Tenant Ordered to Pay Rent Arrears and Water Rates from Bond
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal ruled that the tenant must pay the landlord $1,395.78 from the bond, covering rent arrears and water rates. The tenant was also held responsible for the insurance excess due to methamphetamine contamination.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is liable for rent arrears and water rates at the end of a tenancy.
📖 What the law says
This rule states that a tenant must pay rent when it is due and keep the property reasonably clean and tidy. When the tenancy ends, the tenant must move out, remove their belongings, and leave the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, free of rubbish.
This rule makes a tenant responsible for the actions of anyone they allow onto the property. If that person does something that would break the tenancy agreement if the tenant had done it, the tenant is held accountable.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the tenant to pay the landlord $1,395.78 from the bond, including rent arrears and water rates.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the tenant to pay the landlord $1,395.78 from the bond, including rent arrears and water rates. The tenant was also found liable for the insurance excess related to methamphetamine decontamination.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5044570 1
[2025] NZTT 5044570
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT WAITAKERE | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA KI WAITĀKERE
APPLICANT: [redacted] Bradley-Collins Family Trust
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,120.00 (3603339-004) immediately apportioned as follows:
[COMPANY] As Agent For Doug & Jenny Sheldon Bradley-Collins Family Trust: $1,395.78
[NAME]: $724.22
2. [NAME] must pay [COMPANY] As Agent For Doug & Jenny Sheldon Bradley-Collins Family Trust $1,395.78 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:
Description Landlord Tenant Rent arrears $605.71 Water rates $13.07 Meth testing/Cleaning: Insurance excess Filing fee
$750.00 $27.00
Total award $1,395.78 Bond $1,395.78 $724.22
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5044570 2
Reasons:
1. The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend. After the hearing was completed, I received an email from the registry advising the tenant had contacted the registry this morning to say they were unwell. The tenant had requested to attend the hearing via phone. When I received the request, the hearing had been completed.
2. The tenant has the ability to apply for a re-hearing if they wish.
3. The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation for unpaid water rates, compensation for methamphetamine decontamination, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
How much is owed for rent and water rates?
4. The tenancy ended on 6 September 2024. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
5. As regard rent, a rent summary shows the tenant last paid rent on 16 July 2024.
6. As regards water, the landlord noted the final reading of the meter was conducted on 13 September 2024 – four days after the tenancy ended. The landlord stated the house was empty and no water was used between 9 September 2024 when the tenant vacated the premises and 13 September 2024 when the final reading was taken by the property manager’s assistant.
Is the tenant responsible for the decontamination of the premises?
The law
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5044570 3
10. 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.
11. In May 2018, the Chief Science Advisor, [NAME] determined that there was little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption (Report entitled ‘Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards’, 29 May 2018). The report concluded that any levels below 15 μg/100 cm2 were unlikely to present adverse effects:
Taken together, these factors indicate that methamphetamine levels that exceed the NZS 8510:2017 clean-up standard of 1.5 μg/100 cm2 should not be regarded as signalling a health risk. Indeed, exposure to methamphetamine levels below 15 μg/100 cm2 would be unlikely to give rise to any adverse effects. This level still incorporates a 30-fold safety buffer on a conservative estimate of risk.
12. Several decisions from the District Court have confirmed that the level to be applied in the Tenancy Tribunal when considering claims for compensation for methamphetamine decontamination is the level expressed by the Chief Science Advisor, which is that there is no risk when levels of contamination are below 15 μg/100 cm2.1
The evidence
13. A pre-tenancy methamphetamine test was conducted on 18 October 2023. The report recorded no traces of methamphetamine were detected.
14. The tenancy commenced on 3 November 2023 and ended on 6 September 2024.
15. A post-tenancy methamphetamine combined sample test was conducted on 13 September 2024. The report recorded methamphetamine was detected. A further sample test was conducted on 20 September 2024 with the following results recorded room-by-room:
Room Sample Code Result
Hallway 1 HAL1A-Hallway 1 1.36μg
Bedroom 1 BDR1A-Bedroom 1 3.39μg
Bedroom 2 BDR2A-Bedroom 2 5.95μg
1 See Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947; Eren Limited v Martin and Kukuruzsnak [2021] NZDC 15210; [COMPANY] v [NAME], Polotu and Coughlin [2021] NZDC 3231.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5044570 4
Bathroom 1 BTM1A-Bathroom 1 1.00μg
Bedroom 3 BDR3A-Bedroom 3 9.67μg
Bedroom 2 BDR2B-Bedroom 2 1.23μg
Bedroom 3 BDR3B-Bedroom 3 10.40μg
Kitchen 1 KTN1A-Kitchen 1 15.60μg
Dining Room 1 DNR1A-Dining Room 1 1.62μg
Lounge 1 LNG1A-Lounge 1 8.21μg
Laundry 1 LDY1A-Laundry 1 0.10μg
Storage Area 1 STO1A-Storage Area 1 0.06μg
16. The landlord provided evidence that a claim had been lodged with their insurers for decontamination of the premises. The insurer stated the total cost of decontamination was $8,575.71, with an excess payable of $750.
17. The landlord says when they approached the tenant seeking re-payment of the excess ($750), the tenant raised two issues:
a. The tenant alleged others may have contaminated the house between 18 October 2023 (when the pre-tenancy test was conducted) and 6 November 2023 (when the tenant moved in); and
b. The tenant did not consider she was liable for the full amount of the excess as only the kitchen area was above 15 μg/100cm².
18. As to the first issue, the landlord says contractors installed a new ranchslider between 10–18 October 2023. The landlord says the pre-tenancy methamphetamine test was conducted on the morning of 18 October 2023, after all contractors had left the premises. The landlord says there were no other occupants in the premises between 18 October 2023 and 6 November 2023 when the tenant moved in, therefore contamination could not have occurred by anyone other than the tenant (or those she is responsible for).
19. As to the second issue, the landlord says she requested quotes from several companies to ascertain the cost to remediate the kitchen only, given that was the only room which tested over 15 μg/100cm². The landlord said none of the quotes received were less than $750.
20. The landlord confirmed the decontamination work has been carried out and the home has been sold.
21. I find the amounts ordered are proved. The post-tenancy methamphetamine test showed methamphetamine contamination above 15 μg/100 cm2. The tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent. The insurance excess is less than four weeks’ rent and I am satisfied
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5044570 5
decontamination of the kitchen-only would not have been less than $750. I make the order accordingly.
Should the tenant reimburse the filing fee?
22. Given the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim the tenant must reimburse the filing fee.
[NAME]
27 February 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5044570 6
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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5044570 7
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 landlord proved the amount of rent owing by providing rent records.
- The landlord provided water rates invoices to prove the amount owing.
- The landlord showed that the final water meter reading was taken after the tenant vacated, with no water used in between.
- A pre-tenancy methamphetamine test showed no traces of the substance.
- The post-tenancy methamphetamine test showed contamination above the 15 μg/100 cm2 threshold.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The tenant's claim that others might have contaminated the house before they moved in was rejected.
- The tenant's argument that she was not liable for the full excess because only the kitchen was above 15 μg/100cm² was rejected.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the tenant to pay the landlord $1,395.78 from the bond, including rent arrears and water rates.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about the tenant's responsibility for rent arrears, water rates, and the cost of methamphetamine decontamination.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the tenant must pay the landlord $1,395.78 from the bond because the landlord provided proof of rent arrears and water rates, and the tenant was found liable for the decontamination costs.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41, and 49B were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The most important argument was that the landlord provided clear evidence of rent arrears and water rates, and the tenant was responsible for the decontamination costs under the Act.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the tenant who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure they pay all rent and utility bills on time and be aware of their responsibilities for any damages or contamination during their tenancy.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence that mattered included rent records, water rates invoices, and methamphetamine test results.