What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5093069 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5093069?

Rent Arrears: $9,600.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5093069?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5093069?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11661171-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5093069 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5093069?

Rent Arrears: $9,600.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5093069?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5093069?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11661171-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5093069 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5093069 — net $6,400.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 19 March 2025	$9,600.00	Rent arrears to 19 March 2025
Net award	$6,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,400.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5093069 — net $6,400.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 19 March 2025	$9,600.00	Rent arrears to 19 March 2025
Net award	$6,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,400.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s and tenant’s name and identifying details.
The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11:59pm on 21 April 2025.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $6,400.00 immediately, as calculated in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, compensation, rent arrears and refund of the bond.
The tenant has made a cross application for exemplary damages and compensation. Background
The fixed-term tenancy commenced in December 2023 and was due to expire on 21 December 2025.
In early 2024 the landlord obtained a routine methamphetamine test and report that showed negligible levels of methamphetamine at the property (Test One).
On 24 November 2024 a second routine methamphetamine test (Test Two) showed two laboratory composite tests were conducted and the results were: a. Test one: 5.61μg/100cm 2 . b. Test two: 5.40μg/100cm 2 .
On 12 December 2024 the landlord issued a 14-day notice for rent arrears.
On 19 December 2024 the landlord issued a second 14-day notice for rent arrears. The law on methamphetamine levels
For context it is necessary to first set out the law relating to methamphetamine that the Tribunal follows.
For a landlord to succeed in a claim for costs involved in methamphetamine testing and contamination there are two main aspects that must be proved: a. First, that the contamination was caused during the tenancy (and so the tenants are liable). b. Secondly, that the level of methamphetamine detected is likely to constitute a health hazard and therefore would entitle the landlord to claim the costs of testing and decontaminating the premises.
It has been well recognised for years, that methamphetamine contamination presents risks for people living in dwellings, when the level of that contamination is high. The difficulty has been determining what the tolerable level should be, above which the premises would be considered contaminated.
In 2017 Standards New Zealand released Standard NZS8510:2017 “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 1.5μg/100cm 2 . The expectation on landlords arising from this standard was to remediate premises contaminated with methamphetamine, to a level of less than 1.5μg/100cm 2 .
However, in more recent times, the (former) 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. 1 The report concluded that any levels below 15μg/100cm 2 were unlikely to present adverse effects and therefore there should be no need for remediation.
The matter has been considered by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper, 2 where Judge Kellar needed to determine the level that should be applied. The court discussed the conflict between the New Zealand Standard and Chief Science Advisors report and confirmed: 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 in dwellings.
In my view, this decision of the District Court has confirmed that the level to be applied is the level expressed by the Chief Science Advisor, which is that there is no risk when levels of contamination are below 15μg/100cm 2 .
This view is further endorsed by the Court of Appeal decision, Smith v Accessible Properties Limited, 3 where in reference to the Gluckman Report it states, “[w]e acknowledge that the testing in this case yielded results now considered not to raise any health and safety concerns”.
Based on the evidence presented I am not satisfied that the level of methamphetamine detected at the tenancy address is likely to constitute a health hazard. The levels identified in the composite sample are all lower than the Gluckman standard.
In addition, Test Two only utilised and presented composite testing. Even the New Zealand Standard does not support composite testing and individual sampling would be required before the Tribunal would consider the levels. Landlord’s application

Should the tenancy be terminated?

1 Report, Methamphetamine Contamination in Residential Properties: Exposures, Risk Levels, and Interpretation of Standards, 29 May 2018. 2 Full Circle Real Estate v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947. 3 Smith v Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited [2019] NZCA 38, at [16].

The landlord sought to have the claim for termination for an unlawful act in accordance with s56 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) considered first.
The landlord did not issue the tenant a notice specifying the nature of the breach for an unlawful act and providing 14 days to remedy. The landlord submits that the RTA and tenancy agreement prohibit the tenant from using the property for an unlawful purpose and since the breach cannot be remedied it would be inequitable for the Tribunal to refuse to terminate. The landlord referred to the case of Clarke v Housing New Zealand, 4 where it found there was no requirement to issue a breach notice and several tenancy cases where similar claims were made, and terminations issued. 5
Despite the landlord’s claims, as the rent well exceeds 21 days in arrears it seems more logical to first determine the issue of termination under sections 56 and 55 of the RTA.
Section 56(2) of the RTA states that where an application is made by a landlord under this section and the Tribunal is satisfied that at the time of determining the matter the landlord could have made an application under section 55, the Tribunal shall determine the matter as if an application had been made under that section.
In other words, where a landlord applies to terminate for breach, and rent is at least 21 days in arrears on the hearing date, the Tribunal must terminate the tenancy. See sections 55 and 56(2) RTA. This section does not require the landlord to have a successful claim under s56 to apply s55 of the RTA.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing of $9,600.00 through to 19 March 2025.
The tenant claims that she paid rent up until being advised of the positive methamphetamine contamination at the property in November 2024. The tenant submits that the landlord had deemed the premises unsafe and uninhabitable, and it was on receipt of that information that the tenant sought legal advice and ceased paying rent.
The tenant refers to section 59A of the RTA that states that where there is a breach of a tenancy agreement by a party, and the premises are so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable, and the tenant is not in breach – the rent abates.
Although the landlord may have thought the property was damaged to the extent of being uninhabitable, as stated above, I have determined that the property was not unsafe and uninhabitable and did not require decontamination.
In addition, section 59A(6) of the RTA explicitly states that this section does not apply in relation to damage that is contamination if regulations prescribe a relevant 4 Clarke v Housing New Zealand DC Blenheim, CIV-2008-006-22, 19 March 2008 at [38]-[41]. 5 Including: None v Mataeka [2025] NZTT 5097328; None v Pautaka [2025] NZTT 5135508; None v Lindsay [2025] NZTT 5117608. method of testing for, and a relevant maximum inhabitable level of, that contaminant.
Section 59B of the RTA would apply if the level was above a relevant maximum inhabitable level. That is also not the case here.
As a result, there is no reason that there would be an automatic rent abatement. In any event, I cannot see any requested rent abatement by the tenant, nor any correspondence with respect to a rent abatement or advising that rent would be reduced due to the premises being contaminated and uninhabitable.
The tenant also didn’t start paying a reduced rental amount, she simply stopped making any rent payments for several weeks.
As rent is at least 21 days in arrears at the hearing date and in accordance with s55 and s56(2) of the RTA, the tenancy is terminated.
I have granted possession on 21 April 2025 to allow the tenant time to find alternative accommodation. The tenant remains liable for additional rent until the vacate date.
I do note that the fixed term tenancy was due to end on 21 December 2024, and it was also open to the landlord to simply give notice under s60A(2)(d) to terminate the tenancy. Water
The landlord claimed for outstanding water rates, however, although the tenant may be liable for outstanding water usage, I have insufficient information to include any claim for outstanding water rates in this order. Claims for the cost of methamphetamine test
The landlord seeks compensation for the methamphetamine testing of $1,753.75.
As the level of contamination was lower than the Gluckman standard as detailed above, it follows that the tenant cannot be liable for the cost of methamphetamine testing.
This claim is dismissed. Tenant’s application
The tenant seeks exemplary damages for various alleged landlord breaches. These include breaches relating to the tenancy agreement, the bond, breaches of quiet enjoyment, failure to maintain, unlawful termination and unlawful entry.
Fulsome submissions have been provided by the tenant, and these have been read and considered even if there is not a direct reference. Law relating to exemplary damages
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell, 6 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 in the RTA.
Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest and, e. whether it is just to make the award.
The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the RTA.
The principle from the District Court decision of Gardiner v Upland Bay Investments Limited, 7 is that if there are multiple breaches of a particular section, then only one set of exemplary damages could be ordered for that breach.
The tenant also sought infringement fines together with exemplary damages. Infringement notices can only be issued by the chief executive in specific circumstances. See s126C of the RTA. Tenancy agreement breaches (s13 of the RTA) 6 Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732. 7 Gardiner v Upland Bay Investments Limited, DC Wellington, CIV 2014-085-13, 27 August 2014. Failure to ensure tenancy agreement signed and in writing (s13(4))
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not ensured that the signed tenancy agreement was provided to her prior to the tenancy commencing. She has detailed the exact dates the unsigned agreement was provided, signed, and returned and ultimately says that instead she received the signed tenancy agreement 15 days after the tenancy commenced.
A landlord must ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing, signed and a copy provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing. See section 13 RTA.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(4) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord submits that the tenancy agreement was sent to the tenant and returned to the landlord once signed on 19 December 2023. This was prior to the Christmas / New Year period and neither the landlord nor her representatives were available to sign the agreement. As a result, the fully signed agreement was not provided to the tenant until 4 January 2024.
The landlord submits that this breach had no impact on the tenant, however the tenant advises that she was unable to obtain funds from work and income due to the lack of the final signed agreement.
The landlord did fail to provide a copy of the signed agreement prior to the commencement of the tenancy. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where 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) of the RTA.
I do not consider that the landlord committed the unlawful act intentionally. The tenancy was agreed to, a completed tenancy agreement was provided (save for signatures) and the tenant was able to move into the property without delay. There is no evidence that the tenant told the landlord that she needed a fully signed agreement for funding purposes, or that she chased the landlord for this or any other reason. Given it was the Christmas period, and the tenancy commenced on 23 December 2023, receiving the fully signed agreement on 4 January 2024 (although not strictly meeting the legal requirements of the RTA) seems entirely reasonable.
I am not satisfied that it would be just to award exemplary damages for this unlawful act, and the claim is dismissed. Failure of tenancy agreement to include required minimum information (s13A, 13(1F))
The tenant claims that the landlord failed to: a. Include a signed insulation statement (s13A(1A)). b. Include a signed statement stating that on or after the commencement of the tenancy the landlord will comply with the health homes standards (13A(1CA). c. Include information outlining if the premises are insured (s13A(2)).
The landlord commits an unlawful act if it fails to comply with the above sections, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13A(1F) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord states that there was some confusion at the time of giving the agreement to the tenant. The tenant could not open the original emailed attachment. Since the agreement was the Tenancy Services template (found online), the tenant completed her own version. Some details were not transferred by the tenant. The landlord provided the original agreement sent by the landlord that prove this, for example, the list of chattels was not copied over.
In addition, the landlord claims that the insurance statement was provided and there was also a statement of compliance with healthy homes standards.
Although some details of Healthy Home Standards compliance were not able to be added when the tenancy commenced, the landlord engaged a company to assess the property. As the property did not have power at the time, the assessment was unable to be carried out. The landlord instead asked the tenant to provide information and videos to obtain a certificate of compliance and the compliance was confirmed on 8 February 2024.
I have accepted the landlord evidence regarding the original tenancy agreement, as this is also evident in emails provided by the tenant. I have reviewed the tenancy agreement provided, which is based on the tenancy services template. I am satisfied that there is a sufficient insurance statement as required by the RTA and this portion of the claim is dismissed.
There is also a signed Healthy Homes Standards current level of compliance certificate included, and the insulation statement confirms that there is compliance ceiling insulation. It also includes information with respect to other health home standards requirements, such as drainage and ventilation.
I accept that there was some additional information required after the tenancy commenced, that involved the tenant providing videos and photos once the power was connected. I also accept that when the agreement was emailed to the tenant it included information that was not transferred across to the signed agreement, but in my view, this still forms part of the agreement between the parties.
The RTA does not require that all the health homes testing be done prior to the tenancy commencing, just that the statement is included in the tenancy agreement.
I am not satisfied that the evidence establishes that the landlord has committed an unlawful act, and the remaining claims are dismissed.
The tenant also claims that the landlord failed to provide healthy homes information in accordance with section 45 of the RTA. The RTA requires that if the tenant requests that the landlord provide information relating to healthy homes, then the landlord must provide this within 21 days after receiving the request. However, the tenant has not provided any evidence that she requested this information, being crucial to a breach finding. This claim is dismissed. Breach duties on receipt of bond (s19)
The tenants claims that the landlord failed to meet her duty as a landlord on receipt of the bond. In particular, the tenant claims that she did not receive a receipt for the bond paid.
Section 19(1) of the RTA states that where a person pays any amount for bond to the landlord, the person who receives the payment must give to the payer a written receipt that includes specific information. The landlord is also required to forward the amount received to the chief executive – or in other words, lodge the bond.
Failure to issue a receipt in accordance with the RTA is an unlawful act and the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The correspondence provided by the tenant shows that on 4 January 2024, the landlord emailed the tenant providing copies of the signed bond form and advising that the tenant should also expect to receive a notification from tenancy services for lodgement of the bond.
The landlord has submitted a letter dated 10 January 2024 from Tenancy Services confirming the lodging of the bond.
No evidence has been provided proving that the landlord issued the tenant a receipt as required by the RTA, and I therefore find that 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 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 don’t believe that the act was intentional and was likely through ignorance of the law. Landlords are expected of course, to know the law relating to tenancy in New Zealand. The landlord did provide timely confirmation to the tenant that the bond had been lodged, and I’m not aware of any negative effects of the failure to issue a receipt.
Again, although the landlord has failed to strictly meet the legal standard, there has in my view been sufficient communication, the bond has been lodged within the required time restrictions, confirmation has been provided to the tenant, and I do not think it would be just to award exemplary damages.
The claim is dismissed. Breach of quiet enjoyment, comfort, and harassment (s38(3))
[The tenant/s] claims against the landlord for a breach of quiet enjoyment in respect of nine separate claims. It does not appear that tenant has issued the landlord any breach notices during the tenancy in respect of these, or any, claims.
The claims include: a. Lawn mowing tradespeople turning up to the property with insufficient notice (Claim 1). b. The landlord bringing an unknown person when carrying out routine inspections with specific reference to an inspection in February 2024 (Claim 2). c. The landlord asking the neighbours to keep an eye on the property (Claim 3). d. The landlord issuing unjustified 14-day breach notices – specifically in relation to pets and subletting (Claim 4). e. The landlord breaching privacy with respect to the tenant’s ex-husband, children and history in the context of ongoing family court litigation (Claim 5). f. The landlord breaching privacy with respect to discussing information relating to the methamphetamine testing and results with the tenant’s ex- husband and third parties (Claim 6). g. The landlord breaching privacy by discussing methamphetamine testing with neighbours of the property (Claim 7). h. The landlord causing financial damage through unreasonable obstruction to financial assistance through work and income and prevention of obtaining a flatmate (Claim 8). i. The landlord giving misinformation to the police resulting in a false breach of bail and arrest (Claim 9).
The tenant has provided detailed submissions in respect of each one of these claims, some of which are incredibly personal and upsetting for the tenant and I do not intend to canvas each point. I can confirm that these submissions have been fully considered.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) RTA.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". See MacDonald v Dodds. 8
The landlord submits that the landlord’s agent has always provided appropriate notice for an inspection. They say that whenever someone else has been brought to the inspection, she has introduced them, and that she has never opened cupboards or drawers as part of any of the inspection. The landlord says she cannot be responsible for any claims relating to neighbour behaviour or actions.
I have reviewed each claim and determine the following: a. Claim 1 - The landlord is entitled to access the exterior of the property without giving notice, for maintenance and other reasons. Notice is required for entry into the premises. See section 48 of the RTA. Although I appreciate the tenant’s submissions about being woken after working night shifts, there is no breach, and the claim is dismissed. b. Claim 2 – Although I accept that the tenant may have felt uncomfortable with discussions being had with someone she did not know, there is insufficient evidence to show that the inspection of February 2024 reaches the level of harassment. This claim is dismissed. c. Claim 3 – There is insufficient evidence to show that any landlord discussions with neighbours or advising neighbours to keep an eye on the property and report anything to her, reaches the standard of harassment. This claim is dismissed. d. Claim 4 – The landlord is entitled to issue 14-day breach notices in accordance with s56 of the RTA. Only two notices were issued (relevant to this claim) one for pets in June 2024 and one for pets and subletting in July 2024. Neither resulted in an application to the Tribunal for termination and it appears that the tenant was able to explain and provide evidence that she was not, in fact, in breach. I do not think that these two notices reach the standard of harassment, and this claim is dismissed. e. Claim 5 – I appreciate the tenant feels as though the landlord has been communicating with her ex-husband and/or neighbour and breaching her privacy in doing so. However, no evidence has been provided that shows that this is more likely than not to have occurred. The evidence is, at best, 8 MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010. circumstantial. Even if the landlord had communicated with associates of the tenant, I do not believe that this meets the harassment standard. The claim is dismissed. f. Claim 6 – I accept the evidence of the tenant, that disclosure of the methamphetamine results to her ex-husband and/or third parties had a significant impact, particularly in relation to her children. However, the evidence does not show that it was more likely than not, that the landlord (or her agent) disclosed this information. Lawyers for the tenant’s ex-husband instead advised that maintenance contractors disclosed the information, and this claim seems to be more based on an opinion of the tenant rather than any actual evidence. As a result, I find there is insufficient evidence to support the tenant’s claim and the claim is dismissed. g. Claim 7 – Again, this claim relates to disclosure by the landlord (or agent of) of methamphetamine testing results with neighbours. However, again, there is insufficient evidence proving that the landlord did advise the neighbours. The interaction with neighbours detailed in the tenant’s submission simply says, “we’ve heard the stories”. The landlord cannot be responsible for the neighbour’s actions, and the tenants were entitled to report the incident to police (which they did). The claim is dismissed. h. Claim 8 – The tenant claims for financial damage caused by the landlord’s actions. The tenant did need to ask permission to sublet the property. See section 44(2) of the RTA. None of the actions taken by the landlord meet the high threshold for harassment and the claims are dismissed. The tenant also claims the cost incurred by Airbnb of $4,200.00 for being required to move out of the property, however insufficient evidence has been provided in support of this claim, including a lack of a GST invoice. These claims are dismissed. i. Claim 9 – The claim by the tenant relates to police incorrectly determining that the tenant did not have a residential address, resulting in a false breach of bail and arrest. The tenant has provided the full police job sheet, which advises that the landlord’s agent had advised that the property was no longer fit to be lived in “due to failing a recent meth test” and that the tenants and other occupant at the address were meant to have moved out. The tenant relies on this as evidence of the landlord harassing the tenant. However, the job sheet goes on to say that the landlord had received information that the tenant was back at the tenancy address and that the tenancy was going through the Tribunal due to issues. Accordingly, the police did have information from the landlord that the tenant was living at the tenancy address, and I find that the landlord was not responsible for subsequent actions by police. In any event, I doubt that the landlord’s conversation with police would amount to harassment by the landlord. This claim is dismissed.
For the reasons outlined above, I have dismissed all the tenant’s claims relating to a breach of quiet enjoyment. Failure to meet obligations in respect of cleanliness, maintenance, healthy homes standards (s45)
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the RTA.
Under section 45, a landlord shall provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and compensate the tenant for any reasonable expenses incurred by the tenant in repairing the premises where the state of disrepair has arisen other than as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement by the tenant.
The tenant claims for cleaning and gardening costs incurred when she first moved into the property totalling $1,190.25 on the basis that the property was not in a reasonable state of cleanliness. Invoices have been provided.
The tenant also claims for window latches not being secure and claims that she has sought that these be repaired several times – although no correspondence has been provided confirming this.
The tenant has also provided a few photographs; however, they don’t appear to show significant cleaning required – just a few minor items. No photographs of the exterior have been provided. The tenant did not raise these issues or costs with the landlord at the time, nor did she advise that she had any issues with the property. The landlord instead provided text messages that show the tenant was happy with the property.
The tenant also claims for the cost of cleaning after Test Two of the methamphetamine testing and due to the advice from the landlord that it was not safe to live in. The tenant claims the cost of $1,150.00 for this and has provided an invoice and a police job sheet of proof that there was a deep clean being undertaken.
Breaching the obligations in s45 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 RTA.
The landlord submits that the property was in a clean state and met healthy home standards at the beginning of the tenancy. Photographs in the report from Active Testing Solutions show the property at the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord also notes the photographs showing that the windows have locks.
In addition, the landlord has provided photographs taken before the tenancy commenced, and photographs taken at an inspection in March 2025 that indicate that any damage or uncleanliness alleged has occurred during the tenancy.
I am not satisfied that the evidence shows, on balance, that the premises were not provided in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
Secondly, the tenant did not need to carry out a deep clean of the property. As I have determined above, the property was not unsafe for inhabitation, and if it had been, a deep clean would not have been sufficient to remedy the issue. The tenant decided to carry out the deep clean on her own accord.
These claims are dismissed.
In addition, I have some concerns about the invoices provided. For example, none are GST invoices, and the date of the post Test Two cleaning does not quite align with the police job sheet. However, as I have dismissed these claims, I have not considered these concerns in any further detail. Unlawful landlord entry (s48)
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice on the following occasions: a. Multiple entries by the lawnmower contractor without reasonable notice. b. Entering the property to perform a routine inspection without the required notice on 3 February 2025.
As outlined above (paragraph 84.(a), the landlord, or their contractor, can access the exterior of the property without notice. Notice is required to enter the premises in accordance with s48 of the RTA. The tenant has misquoted the legislation in her submissions by altering the words “enter the premises” to “enters upon the premises”. The lawn mower contractor did not enter the premises and accordingly, this claim is dismissed.
With respect to the routine inspection, the tenant says that on 3 February 2025 she received a text message from the landlord at 7:45am asking if she had moved out the property. On the same day, the landlord emailed the tenant to notify a routine inspection to carried out on 5 February 2025 at 2:00pm.
There is some dispute about when the notice is considered to be received. The tenant says she it was not until 8:09pm when she read the email.
Any claims of unlawful entry are disputed by the landlord who maintains that appropriate notice has always been given. With respect to the inspection on 3 February 2025, the landlord’s agent confirmed with Tenancy Services that the 48- hour notice period begins when the notice is received, not when the notice is read. The notice is received when it is in the tenant’s email inbox. The landlord says, and this is not disputed by the tenant, that she sent notice at 1pm, which would also be when it was considered to have been received by the tenant.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) RTA
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA.
I am satisfied that the landlord has given the required 48 hours’ notice. There is no further consent required by the tenant if sufficient notice is given.
This claim is dismissed. Landlord failed to notify tenant of results of contamination tests (s48(4)(c))
The tenant claims that in respect of both Test One and Test Two, the landlord failed to comply with s48(3B) of the RTA.
Section 48(3B) states that if premises are entered for the purpose of testing for the presence of contamination, the landlord must, within 7 days of receiving the results of the testing, notify the tenant in writing of the result and provide the tenant with a copy.
A failure by the landlord to notify or provide results to the tenant as required under s48(3B) is considered an unlawful act, and the Tribunal can award exemplary damages to a maximum of $1,000. See sections 48(4)(c) and Schedule 1A of the RTA.
The parties do not dispute that the Test One results, in February 2024, were not provided until November 2024. The landlord advises that they did not notify the tenant of the result of the initial screen on 16 February as no contamination was found. This was an oversight, but the landlord submits that it caused no harm to the tenant. The tenant was provided with the results of the February test on 30 November 2024 when it became clear that these results were needed as a baseline result.
With respect to Test Two, the tenant says that the Test Two report was received by the landlord on 2 December 2024, and was not emailed to the tenant until 9 December 2024 – despite the tenant following up on 6 December 2024.
The landlord says that after Test Two on 27 November 2024, the tenant was notified methamphetamine had been detected on 30 November 2024. The landlord received this result on 29 November 2024. The landlord forwarded the result of Test Two to the tenant on 9 December 2024, having been received by the landlord on 2 December 2024. The results were therefore sent within 7 days of receipt.
With respect to Test Two, I find that the report was received within 7 days and therefore this claim is dismissed.
With respect to Test One, I find that the landlord did commit an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where 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 don’t consider that this was an intentional act by the landlord, although as I have said in respect of other claims, a landlord is considered to know the law. I accept the evidence that the test showed no contamination, there was no impact to any parties through its lack of provision, and I do not consider that it is just to make an award for exemplary damages.
The claim is dismissed. Unlawful termination (s60AA)
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations by acting to terminate the tenancy without ground. See section 60AA. of the RTA.
Section 60AA states that 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 RTA.
The landlord submits that they are not acting to terminate the tenancy without grounds. The landlord detailed the reasons for termination in their termination application which remain valid for consideration of exemplary damages.
The tenant has detailed several reasons why they say the landlord is acting to terminate without grounds. These include statements by the landlord that they would seek to terminate within 7 days for an unlawful act (s59A of the RTA), and several other sections that the tenant says the landlord did not have grounds to terminate for.
However, I have terminated the tenancy for rent arrears. It follows that there were sufficient grounds for termination and this claim must also fail.
The claim is dismissed. Suppression
Both parties have applied for name suppression.
Section 95A of the RTA provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or it is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.
Section 95A(4) of the RTA allows the Tribunal, on 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, not be published.
While I am satisfied that the facts and reasoning of this decision are in the public interest, I am not satisfied that this interest necessarily extends to the name of the tenant. Upon careful consideration, I am satisfied that there are sufficient grounds, particularly when considering the inclusion of personal information relating to the tenant’s ex-husband and children, and background family court proceedings, to depart from the principle of open justice and exercise the discretion in section 95A(4).
The Tribunal also orders suppression of the tenant’s name. R Harvey-Lane 2 April 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5093069 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5093069 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions