What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4423603 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4423603?

Cleaning: $319.29 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $1,857.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4423603?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4423603?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9338075-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4423603 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4423603?

Cleaning: $319.29 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $1,857.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4423603?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4423603?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9338075-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

13 Hornsey Road, Bluff Hill, Napier 4110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4423603 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

13 Hornsey Road, Bluff Hill, Napier 4110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4423603 — 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 4423603 — net $1,776.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,857.14		Rent arrears
Meth testing/Cleaning	$319.29		Meth testing/Cleaning
Compensation		$400.00	Compensation
Total award	$2,176.43	$400.00
Net award	$1,776.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,776.43

Claims and awards for application 4423603 — net $1,776.43 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $1,857.14
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Meth testing/Cleaning

Amount: $319.29
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Meth testing/Cleaning

Compensation

Amount: $400.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Compensation

Total award

Landlord $2,176.43 · Tenant $400.00

Net award

Landlord $1,776.43

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $1,776.43

Dismissed claims

Filing Fee — Filing fee
Other Claims — All other claims dismissed

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Compensation Rent arrears Filing Fee

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Elevate Property Management Limited T/A Quinovic Property Management must pay [The tenant/s] $400.00 from the bond funds held by the landlord, calculated as shown in the table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant attended by teleconference.
The landlord first applied for rent arrears, compensation, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The landlord alleges that the tenant has used the premises, or has permitted the premises to be used, for an unlawful purpose by using of methamphetamine.
The tenant subsequently made a cross-application for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The tenant denies ever using methamphetamine and claims the landlord failed to provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair and failed to supply a healthy homes certificate at the commencement of the tenancy.
The tenancy was a fixed term tenancy which commenced on 1 April 2022. The tenants requested an earlier end date of their fixed term tenancy which the landlord agreed to subject to a number of conditions, including that the tenants would pay for an end of tenancy methamphetamine test and the owner could enter the sleep out before the end of the tenancy to complete renovation works.

LANDLORD CLAIMS

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 28 September 2022. The landlord provided rent records which prove that the tenant stopped paying rent on 8 September 2022 and the amount owing at the end of the tenancy to be $1,857.14.
The tenant did not dispute the fact that the rent arrears were owing but claimed that the bond had been made available by the tenant for said arrears.
The amount ordered is proved.

How much is owed for breaking the fixed term tenancy early?

The landlord sought the cost of methamphetamine testing at the end of the tenancy. That is generally not a cost that can be charged to the tenants, since it was not required due to any breach of the tenants’ responsibilities under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
In this particular case, I consider it appropriate that the tenant should compensate the landlord for the cost of the initial methamphetamine test because the tenants acknowledged that they had agreed to pay this cost when they negotiated an early end to their fixed term tenancy.
The only reasons this has since been challenged is due to the landlord’s claim for compensation associated with the presence of methamphetamine which is dealt with separately in this decision. I indicated to the landlord during the hearing that going forward such costs should not fall on the tenant. Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy?
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. See section 40(1)(c) RTA.
During the hearing the landlord elected to withdraw the claim for compensation for the cost of cleaning the premises at the end of the tenancy. The landlord stated that the withdrawal was in fairness to the tenant as no evidence of the state of the premises at the end of the tenancy had been presented in evidence.

Is the tenant responsible for methamphetamine decontamination?

The tenancy commenced on 1 April 2022 and ended on 28 September 2022.
On 22 February 2022 (5 ½ weeks prior to the start of the tenancy) the landlord arranged for the premises to be methamphetamine tested. The laboratory results confirmed at that stage that there was no methamphetamine found in samples taken.
On 29 September 2022, the day after the end of the tenancy, the landlord arranged for the premises to be re-tested for methamphetamine. The laboratory testing report records testing of 15 samples from throughout the premises. The samples were then “composited” at the laboratory to give a single result of 7.7 μg of methamphetamine present. Detailed testing was then carried out on 11 October 2022 in the two bedrooms revealing less than 1 μg in each room.
The landlord has accordingly applied to the Tribunal seeking compensation for the costs associated with the methamphetamine testing, specialised cleaning, further methamphetamine testing following the specialised cleaning and loss of rent associated with the premises remaining vacant during the period of testing and cleaning. The landlord also seeks exemplary damages for the tenant’s alleged use of illegal substances on the premises.
The tenant denies using methamphetamine at any point. They state that they do not understand the methamphetamine testing results and suggest some of the sample photographs indicate that the testing must have been done at a different time than the start or end of their tenancy.
At the hearing I mentioned a difference in approach to methamphetamine contamination as between the methamphetamine testing industry and the Tribunal. This was largely for the landlord’s assistance and understanding.
In 2017, Standards New Zealand released Standard NZS 8510:2017 “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 1.5 μg/100 cm².
In more recent times, the 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 (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 health effects.
There have been many Court decisions that have confirmed that the level to be applied is the level expressed by the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, which is that there is no adverse health risk when levels of contamination are below 15 μg/100 cm².
In this case, the composite and detailed testing fall below the level of 15 μg/100 cm². No evidence (other than the testing) has been provided by the landlord that methamphetamine might have been responsible for the methamphetamine residue detected at the premises. There is no evidence of manufacture in any of the reports provided by the landlord. As noted above, the tenant agreed to the methamphetamine testing as part of the early termination of their fixed term tenancy.
Lastly, it is now an accepted position of the Tribunal that the absence of a pre-let methamphetamine test makes it almost impossible to show tenants caused contamination. In this case, the methamphetamine test was carried out 5 ½ weeks prior the start of the tenancy. During the hearing the property manager first stated that the premises were tenanted immediately prior to the hearing and then later clarified that it has been vacant from the date of the testing to when the tenant’s agreement commenced. If the methamphetamine testing had been above the level of 15 μg/100 cm² (which it is not) then the length of time between the pre-let testing and the commencement of the tenancy would have been an issue casting doubt over whether the damage had occurred during the tenancy. I provide this information for the benefit of the landlord going forward when considering the timing of pre let methamphetamine testing.
For the reasons set out above, I am not satisfied to the required standard that the tenant has either used the property or knowingly permitted the property to be used for an unlawful purpose.
The landlord’s claims for compensation and exemplary damages are therefore dismissed.

TENANT CLAIMS

Did the landlord breach their obligation to maintain the premises?

[The tenant/s] claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the RTA which provides that a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Entranceway
The tenant claimed the outdoor light switches did not work and an overgrown olive tree caused the guttering to block and overflow causing the wooden steps and deck to be covered in moss and leaves. They claim that the entranceway was dangerously slippery and dark. One of the tenants allegedly slipped and sprained her ankle and damaged her laptop. The tenant claims that they raised the issue with the landlord who failed to address their concerns.
The tenant first emailed the landlord regarding the entranceway issues on 17 May 2022. The property manager carried out a routine inspection the following day at the premises. An inspection report was produced the following day and shared with the owner. Unfortunately, the report did not mention the tenant’s specific issues with the entranceway. On 14 June 2022, the property manager responded to the tenant’s email concerning the entranceway requesting photographs. The property manager then shared the photographs with the owner who responded on 12 July 2022 to confirm that work would be carried out to address the issues.
The tenants claim that the work was not completed before they vacated the tenancy, and the property manager could not confirm if it had or not.
The property manager produced significant evidence of their general approach to maintenance and various other examples of where issues had been raised by the tenant and were addressed within a reasonable period of time. That aside, I consider that given the safety risk with the entranceway that it is not acceptable to not attend to a blocked gutter and slippery entranceway for a period of months.
I find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act
I consider it just to award $400.00 in general compensation for the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises.
Although this was an unlawful act, I do not consider this is an appropriate case for exemplary damages to be awarded. Heat pump
The tenant claims that the landlord failed to ensure that the heat pump was working throughout the tenancy. The tenant claims that they did not know that the heat pump had a heat function as they had assumed it only had cooling functions due to the warm climate in Hawke’s Bay.
The tenant raised the issue of the heat pump with the landlord when they gave notice to end their fixed term tenancy.
The obligation of the landlord to provide premises in a reasonable state of repair is not absolute. A tenant must notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises and the need for repair. The landlord's obligation is to then repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair.
I have some sympathy with the tenant if they endured the winter without the heat function working on the heat pump. If the tenant had advised the landlord of the issue at the time and it had not been remedied my decision would be different. However, in the absence of any such notification, I dismiss the tenant’s claim.

Did the landlord breach an obligation to complete a pre tenancy inspection in person?

The tenant states that a pre tenancy inspection was not carried out in person and they were given a chattels list to work through themselves. Whilst property inspections are important and designed to avoid problems later on, there is no obligation on the landlord to carry out a pre tenancy inspection and failing to do so is not a breach of the RTA. Did the landlord breach an obligation to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness?
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the RTA to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
The landlord stated that this claim was not included in the tenant’s application and was only being raised during the hearing.
The tenant agreed to withdraw the claim on the basis that it was being advanced on the day of the hearing. The tenant is welcome to file a new application.

Did the landlord fail to provide a Healthy Homes Standard compliance statement?

Under ss13A(1CA) and s45(1)(bb) RTA the landlord must include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards including the information prescribed by the HHS. Breaching this obligation by failing to provide the statement is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded. See section 13A(1F) and Schedule 1A RTA. 24. The tenants claims that the landlord did not provide the statement with the tenancy agreement.
The landlord provided evidence that their standard practice is to provide the healthy homes standards compliance certificate at the commencement of every tenancy. The landlord provided a copy of an email to the tenants with a link to the said certificate. Whilst is it not absolutely clear, I consider it more likely than not that the link was to the certificate and the tenant’s overlooked it. In any event, the landlord provided a copy of the certificate when the tenant’s requested it.
For those reasons, the tenant’s claim is dismissed. Filing fee
Both parties were partially successful in their applications. I will not make any award of the filing fee cost for either party. Suppression
The tenant seeks suppression of their names and identifying details.
Section 95A (4) of the RTA allows the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, to order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.
The tenants’ application for suppression is allowed because of the impact of the unsuccessful claim that they used methamphetamine on them given their profession. T Lee-Lewis 24 August 2023

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 4423603 — net $1,776.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,857.14		Rent arrears
Meth testing/Cleaning	$319.29		Meth testing/Cleaning
Compensation		$400.00	Compensation
Total award	$2,176.43	$400.00
Net award	$1,776.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,776.43

Claims and awards for application 4423603 — net $1,776.43 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $1,857.14
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Meth testing/Cleaning

Amount: $319.29
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Meth testing/Cleaning

Compensation

Amount: $400.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Compensation

Total award

Landlord $2,176.43 · Tenant $400.00

Net award

Landlord $1,776.43

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $1,776.43

Dismissed claims

Filing Fee — Filing fee
Other Claims — All other claims dismissed

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Compensation Rent arrears Filing Fee

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Elevate Property Management Limited T/A Quinovic Property Management must pay [The tenant/s] $400.00 from the bond funds held by the landlord, calculated as shown in the table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant attended by teleconference.
The landlord first applied for rent arrears, compensation, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The landlord alleges that the tenant has used the premises, or has permitted the premises to be used, for an unlawful purpose by using of methamphetamine.
The tenant subsequently made a cross-application for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The tenant denies ever using methamphetamine and claims the landlord failed to provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair and failed to supply a healthy homes certificate at the commencement of the tenancy.
The tenancy was a fixed term tenancy which commenced on 1 April 2022. The tenants requested an earlier end date of their fixed term tenancy which the landlord agreed to subject to a number of conditions, including that the tenants would pay for an end of tenancy methamphetamine test and the owner could enter the sleep out before the end of the tenancy to complete renovation works.

LANDLORD CLAIMS

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 28 September 2022. The landlord provided rent records which prove that the tenant stopped paying rent on 8 September 2022 and the amount owing at the end of the tenancy to be $1,857.14.
The tenant did not dispute the fact that the rent arrears were owing but claimed that the bond had been made available by the tenant for said arrears.
The amount ordered is proved.

How much is owed for breaking the fixed term tenancy early?

The landlord sought the cost of methamphetamine testing at the end of the tenancy. That is generally not a cost that can be charged to the tenants, since it was not required due to any breach of the tenants’ responsibilities under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
In this particular case, I consider it appropriate that the tenant should compensate the landlord for the cost of the initial methamphetamine test because the tenants acknowledged that they had agreed to pay this cost when they negotiated an early end to their fixed term tenancy.
The only reasons this has since been challenged is due to the landlord’s claim for compensation associated with the presence of methamphetamine which is dealt with separately in this decision. I indicated to the landlord during the hearing that going forward such costs should not fall on the tenant. Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy?
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. See section 40(1)(c) RTA.
During the hearing the landlord elected to withdraw the claim for compensation for the cost of cleaning the premises at the end of the tenancy. The landlord stated that the withdrawal was in fairness to the tenant as no evidence of the state of the premises at the end of the tenancy had been presented in evidence.

Is the tenant responsible for methamphetamine decontamination?

The tenancy commenced on 1 April 2022 and ended on 28 September 2022.
On 22 February 2022 (5 ½ weeks prior to the start of the tenancy) the landlord arranged for the premises to be methamphetamine tested. The laboratory results confirmed at that stage that there was no methamphetamine found in samples taken.
On 29 September 2022, the day after the end of the tenancy, the landlord arranged for the premises to be re-tested for methamphetamine. The laboratory testing report records testing of 15 samples from throughout the premises. The samples were then “composited” at the laboratory to give a single result of 7.7 μg of methamphetamine present. Detailed testing was then carried out on 11 October 2022 in the two bedrooms revealing less than 1 μg in each room.
The landlord has accordingly applied to the Tribunal seeking compensation for the costs associated with the methamphetamine testing, specialised cleaning, further methamphetamine testing following the specialised cleaning and loss of rent associated with the premises remaining vacant during the period of testing and cleaning. The landlord also seeks exemplary damages for the tenant’s alleged use of illegal substances on the premises.
The tenant denies using methamphetamine at any point. They state that they do not understand the methamphetamine testing results and suggest some of the sample photographs indicate that the testing must have been done at a different time than the start or end of their tenancy.
At the hearing I mentioned a difference in approach to methamphetamine contamination as between the methamphetamine testing industry and the Tribunal. This was largely for the landlord’s assistance and understanding.
In 2017, Standards New Zealand released Standard NZS 8510:2017 “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 1.5 μg/100 cm².
In more recent times, the 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 (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 health effects.
There have been many Court decisions that have confirmed that the level to be applied is the level expressed by the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, which is that there is no adverse health risk when levels of contamination are below 15 μg/100 cm².
In this case, the composite and detailed testing fall below the level of 15 μg/100 cm². No evidence (other than the testing) has been provided by the landlord that methamphetamine might have been responsible for the methamphetamine residue detected at the premises. There is no evidence of manufacture in any of the reports provided by the landlord. As noted above, the tenant agreed to the methamphetamine testing as part of the early termination of their fixed term tenancy.
Lastly, it is now an accepted position of the Tribunal that the absence of a pre-let methamphetamine test makes it almost impossible to show tenants caused contamination. In this case, the methamphetamine test was carried out 5 ½ weeks prior the start of the tenancy. During the hearing the property manager first stated that the premises were tenanted immediately prior to the hearing and then later clarified that it has been vacant from the date of the testing to when the tenant’s agreement commenced. If the methamphetamine testing had been above the level of 15 μg/100 cm² (which it is not) then the length of time between the pre-let testing and the commencement of the tenancy would have been an issue casting doubt over whether the damage had occurred during the tenancy. I provide this information for the benefit of the landlord going forward when considering the timing of pre let methamphetamine testing.
For the reasons set out above, I am not satisfied to the required standard that the tenant has either used the property or knowingly permitted the property to be used for an unlawful purpose.
The landlord’s claims for compensation and exemplary damages are therefore dismissed.

TENANT CLAIMS

Did the landlord breach their obligation to maintain the premises?

[The tenant/s] claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the RTA which provides that a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Entranceway
The tenant claimed the outdoor light switches did not work and an overgrown olive tree caused the guttering to block and overflow causing the wooden steps and deck to be covered in moss and leaves. They claim that the entranceway was dangerously slippery and dark. One of the tenants allegedly slipped and sprained her ankle and damaged her laptop. The tenant claims that they raised the issue with the landlord who failed to address their concerns.
The tenant first emailed the landlord regarding the entranceway issues on 17 May 2022. The property manager carried out a routine inspection the following day at the premises. An inspection report was produced the following day and shared with the owner. Unfortunately, the report did not mention the tenant’s specific issues with the entranceway. On 14 June 2022, the property manager responded to the tenant’s email concerning the entranceway requesting photographs. The property manager then shared the photographs with the owner who responded on 12 July 2022 to confirm that work would be carried out to address the issues.
The tenants claim that the work was not completed before they vacated the tenancy, and the property manager could not confirm if it had or not.
The property manager produced significant evidence of their general approach to maintenance and various other examples of where issues had been raised by the tenant and were addressed within a reasonable period of time. That aside, I consider that given the safety risk with the entranceway that it is not acceptable to not attend to a blocked gutter and slippery entranceway for a period of months.
I find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act
I consider it just to award $400.00 in general compensation for the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises.
Although this was an unlawful act, I do not consider this is an appropriate case for exemplary damages to be awarded. Heat pump
The tenant claims that the landlord failed to ensure that the heat pump was working throughout the tenancy. The tenant claims that they did not know that the heat pump had a heat function as they had assumed it only had cooling functions due to the warm climate in Hawke’s Bay.
The tenant raised the issue of the heat pump with the landlord when they gave notice to end their fixed term tenancy.
The obligation of the landlord to provide premises in a reasonable state of repair is not absolute. A tenant must notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises and the need for repair. The landlord's obligation is to then repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair.
I have some sympathy with the tenant if they endured the winter without the heat function working on the heat pump. If the tenant had advised the landlord of the issue at the time and it had not been remedied my decision would be different. However, in the absence of any such notification, I dismiss the tenant’s claim.

Did the landlord breach an obligation to complete a pre tenancy inspection in person?

The tenant states that a pre tenancy inspection was not carried out in person and they were given a chattels list to work through themselves. Whilst property inspections are important and designed to avoid problems later on, there is no obligation on the landlord to carry out a pre tenancy inspection and failing to do so is not a breach of the RTA. Did the landlord breach an obligation to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness?
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the RTA to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
The landlord stated that this claim was not included in the tenant’s application and was only being raised during the hearing.
The tenant agreed to withdraw the claim on the basis that it was being advanced on the day of the hearing. The tenant is welcome to file a new application.

Did the landlord fail to provide a Healthy Homes Standard compliance statement?

Under ss13A(1CA) and s45(1)(bb) RTA the landlord must include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards including the information prescribed by the HHS. Breaching this obligation by failing to provide the statement is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded. See section 13A(1F) and Schedule 1A RTA. 24. The tenants claims that the landlord did not provide the statement with the tenancy agreement.
The landlord provided evidence that their standard practice is to provide the healthy homes standards compliance certificate at the commencement of every tenancy. The landlord provided a copy of an email to the tenants with a link to the said certificate. Whilst is it not absolutely clear, I consider it more likely than not that the link was to the certificate and the tenant’s overlooked it. In any event, the landlord provided a copy of the certificate when the tenant’s requested it.
For those reasons, the tenant’s claim is dismissed. Filing fee
Both parties were partially successful in their applications. I will not make any award of the filing fee cost for either party. Suppression
The tenant seeks suppression of their names and identifying details.
Section 95A (4) of the RTA allows the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, to order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.
The tenants’ application for suppression is allowed because of the impact of the unsuccessful claim that they used methamphetamine on them given their profession. T Lee-Lewis 24 August 2023

Tenancy Tribunal case 4423603 — Rent arrears at 13 Hornsey Road, Bluff Hill, Napier 4110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4423603 — Rent arrears at 13 Hornsey Road, Bluff Hill, Napier 4110

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

LANDLORD CLAIMS

How much is owed for rent?

How much is owed for breaking the fixed term tenancy early?

Is the tenant responsible for methamphetamine decontamination?

TENANT CLAIMS

Did the landlord breach their obligation to maintain the premises?

Did the landlord breach an obligation to complete a pre tenancy inspection in person?

Did the landlord fail to provide a Healthy Homes Standard compliance statement?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

LANDLORD CLAIMS

How much is owed for rent?

How much is owed for breaking the fixed term tenancy early?

Is the tenant responsible for methamphetamine decontamination?

TENANT CLAIMS

Did the landlord breach their obligation to maintain the premises?

Did the landlord breach an obligation to complete a pre tenancy inspection in person?

Did the landlord fail to provide a Healthy Homes Standard compliance statement?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions