What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4753654 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 4753654?

The reconciled net award was $50.00.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4753654?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4753654?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11181008-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4753654 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 4753654?

The reconciled net award was $50.00.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4753654?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4753654?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11181008-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4753654 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4753654 — net $50.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
2. Bond Services is to split the bond as follows	$2,160.00	2. Bond Services is to split the bond as follows
Net award	$50.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$50.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4753654 — net $50.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
2. Bond Services is to split the bond as follows	$2,160.00	2. Bond Services is to split the bond as follows
Net award	$50.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$50.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the [Tenant] name and identifying details.
Bond Services is to split the bond ($2,160.00) as follows: a. Pay $50 to Gordon Frederick Tietjens; and b. Pay the balance of the bond to [Tenant] and [Tenant].
The Order at [2] above, is based on the following awards:

Reasons

Description of Award Tenant Award Landlord Award Compensation for Garage Carpet Replacement950.00 Compensation for Wallpaper and Curtain Damage200.00 Exemplary Damages for Methamphetamine Contamination

00 Exemplary Damages for Breach of Quiet Enjoyment and Privacy $2,000.000.00 Total$2,000.00$2,050.00 Total Payable by Tenant to Landlord$50.00
Both parties attended the hearing, the second of two hearings.
The Tenants seek: a. A full bond refund. b. Compensation for methamphetamine testing and cleaning costs. c. Exemplary damages for harassment, breach of quiet enjoyment, and breach of privacy.
The Landlords counterclaim: a. Compensation for garage carpet replacement and damage. b. Exemplary damages for methamphetamine contamination and unlawful use of the premises (drug use). Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy, including obligations regarding cleanliness, damage, and methamphetamine contamination?
Section 40(1)(e) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires tenants to leave premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of a tenancy.
Section 40(2)(a) states that tenants must not intentionally or carelessly damage the premises.
Methamphetamine contamination may occasion a breach of a tenant’s obligation to keep premises “reasonably clean and tidy” under s 40(1)(b) of the RTA if it materially affects the premises’ cleanliness or habitability.
In Full Circle Real Estate Ltd v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947, the Court adopted the Gluckman Report’s threshold of 15 μg/100cm², indicating lower levels are unlikely to pose health risks or require remediation, while Acme Realty Ltd v Hogg [2021] NZDC 3231 confirmed that the NZS 8510:2017 threshold (1.5 μg/100cm²) is not legally binding.
A pre-tenancy meth test showed no contamination.
Post-tenancy composite testing detected levels up to 2.4 μg/100cm², which were above the NZ Standard (1.5 μg/100cm²) but below the Gluckman threshold of 15 μg/100cm².
The contamination occurred during the tenancy. On balance, it is more likely than not that the Tenants or their associates caused or permitted the contamination.
In this case, remediation was not required because the contamination levels, as evidenced by the methamphetamine test results, fell below the Gluckman Report threshold of 15 μg/100cm², which represents the level at which contamination poses a risk to human health.
The Tenants complied with the Landlord’s 14-day notice by cleaning and undertaking further testing, to reduce contamination levels below the NZ Standard, though they were well below the Gluckman threshold.
The Tenants undertook professional cleaning and provided a subsequent test confirming contamination levels were reduced to below the NZ Standard.
While s 40(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 requires a tenant to leave the premises in a “reasonably clean and tidy” condition, this does not necessarily mean leaving the premises exactly as they were at the start of the tenancy. The courts have clarified that the standard of “reasonably clean and tidy” is context- dependent and must consider factors such as fair wear and tear over the tenancy. A tenant’s responsibilities are assessed practically and fairly, without imposing unrealistic obligations to restore premises to their original state.
Methamphetamine contamination is not fair wear and tear, and while the level of contamination may not have reached the required level to become a health hazard, at times the premises were not “reasonably clean and tidy” because they were contaminated by increased levels of methamphetamine contaminants, and this materially affected their cleanliness. Most New Zealanders would have reservation about renting and buying a home that they knew to be contaminated by any level methamphetamine.
Still, by the end of the tenancy, the premises were as close as they ever could be to their pre-let condition.
I do not consider it is necessary to reimburse the Tenant their costs in testing and cleaning their premises, as I view this as part and parcel of complying with their obligations under s 40(1)(b). Garage Carpet
The Landlords say cat urine caused irreparable damage to the garage carpet, requiring replacement and concrete grinding. A letter from the carpet technician engaged by the Landlords states, “[o]n inspection the carpet of the house has a flee infestation, the Garage carpet has cat urine throughout. Garage carpet will have to be removed and replaced including a grind of the sub-floor to remove odour.”
During the first hearing, I called and spoke with two carpet technicians, one of whom was engaged by the Landlords, and provided the letter referred to in the paragraph prior, the other by the Tenants. The Tenants’ technician did not inspect or assess the carpet before the Landlord removed it. The Tenants claim the Landlords denied their requests for their specialist to assess the garage carpet.
Still, I confirm the findings of the Landlords’ technician. I do not accept the Tenants’ contention that the Landlords’ technician advised the Landlords to grind the concrete foundation in the garage to exploit him and make him pay them more money. At the first hearing, the technician told me he could not remember assessing the carpet himself, but the concrete would not have been ground – his company would certainly not have advised the Landlords to have it ground – unless the smell was pervasive, and animal urine had been found beneath the carpet underlay.
The Landlord provided a quote but no invoice or proof of payment for the garage carpet replacement. The lack of an invoice or proof of payment undermines the Landlord’s ability to substantiate the full extent of the loss, but the quote serves as an estimate of the Landlord’s loss.
I accept the garage carpet was damaged, and I award $950.00 to the Landlords for replacement of the garage carpet, considering its age (4 years at the commencement of the tenancy), depreciation (8 years by IRD guidelines), and good condition at the commencement of the tenancy (accepted by the Tenants). Other Damage
The Landlord alleged bleach streaks on wallpaper, cat damage to walls, and other cosmetic issues. These were disputed by the Tenants.
The Landlord photographs of the damaged wallpaper and curtain damage, but aside from a quote for replacement of the curtains with venetian blinds, the Landlord has not provided evidence to establish the age and condition of the curtains at the commencement of the tenancy, or invoices to establish their loss.
I award $200.00 acknowledging the damage caused to the curtains and the wallpaper during the tenancy, likely during the Tenants’ decontamination of the premises.

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

The methamphetamine contamination detected during the tenancy establishes, on the balance of probabilities, that the premises were used for an unlawful purpose, specifically the use of methamphetamine, which is prohibited under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
While the Tenants deny responsibility, s 41(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 holds them accountable for the actions of individuals permitted onto the premises. The contamination levels, although not hazardous under the Gluckman Report threshold, exceeded pre-tenancy levels, indicating unlawful activity. The Tenant’s failure to prevent such use amounts to an intentional omission, satisfying the criteria for exemplary damages under s 109(3). I award $900.00 in exemplary damages to reflect the harm caused, the public interest in deterring such behaviour, and the Landlords’ right not to have their property used for an unlawful purpose, and to be free of the stigma associated with premises where drug use has occurred. Did the Landlords breach the Tenants’ quiet enjoyment or privacy through harassment or improper conduct?
Section 38(2) of the RTA requires landlords to avoid interfering with tenants’ reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy. Harassment, defined as a pattern of troubling or distressing behaviour, is an unlawful act under s 38(3). Section 48 outlines the conditions under which landlords may enter premises, requiring notice unless specific exceptions apply.
The Tenants claim the Landlords, and in particular, Mr Tietjens, made 16 visits to the premises during the tenancy (12/12/22 to 26/11/23), citing lawn maintenance.
While these visits were permitted under the tenancy agreement (s 48(2)(da)), the frequency and timing of these visits caused distress to the Tenants.
The Tenants reported feeling anxious due to Mr Tietjen’s presence, particularly following confrontations at the premises, when he arrived to do the lawns for instance.
While the Landlord’s visits for lawn maintenance were permitted, the timing and manner of these visits did cause the Tenants distress. Mr Tietjen’s conduct during these visits breached the Tenants’ right to quiet enjoyment under section 38(2). School Visit
On or about 24 February 2024, Mr Tietjens visited the Tenant’s workplace (a school) to discuss methamphetamine contamination at the premises. He met with senior staff members of the school and disclosed the Tenants’ identity and raised concerns about the Tenant’s fitness as a teacher.
The Tenants presented an email from Deputy Principal, Tracey Ker-Aim, which states as follows: Gordon Tietjens called in to school on Friday, 24 th November and asked to meet with Cameron. Cameron was unavailable so he met with Adam and myself. His purpose for the visit was to express an unease he had about his rental property and tenant - being you and your partner. Gordon felt obliged to tell the school his rental property had been meth tested and come back positive and therefore there was potential for one of our teachers to be involved in drug use. He said he has an association with the school, and knows Cameron, so felt it was his duty to let us know. During the conversation Gordon shared a part of text exchange that had happened between you and him - stating a disagreement about the time he could enter the property being only 45 hours and not 48 hours. He said from his perspective the property had not been looked after, and that the neighbours had complained about a smell from the property. He stated you had been difficult tenants to deal with. I explained to Gordon that information about your tenancy and the property were nothing to do with the school. I thanked him for sharing his concern.
I attempted to phone Ms Ker-Aim during the hearing to confirm her statement, but she was unavailable.
I allowed Mr Tietjens to explain his side of the story. He claims the relationship with the Tenants started poorly, as they ordered him off the property early on and they did not get along “from the beginning.”
Mr Tietjens states he felt obligated to inform the school (where one tenant works) about methamphetamine contamination found at the property, given his connection to the school, and his belief that the school should be concerned about drug use by a staff member.
Initially, Mr Tietjens justified his actions as a moral obligation to inform the school of potential drug use by a teacher who was tasked with caring for school students.
The Landlord added that he knew the school principal well, as he supplied the school with sports equipment, and worried that the principal would find out about the Tenant’s situation from another member of the school body he had talked to about her.
I contacted Mr Broach, a deputy principal at the school, who confirmed that Mr Tietjens had visited the school with his concerns. His recollection generally aligned with Ms Kerr-Aim’s letter, though it was less organised, and he did not mention Mr Tietjens having shown them a text message concerning his having given the Tenants 45 hours (43 hours according to the Tenants’ claim), instead of 48 hours’ notice. I note my call was unanticipated, but not unwelcomed. I asked Mr Broach if he found the following statement in Ms Ker-Aim's letter balanced and reflective of the school's actual level of concern: I explained to Gordon that information about your tenancy and the property were nothing to do with the school.
He confirmed the information received from Mr Tietjens was of concern to the school and was acted upon, but Ms Ker-Aim’s letter did appear to understate the level of concern in her letter to the Tenant teacher. He confirmed there were meetings between the Tenant and school management, but I observed from the Tenant’s advice to Mr Broach as the call took place, meetings did occur, by Mr Broach himself was not involved in those meetings. Overall, I did not find Ms Ker-Aim’s letter to present a balanced view of the concerns Mr Tietjen’s raised, but given its overall consistency with Mr Broach’s evidence, I accept Mr Tietjen’s did, in fact, show the text from the Tenants declining his entry for inspection.
This is a key part of the Tenants’ claim. The Tenants maintain Mr Tietjen’s visit to the school occurred shortly after he was denied entry to the property, and that he was frustrated and acted not out of duty, but in a retaliatory way. Mr Tietjen’s open disclosure of the Tenants’ text declining entry tends to nullify this argument in my view, as it shows Mr Tietjen’s concerns were heightened by the Tenants’ refusal to grant access and he acted with transparency.
After the Tenant had said this, however, Mr Tietjens immediately, but calmly, interjected, stating, he had been frustrated over the Tenants declining entry for his inspection and denying access to address the flea infestations and damage to the premises, but he added that he also felt it was the right thing to do.
Consequently, Mr Tietjens acknowledges frustration but denies ill intent.
As to propensity, the Tenant highlights ongoing text communications and allegations of property damage even weeks after the tenancy ended. Three weeks after the tenancy ended, on 12 December 2024, the Landlords sent a text message messages to the Tenants, alleging additional damage and dishonesty as follows: “Nicole just for your information the spare room is a disgrace with you both trying to hide damage done to the bedroom wall by covering the damage with unmatched wallpaper. The same room Nicole you fell and broke the light switch. I suppose that’s what meth does to you and more photos have now been filed in our cross application. Excessive damage to the lounge wallpaper also. Note this was new when you moved into the property. Streaks of bleach observed and possibly happened when you employed a professional cleaner to remove the meth from the property. He has photos and will confirm with me tomorrow. Cat damage also to wallpaper also confirmed. The curtains will be assessed tomorrow. Quite embarrassing really for two individuals who continually tell lies and I am so looking forward to the tribunal hearing.”
Phrases like “I suppose that’s what meth does to you” and “Quite embarrassing really for two individuals who continually tell lies” demonstrate an emotional and bitter tone, which could support the argument that the Landlord harboured ill will toward the Tenants.
The message was sent weeks after the visit and occurred in a different context, specifically in response to ongoing disputes about property damage. The inflammatory tone, while unprofessional, reflects frustration over the tenancy rather than a predisposition to act in a retaliatory or vengeful manner. The school visit, on the other hand, was framed by the Landlord as a moral obligation to inform the school about potential concerns regarding methamphetamine contamination. Without additional evidence of similar conduct, the text message is an isolated incident, quite removed from the context of the school visit, and insufficient to establish a tendency or pattern of retaliation on balance.
Mr Tietjen’s disclosure to the school was unprofessional. The Tenant claims this breach caused her reputational harm and breached section 38(2). While the Landlord argued he was acting in the school’s interest, he was also acting in frustration after the Tenant had denied him access to the premises, and his message on 12 December 2024, further demonstrates a pattern of unnecessary interference with the Tenants’ privacy.
Considering the Landlord’s conduct in totality, I find the Landlord did breach the Tenants’ quiet enjoyment and privacy under section 38(2), constituting an unlawful act under section 38(3).

Are exemplary damages warranted for breaches of quiet enjoyment and privacy?

Section 109(3) of the RTA allows exemplary damages where an unlawful act is established. The Tribunal must consider the intent, effect on the other party, the interests of the parties, and the public interest.
The Landlord’s actions, particularly the disclosure to the school, were deliberate, unnecessary and escalatory steps taken mainly in frustration. His frustration is understandable, to a point, as there had been methamphetamine contamination at his property, and he felt the Tenants had hidden this fact from him and were preventing him from taking back control of the premises. The close, temporal connexion between his drive back from Auckland and the Tenants declining his request for entry, and his spontaneous evidence during the hearing, indicate to me that his actions were, more likely than not, a product of his frustration.
The Landlord’s intemperate behaviour caused significant distress and reputational harm to the Tenants. The Tenant present at the hearing mentioned how others among the school body knew of Mr Tietjen’s visit and of his allegations against her, and this affected her on a personal and professional level.
Landlords must respect tenants’ privacy and avoid overstepping their authority. Exemplary damages are designed to reinforce the parties obligations and deter this kind of behaviour.
Exemplary damages of $2,000.00 are awarded to the Tenants for breaches of quiet enjoyment and privacy.
I grant the Tenants’ request for name suppression. I have not found them directly responsible for the methamphetamine contamination at the premises but have held them responsible pursuant to s 41(1) of the Act. I consider the prejudice to them in having their names on a public database in connection with the events which transpired during this tenancy, without obvious proof showing them to have used drugs at the premises, would outweigh the public interest in having their names and identifying details published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4753654 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4753654 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

Are exemplary damages warranted for breaches of quiet enjoyment and privacy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

Are exemplary damages warranted for breaches of quiet enjoyment and privacy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions