What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5189278?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Haley Mullen at 17B Brooklyn Road, Claudelands, Hamilton

How much money was awarded in case 5189278?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Methamphetamine Test Fees: $3,551.56 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $255.88 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $149.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $189.75 awarded to landlord; Reimburse Cockroach Treatment: $345.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5189278?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5189278?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11939504-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5189278?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Haley Mullen at 17B Brooklyn Road, Claudelands, Hamilton

How much money was awarded in case 5189278?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Methamphetamine Test Fees: $3,551.56 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $255.88 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $149.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $189.75 awarded to landlord; Reimburse Cockroach Treatment: $345.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5189278?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5189278?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11939504-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

17B Brooklyn Road, Claudelands, Hamilton 3214 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5189278 — Leaks

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5189278 — net $3,950.69 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Methamphetamine test fees	$3,551.56	Methamphetamine test fees
Plumbing repair (basin	$255.88	Plumbing repair (basin
Plumbing repair (drain blockage	$149.50	Plumbing repair (drain blockage
Electrical repair	$189.75	Electrical repair
Reimburse cockroach treatment	$345.00	Reimburse cockroach treatment
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,950.69
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,950.69

Order

The tenancy of Haley Mullen at 17B Brooklyn Road, Claudelands, Hamilton 3214 is terminated, and possession is granted to Linkpeople Limited, at
59pm on Sunday 13 July 2025.
Haley Mullen must pay Linkpeople Limited $3,950.69 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $568.00 (3275058-023) to Linkpeople Limited immediately.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing I held by phone on 4 June 2025. I adjourned the hearing with directions to allow the tenant to provide further evidence and for the landlord, and then her, to make final submissions. The hearing was to conclude on 10 June 2025. I extended the timeframe. I received further submissions from both parties and the hearing concluded on 23 June 2025.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, compensation for repairs, methamphetamine test fees, the filing fee, and the bond.
The tenant alleges that the landlord breached her privacy by providing personal information as part of its application; failed to remediate methamphetamine contamination and interfered with her quiet enjoyment of the tenancy by insisting on repeated methamphetamine testing and monitoring.
I have considered everything placed before the Tribunal even if I do not specifically refer to it. The landlord’s application Termination of the tenancy
The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.
However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate.
The landlord did regular methamphetamine testing at the premises (an in-going test, and annual tests in 2023 and 2024). Those tests showed no concerning levels and were considered a ‘pass’. The tenant raised no objection to those tests.
However, a test in October 2024 showed some high levels of methamphetamine.
The landlord chose not to terminate the tenancy then, but rather worked with the tenant under a plan to maintain the tenancy.
Despite that, the test results following testing in April 2025 showed elevated levels of methamphetamine, the highest being 18.3 and 38ug/100cm which is well beyond the level of 15 ug/100cm the Tribunal has accepted constitutes contamination and a threat to health based on the report of the former prime minister’s chief science advisor Professor Sir Peter Gluckman. Levels below that do not pose a serious risk to health; levels above it do and the premises require decontamination.
The tenant accepted that her niece smoked methamphetamine at the premises. She states she was unaware of that until she received the report showing high levels of contamination.
Section 40(2)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that a tenant shall not use, or permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose.
Section 41(1) RTA provides that the tenant shall be responsible for anything done or omitted to be done by any person who is in the premises with the tenant’s permission if the act or omission would have constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement had it been the act or omission of the tenant.
The tenancy agreement provides at section 6 on page 2 states that the tenant shall not use the property for any unlawful purpose. The use of methamphetamine in an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975; it is unlawful.
Although the landlord purported to terminate the tenancy under section 59B RTA (Termination where regulations prescribe testing methods and maximum inhabitable level of contaminant), regulations have not yet been made setting the prescribed methods and maximum levels of contaminant.
However, the landlord has also applied to terminate the tenancy for the tenant’s breach, incapable of remedy. The act done (the tenant’s niece smoking methamphetamine causing contamination) has been done and cannot be undone.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the premises (despite the tenant’s cleaning) have been contaminated to a level that is unsafe and will require professional remediation.
The landlord cannot be expected to agree to the tenant remaining in the premises when the contamination due to the tenant’s niece’s unlawful actions have resulted in such a high level of methamphetamine contamination.
The landlord’s application for termination of the tenancy is proved. To allow the tenant time to make arrangements, I have granted the landlord possession at
59pm on Sunday 13 July 2025. Compensation
The tenant accepted the landlord’s claims for plumbing repairs (2 separate invoices). I have marked those claims *. They are allowed by consent.
The tenant denied liability for the repair of an electrical switch. She said the damage to the switch was the result of leaking from a windowsill and she pulled the socket off because it was sparking.
The electrician’s invoice produced in evidence dated 10 December 2024 states Power point broken off the bedroom wall, looks to have been removed with some force and plastic fixing on both sides are broken off completely...
I find that the tenant caused damage to the power switch, and she is liable for the repair cost.
The claim for the cockroach treatment is proved. Treating for cockroaches (like flies or spiders) is not a landlord responsibility. This was something the landlord did at the tenant’s request, but the landlord is not responsible for the cost. Her suggestion that cockroaches entered via a hole behind the fridge is speculation only.
The landlord has charged for the cost of methamphetamine tests but only from the time the positive results became evidence, not the in-going test or the tests in 2023 and 2024 that showed no levels of concern.
The tenant is responsible for the cost of these tests because by her own admission her niece (present in the premises with her permission) caused the contamination.
The landlord was justified in having the premises tested on the 6 occasions between the time on the first test that identified high levels and between then and the last test on 2 April 2024 which showed even higher levels. The tenant’s suggestion that because the premises were not decontaminated after the first result, and therefore the later test must be flawed, is difficult to understand.
The landlord’s representative gave evidence that she was a certified methamphetamine sampler and provided documentary evidence to support that. The test samples were sent to an appropriate laboratory for analysis. The tenant’s only counter to that was that she had ‘done her research’ and she considered the tests to be flawed and invalid. She produced no evidence to support that view.
Even if there were defects in the earlier tests (that are not relied on) the later tests show the elevated levels. The evidence does not show that those tests were flawed in any way. The tenant’s application
The tenant objected to the landlord’s repeated methamphetamine testing of the premises. She said that was a breach of her quiet enjoyment and privacy, and amounted to harassment for which she seeks compensation and exemplary damages.
The tenant agreed to the landlord carrying out monthly inspections and methamphetamine testing after the first test report that showed high levels of contamination. She signed a ‘Maintain and Sustain Tenancy Plan’ dated 20 November 2024. She now states that she was bullied into signing that and that she signed it under duress. I do not accept that. Rather, I find that the landlord attempted to do all it could to keep the tenancy going. It could have applied to terminate the tenancy earlier but chose not to.
The landlord’s in-going and then annual methamphetamine tests in 2023 and 2024 were not objectively unreasonable. Once the October 2024 test returned high readings, the tenant agreed to further regular testing. That too was not objectively unreasonable. As it happened the April 2025 test showed the highest levels of all.
The tenant has not proved any claim against the landlord for breaches of her quiet enjoyment and privacy. The repeated methamphetamine testing was reasonable in this case. Any alleged breach of privacy by the landlord producing evidence the tenant considers sensitive and personal did not relate to the ‘use of the premises’ as section 38(2) RTA requires.
Nor has she proved that the landlord failed in its responsibilities to maintain and repair the premises.
Ironically, it is because of the high level of contamination evidenced by the latest testing that the landlord has applied for termination. It requires possession so it can do the decontamination work required to enquire that the premises are safe for a future tenant.
The Tribunal does not accept the submission that because the tenant’s niece contaminated the premises the landlord failed in its obligation to repair and maintain the premises and to ensure they were safe. It is exactly because of the actions of the tenant and/or her niece, that the matter is even before the Tribunal.
The tenant’s application for compensation and/or exemplary damages is dismissed. Result
The tenancy is terminated. Possession will pass to the landlord on 13 July 2025.
The tenant will pay the landlord $3,950.69 after the deduction of the bond amount.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5189278 — net $3,950.69 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Methamphetamine test fees	$3,551.56	Methamphetamine test fees
Plumbing repair (basin	$255.88	Plumbing repair (basin
Plumbing repair (drain blockage	$149.50	Plumbing repair (drain blockage
Electrical repair	$189.75	Electrical repair
Reimburse cockroach treatment	$345.00	Reimburse cockroach treatment
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,950.69
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,950.69

Order

The tenancy of Haley Mullen at 17B Brooklyn Road, Claudelands, Hamilton 3214 is terminated, and possession is granted to Linkpeople Limited, at
59pm on Sunday 13 July 2025.
Haley Mullen must pay Linkpeople Limited $3,950.69 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $568.00 (3275058-023) to Linkpeople Limited immediately.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing I held by phone on 4 June 2025. I adjourned the hearing with directions to allow the tenant to provide further evidence and for the landlord, and then her, to make final submissions. The hearing was to conclude on 10 June 2025. I extended the timeframe. I received further submissions from both parties and the hearing concluded on 23 June 2025.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, compensation for repairs, methamphetamine test fees, the filing fee, and the bond.
The tenant alleges that the landlord breached her privacy by providing personal information as part of its application; failed to remediate methamphetamine contamination and interfered with her quiet enjoyment of the tenancy by insisting on repeated methamphetamine testing and monitoring.
I have considered everything placed before the Tribunal even if I do not specifically refer to it. The landlord’s application Termination of the tenancy
The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.
However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate.
The landlord did regular methamphetamine testing at the premises (an in-going test, and annual tests in 2023 and 2024). Those tests showed no concerning levels and were considered a ‘pass’. The tenant raised no objection to those tests.
However, a test in October 2024 showed some high levels of methamphetamine.
The landlord chose not to terminate the tenancy then, but rather worked with the tenant under a plan to maintain the tenancy.
Despite that, the test results following testing in April 2025 showed elevated levels of methamphetamine, the highest being 18.3 and 38ug/100cm which is well beyond the level of 15 ug/100cm the Tribunal has accepted constitutes contamination and a threat to health based on the report of the former prime minister’s chief science advisor Professor Sir Peter Gluckman. Levels below that do not pose a serious risk to health; levels above it do and the premises require decontamination.
The tenant accepted that her niece smoked methamphetamine at the premises. She states she was unaware of that until she received the report showing high levels of contamination.
Section 40(2)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that a tenant shall not use, or permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose.
Section 41(1) RTA provides that the tenant shall be responsible for anything done or omitted to be done by any person who is in the premises with the tenant’s permission if the act or omission would have constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement had it been the act or omission of the tenant.
The tenancy agreement provides at section 6 on page 2 states that the tenant shall not use the property for any unlawful purpose. The use of methamphetamine in an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975; it is unlawful.
Although the landlord purported to terminate the tenancy under section 59B RTA (Termination where regulations prescribe testing methods and maximum inhabitable level of contaminant), regulations have not yet been made setting the prescribed methods and maximum levels of contaminant.
However, the landlord has also applied to terminate the tenancy for the tenant’s breach, incapable of remedy. The act done (the tenant’s niece smoking methamphetamine causing contamination) has been done and cannot be undone.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the premises (despite the tenant’s cleaning) have been contaminated to a level that is unsafe and will require professional remediation.
The landlord cannot be expected to agree to the tenant remaining in the premises when the contamination due to the tenant’s niece’s unlawful actions have resulted in such a high level of methamphetamine contamination.
The landlord’s application for termination of the tenancy is proved. To allow the tenant time to make arrangements, I have granted the landlord possession at
59pm on Sunday 13 July 2025. Compensation
The tenant accepted the landlord’s claims for plumbing repairs (2 separate invoices). I have marked those claims *. They are allowed by consent.
The tenant denied liability for the repair of an electrical switch. She said the damage to the switch was the result of leaking from a windowsill and she pulled the socket off because it was sparking.
The electrician’s invoice produced in evidence dated 10 December 2024 states Power point broken off the bedroom wall, looks to have been removed with some force and plastic fixing on both sides are broken off completely...
I find that the tenant caused damage to the power switch, and she is liable for the repair cost.
The claim for the cockroach treatment is proved. Treating for cockroaches (like flies or spiders) is not a landlord responsibility. This was something the landlord did at the tenant’s request, but the landlord is not responsible for the cost. Her suggestion that cockroaches entered via a hole behind the fridge is speculation only.
The landlord has charged for the cost of methamphetamine tests but only from the time the positive results became evidence, not the in-going test or the tests in 2023 and 2024 that showed no levels of concern.
The tenant is responsible for the cost of these tests because by her own admission her niece (present in the premises with her permission) caused the contamination.
The landlord was justified in having the premises tested on the 6 occasions between the time on the first test that identified high levels and between then and the last test on 2 April 2024 which showed even higher levels. The tenant’s suggestion that because the premises were not decontaminated after the first result, and therefore the later test must be flawed, is difficult to understand.
The landlord’s representative gave evidence that she was a certified methamphetamine sampler and provided documentary evidence to support that. The test samples were sent to an appropriate laboratory for analysis. The tenant’s only counter to that was that she had ‘done her research’ and she considered the tests to be flawed and invalid. She produced no evidence to support that view.
Even if there were defects in the earlier tests (that are not relied on) the later tests show the elevated levels. The evidence does not show that those tests were flawed in any way. The tenant’s application
The tenant objected to the landlord’s repeated methamphetamine testing of the premises. She said that was a breach of her quiet enjoyment and privacy, and amounted to harassment for which she seeks compensation and exemplary damages.
The tenant agreed to the landlord carrying out monthly inspections and methamphetamine testing after the first test report that showed high levels of contamination. She signed a ‘Maintain and Sustain Tenancy Plan’ dated 20 November 2024. She now states that she was bullied into signing that and that she signed it under duress. I do not accept that. Rather, I find that the landlord attempted to do all it could to keep the tenancy going. It could have applied to terminate the tenancy earlier but chose not to.
The landlord’s in-going and then annual methamphetamine tests in 2023 and 2024 were not objectively unreasonable. Once the October 2024 test returned high readings, the tenant agreed to further regular testing. That too was not objectively unreasonable. As it happened the April 2025 test showed the highest levels of all.
The tenant has not proved any claim against the landlord for breaches of her quiet enjoyment and privacy. The repeated methamphetamine testing was reasonable in this case. Any alleged breach of privacy by the landlord producing evidence the tenant considers sensitive and personal did not relate to the ‘use of the premises’ as section 38(2) RTA requires.
Nor has she proved that the landlord failed in its responsibilities to maintain and repair the premises.
Ironically, it is because of the high level of contamination evidenced by the latest testing that the landlord has applied for termination. It requires possession so it can do the decontamination work required to enquire that the premises are safe for a future tenant.
The Tribunal does not accept the submission that because the tenant’s niece contaminated the premises the landlord failed in its obligation to repair and maintain the premises and to ensure they were safe. It is exactly because of the actions of the tenant and/or her niece, that the matter is even before the Tribunal.
The tenant’s application for compensation and/or exemplary damages is dismissed. Result
The tenancy is terminated. Possession will pass to the landlord on 13 July 2025.
The tenant will pay the landlord $3,950.69 after the deduction of the bond amount.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5189278 — Leaks at 17B Brooklyn Road, Claudelands, Hamilton 3214

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5189278 — Leaks at 17B Brooklyn Road, Claudelands, Hamilton 3214

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