Claim for Compensation Dismissed Due to Insufficient Evidence
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed the tenant's claim for compensation because the damages were already covered by insurance policies. The landlord sought additional compensation for items lost due to contamination, but the Tribunal found that the insurance covered the full extent of the loss.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is not entitled to compensation for losses already covered by insurance policies.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant's claim for compensation was dismissed due to insufficient evidence of loss beyond insurance coverage.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed the claimant's request for compensation due to methamphetamine contamination, finding that the losses were already covered by insurance policies.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5013188 1
[2025] NZTT 5013188
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT AUCKLAND | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA KI TĀMAKI MAKAURAU
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: Unit/[ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. The landlord’s claim for compensation is dismissed.
Reasons:
1. Both parties attended the hearing. [NAME] represented himself as the tenant, and [NAME] represented the landlord.
2. This claim was first raised under application number 4897760 which was heard on 23 August 2024. That claim resulted in awards to the landlord to cover insurance excesses. Claims that went beyond the scope of the insurance policies were adjourned to another date.
3. The landlord then filed a different application for the unheard claims. Adjudicator Allen conducted a case conference and issued directions on 28 January 2025.
4. Both claims originate from methamphetamine contamination. [NAME] accepted responsibility for that contamination at the earlier hearing.
5. The tenancy began on 4 April 2021 and ended on 29 July 2023.
6. Today, [NAME] set out that insurance policies covered the claim up to a maximum of $15,000.00 which fell far below the actual cost of replacing the large amount of items that have had to be replaced as a result of the
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5013188 2
contamination. [NAME] stated that the replacement value of all the items lost due to contamination amounted to an extra $18.000.00 over and above that covered by insurance.
7. [NAME] produced invoices for the items being claimed. Some items were challenged by [NAME], and it became clear that the Chattels List dated 1 August 2021 was the most reliable information regarding what was included with the tenancy at the outset. [NAME] did not seek compensation for many of the items on the Chattels list.
8. When calculating the loss to a landlord caused by a tenant, the Tribunal must take into account 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. I have referred to the Inland Revenue Department’s IR265 Depreciation Guide in calculating the residual value of the items claimed for.
9. In that document, linen, bedding, crockery and cutlery, as well as many other items are depreciated over a period of three years. This means that at the end of three years, these items have no residual value for tax purposes, and a landlord would be a recipient of betterment, if the Tribunal was to compensate them for those losses. Other items are depreciated over periods ranging from 3 years to 15.5 years.
10. The tenancy lasted 2 years 3 months. [NAME] gave the purchase date of many items as end of 2019 or the beginning of 2020, or mid 2020. This means that by the end of the tenancy, virtually all of the “fully-furnished” items exceeded 3 years old.
11. [NAME] questioned whether some of the items actually needed replacing due to methamphetamine contamination. For instance, a knife wood-block he said, had been kept in a cupboard.
12. I note that [COMPANY] conducted an assessment of the contamination prior to undertaking decontamination work in 2023. The table below was included in their assessment. The readings show a very high level of contamination. I do not consider it would have been reasonable for the landlord to test every item left in the tenancy before disposing of it, and then attempt to seek reimbursement of these costs from [NAME]. Because of this, I do not consider it unreasonable in the circumstances of the very high readings, for the landlord to dispose of all of the furnishings and to start afresh. I believe that this will ultimately have kept the claim against [NAME] lower than if each item had been tested individually.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5013188 3
13. When I remove the items that by the end of [NAME]’s tenancy had no residual value, (cutlery, crockery, bedroom linen, kitchen and bathroom linen), and calculate the residual value of the remaining items that are being claimed, (an ironing board, a dish rack a knife block, a couch, 2 (of 3) armchairs, 3 lamps, the rangehood, the curtains, a mattress, and the internal shutters), I arrive at a sum of $10,836.68. This is below the amount that the landlord’s insurance has agreed to pay out.
14. I am therefore not persuaded that I should order [NAME] to make any further payment to the landlord.
15. [NAME] also stated that following the end of the tenancy he had agreed to the bond being released to the tenant before the end of tenancy inspections had been finalised. When he contacted Tenancy Services the next day to say the bond was actually in dispute, he was advised that Tenancy Services had already released the bond to the tenant.
[NAME]
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5013188 4
26 May 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5013188 5
Please read carefully: Visit justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals for more information on rehearings and appeals.
Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has happened. For example: • you did not get the letter telling you the date of the hearing, or • the adjudicator improperly admitted or rejected evidence, or • new evidence, relating to the original application, has become available.
You must give reasons and evidence to support your application for a rehearing. A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. You must apply within five working days of the decision using the Application for Rehearing form: justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf
Right of Appeal Both the landlord and the tenant can file an appeal. You should file your appeal at the District Court where the original hearing took place. The cost for an appeal is $260. You must apply within 10 working days after the decision is issued using this Appeal to the District Court form: justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals
Grounds for an appeal You can appeal if you think the decision was wrong, but not because you don’t like the decision. For some cases, there’ll be no right to appeal. For example, you can’t appeal: • against an interim order • a final order for the payment of less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work worth less than $1000.
Enforcement Where the Tribunal made an order about money or property this is called a civil debt. The Ministry of Justice Collections Team can assist with enforcing civil debt. You can contact the collections team on [PHONE] or go to justice.govt.nz/fines/civil-debt for forms and information.
Notice to a party ordered to pay money or vacate premises, etc. Failure to comply with any order may result in substantial additional costs for enforcement. It may also involve being ordered to appear in the District Court for an examination of your means or seizure of your property.
If you require further help or information regarding this matter, visit tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing- decisions or phone Tenancy Services on [PHONE].
Mēna ka hiahia koe ki ētahi atu awhina, kōrero ranei mo tēnei take, haere ki tenei ipurangi tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, waea atu ki Ratonga Takirua ma runga [PHONE] ranei.
https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals/ https://www.justice.govt.nz/fines/about-civil-debt/ https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions http://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5013188 6
A manaomia nisi faamatalaga poo se fesoasoani, e uiga i lau mataupu, asiasi ifo le matou aupega tafailagi: tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, pe fesootai mai le Tenancy Services i le numera [PHONE].
Reasons:
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The tenant accepted responsibility for the methamphetamine contamination at an earlier hearing.
- The contamination levels were very high, making it reasonable for the landlord to dispose of all furnishings without individual testing.
- Many of the claimed items had no residual value by the end of the tenancy due to depreciation over three years.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The landlord's claim for compensation for items beyond insurance coverage was dismissed.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The claim for compensation was dismissed because the losses were already covered by insurance policies.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the landlord could receive additional compensation for items lost due to methamphetamine contamination beyond what was covered by insurance.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to dismiss the claim because the insurance policies covered the full extent of the losses, and the landlord did not provide sufficient evidence of additional losses.
Which laws or rules were applied?
No specific laws or rules were applied in this decision.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The most important argument was that the insurance policies covered the full extent of the losses, and the landlord did not provide sufficient evidence of additional losses.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the person who brought the case, the landlord.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure that they have comprehensive insurance coverage to avoid disputes over compensation.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Invoices for the items being claimed and the Chattels List dated 1 August 2021 were the key pieces of evidence considered by the Tribunal.