Mr Powell and Ms A’ Court. There was no appearance by the tenant.
The landlord has applied for compensation in respect of the following claims; a. Cleaning costs—$1,725.00 b. Grass slash, mowing lawns and gardening work—$1,900.00 c. Replacement of locks—$798.91 d. Packing belongings for storage—$3750.00 e. Storage costs—$715.00 f. Methamphetamine testing—$1,528.75
The landlord also wanted to pursue claims for security costs of $253.46 and the insurance excess of $2,500 in relation to a claim made with the owner’s insurers for methamphetamine contamination, which has yet to be finalised. Neither claim was articulated in the application.
I indicated at the hearing that I was prepared to deal with the security costs because it relates to the landlord arranging for a security guard to supervise the tenant collecting her belongings from the premises 3 months after the tenancy ended. On reflection, given that this claim was not included in the original application and the landlord did not amend the application prior to the hearing, I consider that I cannot deal with it. For the same reason, I cannot deal with the claim for the insurance excess. Background facts
The tenancy commenced on 6 June 2025 and was terminated by order of the Tribunal (under a previous application) dated 12 March 2026 with effect at
59am on 16 March 2026.
After the termination time on 16 March 2026, Ms A’ Court and another property manager attended the premises to check whether the tenant had vacated. There was no-one home and they entered the premises. The premises still contained the tenant’s belongings including all household goods, furniture, clothing, other personal effects and a vehicle. The property managers say they thought the tenant might have vacated because the power was disconnected and there was old milk in the fridge with a November use by date.
The landlord had also arranged for a locksmith to attend and change the locks on the same day.
As discussed at the hearing, I am not persuaded that the landlord could reasonably conclude that the tenant had vacated the premises in compliance with the termination order and it was not open to them to take possession and change the locks without applying to the District Court for an eviction order enforceable by a bailiff.
After the locks were changed, the tenant arrived at the premises while Ms A’ Court was still present. This indicates that the tenant had not vacated the premises. Ms A’ Court advised the tenant that they had taken possession and changed the locks. They discussed matters and the tenant agreed to vacate that day and collect her belongings later.
Subsequently, the landlord communicated with the tenant by numerous phone calls, text messages and emails to request that she collect her belongings. On two occasions the tenant contacted the landlord to set up a time to collect some of her documents. The landlord attended the premises at the pre-arranged times, but the tenant did not attend.
In the meantime, the landlord packed and moved the tenant’s belongings into the double garage at the premises so that they could ready the house for re- letting. They also served notices on the tenant advising her that they would store her goods for 35 days from the termination date until 20 April 2026 and required her to collect the items by that date. They advised her that she would be charged a storage fee of $65/week. They warned that if she did not collect the goods within this time limit, they may dispose or sell the goods as permitted under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). 1
The tenant eventually contacted the landlord and collected all her belongings on 5 June 2026.
In the meantime, the landlord arranged to clean and tidy the premises for which they now seek compensation.

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. 2 Cleaning interior, removal of belongings and rubbish
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all their belongings and rubbish as shown in the photos produced in evidence.
I am satisfied on the evidence that it was reasonable for the landlord to pack up and move the tenant’s belongings from the house into the double garage so that they could clean the house and ready it for re-letting. The packing and removal costs and the amount charged for storage from 16 March to 5 June 2026 are reasonable.
The amounts awarded are proved. Lawns and gardens
The lawns were extremely overgrown and untidy as were some of the garden areas. The landlord arranged for their contractor to tidy the grounds, and they submitted an invoice for $3,800. However, the invoice does not itemise the 1 See sections 62,62A and 2 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) gardening work and includes work that is not the tenant’s responsibility such as trimming bushes and trees; and poisoning the stumps of trees growing out of the retaining wall. The landlord suggested that half the invoice should be paid by the tenant. I consider, based on the entry and exit photos provided, that an award of $1,260, being approximately one third of the total cost is justified. Changing locks and keys
The landlord claims $798.91 for changing the locks. Changing the locks is justified when a tenant vacates the premises and does not return all the keys. However, the landlord changed the locks before the tenant had vacated the premises. There is also no evidence that she did not return the keys before leaving the premises on 16 March with Ms A’ Court unsure on this point. However, given that the locks had already been changed, there would be no necessity for her to leave the keys.
The landlord submits that changing the locks is justified because of the termination order and because of the presence of methamphetamine indicating unlawful activity at the premises. However, termination of the tenancy alone does not entitle the landlord to change the locks at the tenant’s cost. As for the use of methamphetamine, this fact was not known when the landlord made the decision to change the locks and is also not an automatic reason for changing the locks.
The claim for changing the locks is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for methamphetamine contamination?

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. 3
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 applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person for whom they are responsible. 4 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.
The use or possession of methamphetamine is an imprisonable offence. 5 3 Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA 4 Section 49B(1) RTA
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. 6 The maximum acceptable level is 15μg/100cm² (micrograms in a sample area of 100 square centimetres).
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. 7
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. 8
During the cleaning process, the cleaners discovered drug paraphernalia at the premises which prompted the landlord to conduct methamphetamine testing at the premises. The initial composite testing showed the presence of methamphetamine and subsequent discrete testing of individual samples showed 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 absence of a pre-tenancy methamphetamine test means other evidence is particularly important and must be strong. 9
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. 5 See sections 7 and 12 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 6 Regulation 5 Residential Tenancies (Managing Methamphetamine Contamination) Regulations 2026 7 Sections 49A and 49B(1)(b) RTA 8 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55 9 Eren Limited v Martin and Kukuruzsnayak [2021] NZDC 15210 and Brooking and Hodges v Imrie [2021] NZDC 16976
The landlord relies on the fact that drug paraphernalia was found at the premises which likely proves that the tenant or someone at the premises with her permission used methamphetamine.
The landlord also arranged to test some of the tenant’s chattels which she brought with her to the premises. Testing of the tenant’s bed frame detected methamphetamine at a level of 31μg/100cm², well above the maximum acceptable level. The landlord also provided evidence that the master bedroom where the tenant’s bed was placed also had a high reading for methamphetamine of 21μg/100cm. Testing of the tenant’s couch and cabinet also detected methamphetamine but at levels well below the maximum acceptable level. The landlord says that the presence of methamphetamine on chattels belonging to the tenant which she brought into the premises is also strong evidence that the tenant used, or allowed the use of, methamphetamine at the premises during the tenancy.
I accept the landlord’s argument that the drug paraphernalia found at the premises after the tenancy ended, and the presence of a high level of methamphetamine on the tenant’s bed frame proves on the balance of probabilities that the tenant or someone at the premises with her permission used methamphetamine. On that basis, she is responsible for the methamphetamine contamination at the premises.
The landlord seeks reimbursement of the methamphetamine testing costs for the initial composite test and the discrete testing of the tenant’s chattels. I am satisfied that the tenant is liable for those costs. Suppression and filing fee
As the landlord has substantially succeeded with their claims, they are entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord advised at the hearing that they no longer seek suppression of their names and identifying details as set out in the application. Therefore, no suppression orders are made. K Stirling, 07 July 2026

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5497034 — net $9,006.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$1,725.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$1,260.00	Lawns and Garden work
Packing and removal of belongings	$3,750.00	Packing and removal of belongings
Storage fees	$715.00	Storage fees
Methamphetamine testing	$1,528.75	Methamphetamine testing
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$9,006.75
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$9,006.75

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Nice Place Property Management Limited As The Agent For N.J. Arachchi $9,006.75 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing represented by Mr Powell and Ms A’ Court. There was no appearance by the tenant.
The landlord has applied for compensation in respect of the following claims; a. Cleaning costs—$1,725.00 b. Grass slash, mowing lawns and gardening work—$1,900.00 c. Replacement of locks—$798.91 d. Packing belongings for storage—$3750.00 e. Storage costs—$715.00 f. Methamphetamine testing—$1,528.75
The landlord also wanted to pursue claims for security costs of $253.46 and the insurance excess of $2,500 in relation to a claim made with the owner’s insurers for methamphetamine contamination, which has yet to be finalised. Neither claim was articulated in the application.
I indicated at the hearing that I was prepared to deal with the security costs because it relates to the landlord arranging for a security guard to supervise the tenant collecting her belongings from the premises 3 months after the tenancy ended. On reflection, given that this claim was not included in the original application and the landlord did not amend the application prior to the hearing, I consider that I cannot deal with it. For the same reason, I cannot deal with the claim for the insurance excess. Background facts
The tenancy commenced on 6 June 2025 and was terminated by order of the Tribunal (under a previous application) dated 12 March 2026 with effect at
59am on 16 March 2026.
After the termination time on 16 March 2026, Ms A’ Court and another property manager attended the premises to check whether the tenant had vacated. There was no-one home and they entered the premises. The premises still contained the tenant’s belongings including all household goods, furniture, clothing, other personal effects and a vehicle. The property managers say they thought the tenant might have vacated because the power was disconnected and there was old milk in the fridge with a November use by date.
The landlord had also arranged for a locksmith to attend and change the locks on the same day.
As discussed at the hearing, I am not persuaded that the landlord could reasonably conclude that the tenant had vacated the premises in compliance with the termination order and it was not open to them to take possession and change the locks without applying to the District Court for an eviction order enforceable by a bailiff.
After the locks were changed, the tenant arrived at the premises while Ms A’ Court was still present. This indicates that the tenant had not vacated the premises. Ms A’ Court advised the tenant that they had taken possession and changed the locks. They discussed matters and the tenant agreed to vacate that day and collect her belongings later.
Subsequently, the landlord communicated with the tenant by numerous phone calls, text messages and emails to request that she collect her belongings. On two occasions the tenant contacted the landlord to set up a time to collect some of her documents. The landlord attended the premises at the pre-arranged times, but the tenant did not attend.
In the meantime, the landlord packed and moved the tenant’s belongings into the double garage at the premises so that they could ready the house for re- letting. They also served notices on the tenant advising her that they would store her goods for 35 days from the termination date until 20 April 2026 and required her to collect the items by that date. They advised her that she would be charged a storage fee of $65/week. They warned that if she did not collect the goods within this time limit, they may dispose or sell the goods as permitted under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). 1
The tenant eventually contacted the landlord and collected all her belongings on 5 June 2026.
In the meantime, the landlord arranged to clean and tidy the premises for which they now seek compensation.

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. 2 Cleaning interior, removal of belongings and rubbish
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all their belongings and rubbish as shown in the photos produced in evidence.
I am satisfied on the evidence that it was reasonable for the landlord to pack up and move the tenant’s belongings from the house into the double garage so that they could clean the house and ready it for re-letting. The packing and removal costs and the amount charged for storage from 16 March to 5 June 2026 are reasonable.
The amounts awarded are proved. Lawns and gardens
The lawns were extremely overgrown and untidy as were some of the garden areas. The landlord arranged for their contractor to tidy the grounds, and they submitted an invoice for $3,800. However, the invoice does not itemise the 1 See sections 62,62A and 2 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) gardening work and includes work that is not the tenant’s responsibility such as trimming bushes and trees; and poisoning the stumps of trees growing out of the retaining wall. The landlord suggested that half the invoice should be paid by the tenant. I consider, based on the entry and exit photos provided, that an award of $1,260, being approximately one third of the total cost is justified. Changing locks and keys
The landlord claims $798.91 for changing the locks. Changing the locks is justified when a tenant vacates the premises and does not return all the keys. However, the landlord changed the locks before the tenant had vacated the premises. There is also no evidence that she did not return the keys before leaving the premises on 16 March with Ms A’ Court unsure on this point. However, given that the locks had already been changed, there would be no necessity for her to leave the keys.
The landlord submits that changing the locks is justified because of the termination order and because of the presence of methamphetamine indicating unlawful activity at the premises. However, termination of the tenancy alone does not entitle the landlord to change the locks at the tenant’s cost. As for the use of methamphetamine, this fact was not known when the landlord made the decision to change the locks and is also not an automatic reason for changing the locks.
The claim for changing the locks is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for methamphetamine contamination?

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. 3
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 applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person for whom they are responsible. 4 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.
The use or possession of methamphetamine is an imprisonable offence. 5 3 Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA 4 Section 49B(1) RTA
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. 6 The maximum acceptable level is 15μg/100cm² (micrograms in a sample area of 100 square centimetres).
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. 7
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. 8
During the cleaning process, the cleaners discovered drug paraphernalia at the premises which prompted the landlord to conduct methamphetamine testing at the premises. The initial composite testing showed the presence of methamphetamine and subsequent discrete testing of individual samples showed 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 absence of a pre-tenancy methamphetamine test means other evidence is particularly important and must be strong. 9
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. 5 See sections 7 and 12 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 6 Regulation 5 Residential Tenancies (Managing Methamphetamine Contamination) Regulations 2026 7 Sections 49A and 49B(1)(b) RTA 8 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55 9 Eren Limited v Martin and Kukuruzsnayak [2021] NZDC 15210 and Brooking and Hodges v Imrie [2021] NZDC 16976
The landlord relies on the fact that drug paraphernalia was found at the premises which likely proves that the tenant or someone at the premises with her permission used methamphetamine.
The landlord also arranged to test some of the tenant’s chattels which she brought with her to the premises. Testing of the tenant’s bed frame detected methamphetamine at a level of 31μg/100cm², well above the maximum acceptable level. The landlord also provided evidence that the master bedroom where the tenant’s bed was placed also had a high reading for methamphetamine of 21μg/100cm. Testing of the tenant’s couch and cabinet also detected methamphetamine but at levels well below the maximum acceptable level. The landlord says that the presence of methamphetamine on chattels belonging to the tenant which she brought into the premises is also strong evidence that the tenant used, or allowed the use of, methamphetamine at the premises during the tenancy.
I accept the landlord’s argument that the drug paraphernalia found at the premises after the tenancy ended, and the presence of a high level of methamphetamine on the tenant’s bed frame proves on the balance of probabilities that the tenant or someone at the premises with her permission used methamphetamine. On that basis, she is responsible for the methamphetamine contamination at the premises.
The landlord seeks reimbursement of the methamphetamine testing costs for the initial composite test and the discrete testing of the tenant’s chattels. I am satisfied that the tenant is liable for those costs. Suppression and filing fee
As the landlord has substantially succeeded with their claims, they are entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord advised at the hearing that they no longer seek suppression of their names and identifying details as set out in the application. Therefore, no suppression orders are made. K Stirling, 07 July 2026

Tenancy Tribunal case 5497034 — Cleanliness at 60 Acacia Avenue, Maungaraki, Lower Hutt 5010

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5497034 — Cleanliness at 60 Acacia Avenue, Maungaraki, Lower Hutt 5010

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for methamphetamine contamination?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for methamphetamine contamination?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions