What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5036629 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 5036629?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5036629?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5036629?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11328249-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5036629 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 5036629?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5036629?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5036629?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11328249-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5036629 — State of repair

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
Joy Hu as Agent for Weimin Xu must pay [the tenant] $18,147.00 immediately.
The Bond Centre is to pay the remainder of the bond of $500.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Justin Bruce Vernall immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant applied for compensation, general damages and exemplary damages, refund of the remainder of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord made a cross application which did not clearly state what its claims were. At the hearing, it confirmed it was not making any claims against the tenant and its application was comprised of all the documents that made up its defence to the tenant’s claims.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Did the landlord breach its section 45(1) of the RTA obligations to the tenant?

The tenants say the landlord has breached its s45(1)(a), (b) and (bb) of the RTA obligations to him.
Under s45(1)(a) of the RTA, the landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness at the start of the tenancy.
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 1
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 2 . However, 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 5 .
Under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, a landlord must also comply with all the healthy homes standards.
Breaching any of these s45(1) of the RTA obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a total maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants. Did the landlord provide the premise to the tenant in a reasonable state of cleanliness?
The tenant says the landlord has failed to provide the rental premise in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
Specifically, the tenant produced a video that shows there were mice and rats in the house and the walls as well as large clumps of animal hair sitting on the carpet in the lounge and throughout the house on the day the tenancy was to commence, being 20 July 2024. In addition, the carpet was dirty, and the house was not in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
The tenants also produced video evidence that shows the back yard was swampy and bogged down with pools of water running under the house and through to the neighbouring property, the back door lock was broken, and the house was unable to be secured and there was a leak coming through the ceiling into the kitchen that was causing dampness. The previous tenants did not fully move out of the premise for a week and kept hanging around the property threatening the new tenant.
A landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness 6 , even if the tenant has noticed the state of the premise when entering into the tenancy agreement 7 . However, a reasonable state of cleanliness does not mean spotless. 8 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31]. 6 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s45(1)(a). 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s45(3). 8 FTER Ltd v Knight [2015] NZTT Napier 1136 at[25].
A tenant might be awarded compensation if premises are offered in a generally untidy condition but cannot immediately terminate the tenancy 9 . Unless the premise is uninhabitable, a landlord is entitled to reasonable time to remedy. 10
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average reasonable bystander would consider reasonable 11 , not commercially clean 12 , spotless 13 or to a hotel or motel standard 14 . The better the premise and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected 15 .
The tenant produced sufficient evidence to prove the premise was not habitable as the amount of dog hair on the carpet meant the tenant’s daughter was unable to live in the premise due to her severe allergy to animal hair. The tenant was very specific about this when he enquired about the tenancy and was assured by the owner’s agent that there had never been pets living in the house and assured the tenant there would be no animal hair present in the house if the tenant rented it. This assurance was untrue as the day the tenant and his family tried to move in, the prior tenants had not moved out and a dog was present and running through the house. In addition, there were pet stains on the carpet that required two professional cleans to remove and dog hair throughout the house that had not been vacuumed or professionally cleaned.
The parties confirmed the premise was not in a reasonable state of cleanliness when the tenant moved in and that it was a week before the premise had been cleaned to a reasonable standard but that the lingering dog hair meant the premise was not fit for the tenant’s daughter to live in. As such, she stayed with her grandmother and never moved into the premise as when she visited once she had a major asthma attack. It is of note that the tenant had made this need clear to the property manager before agreeing to rent the premise and had been assured this had always been a pet free premise.
The parties confirmed the landlord gave the tenant a 100% rent rebate for the first week of the tenancy, and that the premise was cleaned in that week.
Therefore, no rent rebate is ordered for this breach.
I am satisfied that the landlord knew it had to provide the premise in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and had neglected to ensure the tenant had vacant possession on the first day of his tenancy and failed to undertake an exit 9 Re Grant NZTT North Shore TT112/87, 24 December 1987 at [10]-[11]. 10 FTER Ltd v Knight [2015] NZTT Napier 1136 at[26]. 11 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 12 Mills v kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009 at [15]-[17]. 13 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]; Herbert v Garton [2013] NZTT Hastings 237 at [42]; Reardon v Fahey Property Management Ltd [206] NZTT Auckland 3149 at [6]. 14 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 15 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770]. inspection prior to the tenant’s move in date to ensure the house would be reasonably clean and tidy for the tenant. The landlord did offer the tenant a week’s rent rebate and had the house cleaned within that week, just not to a standard that enabled the tenant’s daughter to live in the premise, even after the tenant had the carpet professionally cleaned twice. The animal hair was embedded in the carpet throughout the house and could not be removed.
I find the landlord committed an unlawful act by intentionally misleading the tenant about the pet free condition of the premise and then failing to ensure the premise was not only in a reasonable state of cleanliness when the tenant moved in, but not making sure it was in a state of cleanliness promised to the tenant before he agreed to take on the tenancy. The landlord then failed to ensure the tenant was aware that the premise was not pet hair free and clean and tidy until the tenant tried to move in, when it found the other tenants had not moved out and not cleaned the property.
The landlord never got the premise to a state of cleanliness promised to the tenant and that the tenant relied on to his detriment. I therefore find the landlord has breached its s45(1)(a) obligations to the tenant intentionally. The issue of exemplary damages for this breach will be at the end of the s45(1) of the RTA breaches section of this Order. Failure to maintain
The tenant says the landlord has failed to investigate and repair defects with the property brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in all the circumstances.
The landlord proved that it had addressed most of the repair and maintenance issues identified by it and the tenant on 20 July 2024. The tenant proved the landlord had not fully addressed the garage door remote issues until 31 July 2024. In addition, the tenant produced video, photographic and oral evidence that the landlord was made aware of the mice and rat infestation, the cat door that had no flap and had to be taped up by the tenant to stop draughts coming into the house and flooding in the backyard. This flooding was caused by the turning off of an old pump system, when the premise was connected to town water supply, but had not been removed. It flooded the yard, under the house and the neighbouring property when it was full, as the pump no longer pumped the excess water out and the line to the house was blocked with sediment.
The landlord argued the cat door was covered and did not let in draughts and that it was not broken as the flap was still in place and the landlord wanted to leave the cat door in place in case future tenants wanted to use it. The tenant disproved this by producing a video that showed the broken cat door at the start of the tenancy before he taped it up.
The tenant also produced evidence that the landlord never had the yard flooding issue addressed and remedied. The landlord stated she had the plumber, that fixed the kitchen flooding damage from rodent damage to a pvc pipe, look at the yard flooding issue and that he resolved the issue. The invoice from the plumber does not mention the drainage and old tank issue at all. The tenant proved the work required to remedy this issue would have to be undertaken by a drainage expert and not a plumber. I am satisfied the yard flooding issue was never addressed during the tenancy.
The tenant produced video evidence of the rodent infestation and that he had tried to lay mice traps and rodent bait during the tenancy, and he had caught at least 4 mice, but the rodent problem continued and required professional pest control. The property manager says she thought the tenant had addressed the issue and that professional pest control management was not necessary, even though she was aware of the rat damage to the pipe that led to the leaks in the kitchen and that the tenant had informed her that he could hear rats in the walls and ceiling at night and had shown her the video evidence.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied the landlord intentionally failed to investigate and repair defects with the property brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in all the circumstances, and it would be it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of exemplary damages. Schedule 1A of the RTA provides for a maximum of $7,200.00 to be awarded for all s45(1) of the RTA breaches and not for each individual breach, therefore the exemplary damages for all the s45(1) of the RTA breaches will be addressed at the end of the s45(1) section of this Order.
I am also satisfied that the tenant should be awarded the following compensation and make awards for these amounts accordingly: a. Rent rebate of $5,535.00, being a 50% rent rebate for the 9 weeks of the tenancy for the landlord’s failure to investigate and remedy the rodent infestation, the yard flooding issue and the broken cat door that was brought to its attention by the tenant from the start of the tenancy; b. $20.00 the tenant paid to purchase mice traps; c. $45.00 the tenant paid for flea bombs; d. $200.00 the tenant paid to replace the fibre box and modem; e. $20.00 the tenant paid for a spade to try to clear the blocked pipes in the yard to address the flooding issue; and f. $1,600.00 for the cost of storing the tenant’s belonging at $100 per day for seven days when the premise was not ready to move into because of the cleaning and repairs that were required and $900.00 to have the tenant’s belonging taken to storage and redelivered a week after the tenant had arranged for the moving company to bring the belongings to the premise.

Did the landlord fail to meet its healthy homes standards obligations?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The tenants consider that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation, draught stopping and moisture ingress and drainage standards.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The tenancy commenced on 20 July 2024. The landlord had an obligation to comply with all the healthy homes’ standard within 120 days of the commencement of the tenancy, being 17 October 2024. The tenancy ended on 28 September 2024. Therefore, the statutory timeframe for compliance was not reached during the tenancy.
The tenant’s claims for compensation and/or exemplary damages for breach of the healthy homes standards is dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence to substantiate the claims. The landlord provided a healthy homes assessment report which showed the premise complied with the healthy homes’ standards in 2022. Further, the landlord did not have sufficient time to ensure the premise met the healthy homes standards before the tenancy ended. Exemplary damages for s45(1) of the RTA breaches
I have found that the landlord has committed three intentional breaches of s45(1)(b) of the RTA and one of s45(1)(a). These breaches resulted in the tenant and his family living with a significant rodent infestation, with a broken cat door that had to be taped up and was unsightly and the yard being swampy and unusable every time it rained. The tenant experienced considerable periods of stress, inconvenience, and loss of the amenities he was paying rent to enjoy. The landlord offered one week’s rent relief but that did not adequately address the levels of stress and inconvenience suffered by the tenant and his family. For example, the tenant has produced evidence to show: a. His mother could not stay with him and his family after a knee operation she was to have in the first week of the tenancy as the house was not clean and tidy and required significant repairs and maintenance that took over a week to complete; b. The tenant had not been given vacant possession of the house and the prior tenants had made threats against him and his family. In addition, the door did not lock for the first week and some of the tenant’s belongings were stolen during this time even though he stayed at the house at night to try to protect the belongings that were being stored there; c. The tenant’s daughter was unable to move into the premise at all due to the health issues she suffered because of the animal hair issue and this meant the family had to live apart for the 9-week tenancy period; d. The tenant and his wife had to live with the dampness caused by the flooded yard and constant flooding under the house as well as neighbours that were upset with them as the water flooded their place and they had raised the issue with the landlord three times prior to the tenant moving in; and e. The ongoing rat and mice activity in the walls and ceilings each night that was never addressed by the landlord; and f. The cat door that was never repaired and remained taped up due to the broken flap and was unsightly during the tenancy.
I find the landlord has committed these unlawful acts intentionally and compounded those breaches by, failing to offer the tenant a reasonable rent rebate for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by him and his family.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied it is in the tenant’s and the public interest to penalise a landlord that breaches its s45(1) of the RTA obligations and shows such a cavalier attitude to the tenant’s many significant and ongoing plights. In all the circumstances outlined above I find it just to award $4,800.00 exemplary damages to the tenant, being two thirds of the maximum penalty available for s45(1) of the RTA breaches. Did the landlord provide the tenant with healthy homes standards information in the tenancy agreement?
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 13A(1CA) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 13A(1CA), a 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 as required by section 45(1)(bb) or 66I(1)(bb) (as the case may be); and including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations under section 138B(5). The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 require that the landlord provides a statement in each tenancy agreement that confirms that the premises complies with each of the healthy homes standards or why the premises are subject to any lawful exemptions.
The requirement that the landlord’s statements under 13A(1CA) be signed by the landlord is in addition to the requirement under section 13(1) that the landlord sign the tenancy agreement.
Breaching the landlord’s s13A(1CA) obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13A(11F)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenancy agreement commenced on 20 July 2024, and was legally required to contain healthy homes statements on all five of the healthy homes standards, being insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage, draught stopping and heating and it also was required to provide smoke alarm numbers, where they are located, when they were last tested and date they are due for replacement. The tenants’ tenancy agreement did not contain any of this information.
The landlord accepted it did not provide this information but gave no justifiable reason for failing to do so.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied the landlord intentionally failed to provide the tenant with the required completed and signed healthy homes statements, prescribed by sections 13A(1CA) and 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, and the statutorily required smoke alarm information, and it would be it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $750.00 of exemplary damages (the maximum penalty available), because: a. The landlord should have reasonably known it had to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 and Smoke Alarm Regulations and intentionally did not. The evidence the landlord intentionally omitted to ensure the tenants had this information even though it had a healthy homes assessment completed on 10 January 2022 and could have added this information to the tenancy agreement when the information was received and did not; b. The impact on the tenant of the landlord not providing this information is that he took on the tenancy for a premise not knowing if it complied with the Smoke Alarm Regulations and HHS and was unable to review the assessment report and inform the landlord what he considered was incorrect in the report and ask for it to be rechecked by another provider. The tenant may not have taken the tenancy if he had known the premise may not fully comply with the healthy homes’ standards or the smoke alarm regulations, but was denied that opportunity; c. It is in the interests of the tenants to be compensated for the landlord’s failure to provide signed proof to the tenants that the rental premises meet all the healthy homes standards and the smoke alarm regulations; d. It is in the public interest to penalise landlord’s that intentionally breach the law and fail to provide signed healthy homes standards statements that meet the requirements set out in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 and the smoke alarm regulations. Did the landlord fail to provide the tenant with insurance information in the tenancy agreement?
The tenant claims the landlord has not provided a copy of the insurance policy for the premises.
A tenant can request the landlord to provide a copy of any insurance policy which relates to the tenant’s liability for destruction of, or damage to, the premises. The landlord must provide a copy of the policy within a reasonable time. The landlord must notify the tenant of any changes to the information provided, or if the premises are no longer insured. See s 45(2B) and (2C) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $900.00. See section 45(2D) and Schedule 1A RTA.
He landlord accepted it had not provided the statutorily required insurance information to the tenant in the tenancy agreement of after the tenancy commenced. I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages if it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
I am satisfied the landlord intentionally failed to provide the tenant with the required insurance information, and it would be it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $900.00 of exemplary damages (the maximum penalty available), because: a. The landlord should have reasonably known it had to comply with the s 45(2B) and (2C) of the RTA and intentionally did not. Even at the hearing the landlord did not confirm whether the premise was covered by landlord insurance; b. The impact on the tenant of the landlord not providing this information is that he took on the tenancy for a premise not knowing if it the landlord had tenant insurance, what the policy covered and what any applicable insurance excess amounts applied to any damage done to the premise during the tenancy; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to be compensated for the landlord’s failure to provide the statutorily required insurance information to the tenant; d. It is in the public interest to penalise landlord’s that intentionally breach the law and fail to provide the statutorily required insurance information to the tenant so that the tenant is aware of the level of his liability if any damage happens to the premise during the tenancy as a result of any careless acts or omissions by him or any persons in the premise with his consent. Did the landlord fail to provide and maintain such locks and other similar devices as are necessary to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure?
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 46 of the RTA to provide and maintain such locks and other similar devices as are necessary to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure.
Under Section 46(1) of the RTA a landlord must provide and maintain such locks and other similar devices as are necessary to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 46(3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord failed to enable the tenant to secure the premise for a week when the prior tenants had not fully vacated the premise and were threatening the new tenant every day by sitting outside the premise for hours each day, verbally threatening the tenant and the property manager on the tenant’s move in day and again when the tenant approached them about why they were sitting outside the premise for hours every day in the first week of the tenancy. In addition, the tenant had tires and mag wheels stolen from the premise in this first week as it was unable to be secured and the premise was in such a bad state of repair and cleanliness the tenant and his family had been unable to fully move in. I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
I am satisfied the landlord intentionally failed to provide the tenant with the required lock to secure the back door for a week into the tenancy, prescribed by section 46(1) of the RTA, and it would be it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in the nature of $1,000.00 of exemplary damages (two thirds of the maximum penalty available), because: a. The landlord should have reasonably known after witnessing the threats made by the prior tenants on 20 July 2024 that it was urgent that the tenant be able to fully secure the premise on taking possession of the tenancy. The landlord could have requested a locksmith come to install a new lock the same day and did not. The lock was not installed for a week; b. The impact on the tenant of the landlord not providing him with a way to fully secure the premise was that he had to sleep at the house each night in order to try to protect his and his family’s larger belongings that were stored in the lounge until they could move into the property properly. He also lost time off work staying at home as he says the prior tenants were acting suspiciously and debt collectors and probation officers were turning up at the house each day. This impacted the tenant’s business as he had to pay for casual staff to cover him while he stated at the house to stop bailiffs taking his belongings, thinking they belonged to the prior tenants’; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to be compensated for the landlord’s failure to provide locks and a way to fully secure the premise for a full week when there was significant risk to the tenant of losing the belongings he had to store in the lounge while the premise was cleaned and overdue repairs and maintenance caried out; d. It is in the public interest to penalise landlord’s that intentionally breach the law and fail to provide and maintain such locks and other similar devices as are necessary to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure.

Did the landlord act to give notice ending the tenancy without lawful grounds?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 60AA.
Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord sent an email to the tenant on 31 August 2024, informing the tenant that it is best for the health of the tenant’s family that they move out of the premise as the testing had shown the premise was contaminated with methamphetamine and that the landlord is able to give the tenant 7 days’ notice and hopes the tenant can find a new rental house as soon as possible. The landlord also confirms in this email that the landlord will not give the tenant any compensation for the early termination of the fixed term tenancy as “the landlord has already paid a large sum of money for testing and will have to pay an even higher amount of money to clean up and the landlord is the biggest victim here and cannot pay for a problem that was not caused by himself”. I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The owner of the premise sent the tenant an email dated 11 September 2024 that confirms the tenant has been given notice on 31 August 2024 due to the contamination levels in the house and that the tenancy will end so the house can be decontaminated.
The property manager also confirmed at the hearing today she had given the tenant notice on 31 August 2024 as she wrongly believed the methamphetamine results required the house to be decontaminated and that when she had become aware the levels were not high enough to justify the giving of 7 days’ notice to the tenant, she had offered him the option to stay or go on 3 September 2024.
The tenant says on 3 September 2024, he chose to end the tenancy at this time but stated he would leave as soon as he found alternative accommodation and that may take more than 7 days. He confirmed to the landlord that he had already started to look for alternative accommodation, after being given 7 days’ notice.
The tenant stated he was distressed at having been given notice, as it had taken him 6 months to find a rental premise in the school zone he required for his two children, the tenancy had been a nightmare from day one and then he was given 7 days’ notice to find somewhere to live or have to remain in a contaminated premise that was causing him and his family to feel sick and faint. He also believed this was due to the methamphetamine levels in the property.
The tenant proved he and his wife had undertaken intensive cleaning and the landlord then did further cleaning before the methamphetamine testing was done. He says that the surfaces in the house and garage would have tested higher but for this cleaning, and he believed the methamphetamine levels were higher than the test results suggest. He stated the chemical smells were obvious from the time he entered the premise on 20 July 2024, and the structures and cameras in the garage suggests there was some sort of illicit drug activity being carried out in the garage.
In addition, the tenant says there was marijuana plants being grown out the back of the premise and that one was left behind in the prior tenants’ hast to leave the premise. Further, he says the tenant’s neighbour informed him that there had been numerous marijuana plants at the back of the property during the prior tenants’ tenancy.
I am satisfied the landlord gave the tenant notice terminating the tenancy when it did not have grounds to do so, and that the property manager should have known or found out what level of contamination was required to justify terminating the tenancy before issuing a termination notice and it did not. Then it back tracked after obtaining further information from Auckland Council. Therefore, it would be it would be just to require the landlord to pay the tenant $3,250.00 of exemplary damages (half of the maximum penalty available), because: a. The landlord should have reasonably known it could not terminate the tenancy based on the methamphetamine results and it did so before it obtained information that it had acted unlawfully. At this time, it tried to back track and offered for the tenant to stay if he chose, but the damage was done and the tenant chose to go with the termination of the tenancy and asked if he stay until he found alternative accommodation. The property manager was experienced and with reasonable diligence should have been able to ascertain whether the tenancy could be lawfully ended before she gave the tenant notice terminating the tenancy; b. The impact on the tenant of the landlord giving him unlawful notice was that he was placed in a position where he had to find alternative accommodation quickly, had to take accommodation outside of the school zone he required for his family and had to incur moving costs 10 weeks into a 12-month fixed term tenancy; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to be compensated for the landlord’s failure to give notice terminating the tenancy on lawful grounds; d. It is in the public interest to penalise landlord’s that intentionally breach the law and fail to ensure notice is given to tenants terminating their tenancy when there is lawful grounds to justify the giving of such notice.
I note the quantum of exemplary damages has been reduced to 50% because the landlord tried to retract the termination notice when it became aware that the notice had been issued unlawfully and that it gave the tenant the option to stay or leave at that time with no penalty.
I also note that the email dated 31 August 2024 is not entirely clear as English is a second language for the property manager and the owner, but the property manager confirmed at the hearing it was her intention that the email dated 31 August 2024 gave the tenant’s notice terminating their tenancy due to the levels of methamphetamine contamination that she believed to be above an acceptable level for the tenant to continue to reside in and that she had not at that time finished obtaining advice as to whether her belief was founded in fact. She accepted that she gave notice to the tenant to early and should have waited until she was sure what acceptable levels of methamphetamine contamination were.

Were the premises provided to the tenant contaminated?

The tenant claims that the landlord provided premises that have been tested and found to be contaminated, and which have not been decontaminated.
Where premises have been tested and found to be contaminated with methamphetamine, or any other prescribed contaminant, the landlord cannot provide the premises to a tenant until they have been decontaminated. Where the premises have already been provided, the landlord may only continue to provide them if the premises are being decontaminated. See sections 45(1AA) and (1AAB) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $4,000.00. See section 45(1AB) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord has produced eight discrete methamphetamine test results that show that the premise was tested on 12 August 2024, after the tenant raised concerns about the chemical odour in the house and garage. These eight test results results prove three areas in the house and one garage have methamphetamine levels above the 1.5 ug/100cm² contamination level.
Section 138C Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides for regulations to be made prescribing the maximum acceptable level for contaminants, but as yet no regulations have been made in relation to methamphetamine.
There are currently two sources of guidance on the issue of a safe level of methamphetamine contamination in residential premises. In June 2017 Standards New Zealand published NZS 8510:2017. The standard recommended a maximum contamination level of 1.5μg/100cm2 for high use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture. It recommended a higher level of 3.8μg/100cm2 for limited use areas.
In May 2018 Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the then Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor, released a report "Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards”. The report noted that there is a lack of scientific evidence to prove that low-level third-hand methamphetamine exposure poses a health risk to humans. It stated that guidelines should be proportionate to risk and that exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect. It recommended retaining the level of 1.5μg/100cm2 where contamination resulted from manufacture, due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the process.
The District Court has held that remediation should be carried out in accordance with the prevailing guidelines at the time (Diamond Real Estate Limited v Allan [2017] NZDC 833, Judge Kellar).
The Tribunal has generally applied the Gluckman recommendation. This approach was approved by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947, where the Court stated (at para [36]): “The Tenancy Tribunal was in a difficult position. The best state 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 contamination in dwellings.”
The District Court took a similar approach in Acme Realty Limited v Hogg and others [2021] NZDC 3231, where the Court referred to the Full Circle case and held that, because NZS 8510:2017 has not been adopted into law, the Tribunal was not bound to apply the 1.5μg standard.
More recently, in Barfoot and Thompson Limited v Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited [2021] NZTT Auckland 4276319, both parties presented scientific evidence at a hearing before the Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that there was no new scientific research to change the conclusions reached in the Gluckman Report.
The test results in the premise rented by the tenant are all under 2.85 5μg/100cm2. As such, I find the tenant has failed to prove the level of methamphetamine contamination was high enough that the landlord was not legally permitted to rent it to the tenant until it had been decontaminated. There is also no evidence the landlord knew there was any methamphetamine contamination until 12 August 2024, around three weeks after the tenancy commenced and around one month after the tenant originally signed the tenancy agreement.
The tenant’s claim is dismissed. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS
The landlord made a cross application on 14 October 2024 to the tenant’s application made on 11 September 2024. The landlord’s application did not clearly state what its claims were.
At the hearing, it confirmed it was not making any claims against the tenant and its application was comprised of all the documents that made up its defence to the tenant’s claims.

OTHER ORDERS

Reimbursement of filing fee

Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord has not wholly or substantially succeeded with its claims. Its claim for reimbursement of the filing fee is dismissed. Bond
The tenant paid half the bond on 15 July 2024 and the other half on 22 July 2024.
The $4,920.00 bond was lodged with the Bond Centre on 2 August 2024.
On 1 October 2024, the parties agreed to $4,420.00 of the bond being released to the tenant with $500.00 being retained by the Bond Centre to cover any outstanding water rates charges that are billed to the tenant one month after the tenancy ended.
The landlord sent an email to the Bond Centre on 8 October 2024 instructing it to release the $500.00 remainder of the Bond to the tenant. The Bond Centre did not process this request. It did not inform the landlord or tenant that it had not released the remainder of the bond or why.
On 22 October 2024, a mediator sent a Mediators Order to the Bond Centre ordering the remaining $500.00 bond to be released to the tenant to the account number the Bond Centre had on file.
The Bond centre did not process this Order.
The Adjudicator called the Bond Centre today, during the Tribunal hearing, to find out whether the $500.00 had been released to the tenant and was told that the Bond Centre required written confirmation from the tenant of his bank account number before it would release the funds to him.
The parties confirmed the Bond Centre never contacted the tenant to inform him of this or to request confirmation of his bank account number.
The tenancy had been 10 weeks in duration and the tenant’s bank account had not changed from the one recorded on the bond lodgement form.
The Bond Centre spoke to the tenant and the landlord on the phone during the Tribunal hearing, both informed the Bond Centre they had agreed for the $500.00 remainder of the bond to be paid to the tenant to the account on the bond lodgement form and the Bond Centre said that was not sufficient for the processing team to process the refund but he would sent the request to them anyway. Further, the Bond Centre informed the Adjudicator that if she ordered the $500.00 to be refunded to the tenant in the Tribunal Order, that the Bond Centre processing team would still require email confirmation from the tenant that his bank account number was the same as had been submitted on the bond lodgement form. When the Adjudicator questioned this, the Bond Centre stated that the Adjudicator should send the Order to the Bond Centre, and it may process the requested amount and send it to the tenant, but the tenant still needed to provide an email to the Bond centre confirming his bank account number.
I have lodged a formal complaint to the Bond Centre about it having retained the tenant’s money since 8 October 2024, when the landlord sent an email requesting the remaining $500.00 be given back to the tenant and then it failing to process a Mediator’s Order for the same on 22 October 2024.
I require the Bond Centre to refund the remaining $500.00 bond to the tenant immediately to the bank account number on the bond lodgement form. Name suppression
The tenant applies for non-publication of its name and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant has substantially succeeded in his proceedings, and I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenant’s conduct.
The landlord also applies for non-publication of its name and identifying details.
The landlord has not wholly or substantially succeeded in its proceedings, and I consider publication is in the public interest and justified because of the landlord’s conduct.
The landlord’s application for non-publication is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5036629 — State of repair

Tenancy Tribunal case 5036629 — State of repair

Order

Reasons

TENANTS CLAIMS

Did the landlord fail to meet its healthy homes standards obligations?

Did the landlord act to give notice ending the tenancy without lawful grounds?

Were the premises provided to the tenant contaminated?

OTHER ORDERS

Order

Reasons

TENANTS CLAIMS

Did the landlord fail to meet its healthy homes standards obligations?

Did the landlord act to give notice ending the tenancy without lawful grounds?

Were the premises provided to the tenant contaminated?

OTHER ORDERS