What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5249677 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5249677?

Property Damage: $900.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $828.52 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5249677?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5249677?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12847147-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5249677 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5249677?

Property Damage: $900.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $828.52 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5249677?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5249677?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12847147-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 128 Grafton Road, Grafton, Auckland 1010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5249677 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5249677 — net $2,841.48 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$828.52		Rent arrears
Exemplary damages - Unlawful use of premises	$900.00		Exemplary damages - Unlawful use of premises
Exemplary damages: Harassment		$1,500.00	Harassment
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond		$750.00	Failure to lodge bond
Bond refund		$2,320.00	Bond refund
Total award	$1,728.52	$4,570.00
Net award		$2,841.48
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$2,841.48

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5249677 — net $2,841.48 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$828.52		Rent arrears
Exemplary damages - Unlawful use of premises	$900.00		Exemplary damages - Unlawful use of premises
Exemplary damages: Harassment		$1,500.00	Harassment
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond		$750.00	Failure to lodge bond
Bond refund		$2,320.00	Bond refund
Total award	$1,728.52	$4,570.00
Net award		$2,841.48
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$2,841.48

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants name and identifying details.
Gong Family Trust (Trustee: Kate Gong) must pay [The tenant/s] $2,841.48 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider applications filed by both the landlord and the tenant.
I note the tenant in this case is [The tenant/s], which is a [redacted] landlord. The tenant has rented the premises expressly to sublet the tenancy to other tenants. In this decision, any reference to ‘tenant’ means [The tenant/s], and reference to the sub-tenant means the person [The tenant/s] on rented the premises to.

BACKGROUND

The parties entered into a tenancy agreement for this tenancy to commence on 2 October 2024, as a periodic tenancy. The landlord is simply recorded as “Gong Family Trust”, the tenant is [The tenant/s]. The agreement expressly records that the tenant was able to sublet the premises.
It will be discussed further below, before the Tenancy started methamphetamine testing was undertaken, and showed no signs of methamphetamine contamination. This testing was conducted on 28 September 2024.
It is apparent that things have not gone smoothly at the premises, between the subtenant and others living in the wider premises, including the landlord.
The landlord gave notice ending the tenancy on the basis that Ms Gong’s mother was to move into the tenancy premises. That was a 63 day notice, which required that possession be returned to the landlord on 13 March 2025.
There were issues when the subtenant went to leave the premises. The undisputed evidence is that the landlord blocked in their vehicles, and would not let them leave until various requirements had been met, including the payment of money.
On 25 March 2025, the tenant undertook further methamphetamine testing. The testing identified low levels of methamphetamine in the kitchen and bedroom number two. The highest level of contamination was in bedroom number two, at 2.1 μg/100cm 2 I will discuss the respective levels further below, but if the New Zealand Standards level is applied, then any level below 1.5 μg/100cm 2 is deemed safe.
The tenant then engaged a methamphetamine decontamination company to decontaminate the premises, and that occurred.
Following the decontamination, the landlord had the property methamphetamine tested again, and the levels were below the New Zealand Standard, or to put that another way, the testing passed in all rooms. The highest level was in the bathroom at 1.43 μg/100cm 2 . That testing was on 11 April 2025.
The keys were returned to the landlord on 2 May 2025.
On 3 May 2025, the landlord had the premises methamphetamine tested by a different company, and that returned a very significantly higher level of methamphetamine contamination, at 73.4 μg / sample based on a composite sample.
Both parties have filed claims in the Tribunal.
The Tribunal (Adjudicator Small) convened a prehearing case conference, as recorded in her minute from 18 July 2025. The Adjudicator confirmed that the only claims to be considered in these applications related to Unit 1.
Otherwise, the adjudicator recorded the confirmed claims from the parties as follows:
Landlord’s claims: a. Methamphetamine contamination ($24,495). b. Furniture compensation ($200 curtains, $500 bed dump cost). c. Rent arrears calculated to 17 July 2025 ($7,208.57). d. Methamphetamine test cost ($251.25). e. Exemplary damages for using the premises for an unlawful purpose (methamphetamine consumption).
Tenants claims a. Compensation for all rent paid given breaches of the HHS, and for the premises being unlawful residential premises ($16,820). b. Exemplary damages for harassment on 20 March 2025. c. Exemplary damages for unlawful entry on two occasions. d. Failure to lodge bond.
The adjudicator also made directions for the filing of evidence.
I note that since the case conference, Ms Small has left the Tenancy Tribunal, so this case has been reallocated to myself to hear.
A hearing was convened in [Event location suppressed] on 19 November 2025. In attendance was [The tenant’s representative/s] for the tenant, and Ms Gong the landlord with a support person. The landlord was assisted by an interpreter, Ms Qiu.
Ms Gong initially requested that everything be interpreted, but while we were hearing the witness evidence, Ms Gong requested to have the hearing in English only, but I confirmed that if she needed the interpreter, she must let me know and we would pause the hearing to allow the interpreter to assist. For the rest of the hearing, it was for the most part not interpreted, but there were some occasions where the interpreter was used, when Ms Gong felt is necessary.

WITNESS EVIDENCE

At the hearing, I heard evidence for the tenant from: a. [The testing contractor] (contractor who undertook the methamphetamine testing). b. [The decontamination contractor] (decontamination contractor). c. [The key worker] (Key worker).
And for the landlord from [The landlord’s witness] (other resident on the premises, and maintenance provider). [The key worker]’s evidence
[The key worker] attended the hearing to give oral evidence for the tenant. [The key worker] advised that she is a key worker for the subtenant.
[The key worker] states that during the tenancy, the subtenant advised there were about three occasions when the landlord brought new tenants to the premises. [The key worker] advised she was not there but that is what she was told.
[The key worker] also confirmed that her understanding is that a 63 day notice was issued by the landlord because other family members were moving in.
On 20 March 2025, [The key worker] states she was assisting the subtenant to move, and had packed his belongings in their vehicles. When they went to leave the premises, there was a vehicle parked in front of the driveway. It was Ms Gong, and she said that she would not move the vehicle because she was owed money by the tenant, and she would not move her vehicle until she could see the money in her account. The police were called, and they arrived about 90 – 120 minutes later. During this time Ms Gong closed and locked the gate. After police asked that the car be moved, she in fact parked a second car blocking the gate. The police advised that because it was private property, they could not tow the car.
The subtenant was not comfortable leaving the premises without his belongings (they were in the trapped vehicles) so he stayed on the premises overnight.
[The key worker] states the subtenant advised that Ms Gong returned that night telling him to leave, but otherwise refusing to remove her vehicles.
Under cross-examination, Ms Gong asked why [The key worker] was there. [The key worker] advised that the subtenant was living there so was entitled to have people attend. [The key worker] advised that she would attend approximately every 2 weeks.
[The key worker] advised that there were initially two beds in the premises, but that Ms Gong asked that one be removed. [The testing contractor]’s evidence
[The testing contractor] attended the hearing, giving evidence. [The testing contractor] advised that he has three NZQA qualifications in methamphetamine testing, and has had wider training in science. [The testing contractor] advised he has been undertaking testing for nine years, undertaking close to 4,000 tests.
[The testing contractor] advised that in September 2024, he took composite samples at the instruction of Ms Gong, which returned a nil result.
[The testing contractor] advised that a further test was undertaken on 25 March 25, a further composite test resulted in an average of 1.59 μg/sample, which was a failed test. From that, more specific tests were undertaken, which resulted in the tests in the kitchen and bedroom failing.
The premises were then cleaned, and then on 11 April 2025 post-cleaning testing was undertaken, which resulted in a pass rating.
The tests were under the New Zealand Standard, so anything under 1.5 μg/100cm 2 is deemed a ‘pass’.
Under cross-examination, [The testing contractor] confirmed that there could be differing levels in the same room.
Ms Gong claimed that [The testing contractor]’s report may have been influenced by financial or other arrangements with the tenants. [The testing contractor] strongly refuted that his reports are anything other than his honest assessment of the matter. [The decontamination contractor]’s evidence
[The decontamination contractor] advised that he is a methamphetamine decontaminator has has done that for about 10 years, doing about 3 houses a week. [The decontamination contractor] advised he considers the report first, and what is undertaken is based on that report.
In this case, there were two rooms that failed, so only those two rooms were cleaned.
[The decontamination contractor] confirmed that normally soft furnishings are disposed of rather than cleaned. [The landlord’s witness]’s evidence
[The landlord’s witness] attended the hearing to give evidence for the landlord.
[The landlord’s witness] advised he is a tenant who lives in the premises, and would also undertake some maintenance, including installing a stove, a wall heater and painting. [The landlord’s witness] describes putting a plastic sheet on the ceiling because the paint was peeling.
[The landlord’s witness] states that he monitors the cameras on the premises, and that the tenant would have frequent guests.
Under cross-examination, [The landlord’s witness] states that he installed CCTV cameras at the landlord’s request.
[The landlord’s witness] confirmed that when he undertook maintenance in the bathroom, he did not give notice for that entry, because he believed the unit was empty.
[The landlord’s witness] confirmed there was no one else living in the premises after this tenancy.

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.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. 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 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.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

Claim 1 – Methamphetamine contamination

The landlord has claimed $24,495 in compensation for methamphetamine contamination.
Ms Gong states that given the level of methamphetamine contamination in the premises, she has needed to undertake significant remediation work. In terms of why these tenants should pay for this work, the landlord’s position is that before the tenant moved in there was no methamphetamine detected, but methamphetamine was detected after. The landlord submits that based on what they have seen, there is no doubt that the subtenant was using drugs.
In response, the tenants submit that at the end of the tenancy, there was another test undertaken, and there were two rooms that were contaminated. Those two rooms were decontaminated, retested, and then cleared. The tenant does not know what happened in the room before the landlord’s later test.
Further it was submitted that the work undertaken by the landlord was excessive, and if the landlord’s test result was divided by five, then it would fall under the level at which decontamination is needed. Analysis
The landlord’s position is that the premises were significantly contaminated with methamphetamine, which necessitated extensive remediation works, including replacing the plasterboard linings and furniture.
In order to consider this claim, it is necessary to consider the relevant legal considerations around methamphetamine contamination in residential tenancies.
In 2010 the New Zealand Ministry of Health produced guidelines for the remediation of clandestine methamphetamine laboratories, and determined that remediation was required if the environmental level of methamphetamine was 0.5 μg/100 cm 2 . While that related to laboratories, it is the case that the
5 level became the de facto level at which premises were considered to require decontamination.
In 2017 the level was increased when Standards New Zealand released Standard NZS 8510:2017 “Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine- contaminated properties”. At that time, this standard set the definitive levels at which properties which had methamphetamine contamination, required remediation. The Standard confirmed that: After seeking expert advice on exposure risk from Environmental Science and Research Ltd (ESR) and the Ministry of Health, and reviewing a large number of public comments on a draft of this standard, the committee has decided to set the maximum acceptable level of methamphetamine in an affected property at 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 after decontamination. While this level is greater than the Ministry of Health 2010 guideline value of 0.5 μg/100 cm 2 for properties used as clandestine laboratories, there are a number of reasons why the committee decided to adopt the single value of 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 in this standard.
In short, this standard confirmed that the level at which habitation of residential premises was considered safe, was a level of 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 . The expectation on landlords arising from this Standard, was to remediate premises contaminated with methamphetamine, to a level of less than 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 .
Later still, the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman determined that there was little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption (Report entitled ‘Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards’, 29 May 2018). The report concluded that any levels below 15 μg/100 cm 2 were unlikely to present adverse effects: Taken together, these factors indicate that methamphetamine levels that exceed the NZS 8510:2017 clean-up standard of 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 should not be regarded as signalling a health risk. Indeed, exposure to methamphetamine levels below 15 μg/100 cm 2 would be unlikely to give rise to any adverse effects. This level still incorporates a 30-fold safety buffer on a conservative estimate of risk.
At this time there remains a current New Zealand Standard of 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 , and also a current opinion from the Chief Science Advisor that there is no evidence of risk below 15 μg/100 cm 2
The difference in the levels was considered by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947. Judge Kellar needed to determine which level should be applied. The Court discussed the conflict between the New Zealand Standard and Chief Science Advisors report, and confirmed: The Tenancy Tribunal was in a difficult position. The best state of knowledge of risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination available to the adjudicator was the Gluckman Report. It would have been bold for the adjudicator to have ignored that report in favour of the New Zealand Standard given that the Gluckman report represents the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination in dwellings.
I also note the later District Court decision of Eren Limited v Martin and Kukuruzsnak [2021] NZDC 15210, in which Judge de Ridder. In that case the Court accepted that the tenants had contaminated the premises with Methamphetamine with the maximum level found to be 9.9 μg/100 cm 2 . The Court noted that the level applied by insurers and the testing industry was 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 . The Court noted that the approach that has been taken by the Tenancy Tribunal was to apply the level as set in the Gluckman report, also noting the above mentioned Full Circle decision, with the Judge concluding: In this case there is not other evidence to counter the conclusions of the Gluckmant Report. Thus it cannot be said that the Tribunal was wrong in the approach it adopted in dismissing the claim for compensation for these matters.
A third District Court decision of relevance is Acme Realty Limited v Hogg, Polotu and Coughlin [2021] NZDC 3231. Judge Harrison noted that “At issue is a short legal point, namely whether New Zealand Standard 8510:2017 has the force for law”. The appeal arose from a decision of the Tenancy Tribunal which applied the Gluckman report level of 15 μg/100 cm 2 . The Court concluded that: ...for the reasons I have given that standard has not been passed into the law of this country and consequently the Adjudicator was not bound by the level it prescribes in reaching her conclusion.
In my assessment, these decisions of the Court have confirmed that the level to be applied is the level expressed by the Chief Science Advisor, which is that there is no risk when levels of contamination are below 15 μg/100 cm 2

What are the levels to be accepted at these premises?

The parties all agreed, that at the start of the tenancy, there was no appreciable levels of methamphetamine at all. Testing was undertaken, and no level of methamphetamine was detected above the minimum level the laboratory could detect.
On 25 March 2025, the tenant undertook further methamphetamine testing. The testing identified low levels of methamphetamine in the kitchen and bedroom number two. The highest level of contamination was in bedroom number two, at 2.1 μg/100cm 2
The landlord then engaged ‘Meth Testing Kit’ who records obtaining five samples on 3 May 2025 and were sent for composite testing. ALS Food & Environments NZ undertook Laboratory analysis of those samples on 6 May 2025, and reported findings of methamphetamine at 73.4 μg/sample
The question then, is what sampling should be preferred, and I find it is the sampling undertaken by the tenant, and assessed in Hills laboratories, for these reasons:
The sample and taken by ‘Meth Kit’ and tested at ALS Food & Environmental was a composite test. A composite test is one where a number of samples are obtained, and all mixed together, and tested. To put that another way, in the context of this claim, five samples were obtained, mixed, and one test was undertaken which comprised the joint sample.
Problem for the landlord, is that the New Zealand Standards confirm that composite testing is only a screening test, it is not a test for quantitative purposes. If there is a need for a quantitative analysis, that needs to be by way of discrete sampling, which means testing each of the five samples individually.
The New Zealand Standards (NZS 8510:2017) provides a definition of composite sample as follows: A sample comprised of multiple disc wipe samples collected from separate locations but analysed as a single sample. A field composite sample represents a sum or accumulation of each of the individual wipes.
Composite screening tests, are only for screening purposes. They are not according to the Standard, used for quantitative purposes. In fact, this is also noted in the ‘Meth Testing Kit’ report, which states: The lowest cost screening option, which allows for samples collected from multiple locations to be tested as a single sample. A return sampling visit is needed to collect individual samples if there is a high Field Composite test result.
A composite test, represents a theoretical maximum. Again using this case, it means that in theory, the level of. 73.4 μg/sample could have been the level in one of the five swabs, if the four other swabs had no contamination at all, or if each swab had a similar level of contamination, then the average level of methamphetamine on its swap would be 14.68 μg/100 cm 2 which is underneath the level set by the Prime Minister’s chief science advisor.
In short, the composite test is not sufficiently accurate to be accepted as determinative of a breach.
Overall, I find the report presented by [The testing contractor] to be most accurate. I have heard evidence from [The testing contractor] and I found him to be a convincing witness, I accept he is properly qualified to undertake methamphetamine testing, and I accept he has significant experience. There is no evidence that the assessor’s report has been influenced by any relationship with the tenant. I am further minded that [The testing contractor]’s assessment was by way of discreet sampling, which is the recognised means for quantifying methamphetamine contamination under the Standard.
There is one further reason why I consider [The testing contractor]’s assessment should be preferred over that from ‘Meth Kit’. That is because, after the subtenant moved out, the level of methamphetamine was.
1μg/100 cm 2 . It does not seem credible that the methamphetamine contamination could have gone from a level of around 2 μg/100 cm 2 . Up to a potential 74 μg/ sample. I accept at once that there is always going to be some slight variation in samples, but I cannot accept that a variation of that level, would simply be sampling differences. Rather, the subsequent post decontamination testing that was undertaken shows a level below. 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 (again discrete testing) which is the trajectory that would be expected after professional decontamination has occurred.
Those reasons, I find that the reports from [The testing contractor] are to be accepted.
That being the case, I find there was no basis for the landlord undertaking further decontamination. When the premises were returned, the level of methamphetamine contamination was below the New Zealand Standard, and more than 10 times below the level of methamphetamine contamination deemed safe by the Chief Science Advisor. The application must be dismissed. Claim 2 – Furniture compensation
The landlord claims compensation for furniture replacement. The landlord says the furniture was contaminated, so it was removed and replaced.
Again, the tenant’s position is that the disposal of furniture is not required. Analysis
For the same reasons as set out above, this claim cannot succeed. Because I have found that the premises were returned with a level of methamphetamine contamination below the level at which remediation is required, I can see no basis for ordering that the furniture be replaced.
I note for completeness, that even if the tenants decontamination did not occur, I would still not order this claim, because the level of methamphetamine contamination has not been proven to be above 15 μg/100 cm 2 . Claim 3 – Rent arrears
The landlord seeks rent arrears to 17 July 2025.
The landlord states that 17 July was the last hearing date, but on reflection the landlord considers the rent should be paid to the hearing on 19 November.
The landlord confirmed that the notice was to end the tenancy on 13 March 2025, but the date was extended because of the tenants testing and decontamination. The keys were returned on 2 May 2025.
The landlord says the rent has been paid to 21 April 2025.
The tenant agreed they should pay rent while they were doing the decontamination work, but they confirm the keys were returned on 2 May 2025. It is agreed that the rent was paid to 21 April 2025. Analysis
I can see no basis for ordering rent arrears beyond 2 May 2025, which is the date the keys were returned to the landlord, or to put that another way, the date possession was returned to the landlord. The tenant is liable to pay rent while the premises are in their possession only. As of 2 May 2025, the premises had been properly decontaminated; there is no reason the premises could not have been relet, or otherwise used by the landlord for the purpose she gave notice, which was for her mother to reside in. The landlord has incurred no loss, so this claim is dismissed.
However, the evidence is that the rent has only been paid until 21 April 2025, meaning that the tenant is liable for rent until 2 May 2025, which is a further 10 days of rent being $828.57, that is ordered. Claim 4 – Methamphetamine test costs
The landlord seeks methamphetamine test costs.
The landlord states that given the strong odour coming from the decontamination undertaken by the tenants, they decided it was necessary to undertake further testing. The landlord notes that it was to be her mother moving into the unit, so they wanted to ensure the premises were clean and safe.
Again the tenant’s position is that there was no reason to undertake further testing. The premises had been tested and passed by the tenants’ testers. Analysis
I find there is no basis to order that the methamphetamine testing costs be reimbursed. When the premises were returned to the landlord, they were no longer contaminated with methamphetamine, and the landlord had available the test undertaken from. [The testing contractor]. If the landlord wishes to obtain further testing, she can do so, but that would have to be at her own expense. This claim is dismissed. Claim 5 – Exemplary damages for using the premises for an unlawful purpose.
The landlord’s position is that the tenants have used the premises for unlawful purposes.
The landlord states that the tenants used drugs in the premises, and further referred to people coming to the premises, stating that someone climbed over the fence.
The landlord states that the tenant had a duty to disclose everything they knew about the subtenant, and they should have done so here.
The tenant’s position is that they are a [housing provider]. The landlord states that the tenants are allowed to have visitors, and disputes that more than one person was living there.
In terms of drug use, the landlord states they did not see drug paraphernalia. However the tenant accepts that there was likely to have been some methamphetamine use in the tenancy as reflected by the test results. Analysis Overcrowding and visitors
The landlords claim that the tenant had more than one person in the tenancy, must fail for two reasons.
Firstly, there is no breach of the RTA. Section 40 sets out the tenant’s responsibilities, and that includes at subsection 3: (3) Where the tenancy agreement specifies a maximum number of persons that may ordinarily reside in the premises during the tenancy, the tenant shall ensure that no more than that number ordinarily reside in the premises at any time during the tenancy.
In this case the tenancy agreement does not specify the maximum number of tenants, so there has been no breach of the maximum tenants.
However, even if that was not the case, the landlord has not proven that the tenant allowed a second (or more) people to “ordinarily reside in the premises”. The tenant’s submission is correct, the tenant is entitled to have visitors and even if they stay for short periods, that does not prove that the other person (or persons) are residing in the premises.
Likewise, the tenant is entitled to have visitors come to the premises, even if that is late at night. That is not unlawful. Drug use
The evidence does support that there was drugs were use at the premises. The tenant had the premises methamphetamine tested before the tenancy, there was no trace of methamphetamine, but the tenant accepted that there was contamination immediately following. That plainly supports a conclusion that the subtenant, or somebody on the premises with the subtenant’s permission, contaminated the premises.
The landlord seeks exemplary damages that are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.
Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the Act.
In this case, the Residential Tenancies Act confirms that it is an unlawful act, if a tenant uses the premises for an unlawful purpose. It surely does not need to be said that consuming methamphetamine on the premises is unlawful in the sense that it is a criminal act. I find that an unlawful act has occurred.
Taking into consideration the section 109 factors, I find that exemplary damages should be ordered. It is almost certain that the consumption was undertaken intentionally. There is a strong interest for tenants, landlords, and the public generally, that premises are not used unlawfully, and that drugs are not used on tenancy premises. I consider it would be just to make an order of exemplary damages.
The maximum level of exemplary damages for using premises for an unlawful purpose, is $1800. In this case, I consider an order at 50% of the maximum would be indicated, and therefore order the tenant to pay the landlord. $900.00

TENANTS CLAIMS

Claim 1 – Rent refund

The tenant seeks a refund of all rent paid, on the basis that the premises were unlawful residential premises.
The tenant’s position is that the premises, which includes the front of the building, including the building that has been rented in this case, is not consented. The tenant refers to the notice from the Auckland City Council showing the work as being unconsented.
In response, the landlord says that when she purchased the premises, this building already existed. The landlord refers to the Code Compliance Certificate.
The landlord states that the 2024 Notice to Fix issued by the Council does not relate to the building the tenancy is in, it is a separate structure. The landlord accepts that she has formed the kitchen and that was without council consent. Analysis
Overall, I find this claim has not been established. While I have concerns around the forming of the kitchen, the tenant has not produced evidence from the Council that this would be unlawful, as far as the Council is concerned. The other structure on the overall site was not rented by the tenant, and its impact on the lawfulness of the tenancy is negligible if at all. This claim has not been established. Claim 2 – Exemplary damages due to harassment
The tenant seeks exemplary damages for harassment in relation to the actions of the landlord blocking in the subtenant from leaving, and further that there were multiple episodes of unlawful entry.
The landlord submits that there is no evidence of unlawful entry provided by the tenant.
Otherwise in relation to blocking in the subtenant, the landlord says that this was on 20 March, which was following the date that possession should end. The landlord arrived home and found cars and trucks in the yard which she did not expect. The landlord states that she had not received notification. The landlord states she could not get in because the subtenant vehicles were in the yard. The landlord also states that there had been an undertaking to pay for all of the utility bills before moving out. The landlord explained that following engagement with the tenant, the landlord did deposit money in her account.
The landlord confirmed that the police did come to the premises and asked her to move her car, and she asked the Police about how they can stop people using drugs. The landlord states that she presented demands including that repairs be undertaken, the premises be decontaminated and money paid. Analysis
The landlord had no right to block in the tenant from leaving. What makes this case much more egregious is that the landlord refused to allow the subtenant to leave with his belongings unless money was paid. The landlord has unlawfully ceased the tenants goods by refusing to allow them to leave the yard. In my view, the landlord is very fortunate that the Police did not take action against her.
I cannot accept that the landlord was under any misapprehension as to the reason the vehicles were in the yard, and wanting to leave. It is not credible that any confusion could have remained after the police had spoken with the landlord.
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 Act further confirms that contravention of subsection 2 in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, is declared to be an unlawful act.
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.”
In this case, what the landlord has done, was serious, and sufficiently so to result in a finding that the single event was harassment of the tenant. There is no doubt that the actions of the landlord would have caused alarm, distress or worry to the subtenant, and also I consider the tenant. The tenant was still in possession of the premises, so the landlord’s obligations continued to apply.
This is a case where exemplary damages should be ordered against the landlord. I consider the landlord’s actions were intentional. There are very strong interests for tenants and the public generally that tenant goods and vehicles not be seized, nor that they be forced to pay money in order to have them released. It would be just to make an order in this case.
The maximum level of exemplary damages for harassment is $3,000.00. I consider an order at 50% of the maximum would be reasonable; I therefore order the landlord to pay the tenant the sum of $1,500.00. Claim 3 – Exemplary damages due to unlawful entry
The tenant case is that the landlord, or others such as [The landlord’s witness], entered the premises without giving consent. Analysis
As I indicated at the hearing, this claim cannot succeed. A landlord can only enter premises broadly, in three circumstances that is if there is an emergency without notice, after providing notice, or with consent given at the time of entry. I have not received any evidence from the subtenant, confirming that entry with consent has not been provided, or that the landlord had not given the subtenant notice. It may well be that the landlord has entered the premises without the necessary consent, but my suspicion of that is not enough; there must be sufficient evidence to show an entry outside the statutory criteria and the tenant has not provided that evidence. Claim 4 – Exemplary damages for failure to lodge the bond
The tenant states that the landlord failed to lodge the bond. The tenant notes that they completed the bond lodgement form and returned that to the landlord. The bond was paid on 4 October 2025 at the same time as the first two weeks of rent.
The landlord states that the tenant did not send back the bond lodgement form, and they confirmed they still have the money.
The tenant disputes that the bond lodgement form was not provided. Analysis
The tenant claims exemplary damages on the basis that the landlord has breached section 19 of the RTA, for failing to lodge the bond with the Chief Executive.
Section 19 of the RTA sets out the “Duties of landlord on receipt of bond”, and confirms that the landlord: shall, within 23 working days after the payment is made, forward the amount received to the chief executive, together with a statement of particulars in the approved form signed by the landlord and the tenant.
For the purposes of this provision, the bond is considered to be lodged with the Chief Executive, by lodging the bond with the Bond Centre.
Section 19(2) of the RTA confirms that failure to lodge the bond following the section 19 requirements, is declared to be an unlawful Act, and therefore could be the subject of an order of exemplary damages.
I am not persuaded that the tenant did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre as claimed, I consider it most likely the tenant did provide that form.
However, even if that were not the case, the landlord is still able to have lodged the bond with the Bond Centre, even without the tenant’s side of the form having been completed.
What makes this case more problematic for the landlord, is that even when the issues with this application were raised, she still has not lodged the bond.
I consider the landlord’s actions are likely to be intentional. There are strong interests for tenants, landlords and the public generally, that bonds are lodged and properly managed.
The maximum level of exemplary damages for failing to lodge the bond is $1,500.00. Again, an order at 50% of the maximum would be reasonable, particularly given the landlord still holds the bond. The order is therefore for $750.00 of exemplary damages. Name Suppression
The tenant has been mostly successful in its application, so tenant name suppression is ordered only.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5249677 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 1, 128 Grafton Road, Grafton, Auckland 1010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5249677 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 1, 128 Grafton Road, Grafton, Auckland 1010

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

WITNESS EVIDENCE

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

What are the levels to be accepted at these premises?

TENANTS CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

WITNESS EVIDENCE

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

What are the levels to be accepted at these premises?

TENANTS CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions