What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5234697 about?

The tribunal order states: [The [The tenant/s] (also known as Stephanie Marie Salter) and [The [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $11,121.57 immediately, calculated as shown in

How much money was awarded in case 5234697?

Compensation: $239.00 awarded to landlord; Contribution To Reinstatement Of The…: $1,292.31 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,800.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $4,688.26 awarded to landlord; Skip Bin: $375.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5234697?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Property damage, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5234697?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12249813-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5234697 about?

The tribunal order states: [The [The tenant/s] (also known as Stephanie Marie Salter) and [The [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $11,121.57 immediately, calculated as shown in

How much money was awarded in case 5234697?

Compensation: $239.00 awarded to landlord; Contribution To Reinstatement Of The…: $1,292.31 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,800.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $4,688.26 awarded to landlord; Skip Bin: $375.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5234697?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Property damage, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5234697?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12249813-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

78B Koraha Road, Kumeu, RD 2, Kumeu 0892 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5234697 — Exemplary damages

Tenantcheck Insights

78B Koraha Road, Kumeu, RD 2, Kumeu 0892 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5234697 — Exemplary damages | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5234697 — net $11,121.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages- Failure to reinstate premise at the end of tenancy following minor modifications	$1,500.00		d intentionally did not. I find it would be just to require the landlord to pay $1,500.00 in exemplary damages (the maximum penalty available) for the proven b…
Contribution to reinstatement of the hedges (25 of cost	$1,292.31		Contribution to reinstatement of the hedges (25 of cost
Exemplary damages-Interference with smoke alarm	$1,000.00		breach was intentional and that it would be just to require the tenants to pay $1,000.00 in exemplary damages (25% of the maximum penalty available) for the pr…
Compensation- Garden Shed	$239.00		Garden Shed
Exemplary damages- breach of landlord's other tenants and neighbours peace, comfort and privacy	$3,000.00		oyment was intentional and that it would be just to require the landlord to pay $3,000.00 in exemplary damages (the maximum penalty available) for the proven b…
Compensation- Lawn damage	$4,688.26		Lawn damage
Exemplary damages- using premise for unlawful purpose	$1,800.00		using premise for unlawful purpose
Skip bin	$375.00		Skip bin
Meth testing/Cleaning: Decontamination and testing costs- insurance excess	$500.00		Meth testing/Cleaning: Decontamination and testing costs- insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages: Breach of quiet enjoyment		$2,000.00	61. I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay $2,000.00 in exemplary damages (two thirds of the maximum penalty available) for the two pro…
Total award	$14,421.57	$2,000.00
Net award	$11,121.57
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$11,121.57

Claims and awards for application 5234697 — net $11,121.57 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Exemplary damages- Failure to reinstate premise at the end of tenancy following minor modifications

Amount: $1,500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: d intentionally did not. I find it would be just to require the landlord to pay $1,500.00 in exemplary damages (the maximum penalty available) for the proven b…

Contribution to reinstatement of the hedges (25 of cost

Amount: $1,292.31
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Contribution to reinstatement of the hedges (25 of cost

Exemplary damages-Interference with smoke alarm

Amount: $1,000.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: breach was intentional and that it would be just to require the tenants to pay $1,000.00 in exemplary damages (25% of the maximum penalty available) for the pr…

Compensation- Garden Shed

Amount: $239.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Garden Shed

Exemplary damages- breach of landlord's other tenants and neighbours peace, comfort and privacy

Dismissed claims

Reimbursement Pf Overcharged Power — for lack of sufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. Did the landlord breach the tenants’ quiet enjoyment/privacy?
Water And Power Arrears

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Exemplary damages Filing Fee Cleanliness Property damage Replace Smoke Alarms

Order

[The [The tenant/s] (also known as Stephanie Marie Salter) and [The [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $11,121.57 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,300.00 (5677245-003) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 4 August 2025. [The [The tenant/s] and [The [The tenant/s] appeared as representatives for the landlord and [The [The tenant/s] appeared for both tenants.
The tenants applied for compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord made a cross application for rent arrears, compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
The tenancy commenced on 7 October 2024 and ended on 1 April 2025 after the Tribunal issued an interim order on 4 April 2025, that held the landlord’s 30 January 2025 notice terminating the tenancy was valid and not retaliatory. The Tribunal also issued the landlord a possession order.
On 1 April 2025, the tenants applied for a rehearing of this interim Order, which was dismissed on 4 April 2025. This processed caused some delay in the landlord gaining vacant possession of the premise.
The property consists of a main dwelling and a minor dwelling located on a hectare of land. The dwellings share a driveway.
The main and minor dwelling are located next to one another with a hedge between them for privacy.
The tenants resided in the minor dwelling. The landlord, her husband, Mr and Mrs Tuigamala and their two young children and another adult in his 20’s reside in the main dwelling. Mr and Mrs Tuigamala had resided in the minor dwelling up until the tenants moved in, they relocated their family to the main house and rented a self-contained portion of the main dwelling that was located immediately adjacent to the minor dwelling.
Mrs Tuigamala is the landlord’s daughter. She and her husband agreed to assist her mother to advertise and manage the tenants’ tenancy as it was too much for her mother to cope with. Mr Smith confirmed that it was Mrs Tuigamala that they had met when they answered the advertisement for the renting the minor dwelling and almost all the emails and other communications between the parties come from or too Mrs Tuigamala. The 14-day notices are also all issued by Mrs Tuigamala. 5234697 and 51765123
At the hearing, Mr Smith challenged Mr and Mrs Tuigamala’s standing to represent Ms Ah Colt at the hearing and their standing to manage the premise on Ms Ah Colt’s behalf during the tenancy.
Ms Ah Colt had given Mr and Mrs Tuigamala her consent to act on her behalf in relation to this tenancy and that was made clear to the tenants from the beginning of the tenancy. There is no evidence that this became an issue for the parties until Mrs Tuigamala began issuing 14-day notices for various tenant breaches of their tenancy related obligations.
Over the course of the tenancy, the Tuigamala’s claim they and their children were exposed to the tenants’ antisocial behaviours and they witnessed the damage they say the tenants did to the house and yard. Mr Ah Colt also spoke directly to the tenants from time to time about various tenancy related breaches he wanted remedied, which further antagonised the tenants and strained the relationship between the tenants and the landlord.
The resulting claims made by the parties to the Tribunal are examined below. I commence with the tenants’ claims, as their application was made on 27 February 2025, a few months before the landlord’s 15 April 2025 cross application.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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 5234697 and 51765124 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.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary damages
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded.
Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional. Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Did the landlord fail to keep proper business records?

[The [The tenant/s] (also known as Stephanie Marie Salter) and [The [The tenant/s] claim the landlord has not kept records of rent and bond paid.
A landlord must keep proper business records showing details of all rent payments and any bond paid by the tenant. See section 30(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $350.00. See section 30(2) and Schedule 1A RTA).
The landlord provided accurate rent and bank records that show when the bond was paid and when rent payments were made. The bank records and the rent 5234697 and 51765125 records reconcile and there was no evidence provided by the tenants that proves the landlord failed to keep proper business records.
The claim is dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities.

Did the landlord fail to correctly allocate power consumption bills to the tenants?

The tenants say they were billed for fifty percent of the power consumption for the two dwellings and queried the arrangement and asked for separate power bills to be given to them each month. They confirmed they received an invoice for their power consumption each month, but stated they never received a copy of any actual power bill issued by the main power provider. The tenants believe they have been charged for more than the power they have consumed and want to be refunded for the overpayment of power.
Section 39(3) of the RTA states that “the tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities”.
The landlord therefore cannot charge the tenant for the fixed fees for accessing these utilities and cannot charge the tenant for consumption where he cannot prove the cost was exclusively attributable to the tenant. The landlord’s claim for water and power arrears is dismissed.
The landlord confirmed the minor dwelling has a separate power meter and that the tenants were only billed for their consumption. The landlord also confirmed it provided the tenants with an invoice each month the detailed the consumption and the power rate charged by the power provider that month. These invoices clearly show the tenants were not overcharged for their consumption and that they were never charged for any fixed costs.
I am satisfied the tenants have not been overcharged for power consumption. While the evidence shows there was one power bill issued from the main power provider, these bills clearly show the tenants separate consumption and the current power rate being charged. The invoices issued to the tenants have been derived from this information and are accurate.
The tenants claim for reimbursement pf overcharged power is dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. Did the landlord breach the tenants’ quiet enjoyment/privacy?
[The [The tenant/s] (also known as Stephanie Marie Salter) and [The [The tenant/s] claim the landlord has harassed them and breached their privacy and quiet enjoyment of the premises. 5234697 and 51765126
Section 38 of the RTA confirms that the tenant “shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord”, and further at subsection 2 that the landlord “shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.”
The RTA further confirms that contravention of section 38(2) in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, is declared to be 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.
The term “Harassment” is not defined in the Act. It is defined in s 3 of the Harassment Act 1997 which deals with harassment in the context of either a criminal charge or the making of a restraining order against a person. However, Judge Harland in MacDonald v Dodds (CIV-2009-019-1524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010), considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was more appropriate in the context of s 38(3), rather than the definition in the Harassment Act. The Court in that case adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or exhaust”. The Judge accepted that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person.
In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “harass” is defined as “torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation”. Further assistance can be obtained from the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary where harassment is defined as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
From these definitions, it seems that there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However, in Whatiura v Shoulder (Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987) the Adjudicator noted that “although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.”
The tenants confirmed that the basis for this claim are incidents that occurred on 9, 20 and 25 January 2025. 9 January 2025
The tenants state the landlord’s husband came right up to the sliding door of the minor dwelling, on 9 January 2025, while they were inside. They confirmed him having “jumped up on the deck” and “having a go at them” about the hedging damage on the driveway and between the dwellings, and about them having 5234697 and 51765127 blocked off the front of the house with a bamboo structure, akin to a gate, that the landlord confirmed “had a keep out sign plastered on it”.
The tenants recall Mr Ah Colt commenting that he thought Mr Smith “is sick, needs help and has serious problems” because of the way he had dug up the yard, constructed various bamboo structures around the property, smashed up the garden shed and focused cameras on Mr Ah Colt’s family members when they were within view of the minor dwelling.
The tenants produced an audio recording of this altercation.
The landlord says Mr Ah Colt was going past the minor dwelling to get to the main house that day when he noticed the bamboo gate structure with the keep out sign on it and another bamboo fence like structure that had been erected after a text message had been sent to the tenants not to do any more damage to the property and not to make anymore modifications to the garden.
The tenants claim Mr Ah Colt also said “your killing everything, this has taken 10 years to grow”.
The landlord stated that Ms Peach (also known as Ms Salter) told Mr Ah Colt she was a lawyer and that tenants were not he was frustrated that the tenants did not take account of the damage they had done to the yard and hedges. The landlord accepts that Mr Ah Colt should not have gone to the tenants dwelling and confronted them and that he did not use appropriate language in what can only be described as a series of emotional outbursts.
I find that the tenants have provided sufficient evidence to prove their claim on the balance of probabilities that the landlord intentionally breached their quiet enjoyment of the premise on 9 January 2025 and that it would be appropriate to make an award of exemplary damages for this unlawful act. The quantum of exemplary damages for the landlord’s breaches of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment/privacy addressed at the end of this section of the Order. 19 and 20 January 2025
On 19 January 2025, the tenants say the landlord had asked them to return a shovel and hose. Mr Smith accepted that things were tense between the parties at this time and he may have started shouting and yelling at the intrusion and demand being made.
The tenants say at 6:00am on 20 January 2025, the landlord and her husband breached their privacy and their quiet enjoyment of the property when they came to the tenants’ door and aggressively demanded Mr Smith move his car from off the grass area that was not permitted for parking. The tenants produced an audio recording of this altercation.
The landlord says the tenants have plenty of allocated parking spaces for their one car and a trailer and there is no need and no excuse for Mr Smith to park on the grass. Further, they say that they became frustrated and annoyed when they 5234697 and 51765128 found Mr Smith’s car on the grass that morning as they were dropping off the bins.
Ms Peach ( also known as Ms Salter) sent an email complaint to Mrs Tuigamala at 8:49am the same day. It says: “I am writing to you regarding an incident that occurred this morning, at approximately 6:00 AM. Your husband came to the door quite aggressively, demanding that we move our vehicle from the grass. He stated that if we did not move the vehicle immediately, he would be towing it. He was using violent profound language also this is not the first time he has harassed us and approached us by coming onto the property unlawfully with no consent or approval. This has had quite a big impact on our 2-year-old daughter whom is now scared to be here This was a very upsetting and inappropriate way to handle the situation. We were startled awake by the loud banging on our door and his aggressive tone. This incident has caused us significant distress and disrupted our right to quiet enjoyment of the property. We would appreciate it if you could address this matter with your husband and ensure that such behaviour does not occur again. We are respectful tenants and have always made every effort to maintain a good relationship with you and your family. We look forward to your prompt response to this matter.”.
The landlord says the s56 of the RTA 14-day notice led to this altercation, along with text messages and emails between the parties. Further, the landlord says that since the tenants were given notice the Ah Colt family would be using the grassy area for parking during their family Christmas function, the tenants kept parking on the grass, eve after being asked not to do so.
The landlord accepts that the language used cannot be condoned but notes the tenants swore at the landlord party as well.
I find that the tenants have provided sufficient evidence to prove their claim on the balance of probabilities that the landlord intentionally breached their quiet enjoyment of the premise on 19 and 20 January 2025 and that it would be appropriate to make an award of exemplary damages for this unlawful act. The quantum of exemplary damages for the landlord’s breaches of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment/privacy addressed at the end of this section of the Order. 25 January 2025
The tenants say there were approximately 10 cars parked on the grass out the front of their dwelling on 25 January 2025 because of a gathering for Mr and Mrs Tuigamala’s child’s birthday. Mr Smith states he had his kids staying that weekend they could not play outside because of all the cars.
The landlord accepts this was an inconvenience, but says it was one day for a few hours and the tenants were forewarned of the gathering.
I do not find that this issue is a breach of the tenants’ privacy or quiet enjoyment of the premise. It is a reasonably foreseeable issue arising from time to time when 5234697 and 51765129 the parties lived on the same property and shared the same driveway and land around the premises.
Mr Smith produced a series of photographs that he had taken on 25 January 2025 and 6 March 2025 that show cars around the back of the premises on the grass. These photographs include pictures of Mr and Mrs Tuigamala’s friends and family. At the bottom of these screen shotted photographs filed in the Tribunal, Mrs Tuigamala noted that there are as series of pornographic screens open that show pornographic images and writing about virgins. Mrs Tuigamala was most upset that Mr Smith was viewing these images at the same time as viewing this pornographic material and stated that she was extremely concerned that he had been photographing her young family members and friends and was concerned about the purpose for him taking and storing these images.
I find that the tenant has not provided sufficient evidence to prove the landlord breached his privacy or quiet enjoyment on 25 January 2025 on the balance of probabilities and dismiss it accordingly. Should exemplary damages be awarded for the landlord’s proven intentional breaches of the tenants privacy/quiet enjoyment?
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 would be just to require the landlord to pay $2,000.00 in exemplary damages (two thirds of the maximum penalty available) for the two proven breaches above because: a. The landlord knew the tenants were uncomfortable with them coming to the premises uninvited and raising issues with them or carrying out tasks that they had not informed the tenants they were going to do or even why they were there; b. The tenants felt harassed and like they were under the constant observation of the landlord and her nominated representatives, and that the owner and her family were disrespectful of the tenants’ desire for peace, privacy and quiet enjoyment of the property they were paying rent for; c. it is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the breach of privacy caused; and d. it is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations to allow tenants to have quiet enjoyment of their home and privacy. 5234697 and 517651210 LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 1 April 2025. The landlord provided rent records and which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $975.00.
The tenants accepted liability for these rent arrears and Mr Smith paid this amount to the landlord during the hearing. The landlord confirmed receipt of the money, so no award has been made in this Order for rent arrears.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord proved she had to hire a skip bin to dispose of the garden waste and other rubbish the tenants left behind at the end of the tenancy.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 5234697 and 517651211
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord claims the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Damage to the lawns/grass from the tenants digging holes and trenches; b. Damage to the hedges by jamming bamboo structures into the hedging; and c. Removal of the garden shed without consent and demolishing it and leaving it for the landlord to dispose of.
The tenants say the lawn work they were doing was to add value to the property, they were creating gardens, and if the landlord had let them finish the work it would have improved the properties landscaping. Further, the tenants say the hedges were already damaged and dying off at the start of the tenancy and they produced photographs to prove that claim.
I am satisfied that the damage to the garden shed, and the lawns were intentional and more than fair wear and tear. The tenants did not disprove liability for this damage.
The tenants have disproven liability for some of the damage to the hedges, but the evidence proves the tenants installation of unconsented structures in the yard have contributed to the decline in condition of the hedging plants. The tenants have had a quote for $5,169.25 to restore the hedges. I find that the tenants should be held responsible for 25% of this cost, being $1,292.31. Although this work has not yet been undertaken, I am satisfied that it will be undertaken once the landlord has the fund to do it as the lack of these hedges is causing privacy issues between the main and minor dwelling. At present the landlord’s family members are residing in the minor and main dwelling, but the minor dwelling will not be able to be rented in the future until the hedges have been replanted and matured.
The amounts ordered are proved. 5234697 and 517651212
I have considered betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Did the tenants fail to reinstate premise at the end of tenancy following minor modifications?
The landlord says the tenants failed to reinstate the premise to its original condition at the end of the tenancy following minor modifications.
Section 42B(4) of the RTA states: “If a minor change is made in accordance with a request under section 42A, the tenant must, on or before the expiry of the tenancy, return the premises to a condition that is substantially the same as the condition that the premises were in before the minor change was made”.
Section 42B(6) of the RTA confirms that failure to comply with s42B(4) is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00 may be awarded.
The tenants erected a bamboo clothesline, dug up the lawn, erected a bamboo gate at the front of the premise and erected some other bamboo structures. None of these modifications were removed nor was the premise returned to the same condition prior to the modifications having been made.
The tenants were asked to remove these modifications and to reinstate the premise back to the condition it was in prior to these modifications being made. The photographic evidence provided shows they did not do so.
I find the tenants have 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 tenants knew they were required to return areas of the premise they had made minor modifications to back to the original condition and intentionally did not. I find it would be just to require the landlord to pay $1,500.00 in exemplary damages (the maximum penalty available) for the proven breaches above because: 5234697 and 517651213 a. The tenants made these modifications with consent and then failed to restore the premise back to its original condition at the end of the tenancy despite being asked to do so; b. The landlord has been left to remedy these intentional breaches at the end of the tenancy and that has delayed family members being able to move into the premise; c. It is in the interests of the landlord to receive exemplary damages for the tenants deliberate failure to return the premises to a condition that is substantially the same as the condition that the premises were in before the minor changes were made; and d. it is in the public interest for tenants to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations to return the premises to a condition that is substantially the same as the condition that the premises were in before the minor changes were made. Did the tenants disturb their neighbours and breach the neighbours quiet enjoyment of the premise?
The landlord claims the tenants have disturbed their neighbours who are also the landlord’s other tenants who are renting a self-continued part of the main dwelling, right next to the minor dwelling.
A tenant must not cause or permit interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the landlord's other tenants or of anyone else living in the neighbourhood. See section 40(2)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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 40(3A)(d) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The landlord has produced evidence that proves the tenants: a. The tenants displayed anti-social behaviour that escalated after receiving the 42-day notice; b. Mr Smith was often heard digging late into the night which kept the Tuigamala’s young children awake and disturbed Mr and Mrs Tuigamala’s quiet enjoyment of their bedroom space in the evenings; c. Installed a bamboo structure with a bold “keep out sign” the tenants found aggressive; 5234697 and 517651214 d. Mr Smith’s use of surveillance cameras that were pointed at the Tuigamala’s part of the main dwelling and at the driveway which captured footage of the landlord’s visitors, family and friends. The Tuigamala’s say this filming was initially quite discrete but became more overt and invasive over the course of the tenancy and was extreme towards the end of the tenancy, especially after the hedging between the premises degenerated; e. The 6 March 2025 photographs and videos Mr Smith took of the Tuigamala’s family, friends and children that led to them seeking New Zealand Police guidance on 10 March 2025 as they found this surveillance to be intimidating and creepy. It is of note that these images are the same images that were filed with screen shots of virgin related pornography pictures and captions underneath them. The family stopped using the driveway due to the tenants extensive filming; and f. A strong blue light that was pointed at the main dwelling that kept the Tuigamala’s and their children awake at night. Kept people awake at night.
Mr Smith accepted that he had cameras around the property, some of which were pointed at the Tuigamala’s part of the main dwelling, that he had engaged in excessive digging late at night to get the landscaping project completed and had a strong blue light that occasionally he forgot to turn off at night. He also confirmed his cameras were motion censored and were audio and visual capable. He denies that his conduct breached the Tuigamala’s quiet enjoyment of the part of the main dwelling they also rented from the landlord.
I find the tenants have 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 breaches of the Tuigamala’s quiet enjoyment was intentional and that it would be just to require the landlord to pay $3,000.00 in exemplary damages (the maximum penalty available) for the proven breaches above because: a. Mr Smith knew the Tuigamala’s were uncomfortable with his surveillance of them and their family and friends and as the relationship started to deteriorate between the landlord and the tenants this surveillance increased and became more intrusive; b. The Tuigamala’s felt harassed and like they were under the constant observation of Mr Smith and that Mr Smith was disrespectful of the Tuigamala’s desire for peace, privacy and quiet enjoyment of the part of the property they were paying rent for; 5234697 and 517651215 c. it is in the interests of the landlord to receive exemplary damages for the breach of privacy cand quiet enjoyment caused to the Tuigamala’s; and d. it is in the public interest for tenants to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations to allow their neighbours and the landlord’s other tenants to have quiet enjoyment of their home and privacy.

Did the tenants remove or interfere with the smoke alarms?

The landlord claims Mr Smith has removed or interfered with the smoke alarm in the garage.
A tenant must not cause or permit any interference with, or render inoperative, any means of escape from fire within the meaning of the Building Act 2004. See section 40(2)(ab) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The definition of “means of escape” includes “all active and passive protection features required to warn people of fire...”, which covers smoke alarms.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $4,000.00. See section 40(3A)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant confirmed that he did remove the smoke alarm from the garage when he was sculpting with swamp kauri gum, some of which he had dug up on the landlord’s property but most of which he says he got from another source. 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied Mr Smith’s breach was intentional and that it would be just to require the tenants to pay $1,000.00 in exemplary damages (25% of the maximum penalty available) for the proven breach above because: a. Mr Smith knew that all rental premises must be fitted with fully functional, complaint smoke detectors to protect the resident’s lives and the landlord’s property and that tenants are prohibited from interfering with these smoke alarms; b. Mr Smith knew he was engaging in a risky activity when he intentionally removed the smoke alarm, thereby increasing the risk of a fire in the garage and the loss of the landlord’s property; c. it is in the interests of the landlord to receive exemplary damages for the tenants causing or permitting any interference with, or rendering inoperative, 5234697 and 517651216 any means of escape from fire within the meaning of the Building Act 2004; and d. it is in the public interest for tenants to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations not to cause or permit any interference with, or render inoperative, any means of escape from fire within the meaning of the Building Act 2004. Methamphetamine contamination, testing and decontamination costs
To make a successful claim for methamphetamine testing and/or remediation costs, the landlord must prove that the tenant caused or permitted the contamination, or that it was caused by someone at the premises with the tenant’s consent. The landlord must also prove that, because of the contamination, the premises have been damaged or are not reasonably clean.
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 5234697 and 517651217 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 landlord’s evidence disclosed that Mr and Mrs Tuigamala had witnessed Mr Smith exhibiting behaviours that suggested he may be under the influence of an illicit drug, such as methamphetamine, during the tenancy. They gave evidence that his behaviours became more and more erratic during the tenancy .
The landlord had not undertaken a composite methamphetamine test of the premises prior to the tenancy commencing. However, the landlord produced proof that the rangehood and the smoke alarm in the garage were installed the day the tenancy commenced and that neither had been used prior to the tenants’ taking possession of the property.
After the tenancy ended, the landlord had a composite methamphetamine test done by MethTec. This test produced a result of 77.30μg of methamphetamine over the 15 samples Methtec had taken from the premise.
The tenants argued that the Methtec technician, that took the samples, was known to Ms Peach (also known as Ms Salter) and that somehow, he faked the test results or decontaminated the swabs to falsely frame her for drug use as there is bad blood between them. The tenants also claim this technician is an ex- methamphetamine user. No evidence was produced to support these claims.
The landlord confirmed that when the testing was conducted the technician had no idea who had been living at the premise, one of the Tuigamala’s was with the technician at all times during the testing and could attest to there being no possibility of contamination from the technician. All swabs were sealed in containers and bags and the company that conducted the analysis of these swabs was an independent laboratory run by ALS Food and Environmental Ltd.
The composite test was carried out on all of these swabs on 11 April 2025.
The landlord provided a detailed testing report that disclosed methamphetamine contamination at the following levels: a. HAL1A- Hallway 1: 11.60μg/100cm2; b. HAL1B - Hallway 1: 2.93μg/100cm2; 5234697 and 517651218 c. BTM1A - Bathroom 1: 14.50μg/100cm2; d. BDR1A- Bedroom 1: 7.58μg/100cm2; e. BDR1B- Bedroom 1: 4.84μg /100cm2; f. BDR2A- Bedroom 2: 4.56μg/100cm2; g. BDR2B-Bedroom 2: 11.10μg/100cm2; h. LNG1A- Lounge 1: 1.13μg/100cm2; i. LNG1A - Lounge 1: 4.25μg/100cm2; j. DNR1A- Dining room 1: 2.12μg/100cm2; k. KTN1A- Kitchen 1 (rangehood): 21.00μg/100cm2; l. KTN1B- Kitchen 1: 6.57μg/100cm2; m. GAR1A- Garage: 4.03μg/100cm2; n. GAR1B- Garage (Smoke Alarm): 4.23μg/100cm2; and o. CEL1A- Ceiling cavity 1: 0.61μg/100cm2
The landlord’s evidence proved contamination in the premise in the range hood in the kitchen was at a level greater than the 15μg/100cm2 level in the Gluckman report, and well above the NZS 8510:2017 standard recommended maximum contamination levels of 1.5μg/100cm2 for high use areas (where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture) and 3.8μg/100cm2 for limited use areas. The landlord proved the rangehood was new at the start of the tenancy and had never used by any other party. The plastic coverings were removed from it on the first day of their tenancy. In addition, the smoke alarm in the garage was brand new at the start of the tenancy, and it also tested positive for methamphetamine.
The tenants claim they do not use methamphetamine, have never used it in the minor dwelling and have not had any visitors or guests at the minor dwelling that did or may use this illegal substance. Mr Smith said they “may have had some visitors at their prior tenancy that may have used methamphetamine in the house” but not in the minor dwelling they have rented from this landlord.
The landlord brought my attention to a previous order of the Tenancy Tribunal, made under application 5021628 and 5037228 dated 17 February 2025, for the tenants’ prior tenancy. This order records that these same tenants tenancy ended on 11 August 2024 by an eviction order from the Tribunal on 2 August 2024. Part of the landlord’s claims in the 17 February 2025 Order relate to methamphetamine contamination of the premise. The Order states the highest levels were found in two tests in the kitchen/dining/lounge (119.00μg/100cm2 and
40μg/100cm2), the foyer (45.60μg/100cm2), and the ensuite off the master bedroom (25.80μg/100cm2). Of the other tests taken, 18 tests were between the 5234697 and 517651219 NZ standard and the Gluckman Standard and 7 were below the NZ standard. This prior landlord also stated that it was “the tenants erratic behaviour that led them to do the methamphetamine testing at the property when they took back possession”. The order also records “the tenants strongly denied using methamphetamine at the property and denied that anybody at the property had their permission to do so”. The Tribunal did not find the tenants liable for the test or decontamination costs, as their prior landlord had not undertaken a pre- tenancy methamphetamine test. Therefore, the Tribunal could not be satisfied that the contamination occurred during the tenancy. The landlord claims that the 17 February 2025 Order shows a prior pattern of conduct by the tenants that they have continued to exhibit during this tenancy.
The landlord has applied for compensation for the $500.00 insurance excess that relates to the composite and discrete testing for methamphetamine, the remediation of the contaminated premises, and the post remediation testing.
It is an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 for any person to have in their possession or consume any controlled drug and to allow any premises to be used for the commission of an offence under that Act and (sections 7 and 12). “Methamphetamine” is included as a controlled drug under Schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
It follows that the manufacture and consumption of methamphetamine on premises amounts to the use of those premises for an unlawful purpose, in breach of section 40(2)(b) RTA. The tenant was therefore in breach of his obligations under the RTA. a. Methtec have issued reports to the landlord on 7 April 2025 and 11 April 2025 that confirm the landlord’s property is contaminated with methamphetamine; b. The contamination may be at a level that presents a danger to the health and wellbeing of any occupants and represents a potential health risk; c. These risks need to be eliminated; and d. No one is permitted to reside in the premises until the areas with high readings were decontaminated properly by an approved remediation company.
It is appropriate in these circumstances to award the landlord the insurance excess of $500.00 she incurred because of having the property tested for contamination on 7 April 2025 and retested on 11 April 2025, as it was prudent for the landlord to have the tests done, given the positive proof that methamphetamine was manufactured or consumed in the property in breach of the tenant’s obligations, and for the decontamination costs.
As the landlord’s insurance covered all the costs of the initial composite test, the discrete more detailed testing and decontamination of the range hood and other 5234697 and 517651220 areas of the premise, the insurer may decide to pursue the tenants for these costs in a separate claim.

Did the tenants use the premise for an unlawful purpose?

The landlord claims the tenants have used the minor dwelling unlawfully, by manufacturing or consuming methamphetamine in it.
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.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
It is unlawful to use premises, or allow them to be used, for the purpose of consuming controlled drugs (ss7 and 12 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975).
The landlord has established in evidence that methamphetamine has been used in the minor dwelling during the tenancy. This is because an exit methamphetamine composite test was carried out by the landlord immediately after they gained possession of the minor dwelling. This test showed a methamphetamine result of 77.30μg.
Further discrete tests were carried out on the same samples after the composite test showed high methamphetamine reading inside the rangehood (which was new at the start of the tenancy) and in bedroom 2’s wardrobe door, the hallway and the bathroom window frame. There were also traces of methamphetamine found in the smoke alarm in the garage, which was new at the start of the tenancy.
I find the tenants have committed an unlawful act by consuming and/or allowing others to consume methamphetamine in the premises. I am satisfied that this was an intentionally unlawful act because it is common knowledge that the use of methamphetamine is illegal.
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 consider an award of $1,800.00 exemplary damages justified in these circumstances. I make this finding on the following grounds: a. Methamphetamine was found throughout the house. The levels ranged from
61μg /100cm2 to 21.00μg /100cm2. The latter level is relatively high. b. The impact on the landlord cannot be understated. They have had to make an insurance claim to remediate their property. The stress of such 5234697 and 517651221 remediation has been lengthy and considerable and has further delayed the landlord’s family being able to move into the minor dwelling. c. Further, it is clearly in the public interests to discourage the use of methamphetamine in rental properties. Can the Tribunal award compensation for the stress the landlord suffered as a result of the enforcement of the eviction order being delayed 2 weeks?
The landlord seeks orders for compensation the stress and inconvenience she suffered because of the tenants rehearing application causing a delay in the landlord’s possession of the minor dwelling and the costs associated with having to pay for her family members to stay temporarily elsewhere until they could move into the minor dwelling.
There is no provision in the RTA which I can see, nor which the landlord has identified, from which this claim can be based.
Because I cannot make any orders for the compensation the stress and inconvenience suffered or the costs associated with the delay in gaining vacant possession of the minor dwelling, this claim must be dismissed.

OTHER CLAIMS

Reimbursement of the filing fee

Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenants have not wholly or substantially succeeded in their claims. Their application for reimbursement of the filing fee is dismissed. Name suppression
The tenants apply for non-publication of their names 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. 5234697 and 517651222
The tenants have not wholly or substantially succeeded in their proceedings. I do consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenants conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenants’ application for non-publication is dismissed.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5234697 — net $11,121.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages- Failure to reinstate premise at the end of tenancy following minor modifications	$1,500.00		d intentionally did not. I find it would be just to require the landlord to pay $1,500.00 in exemplary damages (the maximum penalty available) for the proven b…
Contribution to reinstatement of the hedges (25 of cost	$1,292.31		Contribution to reinstatement of the hedges (25 of cost
Exemplary damages-Interference with smoke alarm	$1,000.00		breach was intentional and that it would be just to require the tenants to pay $1,000.00 in exemplary damages (25% of the maximum penalty available) for the pr…
Compensation- Garden Shed	$239.00		Garden Shed
Exemplary damages- breach of landlord's other tenants and neighbours peace, comfort and privacy	$3,000.00		oyment was intentional and that it would be just to require the landlord to pay $3,000.00 in exemplary damages (the maximum penalty available) for the proven b…
Compensation- Lawn damage	$4,688.26		Lawn damage
Exemplary damages- using premise for unlawful purpose	$1,800.00		using premise for unlawful purpose
Skip bin	$375.00		Skip bin
Meth testing/Cleaning: Decontamination and testing costs- insurance excess	$500.00		Meth testing/Cleaning: Decontamination and testing costs- insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages: Breach of quiet enjoyment		$2,000.00	61. I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay $2,000.00 in exemplary damages (two thirds of the maximum penalty available) for the two pro…
Total award	$14,421.57	$2,000.00
Net award	$11,121.57
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$11,121.57

Claims and awards for application 5234697 — net $11,121.57 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Exemplary damages- Failure to reinstate premise at the end of tenancy following minor modifications

Amount: $1,500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: d intentionally did not. I find it would be just to require the landlord to pay $1,500.00 in exemplary damages (the maximum penalty available) for the proven b…

Contribution to reinstatement of the hedges (25 of cost

Amount: $1,292.31
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Contribution to reinstatement of the hedges (25 of cost

Exemplary damages-Interference with smoke alarm

Amount: $1,000.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: breach was intentional and that it would be just to require the tenants to pay $1,000.00 in exemplary damages (25% of the maximum penalty available) for the pr…

Compensation- Garden Shed

Amount: $239.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Garden Shed

Exemplary damages- breach of landlord's other tenants and neighbours peace, comfort and privacy

Dismissed claims

Reimbursement Pf Overcharged Power — for lack of sufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. Did the landlord breach the tenants’ quiet enjoyment/privacy?
Water And Power Arrears

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Exemplary damages Filing Fee Cleanliness Property damage Replace Smoke Alarms

Order

[The [The tenant/s] (also known as Stephanie Marie Salter) and [The [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $11,121.57 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,300.00 (5677245-003) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 4 August 2025. [The [The tenant/s] and [The [The tenant/s] appeared as representatives for the landlord and [The [The tenant/s] appeared for both tenants.
The tenants applied for compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord made a cross application for rent arrears, compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
The tenancy commenced on 7 October 2024 and ended on 1 April 2025 after the Tribunal issued an interim order on 4 April 2025, that held the landlord’s 30 January 2025 notice terminating the tenancy was valid and not retaliatory. The Tribunal also issued the landlord a possession order.
On 1 April 2025, the tenants applied for a rehearing of this interim Order, which was dismissed on 4 April 2025. This processed caused some delay in the landlord gaining vacant possession of the premise.
The property consists of a main dwelling and a minor dwelling located on a hectare of land. The dwellings share a driveway.
The main and minor dwelling are located next to one another with a hedge between them for privacy.
The tenants resided in the minor dwelling. The landlord, her husband, Mr and Mrs Tuigamala and their two young children and another adult in his 20’s reside in the main dwelling. Mr and Mrs Tuigamala had resided in the minor dwelling up until the tenants moved in, they relocated their family to the main house and rented a self-contained portion of the main dwelling that was located immediately adjacent to the minor dwelling.
Mrs Tuigamala is the landlord’s daughter. She and her husband agreed to assist her mother to advertise and manage the tenants’ tenancy as it was too much for her mother to cope with. Mr Smith confirmed that it was Mrs Tuigamala that they had met when they answered the advertisement for the renting the minor dwelling and almost all the emails and other communications between the parties come from or too Mrs Tuigamala. The 14-day notices are also all issued by Mrs Tuigamala. 5234697 and 51765123
At the hearing, Mr Smith challenged Mr and Mrs Tuigamala’s standing to represent Ms Ah Colt at the hearing and their standing to manage the premise on Ms Ah Colt’s behalf during the tenancy.
Ms Ah Colt had given Mr and Mrs Tuigamala her consent to act on her behalf in relation to this tenancy and that was made clear to the tenants from the beginning of the tenancy. There is no evidence that this became an issue for the parties until Mrs Tuigamala began issuing 14-day notices for various tenant breaches of their tenancy related obligations.
Over the course of the tenancy, the Tuigamala’s claim they and their children were exposed to the tenants’ antisocial behaviours and they witnessed the damage they say the tenants did to the house and yard. Mr Ah Colt also spoke directly to the tenants from time to time about various tenancy related breaches he wanted remedied, which further antagonised the tenants and strained the relationship between the tenants and the landlord.
The resulting claims made by the parties to the Tribunal are examined below. I commence with the tenants’ claims, as their application was made on 27 February 2025, a few months before the landlord’s 15 April 2025 cross application.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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 5234697 and 51765124 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.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary damages
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded.
Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional. Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Did the landlord fail to keep proper business records?

[The [The tenant/s] (also known as Stephanie Marie Salter) and [The [The tenant/s] claim the landlord has not kept records of rent and bond paid.
A landlord must keep proper business records showing details of all rent payments and any bond paid by the tenant. See section 30(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $350.00. See section 30(2) and Schedule 1A RTA).
The landlord provided accurate rent and bank records that show when the bond was paid and when rent payments were made. The bank records and the rent 5234697 and 51765125 records reconcile and there was no evidence provided by the tenants that proves the landlord failed to keep proper business records.
The claim is dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities.

Did the landlord fail to correctly allocate power consumption bills to the tenants?

The tenants say they were billed for fifty percent of the power consumption for the two dwellings and queried the arrangement and asked for separate power bills to be given to them each month. They confirmed they received an invoice for their power consumption each month, but stated they never received a copy of any actual power bill issued by the main power provider. The tenants believe they have been charged for more than the power they have consumed and want to be refunded for the overpayment of power.
Section 39(3) of the RTA states that “the tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities”.
The landlord therefore cannot charge the tenant for the fixed fees for accessing these utilities and cannot charge the tenant for consumption where he cannot prove the cost was exclusively attributable to the tenant. The landlord’s claim for water and power arrears is dismissed.
The landlord confirmed the minor dwelling has a separate power meter and that the tenants were only billed for their consumption. The landlord also confirmed it provided the tenants with an invoice each month the detailed the consumption and the power rate charged by the power provider that month. These invoices clearly show the tenants were not overcharged for their consumption and that they were never charged for any fixed costs.
I am satisfied the tenants have not been overcharged for power consumption. While the evidence shows there was one power bill issued from the main power provider, these bills clearly show the tenants separate consumption and the current power rate being charged. The invoices issued to the tenants have been derived from this information and are accurate.
The tenants claim for reimbursement pf overcharged power is dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. Did the landlord breach the tenants’ quiet enjoyment/privacy?
[The [The tenant/s] (also known as Stephanie Marie Salter) and [The [The tenant/s] claim the landlord has harassed them and breached their privacy and quiet enjoyment of the premises. 5234697 and 51765126
Section 38 of the RTA confirms that the tenant “shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord”, and further at subsection 2 that the landlord “shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.”
The RTA further confirms that contravention of section 38(2) in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, is declared to be 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.
The term “Harassment” is not defined in the Act. It is defined in s 3 of the Harassment Act 1997 which deals with harassment in the context of either a criminal charge or the making of a restraining order against a person. However, Judge Harland in MacDonald v Dodds (CIV-2009-019-1524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010), considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was more appropriate in the context of s 38(3), rather than the definition in the Harassment Act. The Court in that case adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or exhaust”. The Judge accepted that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person.
In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “harass” is defined as “torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation”. Further assistance can be obtained from the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary where harassment is defined as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
From these definitions, it seems that there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However, in Whatiura v Shoulder (Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987) the Adjudicator noted that “although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.”
The tenants confirmed that the basis for this claim are incidents that occurred on 9, 20 and 25 January 2025. 9 January 2025
The tenants state the landlord’s husband came right up to the sliding door of the minor dwelling, on 9 January 2025, while they were inside. They confirmed him having “jumped up on the deck” and “having a go at them” about the hedging damage on the driveway and between the dwellings, and about them having 5234697 and 51765127 blocked off the front of the house with a bamboo structure, akin to a gate, that the landlord confirmed “had a keep out sign plastered on it”.
The tenants recall Mr Ah Colt commenting that he thought Mr Smith “is sick, needs help and has serious problems” because of the way he had dug up the yard, constructed various bamboo structures around the property, smashed up the garden shed and focused cameras on Mr Ah Colt’s family members when they were within view of the minor dwelling.
The tenants produced an audio recording of this altercation.
The landlord says Mr Ah Colt was going past the minor dwelling to get to the main house that day when he noticed the bamboo gate structure with the keep out sign on it and another bamboo fence like structure that had been erected after a text message had been sent to the tenants not to do any more damage to the property and not to make anymore modifications to the garden.
The tenants claim Mr Ah Colt also said “your killing everything, this has taken 10 years to grow”.
The landlord stated that Ms Peach (also known as Ms Salter) told Mr Ah Colt she was a lawyer and that tenants were not he was frustrated that the tenants did not take account of the damage they had done to the yard and hedges. The landlord accepts that Mr Ah Colt should not have gone to the tenants dwelling and confronted them and that he did not use appropriate language in what can only be described as a series of emotional outbursts.
I find that the tenants have provided sufficient evidence to prove their claim on the balance of probabilities that the landlord intentionally breached their quiet enjoyment of the premise on 9 January 2025 and that it would be appropriate to make an award of exemplary damages for this unlawful act. The quantum of exemplary damages for the landlord’s breaches of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment/privacy addressed at the end of this section of the Order. 19 and 20 January 2025
On 19 January 2025, the tenants say the landlord had asked them to return a shovel and hose. Mr Smith accepted that things were tense between the parties at this time and he may have started shouting and yelling at the intrusion and demand being made.
The tenants say at 6:00am on 20 January 2025, the landlord and her husband breached their privacy and their quiet enjoyment of the property when they came to the tenants’ door and aggressively demanded Mr Smith move his car from off the grass area that was not permitted for parking. The tenants produced an audio recording of this altercation.
The landlord says the tenants have plenty of allocated parking spaces for their one car and a trailer and there is no need and no excuse for Mr Smith to park on the grass. Further, they say that they became frustrated and annoyed when they 5234697 and 51765128 found Mr Smith’s car on the grass that morning as they were dropping off the bins.
Ms Peach ( also known as Ms Salter) sent an email complaint to Mrs Tuigamala at 8:49am the same day. It says: “I am writing to you regarding an incident that occurred this morning, at approximately 6:00 AM. Your husband came to the door quite aggressively, demanding that we move our vehicle from the grass. He stated that if we did not move the vehicle immediately, he would be towing it. He was using violent profound language also this is not the first time he has harassed us and approached us by coming onto the property unlawfully with no consent or approval. This has had quite a big impact on our 2-year-old daughter whom is now scared to be here This was a very upsetting and inappropriate way to handle the situation. We were startled awake by the loud banging on our door and his aggressive tone. This incident has caused us significant distress and disrupted our right to quiet enjoyment of the property. We would appreciate it if you could address this matter with your husband and ensure that such behaviour does not occur again. We are respectful tenants and have always made every effort to maintain a good relationship with you and your family. We look forward to your prompt response to this matter.”.
The landlord says the s56 of the RTA 14-day notice led to this altercation, along with text messages and emails between the parties. Further, the landlord says that since the tenants were given notice the Ah Colt family would be using the grassy area for parking during their family Christmas function, the tenants kept parking on the grass, eve after being asked not to do so.
The landlord accepts that the language used cannot be condoned but notes the tenants swore at the landlord party as well.
I find that the tenants have provided sufficient evidence to prove their claim on the balance of probabilities that the landlord intentionally breached their quiet enjoyment of the premise on 19 and 20 January 2025 and that it would be appropriate to make an award of exemplary damages for this unlawful act. The quantum of exemplary damages for the landlord’s breaches of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment/privacy addressed at the end of this section of the Order. 25 January 2025
The tenants say there were approximately 10 cars parked on the grass out the front of their dwelling on 25 January 2025 because of a gathering for Mr and Mrs Tuigamala’s child’s birthday. Mr Smith states he had his kids staying that weekend they could not play outside because of all the cars.
The landlord accepts this was an inconvenience, but says it was one day for a few hours and the tenants were forewarned of the gathering.
I do not find that this issue is a breach of the tenants’ privacy or quiet enjoyment of the premise. It is a reasonably foreseeable issue arising from time to time when 5234697 and 51765129 the parties lived on the same property and shared the same driveway and land around the premises.
Mr Smith produced a series of photographs that he had taken on 25 January 2025 and 6 March 2025 that show cars around the back of the premises on the grass. These photographs include pictures of Mr and Mrs Tuigamala’s friends and family. At the bottom of these screen shotted photographs filed in the Tribunal, Mrs Tuigamala noted that there are as series of pornographic screens open that show pornographic images and writing about virgins. Mrs Tuigamala was most upset that Mr Smith was viewing these images at the same time as viewing this pornographic material and stated that she was extremely concerned that he had been photographing her young family members and friends and was concerned about the purpose for him taking and storing these images.
I find that the tenant has not provided sufficient evidence to prove the landlord breached his privacy or quiet enjoyment on 25 January 2025 on the balance of probabilities and dismiss it accordingly. Should exemplary damages be awarded for the landlord’s proven intentional breaches of the tenants privacy/quiet enjoyment?
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 would be just to require the landlord to pay $2,000.00 in exemplary damages (two thirds of the maximum penalty available) for the two proven breaches above because: a. The landlord knew the tenants were uncomfortable with them coming to the premises uninvited and raising issues with them or carrying out tasks that they had not informed the tenants they were going to do or even why they were there; b. The tenants felt harassed and like they were under the constant observation of the landlord and her nominated representatives, and that the owner and her family were disrespectful of the tenants’ desire for peace, privacy and quiet enjoyment of the property they were paying rent for; c. it is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the breach of privacy caused; and d. it is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations to allow tenants to have quiet enjoyment of their home and privacy. 5234697 and 517651210 LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 1 April 2025. The landlord provided rent records and which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $975.00.
The tenants accepted liability for these rent arrears and Mr Smith paid this amount to the landlord during the hearing. The landlord confirmed receipt of the money, so no award has been made in this Order for rent arrears.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord proved she had to hire a skip bin to dispose of the garden waste and other rubbish the tenants left behind at the end of the tenancy.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 5234697 and 517651211
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord claims the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Damage to the lawns/grass from the tenants digging holes and trenches; b. Damage to the hedges by jamming bamboo structures into the hedging; and c. Removal of the garden shed without consent and demolishing it and leaving it for the landlord to dispose of.
The tenants say the lawn work they were doing was to add value to the property, they were creating gardens, and if the landlord had let them finish the work it would have improved the properties landscaping. Further, the tenants say the hedges were already damaged and dying off at the start of the tenancy and they produced photographs to prove that claim.
I am satisfied that the damage to the garden shed, and the lawns were intentional and more than fair wear and tear. The tenants did not disprove liability for this damage.
The tenants have disproven liability for some of the damage to the hedges, but the evidence proves the tenants installation of unconsented structures in the yard have contributed to the decline in condition of the hedging plants. The tenants have had a quote for $5,169.25 to restore the hedges. I find that the tenants should be held responsible for 25% of this cost, being $1,292.31. Although this work has not yet been undertaken, I am satisfied that it will be undertaken once the landlord has the fund to do it as the lack of these hedges is causing privacy issues between the main and minor dwelling. At present the landlord’s family members are residing in the minor and main dwelling, but the minor dwelling will not be able to be rented in the future until the hedges have been replanted and matured.
The amounts ordered are proved. 5234697 and 517651212
I have considered betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Did the tenants fail to reinstate premise at the end of tenancy following minor modifications?
The landlord says the tenants failed to reinstate the premise to its original condition at the end of the tenancy following minor modifications.
Section 42B(4) of the RTA states: “If a minor change is made in accordance with a request under section 42A, the tenant must, on or before the expiry of the tenancy, return the premises to a condition that is substantially the same as the condition that the premises were in before the minor change was made”.
Section 42B(6) of the RTA confirms that failure to comply with s42B(4) is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00 may be awarded.
The tenants erected a bamboo clothesline, dug up the lawn, erected a bamboo gate at the front of the premise and erected some other bamboo structures. None of these modifications were removed nor was the premise returned to the same condition prior to the modifications having been made.
The tenants were asked to remove these modifications and to reinstate the premise back to the condition it was in prior to these modifications being made. The photographic evidence provided shows they did not do so.
I find the tenants have 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 tenants knew they were required to return areas of the premise they had made minor modifications to back to the original condition and intentionally did not. I find it would be just to require the landlord to pay $1,500.00 in exemplary damages (the maximum penalty available) for the proven breaches above because: 5234697 and 517651213 a. The tenants made these modifications with consent and then failed to restore the premise back to its original condition at the end of the tenancy despite being asked to do so; b. The landlord has been left to remedy these intentional breaches at the end of the tenancy and that has delayed family members being able to move into the premise; c. It is in the interests of the landlord to receive exemplary damages for the tenants deliberate failure to return the premises to a condition that is substantially the same as the condition that the premises were in before the minor changes were made; and d. it is in the public interest for tenants to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations to return the premises to a condition that is substantially the same as the condition that the premises were in before the minor changes were made. Did the tenants disturb their neighbours and breach the neighbours quiet enjoyment of the premise?
The landlord claims the tenants have disturbed their neighbours who are also the landlord’s other tenants who are renting a self-continued part of the main dwelling, right next to the minor dwelling.
A tenant must not cause or permit interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the landlord's other tenants or of anyone else living in the neighbourhood. See section 40(2)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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 40(3A)(d) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The landlord has produced evidence that proves the tenants: a. The tenants displayed anti-social behaviour that escalated after receiving the 42-day notice; b. Mr Smith was often heard digging late into the night which kept the Tuigamala’s young children awake and disturbed Mr and Mrs Tuigamala’s quiet enjoyment of their bedroom space in the evenings; c. Installed a bamboo structure with a bold “keep out sign” the tenants found aggressive; 5234697 and 517651214 d. Mr Smith’s use of surveillance cameras that were pointed at the Tuigamala’s part of the main dwelling and at the driveway which captured footage of the landlord’s visitors, family and friends. The Tuigamala’s say this filming was initially quite discrete but became more overt and invasive over the course of the tenancy and was extreme towards the end of the tenancy, especially after the hedging between the premises degenerated; e. The 6 March 2025 photographs and videos Mr Smith took of the Tuigamala’s family, friends and children that led to them seeking New Zealand Police guidance on 10 March 2025 as they found this surveillance to be intimidating and creepy. It is of note that these images are the same images that were filed with screen shots of virgin related pornography pictures and captions underneath them. The family stopped using the driveway due to the tenants extensive filming; and f. A strong blue light that was pointed at the main dwelling that kept the Tuigamala’s and their children awake at night. Kept people awake at night.
Mr Smith accepted that he had cameras around the property, some of which were pointed at the Tuigamala’s part of the main dwelling, that he had engaged in excessive digging late at night to get the landscaping project completed and had a strong blue light that occasionally he forgot to turn off at night. He also confirmed his cameras were motion censored and were audio and visual capable. He denies that his conduct breached the Tuigamala’s quiet enjoyment of the part of the main dwelling they also rented from the landlord.
I find the tenants have 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 breaches of the Tuigamala’s quiet enjoyment was intentional and that it would be just to require the landlord to pay $3,000.00 in exemplary damages (the maximum penalty available) for the proven breaches above because: a. Mr Smith knew the Tuigamala’s were uncomfortable with his surveillance of them and their family and friends and as the relationship started to deteriorate between the landlord and the tenants this surveillance increased and became more intrusive; b. The Tuigamala’s felt harassed and like they were under the constant observation of Mr Smith and that Mr Smith was disrespectful of the Tuigamala’s desire for peace, privacy and quiet enjoyment of the part of the property they were paying rent for; 5234697 and 517651215 c. it is in the interests of the landlord to receive exemplary damages for the breach of privacy cand quiet enjoyment caused to the Tuigamala’s; and d. it is in the public interest for tenants to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations to allow their neighbours and the landlord’s other tenants to have quiet enjoyment of their home and privacy.

Did the tenants remove or interfere with the smoke alarms?

The landlord claims Mr Smith has removed or interfered with the smoke alarm in the garage.
A tenant must not cause or permit any interference with, or render inoperative, any means of escape from fire within the meaning of the Building Act 2004. See section 40(2)(ab) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The definition of “means of escape” includes “all active and passive protection features required to warn people of fire...”, which covers smoke alarms.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $4,000.00. See section 40(3A)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant confirmed that he did remove the smoke alarm from the garage when he was sculpting with swamp kauri gum, some of which he had dug up on the landlord’s property but most of which he says he got from another source. 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied Mr Smith’s breach was intentional and that it would be just to require the tenants to pay $1,000.00 in exemplary damages (25% of the maximum penalty available) for the proven breach above because: a. Mr Smith knew that all rental premises must be fitted with fully functional, complaint smoke detectors to protect the resident’s lives and the landlord’s property and that tenants are prohibited from interfering with these smoke alarms; b. Mr Smith knew he was engaging in a risky activity when he intentionally removed the smoke alarm, thereby increasing the risk of a fire in the garage and the loss of the landlord’s property; c. it is in the interests of the landlord to receive exemplary damages for the tenants causing or permitting any interference with, or rendering inoperative, 5234697 and 517651216 any means of escape from fire within the meaning of the Building Act 2004; and d. it is in the public interest for tenants to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations not to cause or permit any interference with, or render inoperative, any means of escape from fire within the meaning of the Building Act 2004. Methamphetamine contamination, testing and decontamination costs
To make a successful claim for methamphetamine testing and/or remediation costs, the landlord must prove that the tenant caused or permitted the contamination, or that it was caused by someone at the premises with the tenant’s consent. The landlord must also prove that, because of the contamination, the premises have been damaged or are not reasonably clean.
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 5234697 and 517651217 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 landlord’s evidence disclosed that Mr and Mrs Tuigamala had witnessed Mr Smith exhibiting behaviours that suggested he may be under the influence of an illicit drug, such as methamphetamine, during the tenancy. They gave evidence that his behaviours became more and more erratic during the tenancy .
The landlord had not undertaken a composite methamphetamine test of the premises prior to the tenancy commencing. However, the landlord produced proof that the rangehood and the smoke alarm in the garage were installed the day the tenancy commenced and that neither had been used prior to the tenants’ taking possession of the property.
After the tenancy ended, the landlord had a composite methamphetamine test done by MethTec. This test produced a result of 77.30μg of methamphetamine over the 15 samples Methtec had taken from the premise.
The tenants argued that the Methtec technician, that took the samples, was known to Ms Peach (also known as Ms Salter) and that somehow, he faked the test results or decontaminated the swabs to falsely frame her for drug use as there is bad blood between them. The tenants also claim this technician is an ex- methamphetamine user. No evidence was produced to support these claims.
The landlord confirmed that when the testing was conducted the technician had no idea who had been living at the premise, one of the Tuigamala’s was with the technician at all times during the testing and could attest to there being no possibility of contamination from the technician. All swabs were sealed in containers and bags and the company that conducted the analysis of these swabs was an independent laboratory run by ALS Food and Environmental Ltd.
The composite test was carried out on all of these swabs on 11 April 2025.
The landlord provided a detailed testing report that disclosed methamphetamine contamination at the following levels: a. HAL1A- Hallway 1: 11.60μg/100cm2; b. HAL1B - Hallway 1: 2.93μg/100cm2; 5234697 and 517651218 c. BTM1A - Bathroom 1: 14.50μg/100cm2; d. BDR1A- Bedroom 1: 7.58μg/100cm2; e. BDR1B- Bedroom 1: 4.84μg /100cm2; f. BDR2A- Bedroom 2: 4.56μg/100cm2; g. BDR2B-Bedroom 2: 11.10μg/100cm2; h. LNG1A- Lounge 1: 1.13μg/100cm2; i. LNG1A - Lounge 1: 4.25μg/100cm2; j. DNR1A- Dining room 1: 2.12μg/100cm2; k. KTN1A- Kitchen 1 (rangehood): 21.00μg/100cm2; l. KTN1B- Kitchen 1: 6.57μg/100cm2; m. GAR1A- Garage: 4.03μg/100cm2; n. GAR1B- Garage (Smoke Alarm): 4.23μg/100cm2; and o. CEL1A- Ceiling cavity 1: 0.61μg/100cm2
The landlord’s evidence proved contamination in the premise in the range hood in the kitchen was at a level greater than the 15μg/100cm2 level in the Gluckman report, and well above the NZS 8510:2017 standard recommended maximum contamination levels of 1.5μg/100cm2 for high use areas (where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture) and 3.8μg/100cm2 for limited use areas. The landlord proved the rangehood was new at the start of the tenancy and had never used by any other party. The plastic coverings were removed from it on the first day of their tenancy. In addition, the smoke alarm in the garage was brand new at the start of the tenancy, and it also tested positive for methamphetamine.
The tenants claim they do not use methamphetamine, have never used it in the minor dwelling and have not had any visitors or guests at the minor dwelling that did or may use this illegal substance. Mr Smith said they “may have had some visitors at their prior tenancy that may have used methamphetamine in the house” but not in the minor dwelling they have rented from this landlord.
The landlord brought my attention to a previous order of the Tenancy Tribunal, made under application 5021628 and 5037228 dated 17 February 2025, for the tenants’ prior tenancy. This order records that these same tenants tenancy ended on 11 August 2024 by an eviction order from the Tribunal on 2 August 2024. Part of the landlord’s claims in the 17 February 2025 Order relate to methamphetamine contamination of the premise. The Order states the highest levels were found in two tests in the kitchen/dining/lounge (119.00μg/100cm2 and
40μg/100cm2), the foyer (45.60μg/100cm2), and the ensuite off the master bedroom (25.80μg/100cm2). Of the other tests taken, 18 tests were between the 5234697 and 517651219 NZ standard and the Gluckman Standard and 7 were below the NZ standard. This prior landlord also stated that it was “the tenants erratic behaviour that led them to do the methamphetamine testing at the property when they took back possession”. The order also records “the tenants strongly denied using methamphetamine at the property and denied that anybody at the property had their permission to do so”. The Tribunal did not find the tenants liable for the test or decontamination costs, as their prior landlord had not undertaken a pre- tenancy methamphetamine test. Therefore, the Tribunal could not be satisfied that the contamination occurred during the tenancy. The landlord claims that the 17 February 2025 Order shows a prior pattern of conduct by the tenants that they have continued to exhibit during this tenancy.
The landlord has applied for compensation for the $500.00 insurance excess that relates to the composite and discrete testing for methamphetamine, the remediation of the contaminated premises, and the post remediation testing.
It is an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 for any person to have in their possession or consume any controlled drug and to allow any premises to be used for the commission of an offence under that Act and (sections 7 and 12). “Methamphetamine” is included as a controlled drug under Schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
It follows that the manufacture and consumption of methamphetamine on premises amounts to the use of those premises for an unlawful purpose, in breach of section 40(2)(b) RTA. The tenant was therefore in breach of his obligations under the RTA. a. Methtec have issued reports to the landlord on 7 April 2025 and 11 April 2025 that confirm the landlord’s property is contaminated with methamphetamine; b. The contamination may be at a level that presents a danger to the health and wellbeing of any occupants and represents a potential health risk; c. These risks need to be eliminated; and d. No one is permitted to reside in the premises until the areas with high readings were decontaminated properly by an approved remediation company.
It is appropriate in these circumstances to award the landlord the insurance excess of $500.00 she incurred because of having the property tested for contamination on 7 April 2025 and retested on 11 April 2025, as it was prudent for the landlord to have the tests done, given the positive proof that methamphetamine was manufactured or consumed in the property in breach of the tenant’s obligations, and for the decontamination costs.
As the landlord’s insurance covered all the costs of the initial composite test, the discrete more detailed testing and decontamination of the range hood and other 5234697 and 517651220 areas of the premise, the insurer may decide to pursue the tenants for these costs in a separate claim.

Did the tenants use the premise for an unlawful purpose?

The landlord claims the tenants have used the minor dwelling unlawfully, by manufacturing or consuming methamphetamine in it.
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.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
It is unlawful to use premises, or allow them to be used, for the purpose of consuming controlled drugs (ss7 and 12 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975).
The landlord has established in evidence that methamphetamine has been used in the minor dwelling during the tenancy. This is because an exit methamphetamine composite test was carried out by the landlord immediately after they gained possession of the minor dwelling. This test showed a methamphetamine result of 77.30μg.
Further discrete tests were carried out on the same samples after the composite test showed high methamphetamine reading inside the rangehood (which was new at the start of the tenancy) and in bedroom 2’s wardrobe door, the hallway and the bathroom window frame. There were also traces of methamphetamine found in the smoke alarm in the garage, which was new at the start of the tenancy.
I find the tenants have committed an unlawful act by consuming and/or allowing others to consume methamphetamine in the premises. I am satisfied that this was an intentionally unlawful act because it is common knowledge that the use of methamphetamine is illegal.
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 consider an award of $1,800.00 exemplary damages justified in these circumstances. I make this finding on the following grounds: a. Methamphetamine was found throughout the house. The levels ranged from
61μg /100cm2 to 21.00μg /100cm2. The latter level is relatively high. b. The impact on the landlord cannot be understated. They have had to make an insurance claim to remediate their property. The stress of such 5234697 and 517651221 remediation has been lengthy and considerable and has further delayed the landlord’s family being able to move into the minor dwelling. c. Further, it is clearly in the public interests to discourage the use of methamphetamine in rental properties. Can the Tribunal award compensation for the stress the landlord suffered as a result of the enforcement of the eviction order being delayed 2 weeks?
The landlord seeks orders for compensation the stress and inconvenience she suffered because of the tenants rehearing application causing a delay in the landlord’s possession of the minor dwelling and the costs associated with having to pay for her family members to stay temporarily elsewhere until they could move into the minor dwelling.
There is no provision in the RTA which I can see, nor which the landlord has identified, from which this claim can be based.
Because I cannot make any orders for the compensation the stress and inconvenience suffered or the costs associated with the delay in gaining vacant possession of the minor dwelling, this claim must be dismissed.

OTHER CLAIMS

Reimbursement of the filing fee

Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenants have not wholly or substantially succeeded in their claims. Their application for reimbursement of the filing fee is dismissed. Name suppression
The tenants apply for non-publication of their names 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. 5234697 and 517651222
The tenants have not wholly or substantially succeeded in their proceedings. I do consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenants conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenants’ application for non-publication is dismissed.

At a glance

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

TENANTS CLAIMS

Did the landlord fail to keep proper business records?

Did the landlord fail to correctly allocate power consumption bills to the tenants?

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenants remove or interfere with the smoke alarms?

Did the tenants use the premise for an unlawful purpose?

OTHER CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

TENANTS CLAIMS

Did the landlord fail to keep proper business records?

Did the landlord fail to correctly allocate power consumption bills to the tenants?

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenants remove or interfere with the smoke alarms?

Did the tenants use the premise for an unlawful purpose?

OTHER CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.