Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5407249 — Property damage at 19B Baycroft Avenue, Parkvale, Tauranga 3112
Published 20 May 2026 · Application 5407249
Landlord favoured
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
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
- $47,266.66
- Bond payment as ordered
- −$420.00
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $46,846.66
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cleaning | $1,097.00 | Cleaning | |
| Lawns and garden work | $723.47 | Lawns and garden work | |
| Rubbish removal | $2,026.19 | Rubbish removal | |
| Meth testing, investigations and decontamination | $17,692.22 | Meth testing, investigations and decontamination | |
| Painting | $8,952.15 | Painting | |
| Repairs (including walls, doors, cupboards | $12,375.63 | Repairs (including walls, doors, cupboards | |
| Replace curtains | $1,500.00 | Replace curtains | |
| Replace carpet | $1,600.00 | Replace carpet | |
| Replace vinyl | $1,300.00 | Replace vinyl | |
| Net award | $46,846.66 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $46,846.66 |
Claims and awards for application 5407249 — net $46,846.66 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Cleaning
- Amount
- $1,097.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Cleaning
Lawns and garden work
- Amount
- $723.47
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Lawns and garden work
Rubbish removal
- Amount
- $2,026.19
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rubbish removal
Meth testing, investigations and decontamination
- Amount
- $17,692.22
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Meth testing, investigations and decontamination
Painting
- Amount
- $8,952.15
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Painting
Repairs (including walls, doors, cupboards
- Amount
- $12,375.63
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs (including walls, doors, cupboards
Replace curtains
- Amount
- $1,500.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Replace curtains
Replace carpet
- Amount
- $1,600.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Replace carpet
Replace vinyl
- Amount
- $1,300.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Replace vinyl
Net award
Landlord $46,846.66
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $46,846.66
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Awhina Takuira must pay Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited $46,846.66 immediately, as calculated in the table below:
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $420.00 (3387521-004) to Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited immediately.
Reasons
- The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend, and the hearing proceeded in their absence.
- The landlord has applied for compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy. The tenancy commenced in July 2018 and ended in October 2025.
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 says that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. They were required to carry out cleaning at a cost of $1,097.00, lawns and garden work at a cost of $723.47 and rubbish removal totalling $2,026.19. Photographs and evidence of costings have been provided.
- On review of the evidence, I am satisfied that the tenant fell short of the statutory standard, did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and failed to remove all rubbish.
- The amounts ordered are proved.
Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?
- The landlord claims for damage caused to the property (including damaged carpet, vinyl, walls and doors) as well as damage caused to the property through methamphetamine contamination and the testing and cleaning required as a result.
- 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. See Guo v Korck. 1
- For a landlord to success 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 tenant is 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 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 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 form exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption. 2 The report concluded that any levels below 15μg/100cm 2 were unlikely to present adverse effects and there should be no need for remediation. 1 Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. 2 Report, Methamphetamine Contamination in Residential Properties: Exposures, Risk Levels, and Interpretation of Standards, 29 May 2018.
- 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 states 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”. Discussion on methamphetamine damage
- The landlord undertook methamphetamine testing at the commencement of the tenancy. The test dated 2 August 2019 showed levels below what is considered by the Tribunal to require decontamination.
- After the tenancy ended on 10 October 2025, the landlord obtained further testing. The report dated 23 October 2025 showed the following levels: a. Laundry 15.8μg/100cm 2 b. Bedroom two 24.1μg/100cm 2 c. Bedroom three 17.2μg/100cm 2
- On review of the evidence, I am satisfied that: a. The contamination was caused during the tenancy. b. The level of methamphetamine detected is likely to constitute a health hazard and therefore entitled the landlord to claim the cost for testing and decontaminating the premises.
- The landlord claims $17,692.22 in total. This includes $11,896.22 in decontamination work, $2,664.09 for the detailed site investigation dated 24 October 2025, the first post decontamination site investigation dated 17 3 Full Circle Real Estate v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947. 4 Smith v Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited [2019] NZCA 38, at [16]. November 2025 totalling $2,022.39 and the second post decontamination on 21 November 2025 totalling $1,109.52. Evidence of these costs have been provided and the amounts ordered are proved. Discussion on other damage
- In addition, the landlord claims for other damage to the property. This includes missing curtains, carpet staining, paint damage, missing pantry doors, vinyl damage (paint marks), holes throughout (walls, doors and cupboards), lights missing, bathroom sink damage. The landlord says that the damage was extensive, one of the worst properties they have seen, and as a result this damage must be considered intentional.
- The landlord claims for: a. Painting costs of $8,952.15. b. Wall and door repairs of $12,375.63. c. Replacement curtains of $3,599.64. d. Replacement carpet of $3,931.97. e. Replacement vinyl of $3,122.86.
- Photographs and evidence of costings have been provided, and it is evident that significant damage was caused to the property during the tenancy. The landlord advised that there was no available insurance and that the carpet, curtains and vinyl had been new at the commencement of the tenancy.
- On review of the evidence, I am satisfied that the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
- I have considered betterment and depreciation in respect of the curtains, carpet and vinyl and the amounts for these items have been reduced from what was sought.
- Some wear and tear would be expected at the end of a tenancy of this length, and they have been replaced new. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations but should not be better 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 amounts ordered are proved.
- The landlord did not seek the application fee and nor was any name suppression sought. R Harvey-Lane 20 May 2026
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s40(1), s40(2), s49B, s49B(1), s49B(3), s49B(3A), s8510
Key findings
- Dispute theme: cleaning
- Dispute theme: property damage
Property management
- ACCESSIBLE PROPERTIES NEW ZEALAND LIMITED (applicant)
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5407249?
The tribunal order states: Awhina Takuira must pay Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited
How much money was awarded in case 5407249?
Cleaning: $1,097.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $1,300.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $723.47 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing, Investigations And Dec…: $17,692.22 awarded to landlord; Painting: $8,952.15 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $12,375.63 awarded to landlord; Replace Carpet: $1,600.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Curtains: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,026.19 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5407249?
The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5407249?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13603429-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.