What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5228532?

The tribunal order states: Hunter Williams and Mia Benest to pay George Zacheria Manjooran and Lusly

How much money was awarded in case 5228532?

Cleaning: $3,000.00 awarded to landlord; Electricity: $25.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; LPG Fee: $80.39 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $443.40 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit: $1,257.08 awarded to tenant; Water Rates: $161.88 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5228532?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5228532?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12278140-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5228532?

The tribunal order states: Hunter Williams and Mia Benest to pay George Zacheria Manjooran and Lusly

How much money was awarded in case 5228532?

Cleaning: $3,000.00 awarded to landlord; Electricity: $25.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; LPG Fee: $80.39 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $443.40 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit: $1,257.08 awarded to tenant; Water Rates: $161.88 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5228532?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5228532?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12278140-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

54 Captain Scott Road, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5228532 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5228532 — net $3,030.59 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates	$161.88		Water rates
LPG fee	$80.39		LPG fee
Electricity	$25.00		Electricity
Lock/key replacement	$443.40		Lock/key replacement
Removal of damaged fittings from the garage	$450.00		Removal of damaged fittings from the garage
Repairs to garage	$100.00		Repairs to garage
Insurance excess for meth testing/cleaning	$3,000.00		Insurance excess for meth testing/cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Rent credit		$1,257.08	Rent credit
Total award	$4,287.67	$1,257.08
Net award	$3,030.59
Bond	$3,200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,030.59

Order

Hunter Williams and Mia Benest to pay George Zacheria Manjooran and Lusly Francis $3,030.59 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,200.00 (5468216-003) immediately apportioned as follows: George Zacheria Manjooran and Lusly Francis: $3,030.59 Hunter Williams and Mia Benest: $169.41

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Williams was supported by Mrs Scott, and Ms Benest was supported by Mr Jones.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
At the outset of the hearing, Ms Benest requested an adjournment on the following grounds: a. The application documents were sent to the wrong address, which means the respondents have only had one week to consider them and form a response, b. Her son has recently been unwell and has been in and out of medical care, (he is being looked after by a family member today) c. Mr Williams, the co-respondent has been in a residential facility with limited access to electronic devices, which has further limited his ability to prepare a response to the claims.
The landlord responded by saying he was willing to accommodate an adjournment for one month, but after 12 September 2025 he will be away for two months. He also stated that he has a young family and he and his partner/wife have taken annual leave to attend today’s hearing. He stated that this matter is nearing six months already, and he would like it to be resolved as soon as possible.
The landlord also stated that the application documents were sent to the address for service as provided by the tenants on their tenancy agreement form.
I have checked the tenancy agreement and I agree the documents were sent to the address provided by the tenants as an address for service.
Having considered the tenants’ request for an adjournment and the landlord’s response, I have declined the request for the following reasons: a. Section 85 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986, states that the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants. b. All parties are present today, c. All parties have had access to the documents since 11 August 2025 (I acknowledge Mr Williams’ limited access), d. The documents being sent to the respondents’ “wrong” address appears to be the result of information provided by the respondents themselves, e. At least some of the claims, and maybe all of the claims can be addressed in the first instance. If it appears there is prejudice being caused because of a lack of an opportunity to properly prepare, then the request for an adjournment can be reconsidered. I consider this balances fairness to all parties, with the expeditious resolution of this dispute.

How much is owed for rent and outstanding utilities costs?

The tenancy was a periodic tenancy. Ms Benest gave notice to leave the tenancy, and left lawfully on 2 March 2025. Mr Williams gave 21 days’ notice and ended his tenancy on 21 March 2025.
At the end of the tenancy, rent was in credit by $1,257.08.
The landlord is claiming outstanding water charges of $161.88, LPG charges of $80.39, and electricity charges of $25.00. These claims and amounts are not disputed by the tenants; they are proved by consent.

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

When Ms Benest ended her tenancy, the landlord conducted an end of tenancy inspection with her on 2 March 2025, and during this inspection drug paraphernalia was noted. The landlord reported this to the police who attended and seized the paraphernalia as well as a significant amount of cannabis.
On 4 March 2025 Mr Williams gave notice to end his tenancy.
The landlord gave 48 hours’ notice to enter the premises to inspect and on 10 March 2025 he entered the property for an inspection. The landlord stated by this date the property was empty. Around this time Mr Williams had been taken into police custody. The landlord also undertook several methamphetamine tests on this date.
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 parties agree that at the end of the tenancy only one security fob was returned; the other was in Mr Williams’ personal property being held by police.
The landlord is claiming $443.40 for a replacement fob, to reprogramme the alarm security and to replace the locks at the premises.
Mr Williams said that because the landlord knew the fob was in police custody, the fob and the premises were both secure, and the landlord was unreasonable in replacing it.
The landlord accepts he knew the fob was in police custody, but he pointed to the loss of trust between himself and the tenants as a result of the tenants using the premises for an unlawful purpose, from having seen police come and go from the premises on multiple occasions, from the police seizing items, and from the tenants saying they were non-smokers, which he considers was not truthful.
The landlord pointed out that security cameras had been installed around the garage by the tenant without gaining the landlord’s consent. He stated he had the security of his property to consider as well as the security of his future tenants.
I also note that the tenant’s position regarding being in custody or at large, and even what he did with the fob once it was back in his possession, was a matter for himself, and the landlord had no assurance as to when the fob would be returned. The landlord was also unable to access information regarding Mr William’s custodial status.
I do not consider it unreasonable for the landlord to replace the fob and make his property secure, and I consider it reasonable for the associated costs to sheet home to Mr Williams.
This claim and amounts are proved.

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.
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 is making the following claims for damage caused by the tenants: a. Removal and disposal of methamphetamine contaminated fittings in the garage, $450.00 b. Removal of security cameras and repair of damage caused by their installation, $200.00, c. Insurance excess, $3,000.00.
Invoices, quotes and photographs have been produced in support.
When the landlord had the premises tested for methamphetamine, the main house returned results that were well below the recommended safe level of 15μg/100cm2 as is recommended in the Gluckman Report and as has been followed and upheld in numerous decisions in recent years.
The garage returned a result of 50μg/100cm2 which is extremely high. Precursor elements were also detected. Mr Williams does not dispute that this reading was the result of his activity in the garage. Decontamination was required.
The landlord stated that he engaged professional services to have the garage decontaminated, and that the process included the garage being sealed for three days. The cupboards and shelves were removed and disposed of.
Mrs Scott spoke as well as Mr Williams and Ms Benest regarding these claims. In summary their position included the following points: a. The landlord’s notice to enter the premises did not mention methamphetamine testing, and as such his testing for methamphetamine testing was unlawful, b. The landlord did not advise of the results of the methamphetamine testing within seven days as is required under the RTA, c. The landlord’s policy only mentioned an insurance excess amount of $1,000.00, not $3,000.00, d. The tenants were not informed about the landlord’s change of insurance provider from AA to Tower, e. The end of tenancy inspection did not raise any concerns about cleanliness or other issues, f. The landlord did not give the tenant’s family an opportunity to clean/ decontaminate the garage themselves.
The landlord said that he was providing information via the My Rent App, which is what he used to communicate with the tenants. When Ms Benest left the tenancy she no longer had access to this information. Mr Williams would also have been unable to access this information once he had been taken into custody.
There were clearly difficult circumstances concerning the end of this tenancy, in more ways than one. Mrs Scott said that she believed the landlord was being deceptive, but I have not heard any information today that leads me to that conclusion. I consider the landlord was dealing with a difficult situation that was not of his making, and he endeavoured to act in accordance with his obligations under the RTA at all times. This is not to say that no breaches were made by him, but no claims have been filed by the tenants. My findings are limited to whether on the balance of probabilities the claims that are before me today are proved.
I determine the methamphetamine damage to the garage and the fittings in the garage to be intentional damage.
I determine the landlord’s claim for disposal of shelves and cupboards from the garage is not unreasonable and is proved.
I also find the landlord’s claim for insurance excess of $3,000.00 to have the garage decontaminated proved.
The landlord is claiming $200.00 to repair damage caused to the garage after the removal of the security cameras installed by the tenant without the landlord’s consent.
The damage amounts to a few screw holes and a cable hole which can be repaired with a silicon filler.
I consider $200.00 to be excessive for the repair and I have awarded a lesser amount.
The claim and the amount ordered are proved.
Because George Zacheria Manjooran, Lusly Francis has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5228532 — net $3,030.59 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates	$161.88		Water rates
LPG fee	$80.39		LPG fee
Electricity	$25.00		Electricity
Lock/key replacement	$443.40		Lock/key replacement
Removal of damaged fittings from the garage	$450.00		Removal of damaged fittings from the garage
Repairs to garage	$100.00		Repairs to garage
Insurance excess for meth testing/cleaning	$3,000.00		Insurance excess for meth testing/cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Rent credit		$1,257.08	Rent credit
Total award	$4,287.67	$1,257.08
Net award	$3,030.59
Bond	$3,200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,030.59

Order

Hunter Williams and Mia Benest to pay George Zacheria Manjooran and Lusly Francis $3,030.59 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,200.00 (5468216-003) immediately apportioned as follows: George Zacheria Manjooran and Lusly Francis: $3,030.59 Hunter Williams and Mia Benest: $169.41

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Williams was supported by Mrs Scott, and Ms Benest was supported by Mr Jones.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
At the outset of the hearing, Ms Benest requested an adjournment on the following grounds: a. The application documents were sent to the wrong address, which means the respondents have only had one week to consider them and form a response, b. Her son has recently been unwell and has been in and out of medical care, (he is being looked after by a family member today) c. Mr Williams, the co-respondent has been in a residential facility with limited access to electronic devices, which has further limited his ability to prepare a response to the claims.
The landlord responded by saying he was willing to accommodate an adjournment for one month, but after 12 September 2025 he will be away for two months. He also stated that he has a young family and he and his partner/wife have taken annual leave to attend today’s hearing. He stated that this matter is nearing six months already, and he would like it to be resolved as soon as possible.
The landlord also stated that the application documents were sent to the address for service as provided by the tenants on their tenancy agreement form.
I have checked the tenancy agreement and I agree the documents were sent to the address provided by the tenants as an address for service.
Having considered the tenants’ request for an adjournment and the landlord’s response, I have declined the request for the following reasons: a. Section 85 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986, states that the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants. b. All parties are present today, c. All parties have had access to the documents since 11 August 2025 (I acknowledge Mr Williams’ limited access), d. The documents being sent to the respondents’ “wrong” address appears to be the result of information provided by the respondents themselves, e. At least some of the claims, and maybe all of the claims can be addressed in the first instance. If it appears there is prejudice being caused because of a lack of an opportunity to properly prepare, then the request for an adjournment can be reconsidered. I consider this balances fairness to all parties, with the expeditious resolution of this dispute.

How much is owed for rent and outstanding utilities costs?

The tenancy was a periodic tenancy. Ms Benest gave notice to leave the tenancy, and left lawfully on 2 March 2025. Mr Williams gave 21 days’ notice and ended his tenancy on 21 March 2025.
At the end of the tenancy, rent was in credit by $1,257.08.
The landlord is claiming outstanding water charges of $161.88, LPG charges of $80.39, and electricity charges of $25.00. These claims and amounts are not disputed by the tenants; they are proved by consent.

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

When Ms Benest ended her tenancy, the landlord conducted an end of tenancy inspection with her on 2 March 2025, and during this inspection drug paraphernalia was noted. The landlord reported this to the police who attended and seized the paraphernalia as well as a significant amount of cannabis.
On 4 March 2025 Mr Williams gave notice to end his tenancy.
The landlord gave 48 hours’ notice to enter the premises to inspect and on 10 March 2025 he entered the property for an inspection. The landlord stated by this date the property was empty. Around this time Mr Williams had been taken into police custody. The landlord also undertook several methamphetamine tests on this date.
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 parties agree that at the end of the tenancy only one security fob was returned; the other was in Mr Williams’ personal property being held by police.
The landlord is claiming $443.40 for a replacement fob, to reprogramme the alarm security and to replace the locks at the premises.
Mr Williams said that because the landlord knew the fob was in police custody, the fob and the premises were both secure, and the landlord was unreasonable in replacing it.
The landlord accepts he knew the fob was in police custody, but he pointed to the loss of trust between himself and the tenants as a result of the tenants using the premises for an unlawful purpose, from having seen police come and go from the premises on multiple occasions, from the police seizing items, and from the tenants saying they were non-smokers, which he considers was not truthful.
The landlord pointed out that security cameras had been installed around the garage by the tenant without gaining the landlord’s consent. He stated he had the security of his property to consider as well as the security of his future tenants.
I also note that the tenant’s position regarding being in custody or at large, and even what he did with the fob once it was back in his possession, was a matter for himself, and the landlord had no assurance as to when the fob would be returned. The landlord was also unable to access information regarding Mr William’s custodial status.
I do not consider it unreasonable for the landlord to replace the fob and make his property secure, and I consider it reasonable for the associated costs to sheet home to Mr Williams.
This claim and amounts are proved.

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.
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 is making the following claims for damage caused by the tenants: a. Removal and disposal of methamphetamine contaminated fittings in the garage, $450.00 b. Removal of security cameras and repair of damage caused by their installation, $200.00, c. Insurance excess, $3,000.00.
Invoices, quotes and photographs have been produced in support.
When the landlord had the premises tested for methamphetamine, the main house returned results that were well below the recommended safe level of 15μg/100cm2 as is recommended in the Gluckman Report and as has been followed and upheld in numerous decisions in recent years.
The garage returned a result of 50μg/100cm2 which is extremely high. Precursor elements were also detected. Mr Williams does not dispute that this reading was the result of his activity in the garage. Decontamination was required.
The landlord stated that he engaged professional services to have the garage decontaminated, and that the process included the garage being sealed for three days. The cupboards and shelves were removed and disposed of.
Mrs Scott spoke as well as Mr Williams and Ms Benest regarding these claims. In summary their position included the following points: a. The landlord’s notice to enter the premises did not mention methamphetamine testing, and as such his testing for methamphetamine testing was unlawful, b. The landlord did not advise of the results of the methamphetamine testing within seven days as is required under the RTA, c. The landlord’s policy only mentioned an insurance excess amount of $1,000.00, not $3,000.00, d. The tenants were not informed about the landlord’s change of insurance provider from AA to Tower, e. The end of tenancy inspection did not raise any concerns about cleanliness or other issues, f. The landlord did not give the tenant’s family an opportunity to clean/ decontaminate the garage themselves.
The landlord said that he was providing information via the My Rent App, which is what he used to communicate with the tenants. When Ms Benest left the tenancy she no longer had access to this information. Mr Williams would also have been unable to access this information once he had been taken into custody.
There were clearly difficult circumstances concerning the end of this tenancy, in more ways than one. Mrs Scott said that she believed the landlord was being deceptive, but I have not heard any information today that leads me to that conclusion. I consider the landlord was dealing with a difficult situation that was not of his making, and he endeavoured to act in accordance with his obligations under the RTA at all times. This is not to say that no breaches were made by him, but no claims have been filed by the tenants. My findings are limited to whether on the balance of probabilities the claims that are before me today are proved.
I determine the methamphetamine damage to the garage and the fittings in the garage to be intentional damage.
I determine the landlord’s claim for disposal of shelves and cupboards from the garage is not unreasonable and is proved.
I also find the landlord’s claim for insurance excess of $3,000.00 to have the garage decontaminated proved.
The landlord is claiming $200.00 to repair damage caused to the garage after the removal of the security cameras installed by the tenant without the landlord’s consent.
The damage amounts to a few screw holes and a cable hole which can be repaired with a silicon filler.
I consider $200.00 to be excessive for the repair and I have awarded a lesser amount.
The claim and the amount ordered are proved.
Because George Zacheria Manjooran, Lusly Francis has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5228532 — Property damage at 54 Captain Scott Road, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5228532 — Property damage at 54 Captain Scott Road, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and outstanding utilities costs?

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

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and outstanding utilities costs?

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

Frequently asked questions