Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5381292 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Unit 3, 16 Sheppard Street, Gate Pa, Tauranga
Published 23 March 2026 · Application 5381292
Landlord favoured
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
- Exemplary damages
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Tauranga
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
R Harvey-Lane
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $12,435.90
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $12,435.90
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Previous order application 5327508 dated 14/10/2025 | $5,900.56 | Previous order application 5327508 dated 14/10/2025 | |
| Carpet cleaning | $180.00 | Carpet cleaning | |
| Replacement flooring | $400.00 | Replacement flooring | |
| Cleaning | $805.00 | Cleaning | |
| Replacement appliance parts | $267.00 | Replacement appliance parts | |
| Replace garage remote | $69.00 | Replace garage remote | |
| Rubbish removal | $116.74 | Rubbish removal | |
| Water rates to 15 October 2025 | $120.14 | Water rates to 15 October 2025 | |
| Repairs: Electrical | $251.56 | Repairs: Electrical | |
| Repairs: Mitre 10 Mega | $997.90 | Repairs: Mitre 10 Mega | |
| Repairs: Orange Industries | $2,850.00 | Repairs: Orange Industries | |
| Exemplary damages: Unlawful act | $450.00 | Unlawful act | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $12,435.90 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $12,435.90 |
Claims and awards for application 5381292 — net $12,435.90 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Previous order application 5327508 dated 14/10/2025
- Amount
- $5,900.56
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Previous order application 5327508 dated 14/10/2025
Carpet cleaning
- Amount
- $180.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Carpet cleaning
Replacement flooring
- Amount
- $400.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Replacement flooring
Cleaning
- Amount
- $805.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Cleaning
Replacement appliance parts
- Amount
- $267.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Replacement appliance parts
Replace garage remote
- Amount
- $69.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Replace garage remote
Rubbish removal
- Amount
- $116.74
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rubbish removal
Water rates to 15 October 2025
- Amount
- $120.14
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Water rates to 15 October 2025
Repairs: Electrical
- Amount
- $251.56
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs: Electrical
Repairs: Mitre 10 Mega
- Amount
- $997.90
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs: Mitre 10 Mega
Repairs: Orange Industries
- Amount
- $2,850.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs: Orange Industries
Exemplary damages: Unlawful act
- Amount
- $450.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Unlawful act
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Landlord $12,435.90
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $12,435.90
Dismissed claims
- Other Claims — All other claims dismissed
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Mellisa Nicole Wood must pay Lynch Holdings Limited $12,435.90 immediately, as calculated in the table below:
- All other claims are dismissed.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- The landlord has applied for compensation, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
- There was a previous Tribunal order (5327508) for rent arrears that has not yet been enforced. For ease of enforcement this is included in this order.
- The tenancy address was a newly constructed home at the commencement of the tenancy on 18 August 2022.
- The landlord has provided documentation in support of the claims, and I confirm I have considered this, and oral submissions made by both parties at the hearing, even if there is no direct reference.
How much is owed for water rates?
- The tenancy ended on 15 October 2025. The landlord provided water rates records that show the outstanding amount owing of $120.14 at the end of the tenancy.
- The tenants did not dispute this amount and the amount ordered is proved.
Did the tenant comply with their 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).
- The landlord claims for carpet cleaning of $180.00 and general cleaning of $1,207.50 that they say was required at the end of the tenancy to meet the statutory threshold.
- I note that the general cleaning invoice including an exterior house wash. I consider that this is general landlord maintenance, and I have deducted this off the amount awarded.
- The tenant did not dispute the carpet cleaning amount. The tenancy ended abruptly and the tenants say they did not get an opportunity to complete all the general cleaning. On review of the evidence, I am satisfied that the house did require further cleaning at the end of the tenancy to meet the statutory standard and award $805.00 towards the amount claimed.
- The landlord also claims for rubbish removal of $116.74. Photographs and an invoice have been provided and this amount is awarded.
- The following chattels were also missing at the end of the tenancy: Garage remote. This required replacement at a cost of $69.00 and was not disputed by the tenant.
- The amounts ordered are proved. The law on damages
- 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.
- Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
- 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 (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
- Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) 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. 1 Other claims for damages 1 Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
- The landlord says that at the end of the tenancy the property was left with considerable damage including carpets being stained and scratched, marks and holes in walls, a broken fence and missing fixtures and fittings. Specifically, the landlord claims for: a. Flooring replacement of stained and pet damaged carpet in the hallway and lounge of $540.50. b. Missing parts of appliances that required replacement, including the dishwasher’s soap dispenser for $187.00 and two oven racks missing from the oven for $80.00, totalling $267.00. c. Tile Trends repairs of $14.13. d. Replacement fibre network panel door, a replacement ceiling light and a replacement track light, totalling $251.56. e. Repair materials from mitre 10 mega, including cleaning supplies, solvent, liquid nails, door stop cushion, paint, window handle, doorknobs, concrete, fence palings, hinges, curtain hooks, spotlight, curtain track, smoke alarm, screw batten, waste plug, hose clamp and totalling $997.90. f. Repairs costs relating to repairing broken, damaged and missing items at the end of the tenancy, including cleaning, plaster and painting of damaged walls, repairing broken fence, reinstating a moved fence, removing rubbish and tidying the exterior and cleaning for failed methamphetamine test. The invoice totals $3,450.00. It is not itemised, and I have allocated $600.00 to methamphetamine cleaning, as I will deal with this separately. Therefore, the repair costs alone are estimated at $2,850.00.
- The tenant agrees with some aspects of the claimed items, but not everything. For example, the tenant agrees to some of the flooring costs, the missing dishwasher soap dispenser and the materials for the fence repair but not labour (based on a previous agreement that the tenant would fix this).
- On review of the evidence, it is clear that there was some damage at the end of the tenancy. This includes to the walls, floors, windows, taps, mirror off the wall, broken cupboard, light fittings taken off and the fence. Based on the photographs, most of this was likely careless damage, but with some intentional damage such as that to the walls.
- I consider that: a. The flooring has been damaged and required replacement. Some wear and tear would be expected at the end of a three-year tenancy, and it has been replaced with new carpet and so I have reduced the amount awarded to $400.00 to reflect the value of the loss. b. I consider the missing parts of appliances claim has been proven and award $267.00 for these items. c. I have insufficient evidence of the tile trends claim (for example before and after photographs), and this is dismissed. d. I consider that the replacement fibre panel door and replacement ceiling lights have been proven and award $251.56 for these items. e. I consider that from the photographs there has been damage to the walls, fence, curtains and other listed items and therefore award $997.50 for purchases (materials) and $2,850.00 for the repair labour costs. Even if there had been an agreement for the tenant to fix the fence, this did not occur and the landlord was entitled to have this repaired at the end of the tenancy.
- The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Damage to the floors, fence, walls, appliances, fixtures and fittings. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
- The amounts ordered are proved.
- I have considered betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. The law on methamphetamine law in New Zealand
- The landlord seeks costs associated with methamphetamine as follows: a. $1,148.85 – methamphetamine testing (T.H.I.S Western Bay of Plenty Limited invoice). b. $600.00 - cleaning related to methamphetamine test (Orange Industries Limited invoice).
- For context it is necessary to first set out the law relating to methamphetamine that the Tribunal follows.
- For a landlord to succeed in a claim for costs involved in methamphetamine testing and contamination there are two main aspects that must be proved: a. First, that the contamination was caused during the tenancy (and so the tenants are liable). b. Secondly, that the level of methamphetamine detected is likely to constitute a health hazard and therefore would entitle the landlord to claim the costs of testing and decontaminating the premises.
- It has been well recognised for years, that methamphetamine contamination presents risks for people living in dwellings, when the level of that contamination is high. The difficulty has been determining what the tolerable level should be, above which the premises would be considered contaminated.
- In 2017 Standards New Zealand released Standard NZS8510:2017 “Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine-contaminated properties”. In short, this standard confirmed that the level at which habitation of residential premises was considered safe, was a level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 . The expectation on landlords arising from this standard was to remediate premises contaminated with methamphetamine, to a level of less than 1.5μg/100cm 2 .
- However, in more recent times, the (former) Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman determined that there was little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption. 2 The report concluded that any levels below 15μg/100cm 2 were unlikely to present adverse effects and therefore there should be no need for remediation.
- The matter has been considered by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper, 3 where Judge Kellar needed to determine the level that should be applied. The court discussed the conflict between the New Zealand Standard and Chief Science Advisors report and confirmed: The Tenancy Tribunal was in a difficult position. The best state of knowledge of risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination available to the adjudicator was the Gluckman report. It would have been bold for the adjudicator to have ignored that report in favour of the New Zealand standard given that the Gluckman Report represents the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine in dwellings.
- In my view, this decision of the District Court has confirmed that the level to be applied is the level expressed by the Chief Science Advisor, which is that there is no risk when levels of contamination are below 15μg/100cm 2 .
- This view is further endorsed by the Court of Appeal decision, Smith v Accessible Properties Limited, 4 where in reference to the Gluckman Report it states, “[w]e acknowledge that the testing in this case yielded results now considered not to raise any health and safety concerns”.
- The landlord carried out methamphetamine testing prior to the commencement of the tenancy that showed no presence detected. 5
- The testing carried out at the end of the tenancy shows the following results: 6 2 Report, Methamphetamine Contamination in Residential Properties: Exposures, Risk Levels, and Interpretation of Standards, 29 May 2018. 3 Full Circle Real Estate v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947. 4 Smith v Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited [2019] NZCA 38, at [16]. 5 Total Homes Inspection Services Report, dated 23 May 2022. 6 Total Homes Inspection Services Report, dated 22 October 2025. a. Lounge 2.4μg/100cm 2 b. Bedroom one 4.3μg/100cm 2 c. Bedroom two 4.4μg/100cm 2 d. Bedroom three 8.9μg/100cm 2 e. Kitchen 7.7μg/100cm 2
- Based on the evidence presented although the levels found are above the New Zealand Standard, they are lower than the Gluckman standard as detailed above.
- I am therefore satisfied that the level of methamphetamine detected at the tenancy address is not likely to constitute a health hazard and did not cause damage. It follows that the tenant cannot be liable for the cost of methamphetamine testing and cleaning related to methamphetamine decontamination.
- The claims for methamphetamine testing and cleaning are dismissed. Exemplary damages
- The landlord claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by using the premises for the consumption of methamphetamine and seeks exemplary damages for this unlawful act.
- Exemplary damages are designed to punish and deter; they are like a fine. They are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proven that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the RTA. Those factors are: 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.
- A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. 7
- Methamphetamine is a Class A control drug and consumption is unlawful under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s40(2)(b).
- The testing detailed above does show that methamphetamine was used at the premises, even if I found that it did not cause damage to the premises.
- The use of methamphetamine must be considered intentional either by the tenant or others at the property with the tenant’s permission. I appreciate that the tenant was in a difficult situation with a flatmate at the property and have considered this context when considering exemplary damages.
- The maximum award of exemplary damages for this unlawful act is $1,800.00. In considered of the factors in section 109 of the RTA, I award the landlord exemplary damages at the lower end of $450.00. 8
- Because Lynch Holdings Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have also reimbursed the filing fee. R Harvey-Lane 23 March 2026 8 Residential Tenancies Act, s 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s1, s109, s15, s40(1), s40(2), s40(3A), s42, s49B, s49B(1), s49B(3), s49B(3A), s8510
Key findings
- Dispute theme: cleaning
- Dispute theme: property damage
- Dispute theme: exemplary damages
Property management
- LYNCH HOLDINGS LIMITED (applicant)
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5381292?
The tribunal order states: Mellisa Nicole Wood must pay Lynch Holdings Limited $12,435.90 immediately,
How much money was awarded in case 5381292?
Cleaning: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $805.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5327508 D…: $5,900.56 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $267.00 awarded to landlord; Electrical: $251.56 awarded to landlord; Mitre 10 Mega: $997.90 awarded to landlord; Orange Industries: $2,850.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Garage Remote: $69.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $116.74 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $120.14 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5381292?
The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Exemplary damages.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5381292?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13238611-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.