What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5541217 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Shelley Naylor Realty $18,032.84 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5541217?

Cleaning: $1,800.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $29.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $900.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $2,596.70 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,807.14 awarded to landlord; Driveway: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,100.00 awarded to landlord; Fence: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Fireplace: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Roofspace Reinstatement: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Spouting And Downpipes: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Walls: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: air conditionin…: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpet: $900.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $900.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5541217?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5541217?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14043773-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5541217 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Shelley Naylor Realty $18,032.84 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5541217?

Cleaning: $1,800.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $29.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $900.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $2,596.70 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,807.14 awarded to landlord; Driveway: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,100.00 awarded to landlord; Fence: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Fireplace: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Roofspace Reinstatement: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Spouting And Downpipes: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Walls: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: air conditionin…: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpet: $900.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $900.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5541217?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5541217?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14043773-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

25 Tyne Street, Roslyn, Palmerston North 4414 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5541217 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

25 Tyne Street, Roslyn, Palmerston North 4414 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5541217 — 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 5541217 — net $18,032.84 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$4,807.14	Rent arrears
Lock/key replacement	$250.00	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning	$1,800.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$900.00	Rubbish removal
Meth testing/Cleaning: testing	$2,596.70	Meth testing/Cleaning: testing
Repairs: fence	$1,000.00	Repairs: fence
Repairs: spouting and downpipes	$750.00	Repairs: spouting and downpipes
Repairs: roofspace reinstatement	$750.00	Repairs: roofspace reinstatement
Repairs: walls	$800.00	Repairs: walls
Repairs: fireplace	$500.00	Repairs: fireplace
Repairs: exterior wall damage	$1,100.00	Repairs: exterior wall damage
Repairs: driveway	$400.00	Repairs: driveway
Lawns and Garden work: repair lawns	$900.00	Lawns and Garden work: repair lawns
Electrical fittings replacement/repair	$500.00	Electrical fittings replacement/repair
Replace furnishings: carpet	$900.00	Replace furnishings: carpet
Replace furnishings: air conditioning remote	$50.00	Replace furnishings: air conditioning remote
Filing fee reimbursement	$29.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$18,032.84
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$18,032.84

Claims and awards for application 5541217 — net $18,032.84 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $4,807.14
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $250.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Cleaning

Amount: $1,800.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Rubbish removal

Amount: $900.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Meth testing/Cleaning: testing

Amount: $2,596.70
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Meth testing/Cleaning: testing

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Lawns And Garden Work Property damage Rent arrears Rubbish Removal

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Shelley Naylor Realty $18,032.84 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$4,807.14 Lock/key replacement$250.00 Cleaning$1,800.00 Rubbish removal$900.00 Meth testing/Cleaning: testing$2,596.70 Repairs: fence$1,000.00 Repairs: spouting and downpipes$750.00 Repairs: roofspace reinstatement$750.00 Repairs: walls$800.00 Repairs: fireplace$500.00 Repairs: exterior wall damage$1,100.00 Repairs: driveway$400.00 Lawns and Garden work: repair lawns$900.00 Electrical fittings replacement/repair$500.00 Replace furnishings: carpet$900.00 Replace furnishings: air conditioning remote$50.00 Filing fee reimbursement$29.00 Total award$18,032.84 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$18,032.84

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 10 June 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.
The landlord provided photographic evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The evidence indicates that the tenant took what he wanted, left anything else and made no attempt to clean the premises.
The tenant did not return the keys.
The air conditioning remote was missing at the end of the tenancy.
The Tribunal has awarded amounts based on the receipts submitted by the landlord, the landlord’s estimate of hours spent and invoices which the Tribunal regularly sees for work of this nature in this area.

Is the tenant responsible for the 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
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). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
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 they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
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 landlord provided photographic evidence that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. A fence was broken and then extensively damaged by fire. b. The spouting and drainpipes were removed. c. The roof space had been altered and insulation removed. d. There had been unreported and unremediated flooding or a leak from the toilet which had damaged the carpet and caused mould damage to the walls in two bedrooms. e. There were a number of small holes in the walls of one bedroom. f. The glass and sealing in the log burner door were broken. g. There were areas of exterior cladding damage. h. The handle had been changed and a lock attached to the garage door. i. The concrete in the driveway had been broken and damaged. j. The lawn area had been killed and damaged by heavy machinery and holes being dug. k. The washing line had been moved. l. Power had been disconnected from the property several months prior to the end of the tenancy. The tenant had bypassed the regulated supply to obtain free power. m. The tenant had installed electrical cabling for lights and heaters into the roof space. n. The carpets were extensively stained and damaged by cuts, tears and burn marks.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. From its nature and extent, it is reasonable to conclude that it is more likely than not that the damage was caused intentionally.
Having considered betterment and depreciation and in accordance with the general principles of the law and the substantial merits and justice of the case, the Tribunal has awarded sums which are reasonable based on the landlord’s receipts, time records and invoices which the Tribunal regularly sees in this area for similar works.
The landlord’s receipts included claims for petrol. The sums awarded have taken this evidence into consideration in determining reasonable amounts of compensation. Methamphetamine contamination
The landlord provided in evidence: a. Photographs of drug paraphernalia present in the premises at the end of the tenancy including two whole pipes usually used for smoking methamphetamine, a similar broken pipe, a “spotting spoon”, woodchips which are used as combustible material to heat methamphetamine, hypodermic needles and the remnants of a light bulb. b. A positive composite methamphetamine test. c. An in-depth methamphetamine report completed by a qualified technician showing the following results for the presence of methamphetamine: i. Lounge 27.70 μg/100cm2. ii. Toilet 22.10 μg/100cm2. iii. Bathroom 18.70 μg/100cm2. iv. Dining room 49.70 μg/100cm2. v. Hallway 27.10 μg/100cm2. vi. Laundry 24.70 μg/100cm2. vii. Bedroom 1 21.20 μg/100cm2. viii. Bedroom 2 20.20 μg/100cm2. ix. Bedroom 3 37.40 μg/100cm2. x. Bedroom 4 24.40 μg/100cm2. d. Photographic evidence that the tenant had converted the upstairs roof space to an area for growing or manufacturing drugs by removing insulation, installing heat reflective material, and diverting power to heaters and powerful lights which he had installed. e. Evidence from the property manager that the tenant’s behaviour changed over the tenancy to become aggressive and threatening to such an extent that he felt unsafe to visit the property and recommended that the landlord terminate the tenancy on 90-days’ notice.
All these levels exceed the maximum acceptable level of 15 μg/100cm2 and one exceeds the maximum inhabitable level of 30 μg/100cm2 prescribed by the Residential Tenancies (Managing Methamphetamine Contamination) Regulations 2026 which came into force on 16 April 2026.
The landlord did not have any methamphetamine test result from the start of the tenancy in May 2021.
The onus of proof for establishing the claim rests on the landlord. The landlord must provide sufficient evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities that methamphetamine was used in the premises by the tenant, or some person on the tenancy premises with the tenant’s consent.
The consumption of an illegal substance is a serious allegation and the Tribunal needs to see a level of supporting evidence befitting the significance of the matters to be decided. In T v M [1984] 2 NZFLR, the Court of Appeal confirmed that, while ‘balance of probabilities’ is a constant standard: “It is the principle of good common sense that the more serious the issue the greater should be the care used in assessing it”.
This approach was confirmed by the majority of the Supreme Court in Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, where the Court stated: “[102] ... In New Zealand it has been emphasised that no intermediate standard of proof exists, between the criminal and civil standards, for application in certain types of civil case. Balance of probabilities still simply means more probable than not. Allowing the civil standard to be applied flexibly has not meant that the degree of probability required to meet this standard changes in serious cases. Rather, the civil standard is flexibly applied because it accommodates serious allegations through the natural tendency to require stronger evidence before being satisfied to the balance of probabilities standard.”
In the District Court decision of Brooking v Imrie [2021] NZDC 16976, Judge Cameron considered a case where the Tenancy Tribunal had accepted that contamination had been caused by the tenants, in circumstances where there was no pre-tenancy testing completed. The Tribunal had accepted evidence from a witness, who worked in a childcare centre across the road from the Tenancy, who described the windows covered with a film, security cameras having been installed, and strong chemical odours arising from the premises. The witness also described gang members and other “undesirable” people attending the premises regularly, with cars regularly driving in an out of the premises, as well as regular visits from the police.
The Court did not accept the evidence presented was sufficient to prove that methamphetamine had been used or manufactured on the premises, and concluded that: “The difficulty with the landlord’s claim is that there was no methamphetamine test conducted at the beginning of the tenancy, and no actual proof of what occurred during the tenancy.”
The District Court allowed the appeal, overturning the Tribunal’s decision. In short, the District Court considered that there was no evidence to support the landlord’s claim that the tenants in that case caused the contamination because there was no pre-tenancy testing undertaken to confirm that there was no contamination at the start of the tenancy.
That decision was similar to an earlier case from the District Court of Eren Limited v Louise Martin [2021] NZDC 15210 decided by Judge de Ridder. In that case, the Tribunal had declined the claim for the contamination costs, on various grounds, including that the landlord had not established that the tenant contaminated the premises in the first instance. The landlord appealed to the District Court.
In that case, the landlord reported finding evidence of drug use in rubbish left by the tenants and that the neighbours had reported the tenants using drugs at the premises. The District Court confirmed that this was circumstantial evidence that could be considered by the Tribunal. However, the Court found that the circumstantial evidence was not sufficient to get over the absence of pre- tenancy methamphetamine testing and the landlord’s appeal was dismissed: “[11] However, the significant problem for this claim is that there is no evidence of any methamphetamine testing carried out at the start of this tenancy. If they had been such testing and it revealed no methamphetamine then clearly the methamphetamine residue that was found at the end of this tenancy could only have occurred during the tenancy and could only have occurred by either the tenants using methamphetamine or permitting others to use methamphetamine inside the house. The lack of methamphetamine testing at the start of the tenancy significantly weakened the circumstantial case against the tenants to the point where it is not possible to conclude on the balance of probabilities that it was the tenants who were responsible for the methamphetamine residue located at the premises at the end of the tenancy.”
The Tribunal is bound by decisions of the District Court. In the absence of a pre- tenancy methamphetamine report, on the circumstantial evidence before it, the Tribunal is not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the tenant is responsible for the methamphetamine contamination. The landlord’s claim for the insurance excess of $1,000.00 for decontamination must be dismissed.
However, from the presence of drug paraphernalia at the end of the tenancy, the conversion of the roof space for what it is reasonable to conclude was for an unlawful purpose, it is just that the tenant be responsible for the costs of the methamphetamine testing. The testing was required as a direct consequence of unlawful drug use at the premises, which is a breach of section 40(2) RTA which states that a tenant must not use or permit the premises to be used for any unlawful purpose. Filing fee
Because Shelley Naylor Realty has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

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 5541217 — net $18,032.84 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$4,807.14	Rent arrears
Lock/key replacement	$250.00	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning	$1,800.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$900.00	Rubbish removal
Meth testing/Cleaning: testing	$2,596.70	Meth testing/Cleaning: testing
Repairs: fence	$1,000.00	Repairs: fence
Repairs: spouting and downpipes	$750.00	Repairs: spouting and downpipes
Repairs: roofspace reinstatement	$750.00	Repairs: roofspace reinstatement
Repairs: walls	$800.00	Repairs: walls
Repairs: fireplace	$500.00	Repairs: fireplace
Repairs: exterior wall damage	$1,100.00	Repairs: exterior wall damage
Repairs: driveway	$400.00	Repairs: driveway
Lawns and Garden work: repair lawns	$900.00	Lawns and Garden work: repair lawns
Electrical fittings replacement/repair	$500.00	Electrical fittings replacement/repair
Replace furnishings: carpet	$900.00	Replace furnishings: carpet
Replace furnishings: air conditioning remote	$50.00	Replace furnishings: air conditioning remote
Filing fee reimbursement	$29.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$18,032.84
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$18,032.84

Claims and awards for application 5541217 — net $18,032.84 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $4,807.14
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $250.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Cleaning

Amount: $1,800.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Rubbish removal

Amount: $900.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Meth testing/Cleaning: testing

Amount: $2,596.70
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Meth testing/Cleaning: testing

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Lawns And Garden Work Property damage Rent arrears Rubbish Removal

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Shelley Naylor Realty $18,032.84 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$4,807.14 Lock/key replacement$250.00 Cleaning$1,800.00 Rubbish removal$900.00 Meth testing/Cleaning: testing$2,596.70 Repairs: fence$1,000.00 Repairs: spouting and downpipes$750.00 Repairs: roofspace reinstatement$750.00 Repairs: walls$800.00 Repairs: fireplace$500.00 Repairs: exterior wall damage$1,100.00 Repairs: driveway$400.00 Lawns and Garden work: repair lawns$900.00 Electrical fittings replacement/repair$500.00 Replace furnishings: carpet$900.00 Replace furnishings: air conditioning remote$50.00 Filing fee reimbursement$29.00 Total award$18,032.84 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$18,032.84

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 10 June 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.
The landlord provided photographic evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The evidence indicates that the tenant took what he wanted, left anything else and made no attempt to clean the premises.
The tenant did not return the keys.
The air conditioning remote was missing at the end of the tenancy.
The Tribunal has awarded amounts based on the receipts submitted by the landlord, the landlord’s estimate of hours spent and invoices which the Tribunal regularly sees for work of this nature in this area.

Is the tenant responsible for the 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
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). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
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 they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
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 landlord provided photographic evidence that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. A fence was broken and then extensively damaged by fire. b. The spouting and drainpipes were removed. c. The roof space had been altered and insulation removed. d. There had been unreported and unremediated flooding or a leak from the toilet which had damaged the carpet and caused mould damage to the walls in two bedrooms. e. There were a number of small holes in the walls of one bedroom. f. The glass and sealing in the log burner door were broken. g. There were areas of exterior cladding damage. h. The handle had been changed and a lock attached to the garage door. i. The concrete in the driveway had been broken and damaged. j. The lawn area had been killed and damaged by heavy machinery and holes being dug. k. The washing line had been moved. l. Power had been disconnected from the property several months prior to the end of the tenancy. The tenant had bypassed the regulated supply to obtain free power. m. The tenant had installed electrical cabling for lights and heaters into the roof space. n. The carpets were extensively stained and damaged by cuts, tears and burn marks.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. From its nature and extent, it is reasonable to conclude that it is more likely than not that the damage was caused intentionally.
Having considered betterment and depreciation and in accordance with the general principles of the law and the substantial merits and justice of the case, the Tribunal has awarded sums which are reasonable based on the landlord’s receipts, time records and invoices which the Tribunal regularly sees in this area for similar works.
The landlord’s receipts included claims for petrol. The sums awarded have taken this evidence into consideration in determining reasonable amounts of compensation. Methamphetamine contamination
The landlord provided in evidence: a. Photographs of drug paraphernalia present in the premises at the end of the tenancy including two whole pipes usually used for smoking methamphetamine, a similar broken pipe, a “spotting spoon”, woodchips which are used as combustible material to heat methamphetamine, hypodermic needles and the remnants of a light bulb. b. A positive composite methamphetamine test. c. An in-depth methamphetamine report completed by a qualified technician showing the following results for the presence of methamphetamine: i. Lounge 27.70 μg/100cm2. ii. Toilet 22.10 μg/100cm2. iii. Bathroom 18.70 μg/100cm2. iv. Dining room 49.70 μg/100cm2. v. Hallway 27.10 μg/100cm2. vi. Laundry 24.70 μg/100cm2. vii. Bedroom 1 21.20 μg/100cm2. viii. Bedroom 2 20.20 μg/100cm2. ix. Bedroom 3 37.40 μg/100cm2. x. Bedroom 4 24.40 μg/100cm2. d. Photographic evidence that the tenant had converted the upstairs roof space to an area for growing or manufacturing drugs by removing insulation, installing heat reflective material, and diverting power to heaters and powerful lights which he had installed. e. Evidence from the property manager that the tenant’s behaviour changed over the tenancy to become aggressive and threatening to such an extent that he felt unsafe to visit the property and recommended that the landlord terminate the tenancy on 90-days’ notice.
All these levels exceed the maximum acceptable level of 15 μg/100cm2 and one exceeds the maximum inhabitable level of 30 μg/100cm2 prescribed by the Residential Tenancies (Managing Methamphetamine Contamination) Regulations 2026 which came into force on 16 April 2026.
The landlord did not have any methamphetamine test result from the start of the tenancy in May 2021.
The onus of proof for establishing the claim rests on the landlord. The landlord must provide sufficient evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities that methamphetamine was used in the premises by the tenant, or some person on the tenancy premises with the tenant’s consent.
The consumption of an illegal substance is a serious allegation and the Tribunal needs to see a level of supporting evidence befitting the significance of the matters to be decided. In T v M [1984] 2 NZFLR, the Court of Appeal confirmed that, while ‘balance of probabilities’ is a constant standard: “It is the principle of good common sense that the more serious the issue the greater should be the care used in assessing it”.
This approach was confirmed by the majority of the Supreme Court in Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, where the Court stated: “[102] ... In New Zealand it has been emphasised that no intermediate standard of proof exists, between the criminal and civil standards, for application in certain types of civil case. Balance of probabilities still simply means more probable than not. Allowing the civil standard to be applied flexibly has not meant that the degree of probability required to meet this standard changes in serious cases. Rather, the civil standard is flexibly applied because it accommodates serious allegations through the natural tendency to require stronger evidence before being satisfied to the balance of probabilities standard.”
In the District Court decision of Brooking v Imrie [2021] NZDC 16976, Judge Cameron considered a case where the Tenancy Tribunal had accepted that contamination had been caused by the tenants, in circumstances where there was no pre-tenancy testing completed. The Tribunal had accepted evidence from a witness, who worked in a childcare centre across the road from the Tenancy, who described the windows covered with a film, security cameras having been installed, and strong chemical odours arising from the premises. The witness also described gang members and other “undesirable” people attending the premises regularly, with cars regularly driving in an out of the premises, as well as regular visits from the police.
The Court did not accept the evidence presented was sufficient to prove that methamphetamine had been used or manufactured on the premises, and concluded that: “The difficulty with the landlord’s claim is that there was no methamphetamine test conducted at the beginning of the tenancy, and no actual proof of what occurred during the tenancy.”
The District Court allowed the appeal, overturning the Tribunal’s decision. In short, the District Court considered that there was no evidence to support the landlord’s claim that the tenants in that case caused the contamination because there was no pre-tenancy testing undertaken to confirm that there was no contamination at the start of the tenancy.
That decision was similar to an earlier case from the District Court of Eren Limited v Louise Martin [2021] NZDC 15210 decided by Judge de Ridder. In that case, the Tribunal had declined the claim for the contamination costs, on various grounds, including that the landlord had not established that the tenant contaminated the premises in the first instance. The landlord appealed to the District Court.
In that case, the landlord reported finding evidence of drug use in rubbish left by the tenants and that the neighbours had reported the tenants using drugs at the premises. The District Court confirmed that this was circumstantial evidence that could be considered by the Tribunal. However, the Court found that the circumstantial evidence was not sufficient to get over the absence of pre- tenancy methamphetamine testing and the landlord’s appeal was dismissed: “[11] However, the significant problem for this claim is that there is no evidence of any methamphetamine testing carried out at the start of this tenancy. If they had been such testing and it revealed no methamphetamine then clearly the methamphetamine residue that was found at the end of this tenancy could only have occurred during the tenancy and could only have occurred by either the tenants using methamphetamine or permitting others to use methamphetamine inside the house. The lack of methamphetamine testing at the start of the tenancy significantly weakened the circumstantial case against the tenants to the point where it is not possible to conclude on the balance of probabilities that it was the tenants who were responsible for the methamphetamine residue located at the premises at the end of the tenancy.”
The Tribunal is bound by decisions of the District Court. In the absence of a pre- tenancy methamphetamine report, on the circumstantial evidence before it, the Tribunal is not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the tenant is responsible for the methamphetamine contamination. The landlord’s claim for the insurance excess of $1,000.00 for decontamination must be dismissed.
However, from the presence of drug paraphernalia at the end of the tenancy, the conversion of the roof space for what it is reasonable to conclude was for an unlawful purpose, it is just that the tenant be responsible for the costs of the methamphetamine testing. The testing was required as a direct consequence of unlawful drug use at the premises, which is a breach of section 40(2) RTA which states that a tenant must not use or permit the premises to be used for any unlawful purpose. Filing fee
Because Shelley Naylor Realty has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5541217 — Property damage at 25 Tyne Street, Roslyn, Palmerston North 4414

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5541217 — Property damage at 25 Tyne Street, Roslyn, Palmerston North 4414

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 the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

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 the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.