What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5131288?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5131288?

Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $519.22 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,750.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5131288?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5131288?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11683383-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5131288?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5131288?

Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $519.22 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,750.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5131288?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5131288?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11683383-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 4, 112 Great South Road, Manurewa, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5131288 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Unit/Flat Flat 4, 112 Great South Road, Manurewa, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5131288 — 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 5131288 — net $2,584.22 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: repair of holes in the wall, preparation and painting	$1,750.00	Repairs: repair of holes in the wall, preparation and painting
Lock/key replacement: Front and Back	$519.22	Lock/key replacement: Front and Back
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages unlawful use	$600.00	Exemplary damages unlawful use
Net award	$2,584.22
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,584.22

Claims and awards for application 5131288 — net $2,584.22 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Repairs: repair of holes in the wall, preparation and painting

Amount: $1,750.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: repair of holes in the wall, preparation and painting

Lock/key replacement: Front and Back

Amount: $519.22
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement: Front and Back

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $27.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Exemplary damages unlawful use

Amount: $600.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Exemplary damages unlawful use

Net award

Landlord $2,584.22

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $2,584.22

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Exemplary damages Filing Fee Property damage

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal declines suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Martha Robin Wilson must pay Linkpeople Limited $2,584.22 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing held today. The tenant did not attend or ask for an adjournment. I am satisfied that the tenant has been given notice of the hearing and have proceeded in her absence.
The tenancy began in December 2022 and ended on the 19 November 2024 after the landlord gave the tenant a notice to end the tenancy as it was uninhabitable due to high levels of methamphetamine contamination.
The tenant remained living at the property until the 2 December 2024.
The landlord was able to change the locks at the property on the 2 December 2024. After changing the locks, the tenant broke into the property. The landlord gave a trespass notice to the tenant.
The landlord has applied for: a. Costs of changing the locks. b. The costs of repairing damage to the walls at the property, including repairing holes in the walls and drawing on the walls and plastering and painting. c. The costs of carpet throughout the premises which had to be removed due to methamphetamine contamination. d. The costs of adjusting doors caused by the height of the new carpet. e. The costs of a new rangehood at the property which had to be removed as a result of methamphetamine contamination f. Exemplary damages for using the property for an unlawful purpose. g. The filing fee. h. The bond to be applied to any costs awarded.
The landlord also sought rent and other costs not included in the claim. As the tenant has not been given notice of those claims, I cannot determine them. Methamphetamine.
On the 19 January 2024 during a routine property inspection, the tenancy manager found the tenant in a state which the tenancy manager described as being under the influence. The tenancy manager also found small plastic bags with a white substance on them, these bags are the type that methamphetamine is sold in. The tenancy manager believed the tenant was under the influence of methamphetamine and the bags contained methamphetamine. 1 1 The bags were not tested.
On the 23 October 2024 the tenancy manager conducted methamphetamine testing at the premises; a composite test containing 5 samples was obtained. The results of those tests showed a high level of methamphetamine contamination. 2 On or about the 11 November 2024 the tenancy manger conducted discreet testing of each area. The results were: a. Bathroom 9.80 μg/100cm2 b. Lounge 5.48 μg/100cm2 c. Kitchen (rangehood) 68.1 μg/100cm2 d. Bedroom 1 1.54 μg/100cm2 e. Bedroom 2 2.94 μg/100cm2 The law
In respect of the landlord’s claim for damage to the premises by methamphetamine contamination, the landlord must prove that the tenant caused or permitted the contamination, or that it was caused by someone at the premises with the tenant’s consent. The landlord must also prove that, as a result of the contamination, the premises have been damaged or are not reasonably clean.
Section 138C Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides for regulations to be made prescribing the maximum acceptable level for contaminants, but as yet no regulations have been made in relation to methamphetamine.
There are currently two sources of guidance on the issue of a safe level of methamphetamine contamination in residential premises. In June 2017 Standards New Zealand published NZS 8510:2017. The standard recommended a maximum contamination level of 1.5 μg/100cm2 for high use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture. It recommended a higher level of 3.8μg/100cm2 for limited use areas.
In May 2018 Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the then Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor, released a report "Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards”. The report noted that there is a lack of scientific evidence to prove that low-level third-hand methamphetamine exposure poses a health risk to humans. It stated that guidelines should be proportionate to risk and that exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect. It recommended retaining the level of 1.5μg/100cm2 where contamination resulted from manufacture, due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the process. 2
1 ug per 100cm2.
The District Court has held that remediation should be carried out in accordance with the prevailing guidelines at the time (Diamond Real Estate Limited v Allan [2017] NZDC 833, Judge Kellar).
The Tribunal has generally applied the Gluckman recommendation. This approach was approved by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947, where the Court stated (at para [36]): The Tenancy Tribunal was in a difficult position. The best state of knowledge of risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination available to the adjudicator was the Gluckman Report. It would have been bold for the adjudicator to have ignored that report in favour of the New Zealand Standard given that the Gluckman report represents the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination in dwellings.
The District Court took a similar approach in Acme Realty Limited v Hogg and others [2021] NZDC 3231, where the Court referred to the Full Circle case and held that, because NZS 8510:2017 has not been adopted into law, the Tribunal was not bound to apply the 1.5μg standard.
In Barfoot and Thompson Limited v Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited [2021] NZTT Auckland 4276319, both parties presented scientific evidence at a hearing before the Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that there was no new scientific research to change the conclusions reached in the Gluckman Report.
Therefore, the Tribunal has continued to use the level of 15μg/100cm 2 as being the level where decontamination is necessary.
The District Court in Eren Limited v Louise Martin [2021] NZDC 15210 [3 August 2021] has also warned that in the absence of other evidence it will be difficult for a landlord to make out a claim that the tenant contaminated the premises when there was no testing for methamphetamine completed at the beginning of the tenancy. The court said: 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 there 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 weakens 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 their tenancy. Decision.
The landlord did not have methamphetamine testing carried out at the beginning of the tenancy.
Methamphetamine testing was carried out on the property in January 2021, but between that date and this tenancy, there was a further tenancy at the property.
I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that this tenant used methamphetamine at the property because: a. It is more than likely that the bags found at the property on the 19 January 2024 contained methamphetamine. I have seen photographs of the bags and they appear to have a substance that looks like methamphetamine in them, they are the types of bags used for that purpose. b. The tenant’s behaviour was described by the tenancy manager as consistent with someone who is under the influence of methamphetamine. c. I also note that the inspection reports in January, March and the end of the tenancy show numerous light bulbs that are missing. It is common for people using methamphetamine to use the light bulbs to smoke methamphetamine. d. The testing showed traces of methamphetamine found in almost every room.
Despite my finding that the tenant used methamphetamine in the property during the tenancy, I am not satisfied that the tenant or her invitees contaminated the premises to the levels that were found. This is because I do not know what the levels of methamphetamine contamination were before this tenancy began. Therefore, the contamination may have occurred during either this tenancy or the previous tenancy. It is impossible to say which tenancy, it may have been both. The landlord confirmed that although the previous tenant had no known addiction or methamphetamine use, he would at times allow people who were homeless and vulnerable live in his house, and it was possible that those people could have used methamphetamine in the property.
As the landlord is unable to prove on the balance of probabilities that the tenant damaged the premises then the landlord’s claims for contamination (damage to the property) is not proven, the claims for the costs of the replacement carpet and rangehood are dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the repairs to the walls and the painting?

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.
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.
I am satisfied that the holes in the walls and writing on many walls occurred during this tenancy and the tenant intentionally or carelessly caused the damage. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord had to repair the holes, sand back all the walls and repaint. I am satisfied that the tenant should pay half of the cost because the paint was not new at the beginning of the tenancy.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account 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 have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

Is the tenant responsible for the costs of replacing the locks?

The tenant is liable for the costs of the locks as the tenant refused to give back the keys at the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant use the premises for an unlawful purpose?

A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I have already determined that the tenant used methamphetamine at the property. Using methamphetamine is illegal and therefore using it is unlawful. (See the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975). I find that the tenant committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied that the tenant acted intentionally when using the methamphetamine, and therefore I award the landlord $600.00 for this breach. This takes into account that the landlord had to undertake testing of the premises. The tenancy manager and the support worker were distressed by finding the methamphetamine in the inspection, and were concerned for the welfare of the tenant and the children in her care at that time. There is public interest in making an award. Methamphetamine is extremely damaging to families and communities and when it is used in homes it has the potential to expose others living in the property to harm. The filing fee.
Because Linkpeople Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Why has name suppression been declined?

Linkpeople Limited requested name suppression for the tenant. I do not see any reason to grant name suppression in this matter. The tenant’s interests do not outweigh the public interest and the principle of open justice.

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 5131288 — net $2,584.22 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: repair of holes in the wall, preparation and painting	$1,750.00	Repairs: repair of holes in the wall, preparation and painting
Lock/key replacement: Front and Back	$519.22	Lock/key replacement: Front and Back
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages unlawful use	$600.00	Exemplary damages unlawful use
Net award	$2,584.22
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,584.22

Claims and awards for application 5131288 — net $2,584.22 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Repairs: repair of holes in the wall, preparation and painting

Amount: $1,750.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: repair of holes in the wall, preparation and painting

Lock/key replacement: Front and Back

Amount: $519.22
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement: Front and Back

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $27.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Exemplary damages unlawful use

Amount: $600.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Exemplary damages unlawful use

Net award

Landlord $2,584.22

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $2,584.22

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Exemplary damages Filing Fee Property damage

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal declines suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Martha Robin Wilson must pay Linkpeople Limited $2,584.22 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing held today. The tenant did not attend or ask for an adjournment. I am satisfied that the tenant has been given notice of the hearing and have proceeded in her absence.
The tenancy began in December 2022 and ended on the 19 November 2024 after the landlord gave the tenant a notice to end the tenancy as it was uninhabitable due to high levels of methamphetamine contamination.
The tenant remained living at the property until the 2 December 2024.
The landlord was able to change the locks at the property on the 2 December 2024. After changing the locks, the tenant broke into the property. The landlord gave a trespass notice to the tenant.
The landlord has applied for: a. Costs of changing the locks. b. The costs of repairing damage to the walls at the property, including repairing holes in the walls and drawing on the walls and plastering and painting. c. The costs of carpet throughout the premises which had to be removed due to methamphetamine contamination. d. The costs of adjusting doors caused by the height of the new carpet. e. The costs of a new rangehood at the property which had to be removed as a result of methamphetamine contamination f. Exemplary damages for using the property for an unlawful purpose. g. The filing fee. h. The bond to be applied to any costs awarded.
The landlord also sought rent and other costs not included in the claim. As the tenant has not been given notice of those claims, I cannot determine them. Methamphetamine.
On the 19 January 2024 during a routine property inspection, the tenancy manager found the tenant in a state which the tenancy manager described as being under the influence. The tenancy manager also found small plastic bags with a white substance on them, these bags are the type that methamphetamine is sold in. The tenancy manager believed the tenant was under the influence of methamphetamine and the bags contained methamphetamine. 1 1 The bags were not tested.
On the 23 October 2024 the tenancy manager conducted methamphetamine testing at the premises; a composite test containing 5 samples was obtained. The results of those tests showed a high level of methamphetamine contamination. 2 On or about the 11 November 2024 the tenancy manger conducted discreet testing of each area. The results were: a. Bathroom 9.80 μg/100cm2 b. Lounge 5.48 μg/100cm2 c. Kitchen (rangehood) 68.1 μg/100cm2 d. Bedroom 1 1.54 μg/100cm2 e. Bedroom 2 2.94 μg/100cm2 The law
In respect of the landlord’s claim for damage to the premises by methamphetamine contamination, the landlord must prove that the tenant caused or permitted the contamination, or that it was caused by someone at the premises with the tenant’s consent. The landlord must also prove that, as a result of the contamination, the premises have been damaged or are not reasonably clean.
Section 138C Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides for regulations to be made prescribing the maximum acceptable level for contaminants, but as yet no regulations have been made in relation to methamphetamine.
There are currently two sources of guidance on the issue of a safe level of methamphetamine contamination in residential premises. In June 2017 Standards New Zealand published NZS 8510:2017. The standard recommended a maximum contamination level of 1.5 μg/100cm2 for high use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture. It recommended a higher level of 3.8μg/100cm2 for limited use areas.
In May 2018 Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the then Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor, released a report "Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards”. The report noted that there is a lack of scientific evidence to prove that low-level third-hand methamphetamine exposure poses a health risk to humans. It stated that guidelines should be proportionate to risk and that exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect. It recommended retaining the level of 1.5μg/100cm2 where contamination resulted from manufacture, due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the process. 2
1 ug per 100cm2.
The District Court has held that remediation should be carried out in accordance with the prevailing guidelines at the time (Diamond Real Estate Limited v Allan [2017] NZDC 833, Judge Kellar).
The Tribunal has generally applied the Gluckman recommendation. This approach was approved by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947, where the Court stated (at para [36]): The Tenancy Tribunal was in a difficult position. The best state of knowledge of risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination available to the adjudicator was the Gluckman Report. It would have been bold for the adjudicator to have ignored that report in favour of the New Zealand Standard given that the Gluckman report represents the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination in dwellings.
The District Court took a similar approach in Acme Realty Limited v Hogg and others [2021] NZDC 3231, where the Court referred to the Full Circle case and held that, because NZS 8510:2017 has not been adopted into law, the Tribunal was not bound to apply the 1.5μg standard.
In Barfoot and Thompson Limited v Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited [2021] NZTT Auckland 4276319, both parties presented scientific evidence at a hearing before the Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that there was no new scientific research to change the conclusions reached in the Gluckman Report.
Therefore, the Tribunal has continued to use the level of 15μg/100cm 2 as being the level where decontamination is necessary.
The District Court in Eren Limited v Louise Martin [2021] NZDC 15210 [3 August 2021] has also warned that in the absence of other evidence it will be difficult for a landlord to make out a claim that the tenant contaminated the premises when there was no testing for methamphetamine completed at the beginning of the tenancy. The court said: 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 there 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 weakens 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 their tenancy. Decision.
The landlord did not have methamphetamine testing carried out at the beginning of the tenancy.
Methamphetamine testing was carried out on the property in January 2021, but between that date and this tenancy, there was a further tenancy at the property.
I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that this tenant used methamphetamine at the property because: a. It is more than likely that the bags found at the property on the 19 January 2024 contained methamphetamine. I have seen photographs of the bags and they appear to have a substance that looks like methamphetamine in them, they are the types of bags used for that purpose. b. The tenant’s behaviour was described by the tenancy manager as consistent with someone who is under the influence of methamphetamine. c. I also note that the inspection reports in January, March and the end of the tenancy show numerous light bulbs that are missing. It is common for people using methamphetamine to use the light bulbs to smoke methamphetamine. d. The testing showed traces of methamphetamine found in almost every room.
Despite my finding that the tenant used methamphetamine in the property during the tenancy, I am not satisfied that the tenant or her invitees contaminated the premises to the levels that were found. This is because I do not know what the levels of methamphetamine contamination were before this tenancy began. Therefore, the contamination may have occurred during either this tenancy or the previous tenancy. It is impossible to say which tenancy, it may have been both. The landlord confirmed that although the previous tenant had no known addiction or methamphetamine use, he would at times allow people who were homeless and vulnerable live in his house, and it was possible that those people could have used methamphetamine in the property.
As the landlord is unable to prove on the balance of probabilities that the tenant damaged the premises then the landlord’s claims for contamination (damage to the property) is not proven, the claims for the costs of the replacement carpet and rangehood are dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the repairs to the walls and the painting?

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.
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.
I am satisfied that the holes in the walls and writing on many walls occurred during this tenancy and the tenant intentionally or carelessly caused the damage. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord had to repair the holes, sand back all the walls and repaint. I am satisfied that the tenant should pay half of the cost because the paint was not new at the beginning of the tenancy.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account 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 have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

Is the tenant responsible for the costs of replacing the locks?

The tenant is liable for the costs of the locks as the tenant refused to give back the keys at the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant use the premises for an unlawful purpose?

A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I have already determined that the tenant used methamphetamine at the property. Using methamphetamine is illegal and therefore using it is unlawful. (See the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975). I find that the tenant committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied that the tenant acted intentionally when using the methamphetamine, and therefore I award the landlord $600.00 for this breach. This takes into account that the landlord had to undertake testing of the premises. The tenancy manager and the support worker were distressed by finding the methamphetamine in the inspection, and were concerned for the welfare of the tenant and the children in her care at that time. There is public interest in making an award. Methamphetamine is extremely damaging to families and communities and when it is used in homes it has the potential to expose others living in the property to harm. The filing fee.
Because Linkpeople Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Why has name suppression been declined?

Linkpeople Limited requested name suppression for the tenant. I do not see any reason to grant name suppression in this matter. The tenant’s interests do not outweigh the public interest and the principle of open justice.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5131288 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Flat 4, 112 Great South Road, Manurewa,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5131288 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Flat 4, 112 Great South Road, Manurewa,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the repairs to the walls and the painting?

Is the tenant responsible for the costs of replacing the locks?

Did the tenant use the premises for an unlawful purpose?

Why has name suppression been declined?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the repairs to the walls and the painting?

Is the tenant responsible for the costs of replacing the locks?

Did the tenant use the premises for an unlawful purpose?

Why has name suppression been declined?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions