What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5257419?

The tribunal order states: Eden Taylor Limbrick Loughran must pay Berrymans Property Management &

How much money was awarded in case 5257419?

Change Alarm Codes: $97.75 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $247.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $331.43 awarded to landlord; to holes in walls and to replace two…: $2,656.50 awarded to landlord; To The Stove: $523.70 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $613.00 awarded to landlord; To Replace Four Broken Lights: $335.83 awarded to landlord; To Replace The Shower Screen And One…: $1,644.75 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $137.61 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5257419?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5257419?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12072449-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5257419?

The tribunal order states: Eden Taylor Limbrick Loughran must pay Berrymans Property Management &

How much money was awarded in case 5257419?

Change Alarm Codes: $97.75 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $247.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $331.43 awarded to landlord; to holes in walls and to replace two…: $2,656.50 awarded to landlord; To The Stove: $523.70 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $613.00 awarded to landlord; To Replace Four Broken Lights: $335.83 awarded to landlord; To Replace The Shower Screen And One…: $1,644.75 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $137.61 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5257419?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5257419?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12072449-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

6B Greenwood Place, Paraparaumu, Paraparaumu 5032 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5257419 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5257419 — net $7,715.07 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears 22 - 25 February 2025	$331.43	Rent arrears 22 - 25 February 2025
Meth testing/cleaning: insurance excess	$500.00	Meth testing/cleaning: insurance excess
Water rates: 1 July - 24 December 2024	$137.61	Water rates: 1 July - 24 December 2024
Lock/key replacement	$247.50	Lock/key replacement
Change alarm codes	$97.75	Change alarm codes
Rubbish removal: skip plus fridge charge	$613.00	Rubbish removal: skip plus fridge charge
Repairs: to holes in walls and to replace two doors	$2,656.50	Repairs: to holes in walls and to replace two doors
To replace four broken lights	$335.83	To replace four broken lights
To replace the shower screen and one laundry tap	$1,644.75	To replace the shower screen and one laundry tap
Repairs: to the stove	$523.70	Repairs: to the stove
Exemplary damages – unlawful use	$600.00	Exemplary damages – unlawful use
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,715.07
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,715.07

Order

Eden Taylor Limbrick Loughran must pay Berrymans Property Management & Rentals Limited $7,715.07 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

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

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 25 February 2025 which is the day the bailiff took possession. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. I was provided with photos showing the rubbish left at the end of the tenancy. The amounts claimed for the skip and the fridge removal are proved and allowed.
The locks needed to be changed as part of the bailiff’s process of taking possession. The claims for replacement locks and leys and for changing the alarm codes are proved and allowed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord has made claims for repairs. The 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.
The landlord provided me with a condition report showing there was no damage at the start of the tenancy, photos taken by the property manager at the end of the tenancy showing the damage, and invoices for the work. The landlord has proved the following damage was caused during the tenancy: • large holes in the walls and doors in most rooms including the garage • serious damage to the hot water cupboard door • serious damage to a bedroom door • four broken light fittings • a smashed glass shower screen • a missing laundry tap • damage to the stove.
I find the damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Given the amount of damage and the way the tenancy ended it seems most likely to me the damage was intentional. 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.

Is the tenant responsible for methamphetamine contamination?

The landlord had the tenancy premises tested twice for methamphetamine contamination. She has claimed the insurance excess paid so that the cost of testing, cleaning, and replacing chattels could be carried out. No testing for methamphetamine had been carried out before the tenancy started. 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.
Section 138C RTA 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. This means 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/100cm 2 for high use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture. It recommended a higher level of 3.8μg/100cm 2 for limited use areas.
In May 2018 Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor at the time, 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/100cm 2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect. It recommended retaining the level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 where contamination resulted from manufacture, due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the process.
The Tribunal has generally applied the Gluckman recommendation. The District Court took a similar approach in Acme Realty Limited v Hogg and others [2021] NZDC 3231, where the Court held that the Tribunal was not bound to apply the
5μg standard because NZS 8510:2017 has not been adopted into law.
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.
The insurer in this tenancy applied the lower level set out in NZS 8510:2017 and remediated to below 1.5μg/100cm 2 . However I will consider the claim for the excess because the second test collected 10 individual samples and the levels over the Gluckman recommendation were 21 μg/100cm 2 in the lounge, 16 μg/100cm 2 in the kitchen, and 24 μg/100cm 2 found on the toilet window frame.
The landlord said the tenant should pay the excess because the levels of contamination had increased from the testing done on 15 January 2025 to the levels recorded on 27 February 2025. This was not easy to check because there were the two different types of testing.
The first test recorded 2.8 μg/100cm 2 as an average from 10 samples collected using a laboratory composited sample. The explanatory technical notes provided by Hill Laboratories with the test results states that “the lab composite result represents the average concentration across all samples because equal portions of each extract are added together”. The second test recorded individual levels for each room. If I add the levels for each room and divide by the 10 samples to get an average, the average contamination is 9.5 μg/100cm 2 .
The property manager submitted the increased average proved it was the tenant who caused the damage. I am persuaded by this submission. It seems most likely to me the level of contamination increased from January to February and this means the tenant is responsible for the damage. The landlord has proved the tenant should pay the insurance excess and I have allowed the $500 disclosed in the tenancy agreement.

Should the tenant pay exemplary damages because of the contamination?

The landlord has also claimed exemplary damages because the tenant used the premises unlawfully. A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) RTA.
It is an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 to use any controlled drug, or to knowingly permit any premises to be used for the purpose of consuming controlled drugs. Accordingly, using methamphetamine in the tenancy premises is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $1,800. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The only way the levels of methamphetamine contamination could increase from January to February is if the tenant used methamphetamine and/or allowed others to use methamphetamine on the premises. It seems most likely to me 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) RTA.
It seems unlikely the premises could be this contaminated without the tenant knowing. I find the tenant acted intentionally. The effect of the act on the landlord was financial loss, time and effort managing the repairs and the decontamination process, distress, anger because of the huge disruption to the neighbours, and a loss of trust. It is in landlords interests that tenants respect rental properties and there is public interest in exemplary damages to encourage compliance with the RTA.
I allow exemplary damages in the amount of $600, which is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of any previous orders for the same breach. Filing fee
Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5257419 — net $7,715.07 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears 22 - 25 February 2025	$331.43	Rent arrears 22 - 25 February 2025
Meth testing/cleaning: insurance excess	$500.00	Meth testing/cleaning: insurance excess
Water rates: 1 July - 24 December 2024	$137.61	Water rates: 1 July - 24 December 2024
Lock/key replacement	$247.50	Lock/key replacement
Change alarm codes	$97.75	Change alarm codes
Rubbish removal: skip plus fridge charge	$613.00	Rubbish removal: skip plus fridge charge
Repairs: to holes in walls and to replace two doors	$2,656.50	Repairs: to holes in walls and to replace two doors
To replace four broken lights	$335.83	To replace four broken lights
To replace the shower screen and one laundry tap	$1,644.75	To replace the shower screen and one laundry tap
Repairs: to the stove	$523.70	Repairs: to the stove
Exemplary damages – unlawful use	$600.00	Exemplary damages – unlawful use
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,715.07
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,715.07

Order

Eden Taylor Limbrick Loughran must pay Berrymans Property Management & Rentals Limited $7,715.07 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

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

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 25 February 2025 which is the day the bailiff took possession. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. I was provided with photos showing the rubbish left at the end of the tenancy. The amounts claimed for the skip and the fridge removal are proved and allowed.
The locks needed to be changed as part of the bailiff’s process of taking possession. The claims for replacement locks and leys and for changing the alarm codes are proved and allowed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord has made claims for repairs. The 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.
The landlord provided me with a condition report showing there was no damage at the start of the tenancy, photos taken by the property manager at the end of the tenancy showing the damage, and invoices for the work. The landlord has proved the following damage was caused during the tenancy: • large holes in the walls and doors in most rooms including the garage • serious damage to the hot water cupboard door • serious damage to a bedroom door • four broken light fittings • a smashed glass shower screen • a missing laundry tap • damage to the stove.
I find the damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Given the amount of damage and the way the tenancy ended it seems most likely to me the damage was intentional. 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.

Is the tenant responsible for methamphetamine contamination?

The landlord had the tenancy premises tested twice for methamphetamine contamination. She has claimed the insurance excess paid so that the cost of testing, cleaning, and replacing chattels could be carried out. No testing for methamphetamine had been carried out before the tenancy started. 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.
Section 138C RTA 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. This means 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/100cm 2 for high use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture. It recommended a higher level of 3.8μg/100cm 2 for limited use areas.
In May 2018 Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor at the time, 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/100cm 2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect. It recommended retaining the level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 where contamination resulted from manufacture, due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the process.
The Tribunal has generally applied the Gluckman recommendation. The District Court took a similar approach in Acme Realty Limited v Hogg and others [2021] NZDC 3231, where the Court held that the Tribunal was not bound to apply the
5μg standard because NZS 8510:2017 has not been adopted into law.
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.
The insurer in this tenancy applied the lower level set out in NZS 8510:2017 and remediated to below 1.5μg/100cm 2 . However I will consider the claim for the excess because the second test collected 10 individual samples and the levels over the Gluckman recommendation were 21 μg/100cm 2 in the lounge, 16 μg/100cm 2 in the kitchen, and 24 μg/100cm 2 found on the toilet window frame.
The landlord said the tenant should pay the excess because the levels of contamination had increased from the testing done on 15 January 2025 to the levels recorded on 27 February 2025. This was not easy to check because there were the two different types of testing.
The first test recorded 2.8 μg/100cm 2 as an average from 10 samples collected using a laboratory composited sample. The explanatory technical notes provided by Hill Laboratories with the test results states that “the lab composite result represents the average concentration across all samples because equal portions of each extract are added together”. The second test recorded individual levels for each room. If I add the levels for each room and divide by the 10 samples to get an average, the average contamination is 9.5 μg/100cm 2 .
The property manager submitted the increased average proved it was the tenant who caused the damage. I am persuaded by this submission. It seems most likely to me the level of contamination increased from January to February and this means the tenant is responsible for the damage. The landlord has proved the tenant should pay the insurance excess and I have allowed the $500 disclosed in the tenancy agreement.

Should the tenant pay exemplary damages because of the contamination?

The landlord has also claimed exemplary damages because the tenant used the premises unlawfully. A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) RTA.
It is an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 to use any controlled drug, or to knowingly permit any premises to be used for the purpose of consuming controlled drugs. Accordingly, using methamphetamine in the tenancy premises is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $1,800. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The only way the levels of methamphetamine contamination could increase from January to February is if the tenant used methamphetamine and/or allowed others to use methamphetamine on the premises. It seems most likely to me 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) RTA.
It seems unlikely the premises could be this contaminated without the tenant knowing. I find the tenant acted intentionally. The effect of the act on the landlord was financial loss, time and effort managing the repairs and the decontamination process, distress, anger because of the huge disruption to the neighbours, and a loss of trust. It is in landlords interests that tenants respect rental properties and there is public interest in exemplary damages to encourage compliance with the RTA.
I allow exemplary damages in the amount of $600, which is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of any previous orders for the same breach. Filing fee
Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5257419 — Property damage at 6B Greenwood Place, Paraparaumu, Paraparaumu 5032

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5257419 — Property damage at 6B Greenwood Place, Paraparaumu, Paraparaumu 5032

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Is the tenant responsible for methamphetamine contamination?

Should the tenant pay exemplary damages because of the contamination?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Is the tenant responsible for methamphetamine contamination?

Should the tenant pay exemplary damages because of the contamination?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions