What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5161531?

The tribunal order states: Larissa Rankin and Don Henry must pay Southern Suburbs Realty Limited As

How much money was awarded in case 5161531?

Cleaning: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $862.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $3,160.85 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5161531 D…: $4,017.68 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $149.50 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Kitchen Bins: $113.85 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5161531?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5161531?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11806964-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5161531?

The tribunal order states: Larissa Rankin and Don Henry must pay Southern Suburbs Realty Limited As

How much money was awarded in case 5161531?

Cleaning: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $862.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $3,160.85 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5161531 D…: $4,017.68 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $149.50 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Kitchen Bins: $113.85 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5161531?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5161531?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11806964-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

10 Pipipi Crescent, Takanini, Takanini 2112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5161531 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5161531 — net $9,564.38 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 5161531 dated 31/03/2025	$4,017.68	Previous order application 5161531 dated 31/03/2025
Meth testing/Cleaning: Insurance excess and testing costs	$3,160.85	Meth testing/Cleaning: Insurance excess and testing costs
Exemplary damages - unlawful use	$500.00	Exemplary damages - unlawful use
Light bulbs/batteries: Including labour	$100.00	Light bulbs/batteries: Including labour
Repairs: plug/ strainer replacement	$149.50	Repairs: plug/ strainer replacement
Exemplary damages - failing to quit	$200.00	Exemplary damages - failing to quit
Replace furnishings: Kitchen bins	$113.85	Replace furnishings: Kitchen bins
Carpet Cleaning	$345.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$862.50	Cleaning
Lock/key replacement: Remote	$115.00	Lock/key replacement: Remote
Net award	$9,564.38
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$9,564.38

Order

Larissa Rankin and Don Henry must pay Southern Suburbs Realty Limited As Agent For Dk Brothers Trustee Ltd As Trustees Cosco Family Trust - David Du $9,564.38 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 31 March 2025 under this application number 5161531.

Reasons

The landlords attended the in-person hearing held on the 5 May 2025. The tenants did not attend. As I am satisfied that the tenants were notified of the hearing, I proceeded in their absence. Background.
On the 31 March 2025, I made an order for outstanding rent arrears, water rates owing, rubbish removal, lawns, lock and key replacement (not including the remote for the garage) and the filing fee. That order is incorporated into this order for the purposes of enforcement.
The hearing of the landlord’s other claims- exemplary damages for unlawful use of the property and failing to quit, compensation for damage caused by methamphetamine use, compensation for cleaning, damage to the bathroom and carpet are adjourned were adjourned to the 5 May 2025.
This tenancy was ended by the Tribunal on the 12 December 2024 (See TT 5063089).
The tenants did not move from the property, despite giving the landlord assurances that they would do so. The landlord had to obtain a bailiff to evict the tenants on the 10 January 2025. Methamphetamine.
On the day of the eviction the tenant and her associates were painting the property which was unusual as the landlord had not noticed any issues with damage to the paint work.
On the 10 January 2025 the landlord had the property tested for methamphetamine contamination. The property had been tested at the beginning of the tenancy and had been negative for methamphetamine.
At the end of the tenancy there were numerous places in the property that showed some methamphetamine use. However, only one result was above 15 micrograms/100cm2. That was a result of 117 micrograms/ 100cm2 in the rangehood.
The landlord had the property decontaminated and was successful in obtaining insurance cover. The landlord seeks its excess of $1000.00 together with the testing costs of $2160.85. (for testing on the 10 and 13 January 2025). The testing costs were not covered by the landlord’s insurance.
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 1.5μg/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.
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.
More recently, 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.
I am satisfied that the tenant or her invitees used methamphetamine in the property and the property became contaminated during the tenancy because the property was tested for the methamphetamine contamination before this tenancy began on the 18 May 2021. The testing was conducted by the same independent testing company who did the testing at the end of the tenancy. The tests were conducted in the same/ or similar places. The ingoing tests showed no methamphetamine contamination whereas the outgoing test results show areas of significant methamphetamine contamination.
The method of testing was different at the beginning of the tenancy to that at the end. Even taking that into account I am satisfied that the methamphetamine contamination occurred during this tenancy because the levels found were so high, that they would have produced a positive result if detected on a positive /negative test, and the property was tested before and after each other lot of tenants since it was built (the property managers say that this is at least 3 lots of tenants) and there has never been a positive result.
I am satisfied that the landlord had to have the property decontaminated due to the very high levels of contamination in the rangehood, and that the tenant should be liable for the insurance excess.
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.
It is unlawful to use methamphetamine. (see Misuse of Drugs Act 1975)
I am satisfied that the tenant used or allowed others to use methamphetamine at the property because the test results show a high level of methamphetamine use at the property.
I am satisfied that the test costs arise as a result of the tenants’ breach of section 40(2)(b) RTA and therefore the tenants are liable to the landlord for those costs.
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.
The landlord has sought exemplary damages as well in respect of this breach, the landlord tells me that they found it sad and stressful to deal with the contamination, they are also concerned that it makes the property unattractive and has a stigma for future tenants despite decontamination.
Methamphetamine use is a scourge on our society, when it is used in tenancies, especially in the levels found in this tenancy, the public expects an award to be made to both punish the tenancy and act as a deterrent to others.
Taking the above factors into account I award the landlord $500 in exemplary damages. Cleaning costs, replacement chattels, lightbulbs.
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 tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
After the property was decontaminated, the property had to be cleaned. I am satisfied that the tenant did not leave the property in a clean and tidy condition and therefore I award the landlord the cleaning costs.
There was extensive staining on the carpet which had to be cleaned.
The tenant did not return the garage remote.
In the upstirs bathroom the tenant had removed all the plugs and strainers. These had to be put back in by a plumber. The tenant had also removed the rubbish bins from the kitchen, which had to be replaced.
The landlord had to replace 7 light bulbs, which were missing.
The amounts ordered are proved. Failure to quit.
A tenant must vacate the premises on the termination of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(e)(i) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 40(3A)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not vacate the premises on the termination date. I find they have committed an unlawful act. The landlord seeks exemplary damages for this breach.
I award $200.00 in exemplary damages for this breach. I have compensated the landlord by awarding rent for the time that the tenant remined in my order of the 31 March 2025.and awarded the costs of eviction. The amount of exemplary damages awarded is a nominal award to reflect the stress and inconvenience suffered by the landlord as a result of having to evict the tenant and trying to work with the tenant to get her to leave the property. It also reflects the public interest.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5161531 — net $9,564.38 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 5161531 dated 31/03/2025	$4,017.68	Previous order application 5161531 dated 31/03/2025
Meth testing/Cleaning: Insurance excess and testing costs	$3,160.85	Meth testing/Cleaning: Insurance excess and testing costs
Exemplary damages - unlawful use	$500.00	Exemplary damages - unlawful use
Light bulbs/batteries: Including labour	$100.00	Light bulbs/batteries: Including labour
Repairs: plug/ strainer replacement	$149.50	Repairs: plug/ strainer replacement
Exemplary damages - failing to quit	$200.00	Exemplary damages - failing to quit
Replace furnishings: Kitchen bins	$113.85	Replace furnishings: Kitchen bins
Carpet Cleaning	$345.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$862.50	Cleaning
Lock/key replacement: Remote	$115.00	Lock/key replacement: Remote
Net award	$9,564.38
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$9,564.38

Order

Larissa Rankin and Don Henry must pay Southern Suburbs Realty Limited As Agent For Dk Brothers Trustee Ltd As Trustees Cosco Family Trust - David Du $9,564.38 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 31 March 2025 under this application number 5161531.

Reasons

The landlords attended the in-person hearing held on the 5 May 2025. The tenants did not attend. As I am satisfied that the tenants were notified of the hearing, I proceeded in their absence. Background.
On the 31 March 2025, I made an order for outstanding rent arrears, water rates owing, rubbish removal, lawns, lock and key replacement (not including the remote for the garage) and the filing fee. That order is incorporated into this order for the purposes of enforcement.
The hearing of the landlord’s other claims- exemplary damages for unlawful use of the property and failing to quit, compensation for damage caused by methamphetamine use, compensation for cleaning, damage to the bathroom and carpet are adjourned were adjourned to the 5 May 2025.
This tenancy was ended by the Tribunal on the 12 December 2024 (See TT 5063089).
The tenants did not move from the property, despite giving the landlord assurances that they would do so. The landlord had to obtain a bailiff to evict the tenants on the 10 January 2025. Methamphetamine.
On the day of the eviction the tenant and her associates were painting the property which was unusual as the landlord had not noticed any issues with damage to the paint work.
On the 10 January 2025 the landlord had the property tested for methamphetamine contamination. The property had been tested at the beginning of the tenancy and had been negative for methamphetamine.
At the end of the tenancy there were numerous places in the property that showed some methamphetamine use. However, only one result was above 15 micrograms/100cm2. That was a result of 117 micrograms/ 100cm2 in the rangehood.
The landlord had the property decontaminated and was successful in obtaining insurance cover. The landlord seeks its excess of $1000.00 together with the testing costs of $2160.85. (for testing on the 10 and 13 January 2025). The testing costs were not covered by the landlord’s insurance.
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 1.5μg/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.
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.
More recently, 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.
I am satisfied that the tenant or her invitees used methamphetamine in the property and the property became contaminated during the tenancy because the property was tested for the methamphetamine contamination before this tenancy began on the 18 May 2021. The testing was conducted by the same independent testing company who did the testing at the end of the tenancy. The tests were conducted in the same/ or similar places. The ingoing tests showed no methamphetamine contamination whereas the outgoing test results show areas of significant methamphetamine contamination.
The method of testing was different at the beginning of the tenancy to that at the end. Even taking that into account I am satisfied that the methamphetamine contamination occurred during this tenancy because the levels found were so high, that they would have produced a positive result if detected on a positive /negative test, and the property was tested before and after each other lot of tenants since it was built (the property managers say that this is at least 3 lots of tenants) and there has never been a positive result.
I am satisfied that the landlord had to have the property decontaminated due to the very high levels of contamination in the rangehood, and that the tenant should be liable for the insurance excess.
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.
It is unlawful to use methamphetamine. (see Misuse of Drugs Act 1975)
I am satisfied that the tenant used or allowed others to use methamphetamine at the property because the test results show a high level of methamphetamine use at the property.
I am satisfied that the test costs arise as a result of the tenants’ breach of section 40(2)(b) RTA and therefore the tenants are liable to the landlord for those costs.
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.
The landlord has sought exemplary damages as well in respect of this breach, the landlord tells me that they found it sad and stressful to deal with the contamination, they are also concerned that it makes the property unattractive and has a stigma for future tenants despite decontamination.
Methamphetamine use is a scourge on our society, when it is used in tenancies, especially in the levels found in this tenancy, the public expects an award to be made to both punish the tenancy and act as a deterrent to others.
Taking the above factors into account I award the landlord $500 in exemplary damages. Cleaning costs, replacement chattels, lightbulbs.
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 tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
After the property was decontaminated, the property had to be cleaned. I am satisfied that the tenant did not leave the property in a clean and tidy condition and therefore I award the landlord the cleaning costs.
There was extensive staining on the carpet which had to be cleaned.
The tenant did not return the garage remote.
In the upstirs bathroom the tenant had removed all the plugs and strainers. These had to be put back in by a plumber. The tenant had also removed the rubbish bins from the kitchen, which had to be replaced.
The landlord had to replace 7 light bulbs, which were missing.
The amounts ordered are proved. Failure to quit.
A tenant must vacate the premises on the termination of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(e)(i) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 40(3A)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not vacate the premises on the termination date. I find they have committed an unlawful act. The landlord seeks exemplary damages for this breach.
I award $200.00 in exemplary damages for this breach. I have compensated the landlord by awarding rent for the time that the tenant remined in my order of the 31 March 2025.and awarded the costs of eviction. The amount of exemplary damages awarded is a nominal award to reflect the stress and inconvenience suffered by the landlord as a result of having to evict the tenant and trying to work with the tenant to get her to leave the property. It also reflects the public interest.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5161531 — Property damage at 10 Pipipi Crescent, Takanini, Takanini 2112

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5161531 — Property damage at 10 Pipipi Crescent, Takanini, Takanini 2112

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions