What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5262787?

The tribunal order states: Araia Sharon Underwood must pay A1 Property Managers Limited and Breward

How much money was awarded in case 5262787?

Cleaning: $490.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $256.91 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $332.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,628.57 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $169.05 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5262787?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5262787?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12190432-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5262787?

The tribunal order states: Araia Sharon Underwood must pay A1 Property Managers Limited and Breward

How much money was awarded in case 5262787?

Cleaning: $490.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $256.91 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $332.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,628.57 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $169.05 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5262787?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5262787?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12190432-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 9, 180 Marine Parade, New Brighton, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 5262787 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Unit/Flat 9, 180 Marine Parade, New Brighton, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 5262787 — Rent arrears | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5262787 — net $3,704.03 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to and including 28 March 2025	$4,628.57		Rent arrears to and including 28 March 2025
Cleaning	$490.00		Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$169.05		Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$256.91		Lock/key replacement
Wall repairs	$332.50		Wall repairs
Exemplary damages	$200.00		Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Bond received by landlord		$2,400.00	Bond received by landlord
Total award	$6,104.03	$2,400.00
Net award	$3,704.03
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,704.03

Claims and awards for application 5262787 — net $3,704.03 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to and including 28 March 2025

Amount: $4,628.57
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to and including 28 March 2025

Cleaning

Amount: $490.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Rubbish removal

Amount: $169.05
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $256.91
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Wall repairs

Amount: $332.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Wall repairs

Dismissed claims

Methamphetamine Testing, Decontamina… — because the samples tested show maximum levels of 2.84μg/100cm². This is well below the recommended ‘safe’ level of 15 μg/100cm² as determined by Professor Sir…

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Exemplary damages Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears Rubbish Removal

Order

Araia Sharon Underwood must pay A1 Property Managers Limited and Breward Enterprises Ltd $3,704.03 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlord’s other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Ms McLauchlan and Ms Edwards attended the hearing for the landlord. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy commenced on 22 July 2024 and ended on 28 March 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean, did not remove all rubbish, and did not return all keys and security devices at the end of the tenancy as required by section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The amounts ordered are proved by the production of invoices.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

To be successful in a claim for damage to the premises the landlord must establish that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they, or others at the premises with their permission, did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage: sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent: section 49B(3)(a) of the Act.
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: section 49B(1) of the Act.
The landlord claims compensation for the following damage: • Damage (scrapes, deep dents and the like) to walls in the living area, stairwell, and bedroom; • Damage to the glass cook top; • Damage caused by methamphetamine contamination. Wall and cooktop damage
I am satisfied that the landlord has established that the damage to the walls and the cook top occurred during the tenancy and is beyond fair wear and tear. I am also satisfied that the tenant has not disproved liability for the wall damage.
However, the explanation provided by the tenant for the damaged cooktop was that she was drying dishes and a pan slipped from her hand landing on the cook top. I am satisfied that the damage was caused accidentally rather than carelessly. I therefore dismiss the claim to replace the cook top (limited to the excess payable of $400.00). Methamphetamine contamination costs
The claim for methamphetamine testing, decontamination costs, and loss of rent is dismissed because the samples tested show maximum levels of
84μg/100cm². This is well below the recommended ‘safe’ level of 15 μg/100cm² as determined by Professor Sir Peter Gluckman in his report, Methamphetamine Contamination in Residential Properties: Exposures, Risk Levels, and Interpretation of Standards” and generally applied by the Tribunal applications involving methamphetamine use. The tenant is therefore not in breach of any obligation in the Act or the tenancy agreement for which the landlord is entitled to be compensated.
Ms McLauchlan ad Ms Edwards accept that the levels of methamphetamine contamination are below the accepted level whereby the premises are considered to be damaged by methamphetamine contamination. However, they referred me to decisions of the Tribunal in which the Tribunal has awarded costs (including testing costs and loss of rent) in circumstances where the levels of contamination were below 15 μg/100cm².
I am not bound by other decisions of the Tribunal. In any event, the decision dated 17 June 2025 whereby the Tribunal awarded additional testing costs and loss of rent while the additional testing was completed (application number 5181816) can be distinguished here. In that case the initial testing showed a potential contamination level above the Gluckman standard. The Tribunal therefore considered that it was reasonable for the landlord to undertake detailed testing. Whereas in this case, the initial testing showed a composite result of 5.4μg/100cm², well under the Gluckman level.
In the other decision relied on by the landlord (application 5230575, dated 29 May 2025) the Tribunal awarded the landlord testing and decontamination costs despite the contamination levels being below 15 μg/100cm². As mentioned I am not bound by other decisions of the Tribunal and I respectfully disagree with the findings in that decision.

Should exemplary damages be payable?

Section 40(2)(b) of the Act provides that the tenant shall not use or permit the premises to be used for any unlawful purpose. Contravention of section 40(2)(b) is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,800.00: section 40(3A) of the Act.
Despite the levels of contamination being under the Gluckman level the levels identified, while low (2.84μg/100cm² in the lounge; 1.77μg/100cm² in the kitchen; 1.43μg/100cm² in the lower bedroom; and 1.01μg/100cm² in the entry), indicate that methamphetamine was used in the premises. I am satisfied that the methamphetamine use occurred during this tenancy. Pre-tenancy testing undertaken the day before the tenancy commenced (on 21 July 2024) showed levels below 0.02μg/100cm². While the areas tested were different to the areas tested at the end of the tenancy, the property was a new build and Ms McLachlan and Ms Edwards said that the tenant was the first occupant of the property. I also find, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the tenant used or permitted others to use the premises for an unlawful purpose, namely the use of methamphetamine. I am therefore required to consider whether exemplary damages is appropriate and if so how much.
Exemplary damages are different to compensatory damages. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine and are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proved, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the Act. The threshold requirement is that the unlawful act was committed ‘intentionally’. In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court held that this requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: (a) The intention of the person (b) The effect of the unlawful act; (c) The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d) The public interest
There is no doubt that the use of methamphetamine is an intentional act and I therefore consider an award of exemplary damages is appropriate here. Taking into account all the circumstances including the relatively low methamphetamine readings which suggest a low level of use of the drug, I consider that exemplary damages in the lower range is appropriate here. I therefore order that the tenant pay exemplary damages of $200.00 to the landlord.
The landlord has been mostly successful in its claims and I therefore award payment of the Tribunal application fee.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5262787 — net $3,704.03 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to and including 28 March 2025	$4,628.57		Rent arrears to and including 28 March 2025
Cleaning	$490.00		Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$169.05		Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$256.91		Lock/key replacement
Wall repairs	$332.50		Wall repairs
Exemplary damages	$200.00		Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Bond received by landlord		$2,400.00	Bond received by landlord
Total award	$6,104.03	$2,400.00
Net award	$3,704.03
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,704.03

Claims and awards for application 5262787 — net $3,704.03 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to and including 28 March 2025

Amount: $4,628.57
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to and including 28 March 2025

Cleaning

Amount: $490.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Rubbish removal

Amount: $169.05
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $256.91
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Wall repairs

Amount: $332.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Wall repairs

Dismissed claims

Methamphetamine Testing, Decontamina… — because the samples tested show maximum levels of 2.84μg/100cm². This is well below the recommended ‘safe’ level of 15 μg/100cm² as determined by Professor Sir…

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Exemplary damages Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears Rubbish Removal

Order

Araia Sharon Underwood must pay A1 Property Managers Limited and Breward Enterprises Ltd $3,704.03 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlord’s other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Ms McLauchlan and Ms Edwards attended the hearing for the landlord. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy commenced on 22 July 2024 and ended on 28 March 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean, did not remove all rubbish, and did not return all keys and security devices at the end of the tenancy as required by section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The amounts ordered are proved by the production of invoices.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

To be successful in a claim for damage to the premises the landlord must establish that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they, or others at the premises with their permission, did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage: sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent: section 49B(3)(a) of the Act.
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: section 49B(1) of the Act.
The landlord claims compensation for the following damage: • Damage (scrapes, deep dents and the like) to walls in the living area, stairwell, and bedroom; • Damage to the glass cook top; • Damage caused by methamphetamine contamination. Wall and cooktop damage
I am satisfied that the landlord has established that the damage to the walls and the cook top occurred during the tenancy and is beyond fair wear and tear. I am also satisfied that the tenant has not disproved liability for the wall damage.
However, the explanation provided by the tenant for the damaged cooktop was that she was drying dishes and a pan slipped from her hand landing on the cook top. I am satisfied that the damage was caused accidentally rather than carelessly. I therefore dismiss the claim to replace the cook top (limited to the excess payable of $400.00). Methamphetamine contamination costs
The claim for methamphetamine testing, decontamination costs, and loss of rent is dismissed because the samples tested show maximum levels of
84μg/100cm². This is well below the recommended ‘safe’ level of 15 μg/100cm² as determined by Professor Sir Peter Gluckman in his report, Methamphetamine Contamination in Residential Properties: Exposures, Risk Levels, and Interpretation of Standards” and generally applied by the Tribunal applications involving methamphetamine use. The tenant is therefore not in breach of any obligation in the Act or the tenancy agreement for which the landlord is entitled to be compensated.
Ms McLauchlan ad Ms Edwards accept that the levels of methamphetamine contamination are below the accepted level whereby the premises are considered to be damaged by methamphetamine contamination. However, they referred me to decisions of the Tribunal in which the Tribunal has awarded costs (including testing costs and loss of rent) in circumstances where the levels of contamination were below 15 μg/100cm².
I am not bound by other decisions of the Tribunal. In any event, the decision dated 17 June 2025 whereby the Tribunal awarded additional testing costs and loss of rent while the additional testing was completed (application number 5181816) can be distinguished here. In that case the initial testing showed a potential contamination level above the Gluckman standard. The Tribunal therefore considered that it was reasonable for the landlord to undertake detailed testing. Whereas in this case, the initial testing showed a composite result of 5.4μg/100cm², well under the Gluckman level.
In the other decision relied on by the landlord (application 5230575, dated 29 May 2025) the Tribunal awarded the landlord testing and decontamination costs despite the contamination levels being below 15 μg/100cm². As mentioned I am not bound by other decisions of the Tribunal and I respectfully disagree with the findings in that decision.

Should exemplary damages be payable?

Section 40(2)(b) of the Act provides that the tenant shall not use or permit the premises to be used for any unlawful purpose. Contravention of section 40(2)(b) is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,800.00: section 40(3A) of the Act.
Despite the levels of contamination being under the Gluckman level the levels identified, while low (2.84μg/100cm² in the lounge; 1.77μg/100cm² in the kitchen; 1.43μg/100cm² in the lower bedroom; and 1.01μg/100cm² in the entry), indicate that methamphetamine was used in the premises. I am satisfied that the methamphetamine use occurred during this tenancy. Pre-tenancy testing undertaken the day before the tenancy commenced (on 21 July 2024) showed levels below 0.02μg/100cm². While the areas tested were different to the areas tested at the end of the tenancy, the property was a new build and Ms McLachlan and Ms Edwards said that the tenant was the first occupant of the property. I also find, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the tenant used or permitted others to use the premises for an unlawful purpose, namely the use of methamphetamine. I am therefore required to consider whether exemplary damages is appropriate and if so how much.
Exemplary damages are different to compensatory damages. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine and are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proved, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the Act. The threshold requirement is that the unlawful act was committed ‘intentionally’. In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court held that this requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: (a) The intention of the person (b) The effect of the unlawful act; (c) The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d) The public interest
There is no doubt that the use of methamphetamine is an intentional act and I therefore consider an award of exemplary damages is appropriate here. Taking into account all the circumstances including the relatively low methamphetamine readings which suggest a low level of use of the drug, I consider that exemplary damages in the lower range is appropriate here. I therefore order that the tenant pay exemplary damages of $200.00 to the landlord.
The landlord has been mostly successful in its claims and I therefore award payment of the Tribunal application fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5262787 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 9, 180 Marine Parade, New Brighton, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5262787 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 9, 180 Marine Parade, New Brighton, Christchurch

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should exemplary damages be payable?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should exemplary damages be payable?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions