What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5251080 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address must not be

How much money was awarded in case 5251080?

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

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5251080?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5251080?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12713520-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5251080 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address must not be

How much money was awarded in case 5251080?

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

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5251080?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5251080?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12713520-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

[Street Address], Waitoki, RD 4, Waitoki 0794 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5251080 — Rent arrears

Order

The parties’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address must not be published.
[The landlords] must pay [the tenant] $1,073.58 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

I heard the issue of jurisdiction remotely on 26 July 2025. All the parties attended by video link. I found the Tribunal does have jurisdiction. I record my reasons in this decision also.
I heard the substantive claims at the North Shore District Court on 12 November 2025.
All parties attended.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
The tenancy began on 27 February 2024 and ended on 11 March 2025.
The premises’ unit is a self-contained converted barn. The unit is located on a large semi-rural property of about 4 hectares (40,000m 2 ; 10 acres). The landlords also live on the property in a large well-appointed main house. The landlords rent out another small unit on the same property and there are other buildings such as sheds or barns as well.
The unit has a floor area of 68m 2 and a large garage with a floor area of about 40m 2 . It has two bedrooms, a bathroom, and a kitchen. The kitchen has a benchtop oven. Neither the bathroom nor the kitchen had extractor fans as required by the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). 1 Otherwise the unit appears to be structurally sound, in good condition, and compliant with the HHS. Jurisdiction
The tenancy began as short-stay Airbnb-type arrangement but became a long-term arrangement over time. The landlords submitted: Primarily used for occasional holiday accommodation for family and friends. We did not and do not intend it to be tenanted long term, nor did we seek a long term renter. [The tenant] invited us for dinner and asked if we would consider her to stay longer on a rental basis, as she had left her family, with only 2 suitcases, travelling between Air BnBs with nowhere to live. She was seeking to stay somewhere to settle for a while to sort out some issues. We agreed on the basis of a temporary holiday stay, reviewing month to month with 21-day notice by either party, as we had concerns for the security of our property, in view of her unstable family situation. It was not intended as a permanent long term arrangement. We viewed this agreement as an extension to her Air BnB stay, not as an official permanent rental, as clearly explained to her from the beginning.
The landlords are familiar with the requirements of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) because for about six years they have about five ordinary rental homes for which they use standard RTA agreements. 1 Under Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA)s 45(1)(bb), and the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019.
On 27 February 2024, the landlords emailed the tenant: [We] are so happy that you loved out barn so much you want to stay for a longer term. We pray it brings you all the tranquillity an dealing tie you need and deserved during this very difficult time in your life. I have rustled up this agreement for you to check through. It’s a simple one, based on some research of holiday home rental wordings and some wording form the stand tenancy agreement. ...And thank you also for your kind friendship all week...feels like we’ve know you a long time already!
The tenancy agreement the landlords attached is described as a “Periodic Term Rental” and is something of a hybrid, containing standard periodic tenancy agreement terms that comply with the RTA but also terms that do not comply with the RTA, such as a term that either party can terminate the tenancy on 21 days’ notice.
Section 5(1)(k) of the RTA excludes tenancies from the RTA as follows: where the premises— (i) are intended to provide temporary or transient accommodation (such as that provided by hotels and motels), being accommodation that is ordinarily provided for periods of less than 28 days at a time; and (ii) are subject to an agreement that has been entered into for the purpose of providing temporary or transient accommodation that continues to be provided under the agreement:
It was for one month renewable, which is by definition 28 days or more (February has 28 days, the other months have more than 28 days). That indicates that s 5(1)(k)(ii) is does not apply because the accommodation was not ordinarily provided for periods of less than 28 days at a time.
Moreover, the tenancy was renewable by the tenant. Even if the landlords’ original intent had been to provide temporary accommodation, the intent later changed to providing more long-lasting accommodation unlike that provided by hotels or motels. Thus, I consider s 5(1)(k)(i) does not apply either.
It is not open to landlords to opt out of the RTA because it is convenient. That is so even if landlords consider in their own wisdom that they are doing the tenant a favour. If landlords could just opt out of the RTA, non-compliance with the RTA would be a routine matter and the RTA would be of little effect. Claims
The tenant claims: 2 a. The landlords failed to comply with their tenancy agreement information obligations in respect to insurance and the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). 3 b. The premises are unlawful premises. 4 2 See p 18 of the tenant’s Revised Submission dated 1 August 2025. 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) s 13A(1F)(b). c.The landlords failed to maintain the provide and maintain the premises to a reasonable state of repair in respect to pest control, water supply issues, and the poor condition of the driveway. 5 d. The landlords interfered with her reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy in respect to her male guest. 6 e. The landlords failed to provide internet services as required.
For remedy, the tenant seeks orders for compensation and exemplary damages.
The tenant claims included claims outside the jurisdiction of the RTA or that were not intelligible claims including marijuana claim, retaliatory meth allegations, unlawful discrimination, WINZ supplier support denied, defamatory landlord characterisations, and cumulative misconduct and retaliation. These claims are struck out for disclosing no reasonable cause of action. 7
The landlords claimed for rent arrears, the excess for repairing a garage door, 8 and the costs of remediating methamphetamine contamination.

Was the tenancy agreement deficient?

The landlords did not include HHS and insurance details in the tenancy agreement.
Landlords must include in the tenancy agreement a signed statement that the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards and insurance details including the applicable excess.
Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. 9
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages if it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. 10
However, parties may not apply for exemplary damages later than 12 months after the date of the commission of the unlawful act. 11 In this case the unlawful act occurred on about 27 February 2024. The tenant applied to the Tribunal for exemplary damages on 6 May 2025, three months too late.
The tenant submitted that the Tribunal should regard the breach as a continuing one. However, that would require an unnatural reading of s 13A. 4 RTA s 78A. 5 RTA, s 45(1)(b). 6 RTA, s 38. 7 RTA s 92A. 8 RTA s 49B. 9 RTA See s13(1F)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 10 RTA s 109(3). 11 RTA s 109(2)(b).
Exemplary damages are unavailable. However, it is appropriate to order nominal damages. Landlord’s observance of their tenancy agreement obligations is an important plank in ensuring that landlords comply with their substantive duties under the RTA such as the HHS and recognition that the RTA applies and that therefore the tenant enjoys the rights the RTA promotes.

Was the premises an unlawful premises?

Legal principles

The Tribunal may declare premises to be unlawful residential premises under s 77(2)(ac) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Under s 78A(2) of the RTA, residential premises are unlawful if they cannot be lawfully occupied for residential purposes, and the landlord has caused or contributed to the unlawful occupation by failing to comply with: o s 36 of the RTA (take all reasonable steps to ensure that, at the commencement of the tenancy, there is no legal impediment to the occupation of the premises for residential purposes); or o s 45(1)(c) of the RTA (comply with all requirements in respect of buildings).
Where the Tribunal declares the residential premises to be unlawful, it may order the return of all rent paid by the tenant, although it may deduct an amount from that sum if, in the special circumstances of the case, it would be fair to do so. 12
Relevantly for this case, household units may not be divided into smaller household units without fulfilling change of use rules which involve Council issuing a Certificate of Code Compliance. Section 115(1) of the Building Act 2004, provides: 115 Code compliance requirements: change of use An owner of a building must not change the use of the building,— (a) in a case where the change involves the incorporation in the building of 1 or more household units where household units did not exist before, unless the territorial authority gives the owner written notice that the territorial authority is satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that the building, in its new use, will comply, as nearly as is reasonably practicable, with the building code in all respects...
The Building Act defines “household unit” as follows: household unit— (b) means a building or group of buildings, or part of a building or group of buildings, that is— (i) used, or intended to be used, only or mainly for residential purposes; and (ii) occupied, or intended to be occupied, exclusively as the home or residence of not more than 1 household... Discussion 12 RTA, s 78A(4)(a).
The converted barn was a “household unit” in terms of the Building Act because it is a building that was used or intended to be used for residential purposes.
The tenant provided property information from Auckland Council that shows the building has been approved only as a shed.
It follows that the premises was an unlawful premises under the Act. Rent reduction: legal principles
Where the Tribunal finds premises are unlawful residential premises under s 78A(4) of the RTA, it may order the landlord to (i) repay the tenant all the rent they paid; or (ii) a lesser amount of rent repayment that it finds fair having regard to the special circumstances of the case, including the nature of the premises.
I consider that s 78A(4)(ii) should apply to this case because applying s 78A(4)(i) would be unfair to the landlord.
The Court of Appeal in Parbhu 13 disparaged a sledgehammer response of a full rent reduction in response to “relatively footling” breaches: The effect of relying on that provision is that any relatively footling breach by a landlord (for instance, the incomplete planning or building consenting of an otherwise eminently safe and sound accessory unit)...would compel total restitution of rent paid regardless of the degree of benefit.
Consistently with these comments in Parbhu, any rent repayment the Tribunal orders should be proportionate to the seriousness of the breach. At the more serious end of the scale are premises that are virtual hovels, such as an unconsented converted garage that leaks and is infested by vermin. At the other end of the scale where there is a minor building consent irregularity, but the premises are “eminently safe and sound” a full rent reduction is not called for.
Recent District Court cases illustrate the approach that should be taken. In Chen v Kumar 14 the premises had been consented for use as a rest home (upstairs) and a residence for the past owner and family (downstairs). Originally, the rest home and residency were not physically divided, but before the tenancy began someone blocked access between the upstairs and downstairs to create two separate residential units. The landlord, Mr Chen, was convinced that he could lawfully rent the downstairs premises out. The Tribunal found however, the premises were unlawful and ordered about 30 per cent of the rent be returned to the tenant, which amounted to $45,000.00.
In the District Court, Judge DJ Clark agreed with the Tribunal that the premises were unlawful. However, he considered that on the facts as he found them, the rent reduction must be drastically reduced. Importantly, Mr Kumar very much wanted to stay in the premises and the premises were not “unsafe”: [95] Furthermore, Mr Kumar and his family enjoyed the occupancy of a premises and received the full benefit of those premises throughout the course of the tenancy. He 13 Want v Parbhu & Patel as Trustees of the Impala Trust [2019] NZCA 674 at [31]. 14 Chen v Kumar [2022] NZDC 7783. wanted the tenancy to continue. I do not accept then the unit is necessarily “unsafe” given Mr Kumar’s enjoyment of the same. Arguably it falls into the category contemplated by the Court of Appeal as being technically in breach of planning or consenting obligations but otherwise could be safe. Certainly, until February 2021 Mr Kumar thought so as he wanted to remain there. [96] The Tribunal ordered Anemax (and now the landlord through my order) to pay Mr Kumar the sum of $45,000 (being a 30% reduction on the total rent paid). For the reasons set out I quash that order given that I find Mr Kumar had the full benefit of the premises during the tenancy, which including a discount during the period of construction.
His Honour reduced the rent to be refunded to $2,000.00. That amount also took account of rent arrears of $3,165.71 (which the Tribunal had also declined to order). The District Court rent reduction of $2,000.00 amounts to about 3 per cent of the total rent paid. 15 If the $3,165.71 arrears are factored in the reduction is about 7.5 percent. 16
In Kemp v Elliot 17 the premises’ passed its final inspection which found the build to have been completed fully with the building consent. The final inspection report recorded that Council should issue the CCC upon the landlord paying the appropriate application fee. Kemp was therefore the factual exemplar of “the incomplete planning or building consenting of an otherwise eminently safe and sound accessory unit”.
The Tribunal had ordered 30 per cent rent reduction (based on findings of fact that the District Court did not adopt), which resulted in a refund rounded up to $20,000.00. 18 However, Judge D J Clark quashed the Tribunal’s order and substituted an order for a rent reduction of $2,000.00. That figure amounts to a rent refund of about 3 per cent.
I must carefully weigh what amount of rent it is fair to deduct. The RTA does not specify the “special circumstances of the case” I must have regard to except for “the nature of the premises”.
Other special circumstances I find relevant are: 19 a. The parties’ knowledge of the breach and reasons for entering the tenancy. b. The tenant’s reasons for bringing the claim. c.The benefits the parties received. d. The seriousness of any regulatory breaches making the premises unlawful. e. Other orders the Tribunal will make. f.The detriment the tenant suffered. g. The purposes of discouraging tenancies of unlawful premises and ensuring landlords do not unfairly profit from unlawful premises. The nature of the premises 15 The rent due to 9 March was $66,874.29. 16 The rent due to the end of the tenancy was $68,445.71. 17 [2022] NZDC 17792. 18 The total rent due to the end of the tenancy was $63,607.14. 19 See Janet Robertshawe’s 2019 conference paper, The Legacy of Anderson v FM Custodians: Section 78A Tenancies.
The landlords say they would have been happy to live in the unit themselves. The previous owner of the property’s daughter lived in the unit. The landlords had their own family members and friends living in the unit at various times, who found it lovely according to the landlords. The landlords had used the unit for Airbnb guests. There is no evidence of negative feedback from any of the guests.
The tenant does not complain about the unit per se but submits the unit did not have a gas fitting certification for the gas cylinder system or an electrical certification. The landlords say they have since had the wiring checked by a qualified electrician who reported it safe and that they have had the gas fittings certified.
I find on the balance of probabilities that the unit was in good condition and safe and pleasant to live to live in.
However, in addition to lacking appropriate consents, the unit was non-compliant with the HHS because it did not have extractor fans in the bathroom or the kitchen. The parties’ reasons for entering the tenancy and their knowledge of the breach
The landlords say their main motivation was to support the tenant who had recently ended a long-term relationship. The landlords appear to have been kind and considerate towards the tenant. They were a little concerned that her presence on their property was a risk, but they proceeded with the tenancy. They tried to support her spiritually in their own Christian faith and helped her in other ways. I accept that humane benevolence was a primary motivation for the landlords entering the tenancy.
The landlords charged the tenant rent for the unit, so financial benefit was also a reason for entering the tenancy. The weekly rent of $550.00 per week including water, and broadband connection was not exploitive but nor was it nominal.
The landlords say that the unit was on the property when they bought it. As the owners of at least five properties they would have been aware that buildings must have appropriate certificates of compliance because such technical requirements dictate what buildings can be used for and significantly impact value. I find it probable that they knew the unit was not compliant for residential use.
The tenant was having some personal challenges. She was perhaps a little lost and looking for a new direction in her life. She wanted a safe, comfortable, healthy place to live.
The tenant had no idea that the premises were unlawful premises or defective. The tenant’s reasons for bringing the claim
The tenant seeks vindication for being the victim of the landlord’s non-compliance. The benefits the parties received from the tenancy
The landlords received rental income of $25,500.00 over the approximately 12 months of the tenancy.
The tenant generally looked after the premises and apart from some difficulties with a person who had to be trespassed from the premises did not trouble the landlords. She submits: My tenancy at [street address] Road not only brought them financial benefit, but emotional and physical support. I took over many of Andy’s chores around the property, and I agreed to attend their Wednesday night congregation meetings, along with accepting weekly Bible studies, conducted by Karen at my residence. I cooked and delivered hot meals for them up to twice weekly, at my own expense. I assisted with property maintenance including lawn mowing, fencing repairs, deck staining, and pizza oven restoration. I spent many hours turning a simple outdoor bath area into a marketable feature of the barnhouse, spending my own money on large wooden privacy partitions, paired with selective grasses, ferns and flaxes, including a mature punga tree costing $90 and new decking that I built around the perimeter of the outdoor bath. Karen and Andy had communicated their gratitude for my efforts and were very pleased with the result, with Karen asking me to keep the feature area the way I had designed it, leaving all elements that I expended on behind on departure.
The tenant found the premises acceptable for the most part. They were comfortable and had the basic modern conveniences including a heat pump. She benefited from the landlords support, although, as will be discussed, the landlords may have overstepped in attempting to give the tenant guidance. The seriousness of the breaches underlying the unlawfulness
To be eligible to be used as a separate household unit, the premises would, among other things, have had to have extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom. It is not clear what other requirements would have to be met for the Council to grant a retrospective safe and sanitary certification. The tenant’s detriment
The tenant would have had potentially less healthy and pleasant conditions than she ought to have due to the absence of extractor fans. Other orders
The Tribunal is making other orders, but only the nominal damages of $200.00 for the lack of HHS details is relevant, and then only marginally so.
The rent reduction ordered does not have to be reduced for that. Unfair profit and the public interest
Section 78A addresses a concern that landlords do not unfairly profit from unlawful premises and there is a public interest in discouraging tenancies of unlawful premises.
This calls for the rent reduction to be set at a level that deters and landlords from running the risk of renting out unlawful premises by depriving them of any unfair rental profit. Conclusion
I conclude the landlord should repay the tenant 12.5 per cent of the rent they paid. The total amount is $3,722.32.
I also order the tenant’s expense for obtaining a property report from Council.

Did the landlords failed to maintain the premises to a reasonable state of repair?

The tenant complains the landlords were in breach of their duty to maintain the premises in respect to pest control, water supply issues, and the poor condition of the driveway. Legal principles
Landlords have a duty to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair under s 45(1)(b) of the RTA. They must repair defects within a reasonable time once they acquire such knowledge. That section provides that landlords: (b) provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes...
As the author of Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand explains: 20 The landlord’s obligation of repair is not absolute. A landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage... A landlord therefore must repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair: “...the obligation of the landlord, under s 45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be...”
Landlords also have an obligation to repair things that are apparent from observation: 21 However, notice from the tenant is not needed if the landlords knew of the need for repair or the need for repair is apparent from observation... Pest control
The tenant claims that a rat damaged her car, “Bruno’s”, electrical wiring. However, the mechanic’s invoice dated 29 May 2024 notes: “Check wiring in engine bay for rodent damage. None found.” Moreover, the landlords did have mice and rat traps and aside from the one incident of suspected rodent damage, the tenant does not appear to have suffered a problem with rats at the premises. 20 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (2018) Thomson Reuters at 6.18. 21 Ibid.
The tenant saw an opossum on her deck on one occasion, but given the semi-rural location, that is unremarkable. Similarly, there were rabbits on the land. The tenant says she say them on a daily basis. The landlords do not accept they were routinely that much in evidence. The landlord kept the rabbits down by shooting them from time to time, but eradication was not feasible. I am not satisfied that the landlords did not do enough to control the rabbits. Garden water supply
The tenancy included free water to the house and also free water for watering the garden. The garden water system sometimes needed attending to because the tank ran low, pipes sprang a leak, or a pump needed attention and the like. The tenant claimed not to have had access to the garden water for seven months. However, the landlords dispute that it would have been continuously unavailable for anything like that amount of time. They also point out the tenant could have used the unit’s tank water for the garden if she chose. The tenant’s evidence does not satisfy me that the water was unavailable for long periods of time. The unit’s tank water was always available as an alternative. I am not satisfied the landlords were in breach of their maintenance obligations in respect to the garden water. The driveway
The driveway was a typical gravel driveway with a kiykuya grass in the middle. The tenant complains that at along about half the driveway her car would scrape the driveway. The landlords say there was only a short section of less than 10 metres length which could easily be avoided by driving to the side. They were intending to use their digger to level it out. But didn’t get around to doing so because the tenant did herself and Mr [landlord’s surname] was indisposed at the time due to gallstone surgery.
The Tribunal must have regard to “the character of the premises” pursuant to s 45(1)(b), a commonsense qualification of the section. The character of the premises includes that it is located on a semi-rural property. The driveway is commensurate to its location. The landlords were going to attend to the more problematic part of the driveway, but the tenant got there first before the landlords had been afforded a reasonable time. I am not satisfied that half the driveway needed repair. It follows I do not find it proven that the landlords failed to maintain the driveway. Conclusion
The tenant’s claim the landlords failed to maintain the driveway is dismissed. Did the landlords interfere with the tenant’s reasonable peace
The tenant says one of the landlords approached her on the driveway and told her that the other landlords “was very upset about her having a male visitor” and asked her to cease having them over. On about 8 November 2024, the landlords were hosting a camera crew form religious group to which they belonged to film in one of the barns on the property. The landlords told the tenant they particularly would prefer it if her male friend was not there.
She felt restricted and spied upon because the landlords’ security cameras captured anyone coming or going from the unit. Consequently, her male partner had to hide “in the boot” when he visited.
As a consequently the tenant says she experienced six months of emotional distress, shame, fear of eviction and social isolation. The tenant also supplied statements from her male friend in support.
The landlords say that they were not acting as landlords but were supporting her in living a clean life. Legal principles
Landlords must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. 22
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. 23
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". 24
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. Discussion
The landlords were involved in the tenant’s personal life in addition to their being her landlord. They belong to a Christian faith organisation, and they were supporting her in that faith. The landlord’s say the discussions about the tenant not having a male on the property arose from their personal relationship, not their landlord-tenant relationship.
While from the landlord’s point of view, they did not intend to impose restrictions on the tenant in the capacity of landlords, the effect on the tenant amounted to an interference with her reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy. Remedy
I accept the landlords’ evidence that they did not interfere with the tenant’s reasonable peace intentionally. That being so, exemplary damages are inappropriate and unavailable. 22 RTA, s 38(2). 23 RTA, s 38(3) and Schedule 1A. 24 MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
However, I consider it is appropriate to order general damages. General damages are compensatory damages. The Tribunal has the power to award compensation under s 77(2)(n) of the RTA, which provides the Tribunal may order: such sum by way of damages or compensation as the Tribunal shall assess in respect of the breach of any ... provision of this Act
I accept the tenant suffered emotional harm in the form of “emotional distress, shame, fear of eviction and social isolation”.
In Palmer v Housing New Zealand (No 2) 25 , the Tribunal held that when assessing the quantum of general damages, the Tribunal must consider the following factors: a.The nature of the breach; b.The duration of the breach; and c.The effect of the breach on the party.
The Tribunal’s general damages awards have historically been low. In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing, Neave DCJ described the Tribunal’s awards for emotional harm damages as “not particularly generous” and “fairly conservative”. 26 In that case, the tenant had returned to her unit to discover contractors had entered her apartment without her permission to do asbestos removal work. The landlord who was carrying out asbestos removal in many apartments in the building had mistakenly failed to give the tenant notice of the entry.
Judge Neave found the Tribunal’s award of $200.00 of emotional harm damages for the unlawful entry was “close to being derisory”. He substituted an award of in the sum of $2,000.00 finding “it was a significant intrusion on [the tenant’s] rights”.
In Sun v Kang, Judge David J Clark found in the assessment of general damages in respect to another unlawful entry case: 27 [69] Ultimately any assessment of damages will be based on all the circumstances of the case including (but not intending to make a prescriptive list) the intentions of the landlord; whether there was a lawful purpose which sat behind the conduct; the conduct of the tenant; the effect on the tenant; whether the conduct was ongoing, whether there were any aggravating or mitigating factors from both the landlord or tenant.
In that case His Honour approved $3,000.00 for the landlord unlawfully entering the premises on two occasions.
In this case, the landlords’ intentions were kind but the impact on the tenant was serious. The tenant did nothing wrong but was made to feel guilty and furtive. The tenant endured the situation for about six months.
I order general damages of $1,500.00. Wi-fi router 25 Palmer v Housing New Zealand (No 2) Auckland TT 2378/92, 25 August 1993. 26 Birch v Otautahi Community Housing [2020] NZDC 17667. 27 Sun v Kang [2023] NZDC 24786 at [69].
There was a problem with the wi-fi. The tenant spend $200.88 trying unsuccessfully to sort it out.
The landlords agreed to reimburse the tenant for that amount.
An order is made accordingly. Rent arrears and water
The landlords provided a rent and water summary.
The tenant agrees with the landlords’’ calculation.
An order is made accordingly. Garage door damage
The tenant damaged the garage roller door by accident.
The landlords had to pay a $900.00 excess to have the door repaired.
I order the tenant to pay $800.00 of that amount because the repair was not done during the tenancy, so the tenant did not have the benefit of it. Methamphetamine contamination
The landlords claim for methamphetamine decontamination. However, they did not conduct any pre-tenancy testing to set a base level for decontamination and none of the levels exceeded the “Gluckman level” of contamination.
A recent amendment to s 138C of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides for regulations to be made prescribing the maximum acceptable level for contaminants, but no regulations have been made in relation to methamphetamine levels yet.
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
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 and exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm 2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect.
The report recommended decontamination to the level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 only where contamination resulted from manufacture due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the manufacturing process.
The District Court has held that remediation should be carried out in accordance with the prevailing guidelines at the time. 28
The Tribunal has endorsed the Gluckman recommendations and has applied them for several years. The District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 approved the Tribunal’s approach: 29 The Tenancy Tribunal was in a difficult position. The best state of knowledge of risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination available to the adjudicator was the Gluckman Report. It would have been bold for the adjudicator to have ignored that report in favour of the New Zealand Standard given that the Gluckman report represents the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination in dwellings.
The District Court took a similar approach in Acme Realty Limited v Hogg and others [2021] NZDC 3231, where the Court referred to the Full Circle case and held that, because NZS 8510:2017 has not been adopted into law, the Tribunal was not bound to apply the 1.5μg standard.
More recently, in Barfoot and Thompson Limited v Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited [2021] NZTT Auckland 4276319, both parties presented scientific evidence at a hearing before the Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that there was no new scientific research to change the conclusions reached in the Gluckman Report. Discussion
The highest levels of contamination in this case are less than two-thirds of the level where the Tribunal would find decontamination is required. As the law stands, the landlords would not have been obliged to decontaminate the premises prior to reletting it.
In any event, the landlords cannot prove that contamination occurred during the tenancy because there was no base-testing. Conclusion
This claim is dismissed. Non-publication 30
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. 31
Both parties have substantially succeeded in the proceedings. 28 Diamond Real Estate Limited v Allan [2017] NZDC 833. 29 At [36]. 30 This section is an addendum to the original decision. 31 RTA s 95A(1)
I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or justified because of the parties’ conduct or any other circumstances.
Therefore, the Tribunal orders non-publication.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5251080 — Rent arrears at [Street Address], Waitoki, RD 4, Waitoki 0794

Tenancy Tribunal case 5251080 — Rent arrears at [Street Address], Waitoki, RD 4, Waitoki 0794

Order

Reasons

Was the tenancy agreement deficient?

Was the premises an unlawful premises?

Did the landlords failed to maintain the premises to a reasonable state of repair?

Order

Reasons

Was the tenancy agreement deficient?

Was the premises an unlawful premises?

Did the landlords failed to maintain the premises to a reasonable state of repair?