What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5105948 about?

The tribunal order states: Aspire Property Services Limited As Agent For Hsieh-Nan Lin and Hsieh-Nan

How much money was awarded in case 5105948?

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 5105948?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5105948?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11898163-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5105948 about?

The tribunal order states: Aspire Property Services Limited As Agent For Hsieh-Nan Lin and Hsieh-Nan

How much money was awarded in case 5105948?

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 5105948?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5105948?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11898163-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

7 Lewis Road, Pakuranga, Auckland 2010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5105948 — Exemplary damages

Order

Aspire Property Services Limited As Agent For Hsieh-Nan Lin and Hsieh-Nan (Andrew) Lin must pay Sacha Maree Jolly $50.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The tenant’s claims for breaches of failing to give a receipt for the bond, failure to maintain the roof and breach of quiet enjoyment are not proven and therefore dismissed.
The landlord’s claims for rent and water owed are not proven and therefore dismissed.

Reasons

This hearing was held in two parts on the 3 February and 27 May 2025. At the end of the first hearing, I issued an adjournment order, that order should be read in conjunction with this order.
Both the tenant and the property manager Ms Du attended the hearings. Mr Srhoj, who is a property manager at the same management company also attended.
This is 4-year tenancy beginning on the 30 October 2020. The tenant lived in the property with her two youngest children who were aged 9 and 12 at the beginning of the tenancy. For one to two months near the end of the tenancy the tenant’s adult son also lived in the tenancy.
The house comprises of three bedrooms, bathroom and living areas on the top floor and a room (used as a bedroom) a bathroom foyer, and garage on the bottom floor.
The tenant and her two youngest children occupied the upstairs bedrooms and living areas. When the tenant’s adult son came to stay, he stayed in the downstairs bedroom and downstairs living areas.
The tenancy ended on the 28 December 2024 after the landlord gave the tenant a notice to terminate the tenancy pursuant to s59 due to methamphetamine contamination levels which the landlord claims made the property uninhabitable. The tenant’s claims.
The tenant filed her claim first on the 27 November 2024, before the tenancy ended. The tenant claims: a. That the landlord has failed to keep proper records of rent and water and is asking for payment of rent and water which it is not owed. (s30 RTA) b. That the landlord has failed to give proper notice of an increase in rent from $700 to $750.00. (s 24 RTA) c. That that landlord failed to give a bond receipt. (s19 RTA) d. That the landlord gave notice to terminate the tenancy, knowing that it was not entitled. (s60AA and s51 RTA) e. That the landlord has failed to repair both the garage door and roof at the property. (s45(1)(b) RTA) f. That the landlord has breached her quiet enjoyment by telling other potential landlords lies about her. (s38 RTA).
The tenant claims exemplary damages in respect of the unlawful acts and compensation for the claimed breaches. The landlord’s claims.
The landlord filed their claims on the 12 December 2024. At the beginning of the hearing on the 3 February 2025 I asked the landlord what their claims were, they confirmed that they were seeking: a. Rent arrears of $1094.29 b. Water rates of $735.49 c. Exemplary damages for unlawful use of the premises being methamphetamine use. (s40(2)(b) RTA) d. The landlord also said that they intended on filing a claim for the compensation to cover the costs of the methamphetamine decontamination which had not been finalised. The landlord has finalised that claim and seeks $500 being the insurance excess for methamphetamine decontamination costs.
At the hearing on the 27 May the landlord amended its claims for rent and water having completed further reconciliations of the rent ledgers and bank accounts and water now seeking $2314.00 for rent and $431.44 for water. The burden of proof
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) their claim. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
I confirm that before completing this decision that I have taken into consideration all the evidence provided by the parties both at the hearing and documents filed beforehand.
As some of the claims by the landlord and the tenant involve a dispute or competing claims about the same issue, I will deal with those claims under the same heading. The rent and water.
The tenant claims that the landlord failed to keep accurate records of rent and water, and sought rent that was not due. The tenant claims that when she asked for rent ledgers, they were confusing, inaccurate and inconsistent with previous rent ledgers and water amounts previously sought.
The tenant said she would receive breach notices for being behind with her rent and water, when she did not believe that she was. When she challenged these claims, she says she was given rent ledgers that were inconsistent with rent and water ledgers that had been previously given to her.
The landlord disputes that it failed to keep proper records of the rent and water owed. It says that it uses software that put all of the amounts owed – rent, water etc into one ledger, and the software would calculate rent owed etc. The landlord says its records were correct and accurate.
Section 30 provides: Every landlord under a tenancy to which this Act applies shall keep or cause to be kept proper business records showing— (a) all payments of rent paid by or on behalf of the tenant, sufficient to enable the landlord to comply within a reasonable time with any request made by the tenant under section 29(3); and
The Tribunal has previously held that proper business records means records that are orderly, to a high standard and contemporaneous with payments. 1 I consider that it is implicit that the records must be accurate, and rent ledgers produced to the tenant or Tribunal must be consistent with each other. This means that any balances owed at any date, will be consistent from one rent ledger to the next, even if another rent ledger is produced a while later.
I am satisfied that the landlord has breached s30 RTA by failing to keep proper business records for reasons that include: a. The landlord provided the tenant and the Tribunals with ledgers under s29(3) as part of this hearing that were inconsistent and did not accord with previous ledgers or evidence given to the Tribunal. For example; in 2021 the landlord made an application to the Tribunal for rent arrears 2 , the landlord claimed the tenant was at 7 July 2021 in rent arrears of $651.43. The tenant attended mediation and agreed to pay the arrears at the claimed amount as per the ledger provided. The Tribunal sealed the order on the 7 July 2021. In the rent ledger provided to the Tribunal as part of the landlord’s claims at June /July 2021 it showed two payments made on the 10 June but an arrears amount of $760.00 whereas in the rent ledger provided for this hearing it showed an amount after the two payments on the 10 June 2021 as 0.00 owed. In the reconciliation documents provides at the hearing in May 2025, it showed rent arrears after the tenant had paid 1 Kumar v Capper TT Auckland TT 1004/90, 12 March 1991 and Brown v Steel DCR 338 at [19]. 2 TT4307594 the amount agreed at mediation (which should have bought the arrears to
00) as the tenant still being in arrears by $1848.56. b. The tenant’s rent payments of $780 per week in September 2022 (which the tenant was paying as she had been told by the landlord that she was in arrears at that time) is recorded in the landlord’s tenant’s ledger as $770 for rent and $10.00 on deposit. The landlord told me that the $10.00 paid would accumulate and then be taken by journal entry towards rent or water. The tenant says she never instructed the landlord to do this and thought that the landlord was taking the full amount for rent. The water rates ledger provided by the landlord at the first hearing does not show $10.00 being paid in on account weekly. c. The landlord’s agents at both hearings could not give me an explanation as to why money that the tenant had been paying towards rent (the $780.00 deposited by the tenant) had not been paid fully towards rent. There was no written agreement that this would be for water or anything else. d. Between the two hearings (February and May this year) the landlord says it conducted an extensive rent and water reconciliation. As a result of the reconciliation, it now claims an increased amount in rent and a decreased amount for water. This evidence speaks for itself, if the landlord’s records were accurate, contemporaneous and proper in the first place then I would not have expected the rent amount to have been changed. It proves the tenant’s claim that the landlord failed to keep proper business records, and that it was unable to, when requested by the tenant give to the tenant an accurate written statement of the period to which any payment of rent relates pursuant to s29(3).
Breaching s30 is an unlawful act of which exemplary damages of up to $350.00 can be awarded.
I consider that the landlord committed this breach intentionally. The District Court has held that when considering the intention of the party committing an unlawful act, it is not necessary to prove that at the time the person (in this case the landlord) knew that what they were doing was a breach of the RTA it said: Parliament's intention would be subverted if landlords were able to escape consequences for the unlawful acts involved by claiming ignorance of the law. 3
I award the tenant $250 for the breach, this takes into account the length and duration of the breach, the effect on the tenant- she says that she felt powerless and confused when the landlord would say she was in arrears when she did not think she should be, or that the amount of the arrears would change. She 3 3 TMT New Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundhal [2021]NZDC 16182. said that it felt like she had to ‘prove’ what she had paid, which was difficult as the bank was going to charge her to get a statement of the amounts she had paid. I consider it is in the public interest that a high level of award should be made as the public expects property managers to keep proper records, and that when tenant’s money is paid that it is properly accounted for. I also note that some of the rent arrears were paid by MSD- public money. When public money is being spent it is important that it is being properly accounted for.

Was the rent increase incorrect?

The tenant also claims that a rent increase from $700 to $750 from the15 December 2023 was given incorrectly.
The landlord said that the rent increase was submitted to the tenant as part of re-fixing the tenancy for another one-year term at the end of December 2023. The landlord’s position is that that the tenant did not sign those documents and therefore the tenant was on a periodic tenancy.
S24 of the RTA covers rent increases, it says: The rent payable in respect of any tenancy may be increased by the landlord provided all of the following conditions are complied with: (a) the landlord shall give the tenant notice in writing of the increase; and (b) that notice shall specify the amount of the increased rent and the day upon which the increased rent shall become payable; and (c) the day upon which the increased rent shall become payable shall be not less than 60 days (or, in the case of a boarding house tenancy, not less than 28 days) after the date on which that notice is given; and
The High Court has held that the word may in section 24, does not prevent the parties agreeing to rent increase, provided that the tenant’s agreement is genuine, not “an acquiescence of sorts’. 4 And that s11(3) does not prevent a tenant from agreeing to a rent increase proposed by a landlord.
Two later District Court cases 5 confirm that the relevant wording of s24 remains the same as when the High Court case, Anquetil, was decided.
The High Court and District Court cases mean that s24 RTA is not mandatory where parties have made an agreement to increase rent.
The question therefore is- did the tenant agree to pay the increase rent of $750.00 or did she only do so as an acquiescence? 4 Anquetil v North Canterbury Nassella Tussock Board HC Christchurch AP93/89, 30 October 1989. 5 Morrison v Kerr, 2 April 2013, District Court Tauranga, CIV 2012-070-001086 and The Susan Klein Family Trust v Cheverall [2016] NZDC 1346.
The landlord says it first told the tenant of the rent increase from $700 to $750 in a phone call on the 9 October 2023. This is disputed by the tenant. On the 16 October 2023 the landlord sent the tenant an extension of the fixed term showing an increase of the rent from $700 to $750. The tenant says she thought that she electronically signed that document and sent it back to the landlord, but the landlord says that the document was unopened. In February 2024 the landlord asked the tenant to sign the documents and to pay the increased rent. The tenant never signed the document and the landlord’s position is that the tenant did not have a signed extension of the fixed term therefore the tenancy was periodic. Nevertheless, the landlord requested that the tenant pay the increased rent and charged the tenants $750 from the 8 March 2024.
In an email of 27 February 2024 the landlord said: As per our telephone conversation last October you indicated that you were happy to sign up for another 12 months at a new rent of $750. We emailed you on the 16th of October 2023 the lease extension and new rent of $750 effective from the 15th of December 2023 (60-day notice period). Our systems showing that you haven't opened the document yet. Please can you check your junk mail and make sure you received a copy. Total missed rent increases 74 days (from 15/12/2023 to the 27/02/ 2024) daily cost is $7.15, total rent increase unpaid as $528.58. Could you please action the following:
Sign the lease extension.
update your rent payment to $750 from today and
pay $528.58 short payment for 74 days of $50 weekly rent increase.
On the 7 March the landlord sent another email saying: “ your last payment came through on 6 th march that haven’t been updated to $750 yet, can you please update your rent payment and pay $50 difference.”
The tenant staring paying rent the increased rent on or about the 23 April 2024. I am satisfied that the tenant agreed to pay the increase rent rather than merely acquiesce from that date because: a. The tenant told me that she thought she had signed the fixed term agreement. If the tenant had done so then the rent increase would have been $750.00. b. The tenant started paying $750 in April when asked and did not dispute the increased rent at that time. c. I do not consider that the tenant agreed to pay rent at $750 from 15 December, but agreed to pay it from the 23 April, when she voluntarily started to make the increased rent payments.

Is the landlord entitled to the amounts claimed for rent and water?

For the reasons I mentioned above, (the landlord’s records and evidence provided were confusing and inconsistent) I do not consider that I can rely on any of the ledgers given to me by the landlord. I cannot with any certainty or probability make an assessment of what is owed, and therefore I make no award for rent arrears or water owing.
The tenant says that she paid Watercare directly and that she should be refunded money that she paid Watercare. As I cannot rely on the ledgers that have been provided by the landlord, and that the tenant has not provided ledgers that show exactly what she has paid to Watercare either, then I am unable to say whether the tenant is entitled to a refund from the landlord for overpayment of the Watercare account.
Having taken the above facts into consideration and applying s85 of the RTA, which allows me to consider both the legal principles and the substantial merits and justice of the case, I have reached the conclusion that the fairest result, is that the tenant should not make any further payments and the landlord is not required to refund the tenant any money, in other words no one owes the other anything for rent or water.

Did the landlord fail to give a bond receipt?

The tenant paid the bond of $3040 at the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within 23 working days. The Bond Centre records show that the bond was lodged on the 25 November 2020.
The tenant has not proven that the landlord failed to give her a bond receipt. Even if the tenant had proven that the landlord failed to give her the bond receipt, she has suffered no loss, because the bond is in the Bond Centre. Did the landlord breach s 60AA by seeking to terminate the tenancy, knowing it was unable to do so?
This claim relates to a notice to end the tenancy which was given by the landlord on the 17 July 2024. The owner of the property instructed Ms Du to give notice to the tenant that at the end of the fixed term In October not to extend the lease. Ms Du tells me that was because the owner was building another property and wanted to move into his rental, whilst the build was finalised.
Mr Du sent the following email to the tenant that day.
The tenant prepared to end the tenancy but was finding it difficult to find another place to live. Shortly before the tenancy ended the tenant received a notification from the landlord setting out what she was required to do to end the tenancy. The letter also noted “we will being scheduling view[ings] to find a new tenant for your property...” the tenant was confused as she understood that the landlord was moving in, she texted the owner directly and asked him if she could stay on at the tenancy. The landlord allowed the tenant to stay on.
Ms Du says that the owner allowed Ms Jolly to stay on because agent the landlord had informed Ms Du after speaking with the tenant that there were two options: either the tenant moved out or Aspire should find the landlord somewhere else to rent. Aspire found another property for the landlord and the landlord signed the tenancy agreement for a year on the 30 October 2024.
Ms Du says that once the tenant challenged the termination notice and said that she had nowhere else to go, the landlord looked for another rental and found one that was suitable for his family, he instructed Ms Du to withdraw the termination notice and offer the tenant a further fixed term tenancy for one year at $800.00 per year
Ms Du acknowledges that the notice given to the tenant on the 17 July was incorrect as it did not fulfil the requirements of s51(3) RTA. The landlord’s position is now that the tenant was periodic at the time and the landlord was entitled to give notice to end the tenancy as he was intending to live in the property.
Section 60AA of the RTA says: A landlord commits an unlawful act if they give or purport to give a notice to terminate to the tenant or apply or purport to apply to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy knowing that they are not entitled, under this Act, to give the notice or to make the application.
This means that in order for the tenant to be successful in their claims pursuant to s60AA they must show that at the time that the landlord terminated the tenancy that they were not entitled to give that notice.
The Tribunal has had to determine many cases where landlord has given notice under one of the grounds in section 51 RTA but later changed it to another, such as when the landlord has given notice for family members to move in but later the tenants found that the property was relet. Each case will be determined on its merits and facts, but there are some common factors that can be taken from these cases: a. At the time of giving the notice, the landlord must have the intention to carry out the grounds relied upon. b. That if the grounds change before the tenancy actually terminates then the landlord must inform the tenant that the situation as changed and if necessary, retract the termination notice; c. That if the property is subsequently relet after the tenancy terminated then the tribunal should look at why the landlord has not been able to carry out its intention, and in particular will look at evidence from the landlord, as to whether it has gone through with its intention.
The landlord accepts that the grounds given were wrong (they now said this was a periodic tenancy) but argues that even if they had given notice under the correct grounds that the reasons were still valid- The owner did require the premises to live in whilst his house was being built.
The tenant says that the landlord was unable to give the notice on 17 July for two reasons: a. The tenancy was a fixed term not a periodic tenancy, and b. The landlord was not genuine in his requirement for the house to live in, and that this proven by him finding somewhere else to live and retracting the notice.
I am required to make two determinations: a. Was the tenancy fixed or periodic at the date the termination notice was given? b. Was the notice valid and given for proper reasons?

Was the tenancy fixed or periodic at the date the termination notice was given?

Having considered all the evidence, I am satisfied that the tenancy was periodic at the time the notice was given, because the tenant accepts that she did not sign a fixed term tenancy agreement – that was the basis of her argument regarding the incorrect rent notice. At the first hearing the landlord was not clear on its position as to whether a fixed term tenancy was in place or not, but at the second hearing it clearly stated that its position was that the fixed term had lapsed because the agreement was not signed. So, each party has accepted in evidence at the hearing that the tenancy was periodic at the time this notice was given,

Was the notice valid?

A notice to terminate a tenancy must be valid in process and in substance. In other words, the landlord must follow the correct procedure and meet the requirements for the reasons set out in s51 RTA.
The notice that was given did not meet the procedural requirements of terminating a tenancy at that time (s51(1) RTA) Landlords were required to state the reasons for termination to the tenants even if the Landlord was terminating a fixed term tenancy, the reasons for termination had to be given (see s51(1)) 6 (see s 51(3) RTA) Given that the notice was invalid it could not be enforced and was no effect.
Despite it being invalid, it did ‘purport’ to terminate the tenancy, and therefore is a breach of s60AA.
Breaching s 60AA is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00.
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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied that the landlord acted intentionally in that at the time that she gave the notice, she meant to terminate the tenancy. As that notice did not state any reasons for giving notice, it was invalid and not able to be given.
I award the tenant $900.00 for this breach, this takes into account the following: a. Property managers should be expected to be fully aware of the landlord’s obligations in giving notice and how to give notice correctly. b. The effect on the tenant, the tenant says that it was stressful to try and find another house, and confusing when the landlord said that they were conducting viewings. c. That the landlord allowed the tenant to stay on. d. The public interest in ensuring that landlord’s meet their legal obligations when giving notice.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the property?

The garage door. 6 At the time the termination notice was given landlords could not give 90 day no reason termination notices.

The tenant claims that the landlord failed to repair the garage door for over a year. In or about July August 2023 the garage door broke, it appears that the winding mechanism failed, and it broke the door. This meant that the door could not close properly and could not be used to open and close.
The tenant notified the landlord immediately and also told the landlord at subsequent inspections.
I was shown a photograph of the door at the hearing. It is clearly broken and cannot close properly.
The tenant sent emails in August 2023 asking when the garage door would be fixed.
On the 5 September 2023 the tenant in email correspondence about rent and water said: “I’ve asked you several times in emails I have sent, asking when the garage door is going to be fixed. I even showed you at the house inspection when you took a photo. It is important it is fixed for security reasons and all my belongs could be stolen. Could you please sort this as soon as you can, would be much appreciated.”
On the14 September the landlord sent an email to the tenant saying “by the way the owner said will leave garage door as it is , thanks”
The garage door was not fixed by the end of the tenancy.
I am satisfied that the landlord failed to fix the garage door and therefore breached s45(1)(b) RTA. The roof.
The tenant says that the landlord failed to fix the roof. The landlord says that the owner repaired small holes in the roof in June 2022 and an issue with water pooling on the roof in May 2023.
The tenant was unable to provide me with any further evidence that showed that the roof was not repaired or not repaired correctly. Therefore, I am not satisfied that the landlord was in breach of their obligations in respect of the roof. Exemplary damages for failure to maintain.
The landlord has breached s 45(1)(b) RTA. A breach of that section is an unlawful act to which exemplary damages of up to $7200.00 can be awarded.
I award the tenant $900.00 for this breach, this takes into account: a. The length of time the garage door was broken. b. That the problem was evident, and the landlord was told about the problem by the tenant on more than one occasion. c. That the tenant could not use the garage door properly. d. That the tenant was concerned about her safety and some one being able to enter the property through the gap. e. The public interest which ensures that tenants have houses that are well maintained, safe and able to be used in the manner of which they are rented – e.g if there is a garage door, that the garage door works. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment by telling lies about her to potential landlords when asked to give a reference?
The tenant claims that the landlord told potential landlords lies about her which made it difficult to obtain a new tenancy.
The tenant suspected the landlord of giving her a bad references after she had been shortlisted for a property and then the landlord told her she was not successful. To see if her suspicions were correct the tenant asked a friend of hers, Klaus, who was a landlord to ring Ms Du and see what she said. That communication was recorded without Ms Du’s knowledge, when Klaus asked Ms Du about Ms Jolly, under the pretence of having a property she was shortlisted for, Ms Du told Klaus that Ms Jolly was a ‘heavy drug user’. The recording was played twice to me at the hearing.
I asked Ms Du why she said this, when at the date that interaction had taken place, the landlord had not had the property tested for methamphetamine use during the tenancy. Ms Du said that she had become aware of a previous Tribunal decision where methamphetamine contamination was found at a tenancy that Ms Jolly had with her son, and that on her recent inspection Ms Du had become sick after visiting the property. She confirmed that she had never suspected Ms Jolly of using drugs at the property before that, and there had not been any reports of concerning behaviour by neighbours etc.
I told the parties at the hearing, and I reiterate my comments here, this claim does not shine either of them in a good light.
The recording was set up to ‘catch’ Ms Du out, and until I asked Ms Jolly about it directly at the hearing, Ms Jolly was presenting this evidence to the Tribunal as if Klaus was a genuine potential landlord of Ms Jolly’s. I also note that at the end of the recording caught Ms Jolly speaking to Klaus and they are talking about the ‘weed’ smell that was present once when Ms Du attended the presence.
Ms Du also overstepped the mark, whilst she may have had her suspicions and opinions about Ms Jolly or other people at the property, she did not express the statements she made as opinion or suspicion but rather as fact. There was no evidence to support the statement that she made to Klaus that Ms Jolly was heavy drug user and I have no doubt that Ms Du was telling other landlords the same information that she told Klaus. Property Managers need to be very careful about the information they give about tenants, that information should be truthful and based on fact not the property manager’s opinion. If the property manger is giving an opinion, then they should ensure that it is qualified as such.
As Ms Du’s statements about Ms Jolly did not concern Ms Jolly’s use of the tenancy premises, then I do not consider that they can be breaches of quiet enjoyment and for that reason Ms Jolly’s claim for a breach of quiet enjoyment fails.
I also record that I was concerned by a number of comments made by Ms Du at the end of the hearing about Ms Jolly’s care of her younger children. The manner, and timing in which Ms Du made these comments/ statements caused me concern because they appeared out of context, without any factual basis, inflammatory and overreaching. Methamphetamine.
The landlord tested the property tested for methamphetamine at the beginning of the tenancy, the results of the testing were a theoretical maximum of less than 0.08 μg.
Prior to this tenancy, the tenant and her eldest son had another tenancy together. 7 The property had baseline testing completed before that tenancy began, and at the end the tenancy further testing was undertaken that showed levels at least 4x higher than before the tenancy began. The Tribunal in determining claims about whether the tenants had used the premises for an unlawful purpose and were responsible for decontaminating the premises found:
I have carefully considered the evidence and the submissions made and I find that the evidence establishes there was at least some methamphetamine consumption during the tenancy and at the premises, most likely either by the tenants or someone else they permitted to be on the property.
Applying the Gluckman levels to this case however I find that the levels of methamphetamine consumption did not warrant the remediation works that were undertaken by the landlord, and
In view of my finding that methamphetamine was more likely than not consumed at the premises, I find that the premises were used or permitted to be used for an unlawful purpose by the tenants.
This decision was not released until the 23 February 2021, and it appears that Aspire Property management were not aware of decision until 2024. 7 See TT 4281668, decision of TT dated 23 February 2021.
Ms Du says that after visiting the property for an inspection (she was not sure when) she felt unwell, and when she came back to the offices, she commented on it, and a colleague told her that her illness could be caused by exposure to methamphetamine contamination.
Ms Du said that this raised her suspicions, but despite that, she did not have any further testing done. Ms Du said at that time she was not aware if the house had been tested before Ms Jolly’s tenancy and therefore if no testing was done, she could not say with any certainty that any contamination would have occurred during Ms Jolly’s tenancy.
It is notable that there was no other behaviour in this four-year tenancy that would have given any indication that there could be methamphetamine use at the premises. There was no evidence of drug use at the premises, there were no complaints from neighbours, Ms Jolly kept the property tidy, and Ms Jolly was in employment. There was no Police involvement with the property.
At some stage in late 2024 Ms Du became aware of the previous decision from the Tribunal relating to methamphetamine. In early December Ms Du had the property tested. Ms Jolly was fully co-operative with this process. At first initial composite tests were completed. The results of the composite tests were from a ten sample composite = 72.80 μg. This equates to the second sample being approx. 900 times higher than the sample taken in 2020. 8
Both Ms Du and Ms Jolly say they were shocked by the results. Further discreet testing of individual samples from different rooms in the house where completed, the results are 8 The locations the samples taken in 2020 and 2024 were NOT the same and therefore a direct comparison cannot be made.
Ms Jolly challenged the results on the following basis: a. That the lab report was not as comprehensive as the one she had seen before in the previous case. b. That areas tested in the 2020 and the areas tested in 2024 and 2025 where completely different and therefore not comparable and no conclusions could be reached by comparing the two tests. c. That she had no understanding of how the property became contaminated. She was adamant that she had never used methamphetamine or allowed others to use methamphetamine.
I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenant, or her invitees used methamphetamine in the property during the tenancy causing it to become contaminated. In coming to this conclusion, I cannot make any finding on who exactly who actually contaminated the premises, I make the finding that the premises became contaminated during Ms Jolly’s tenancy. I say this for the following reasons. a. The levels from the composite testing done at the beginning of the tenancy showed a theoretical composite of less than 0.08 μg compared to the composite testing done at the end of the tenancy which showed a theoretical maximum of 72.8 μg. b. Whilst the samples were completed by two different companies and testing was in different places, to the ingoing tests in each room, I do not consider that in methamphetamine contamination as widespread as this was in many areas of the home, that it would not have been detected at all in any of the 10 samples taken in 2020 9 . I note that the kitchen rangehood was not tested in the testing done on the 23 October 2020 but the varnished timber surface next to the extractor fan was tested as one of the composite sites. Given the high levels of methamphetamine found in rangehood sample in 2 taken in December 2024, I would have expected that had methamphetamine had been present in the rangehood in to the same level in 2020, then it would have shown at levels above 0.08 μg. on this surface directly adjacent to it. 10
The individual screening assessments show high levels (above Gluckman) in several areas and rooms in the house (Bedroom 3 22.9 μg/100cm2 window frame) Upstairs toilet 15.4 μg/100cm2, Kitchen Rangehood 32.5 μg/100cm2, downstairs Foyer doorway 17.2 μg/100cm2. I consider it highly unlikely that the tests taken 2020 would have returned results of no methamphetamine detected, if the methamphetamine contamination had been present at the places it was later found in.
I am satisfied that the tenant caused damage to the property by contaminating the property during her tenancy and I award the landlord the excess of $500.00 as requested.
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. (RTA)
The landlord claims that the tenant has breached s40(2)(b) RTA by using methamphetamine at the property.
I am satisfied that on the balance of probabilities that the tenants or their invitees have used methamphetamine at the property.
The use of methamphetamine is illegal (see Misuse of Drugs Act 1975). As I am satisfied that the methamphetamine has been used at the tenancy address during this tenancy, I find that that the tenant has breached s 40(2)(b) and had used the property for an unlawful purpose.
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. 9 The levels of 0.08 are below the margin of error. 10 It is notable that different surfaces and different testing sites within one room can produce widely different results. This can be illustrated by the results in December testing for bedroom
The landlord says that the owner has suffered financial hardship, stress and uncertainty as a result of the methamphetamine contamination.
There is public interest in deterring people from using methamphetamine in their homes.
I consider it appropriate taking into account all the above factors to make an award of exemplary damages of $1500.00 against the tenant. This also takes into account that the tenant has had a previous award made against her. 11 The filing fees.
Both parties have been partially successful and partially unsuccessful in their claims. They will bear the costs of their own filing fees. Name suppression.
The parties requested name suppression. I do not award name suppression because neither party has been wholly successful. There is public interest in knowing how the Tribunal determines claims such as these and there is also public interest in knowing the names of tenants and landlords who breach the RTA.
Neither party satisfied me that their own interests would outweigh the public interest, and the normal practice of publishing the parties names.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5105948 — Exemplary damages at 7 Lewis Road, Pakuranga, Auckland 2010

Tenancy Tribunal case 5105948 — Exemplary damages at 7 Lewis Road, Pakuranga, Auckland 2010

Order

Reasons

Was the rent increase incorrect?

Is the landlord entitled to the amounts claimed for rent and water?

Did the landlord fail to give a bond receipt?

Was the tenancy fixed or periodic at the date the termination notice was given?

Was the notice valid?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the property?

Order

Reasons

Was the rent increase incorrect?

Is the landlord entitled to the amounts claimed for rent and water?

Did the landlord fail to give a bond receipt?

Was the tenancy fixed or periodic at the date the termination notice was given?

Was the notice valid?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the property?