What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5310223 about?

The tribunal order states: Paula Jane Minchin must pay Occupy Property Management Limited As Agent

How much money was awarded in case 5310223?

Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $371.43 awarded to landlord; Testing Costs Methamphetamine: $1,697.40 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5310223?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5310223?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12449880-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5310223 about?

The tribunal order states: Paula Jane Minchin must pay Occupy Property Management Limited As Agent

How much money was awarded in case 5310223?

Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $371.43 awarded to landlord; Testing Costs Methamphetamine: $1,697.40 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5310223?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5310223?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12449880-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

18A Raniera Street, Glen Avon, New Plymouth 4312 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5310223 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5310223 — net $96.83 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 30 June 2025	$371.43	Rent arrears to 30 June 2025
Testing costs methamphetamine	$1,697.40	Testing costs methamphetamine
Exemplary damages unlawful use	$600.00	Exemplary damages unlawful use
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$96.83
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$96.83

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5310223 — net $96.83 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 30 June 2025	$371.43	Rent arrears to 30 June 2025
Testing costs methamphetamine	$1,697.40	Testing costs methamphetamine
Exemplary damages unlawful use	$600.00	Exemplary damages unlawful use
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$96.83
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$96.83

Order

Paula Jane Minchin must pay Occupy Property Management Limited As Agent For Samantha Pigott $96.83 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 (6538319-001) to Occupy Property Management Limited As Agent For Samantha Pigott immediately.
The tenant’s applications for exemplary damages are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord property manager and the tenant attended the hearing which took place in person.
The landlord is claiming rent arrears and compensation, exemplary damages arising out of the tenant’s unlawful use of the premises and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenant is claiming exemplary damages for a) the landlord not returning her bond promptly and intimidating conduct; b) breach of quiet enjoyment; c) the landlord being unreasonable by increasing her rent to make the property unaffordable and reimbursement of the filing fee. Civil burden of proof
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered. Landlord claims I will first consider the landlord’s claims. Rent arrears
The tenancy began on 28 June 2024. The tenant paid $1,300 in rent per fortnight (that is $650 per week). The landlord seeks rent arrears of $371.43 being rent arrears to 30 June 2025.
It was the tenant who gave notice to the landlord to end the tenancy and her notice expressed that the tenancy was due to end on 27 June 2025.
The tenant did not hand over possession to the landlord on that date. I heard how there were minor extensions of time because the tenant was not ready to hand over possession as she still had items in the premises and was undertaking cleaning and remedying issues at the property. The tenant referred to the fact that the landlord was not going to do the final inspection until 30 June.
On 25 June 2025 the tenant advised that she would be cleaning carpets on Saturday (28 th ) and fumigating on Sunday (29 th ) leaving the keys on the kitchen bench ready for Monday (30 th ). I heard how on 30 June the tenant was still in the property.
A text message from the tenant shows that as at 3.36pm on 30 June she tells the landlord she would remain in possession until the following day given that she was being charged rent for 30 June. She also refers in a message to rent arrears being taken out of her bond.
Photographs provided show the tenant being in possession of the property on 30 June. The landlord sent clear messages to the tenant about rent liability while the tenant remained in the premises. A tenant does not get to stay in possession of the premises simply because a landlord is not immediately undertaking their final inspection.
I am satisfied that the tenant remained in possession of the property on 30 June 2025 and is therefore liable for rent as claimed.
The landlord has provided a rent summary proving the amount claimed. The sum ordered is proven. Methamphetamine – Unlawful use of the premises – Compensation
The landlord claims costs of methamphetamine testing and exemplary damages arising from the tenant’s alleged unlawful use of the premises.
The landlord says that the tenant has used the premises for unlawful purposes because the property has been subject to methamphetamine during the course of the tenancy.
Section 40(2)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that a tenant must not use the premises, or permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose.
When a landlord makes a claim that the tenant has used the property for an unlawful purpose then it must prove to the Tribunal on the balance of probabilities that it is more likely than not that the tenant used the premises unlawfully – here being methamphetamine at the property. Pre-tenancy testing
A pre-tenancy report for methamphetamine dated 12 June 2024 (the “pre- tenancy test”) showed composite methamphetamine levels at the premises to be <0.12 μg/100cm2. The landlord says that the property was left empty between this date and the start of the tenancy at the end of June.
The pre-tenancy test notes that there is no methamphetamine at the property. 13 samples were taken from across the property in the kitchen, dining room, lounge x2, bathroom, bedroom 1 x 2, bedroom 2, bedroom 3 x 2 and garage x3. The report was produced by Betta Property Compliance and the laboratory analysis done by HillLabs. Post tenancy testing
After the end of the tenancy the landlord undertook further methamphetamine screening. A report dated 30 June 2025 (the “composite test”) sets out that samples were taken and sent to the laboratory on 1 July 2025.
Again, the report was compiled by Betta Property Compliance and the laboratory analysis done by HillLabs. The samples recorded as taken were: a. Tube 1 sampled: Bedroom1, bedroom 1, hall and bathroom b. Tube 2 sampled: Bedroom 2, hall, entranceway, kitchen and dining room c. Tube 3 sampled: Garage x 2
The results that are recorded in the report and by the laboratory show a composite reading of 49 μg/100cm2. This was done at a cost of $286.35. An invoice is provided.
Next, the landlord, having received a high composite sample, requested a decomposition analysis. The report was produced by Betta Property Compliance and the laboratory analysis done by HillLabs (the “decomposition analysis”). This analysis broke the above samples down further reporting that there was 13.9 μg/100cm2 of methamphetamine in tube 1, 24 μg/100cm2 in tube 2 and 9.2 μg/100cm2 in tube 3.
This cost of $445.05. An invoice was provided.
The landlord says it was concerned particularly given the reading of 24 μg/100cm2 in tube 2 and therefore requested a more detailed report with individual swabs (the “detailed report”).
The results of that testing were methamphetamine levels of: Garage 10.4 μg/100 cm2 Lounge 6.0 μg/100 cm2 Kitchen 1.5 μg/100 cm2 Main bedroom 5.8 μg/100 cm2 Bathroom 5.0 μg/100 cm2 Middle bedroom 4.8 μg/100 cm2 End bedroom 7.2 μg/100 cm2
This test cost $966. An invoice is provided. This report was completed by The Drug Detection Agency (TDDA).
The tenant says that the reports are not reliable and that she has not smoked, used or manufactured methamphetamine.
The tenant says that the results produced by the landlord are not reliable. She questions how the pre-tenancy test records 49μg/100 cm2 but that when that result was broken down in decomposite analysis the tubes only add up to
1μg/100 cm2.
She also says that the reports are not reliable because sometimes the result went up on the detailed report and sometimes the result went down. E.g. In the garage the decomposite analysis was 9.2 μg/100 cm2 and the detailed report was 10.4 μg/100 cm2 and in the kitchen the decomposite analysis was 24 μg/100 cm2 but the detailed report was 1.5 μg/100 cm2.
She also says that the HillsLab reports have a “*” marked on the certificate of analysis and this means, according to a footnote, that the test is not accredited.
She also points to the terms and conditions of Betta and TDDA. Her concerns here can generally be described as the fact that no warranty is provided, the TDDA refers to results being presumptive only and that there are restrictions on the report producers’ liability.
She also says it is ridiculous to suggest that her young children were involved someway with methamphetamine as some of the methamphetamine readings are in their bedrooms. She suggests it may have come from second hand furniture or other second-hand products as most of her possessions are second hand.
The refers to the levels being below 15μg/100 cm2 (referring to the Gluckman report) and so the landlord is not able to withhold her bond. Analysis
In 2017 Standards New Zealand released Standard NZS 8510:2017 “Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine-contaminated properties”. In short, this standard confirmed that the level at which habitation of residential premises was considered safe, was a level of 1.5 μg/100cm2.
The expectation on landlords arising from this Standard, was to remediate premises contaminated with methamphetamine, to a level of less than
5μg/100 cm2. However, in more recent times, 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 cm2 were unlikely to present adverse effects and therefore there should be no need for remediation.
This matter has been 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 District 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.
In my assessment, this decision of the Court has confirmed that the level to be applied is the level expressed by the Chief Science Advisor, which is that there is no risk when levels of contamination are below 15μg/100 cm2.
Further validating this are the 2019 comments of the Court of Appeal in Smith v Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited [2019] NZCA 38 where, in paragraph [16], with reference to the Gluckman Report, the decision stated: “We acknowledge that the testing in this case yielded results now considered not to raise any health and safety concerns.”
I accept the tenant’s position that the methamphetamine found at the property at the end of the tenancy was less than 15μg/100cm and that the Gluckman report suggests that exposure to methamphetamine levels below 15μg/100cm2 would be unlikely to give rise to any adverse health effects. The Gluckman report said that it was only if levels higher than this that there was a risk to human health and extensive decontamination was required. That report has since been accepted as the applicable standard that the Tribunal should apply.
However, while the level of methamphetamine is relevant to a claim for cleaning / remedying damage it is not the relevant test for establishing whether there has been a breach of section 40(2)(b) RTA. Putting this another way, the fact that the levels are below 15μg/100cm does not mean that there has been no unlawful use of the premises.
The landlord is not seeking compensation on the basis of the tenant damaging or failing to suitably clean the property. The landlord’s position is that the tenant should pay for the cost of testing because that was required due to unlawful use of the premises. The possession of methamphetamine, a class A drug, is an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
The test to give rise to a breach here is whether the landlord has sufficiently proven that the property was used unlawfully as a result of methamphetamine.
The best evidence in these types of cases is a reliable pre-tenancy test result that shows that there was no significant methamphetamine present in the premises at the start of the tenancy and a further reliable test result(s) showing that there was significant methamphetamine present during or at the end of the tenancy.
On the basis of the evidence before me I am satisfied that the landlord has done this.
This is because I am satisfied that the landlord conducted an appropriate and reliable pre-tenancy test and suitable testing at the end of the tenancy to establish that there was no methamphetamine at the property at the start of the tenancy and that there was methamphetamine at the property at the end of the tenancy.
I am not satisfied that the footnote in the form of the “*” on the HillLabs documents impacts on the credibility of the overall position.
Sampling in the pre-tenancy test, composite test and decomposition analysis was based on “field composite screening”. This is when samples are taken from multiple areas in a property and composited to give a single result. It is not uncommon for landlords to test for methamphetamine first by way of composite sampling to establish if methamphetamine is present and then, if present, conduct detailed sampling to establish the extent of contamination.
The certificate of analysis I have been provided with from HillsLab refers to the laboratory being accredited, and that testing has been done in accordance with that accreditation (save for those results marked *).
The certificates set out the composited sample result and then set out a potential maximum. The test results that are marked with a * are expressed to be the potential maximum in a single sample, based on the scenario whereby all the methamphetamine in the composite sample is attributed to a single sample.
A potential maximum from a composite sampling can artificially inflate the amount of methamphetamine present (hence the Tribunal often requires detailed screening to establish claims for decontamination). This is why composite tests are usually initial screening tools.
However, this does not impact the credibility of the pre-tenancy test result which ultimately shows that just prior to the tenancy there was no methamphetamine at the premises. The composite sample itself (which is not marked with *) records just <0.04 μg/100cm2 of methamphetamine. So here, even with the “potential maximum” artificially inflating the amount of methamphetamine at the premises at the start of the tenancy there was still no methamphetamine the premises at that stage.
Turning to the HillLabs certificate for the composite test the maximum potential is 49 μg/100cm2 but the composited sample test itself still records 16.4 μg/100cm2. That latter result is not marked with a *.
Turning to the HillLabs certificate for the decomposite analysis, that repeats the information from the above composite test, but also sets out further decomposite results (of 13.9, 24 and 9.2 μg/100cm2). Those results are not marked with a *.
I do not accept the tenant’s submission that the * on the certificates makes the HillLabs certificates unreliable so that the landlord cannot sufficiently establish the lack of methamphetamine at the property at the start of the tenancy and the existence of methamphetamine at the property after the tenancy.
Turning to the reports themselves, the Betta reports (pre-tenancy, composite and decomposite) were undertaken by NZQA qualified inspectors, and carried out to the NZ8510:2017 standard. Samples are also said to have been taken to the validated process in the NZS8510 standard. This is recorded in the Betta report. The NZ standard refers to a sampling plan to provide representative results. The detailed report was undertaken by TDDA and I have no reason to doubt the credibility of the methodology adopted and the test results here either. That report also refers to TDDA following NZS 8510:2017 standards.
I am not satisfied that any of the terms and conditions in the Betta report referred to by the tenant are sufficient to make the results unreliable or not sufficiently credible. The reference to Betta not providing a warranty and noting that the results may not be representative of the entire building in my view does not mean that the test results are not sufficiently reliable to meet the necessary standard of proof. These are terms that limit business liability and that set out the scope of the testing.
I am not satisfied that any of the terms and conditions in the TDDA report referred to by the tenant are sufficient to make those results unreliable or not sufficiently credible. The arguments raised by the tenant that the lack of a warranty and a limitation on liability effect credibility do not, again, in my view, mean that the results are not sufficiently reliable to meet the necessary standard of proof. These are terms that limit business liability and that set out the scope of the testing.
Further, in relation to the TDDA report, I accept the landlord’s submission that the reference in the terms and conditions that states “Any conclusions drawn are intended to be presumptive only” relates to the position where any conclusions are drawn from a result rather than the result itself. This is the natural meaning of this sentence. Therefore, I do not find, as the tenant submitted, that this impacts the overall findings in the report either.
The tenant refers to the differences between the results, but I accept the landlord’s explanation that this is because the composite and decomposite results were as the result of combining samples taken, whereas the detailed testing was individual. The detailed samples were also taken from slightly different locations to the composite samples.
I am not satisfied that the difference between 13.9 μg/100cm2, 24 μg/100cm2 and 9.2 μg/100cm2 (being 47.1 μg/100cm2) in the decomposition test and 49 μg/100cm2 as the potential maximum dingle sample are indicative of an error in testing simply because the tenant says those three results should add up to 49 μg/100cm2.
As set out above, the reference to 49 is simply a potential maximum in a single sample. The 13.9 μg/100cm2, 24 μg/100cm2 and 9.2 μg/100cm2 are said to be miscellaneous wipes and “methamphetamine including precursors on wipes by LCMSMS. I am not satisfied that the tenant has sufficiently established that the potential maximum identified on a composite test must equal the same as the sum of the other results she identifies.
The tenant refers to discrepancies in the testing noting that sometimes samples levels have gone up and sometimes they have gone down. I do not find this unusual when composite testing followed by detailed testing has been done. This is why a composite test is a screening tool.
The tenant says methamphetamine was not at the premises and questions how it could have been in certain rooms. Instead, she refers to having second hand goods and the methamphetamine readings being because of those. She presented no evidence to support the likelihood of these readings arising as a result of having contaminated second hand goods in the premises. The samples taken were not of goods.
While the tenant says there was no methamphetamine use in the premises, I prefer the scientific evidence of the landlord which I find proves more likely than not that there was methamphetamine use at the premises during the tenancy. The tests sufficiently establish that there was no methamphetamine across the premises just prior to the tenancy and methamphetamine across the premises at various levels at the end of the tenancy.
I find it more likely than not that there has been an unlawful act relating to the possession of methamphetamine at the property by the tenant or someone within the property with her permission.
I find a passing suggestion made by the tenant that the representative of the landlord in some way caused these levels of contamination after the tenancy ended to be fanciful. There is no basis upon which to think this is the case and is also particularly fanciful given the dates upon which end of tenancy testing has taken place and the level of methamphetamine recorded.
Given that the composite test confirms via a screening process that there was methamphetamine use at the property I find it reasonable for the tenant to pay for the first report. Screening in this way is a cost-effective screening method to detect whether meth contamination is present at all. At this stage the landlord does not know which exact sample(s) were contaminated — just that one or more of the samples in the tube has methamphetamine.
Given the result in the composite report, I find it was reasonable for the landlord to then request a more detailed breakdown of the results in the form of the decomposite analysis to see what remediation, if any, might be necessary. The 3 tubes from the first test are now tested individually. This can narrow down which tube (or tubes)/locations of the home contained the contaminated samples. This is important because if only one of the three tubes tests positive, the landlord would only need to do individual testing on the samples that went into that tube.
Therefore, I award the costs of that test in full.
The detailed report was then necessary to pinpoint the exact location(s) and precise levels of meth contamination. Therefore, I award the costs of that test in full.
The sums ordered for methamphetamine testing are proven. Methamphetamine – Unlawful use of the premises – Exemplary damages
I must now consider whether to award exemplary damages. Breaching the obligation in section 40(2)(b) RTA 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 RTA.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA. Analysis
I am satisfied there has been an unlawful act. Given the nature of the breach and the levels identified in the detailed report I find it more likely than not that this was intentional.
The award of $1,800 must be reserved for the most serious cases. This case is towards the lower end of the scale, with the levels recorded not meeting the threshold for decontamination.
However, there are many different ways in which a tenant might use a property unlawfully and the unlawful act here is a serious one. I accept that the discovery of methamphetamine would have caused a delay in the re-tenanting of the premises. It is in the public interest that properties are not used unlawfully or exposed to methamphetamine.
I award the landlord $600 in exemplary damages for this breach, being a third of the potential maximum amount. The tenant’s claims
I now turn to the tenant’s application. Exemplary damages for breach of quiet enjoyment
The tenant says that there was a breach of her quiet enjoyment when the landlord sent her a text message about a van that was parked on the grass at the start of the tenancy on 2 July 2024. The tenant seeks exemplary damages.
The landlord says he did send a message to the tenant about not parking on the grass because he saw a van parked on the grass when he was taking down the “for rent” sign and from outside the property and there is a clause in the tenancy agreement about such parking.
The tenant also says the landlord breached her privacy by contacting her aunty during the tenancy. The tenant says that the landlord contacted her aunty even though he had been sent her telephone number on the footer of earlier emails. The tenant seeks exemplary damages.
The landlord says he contacted the aunty because he needed to telephone the tenant about rent arrears. He says the number the tenant had provided on the tenancy agreement had already changed once and when he called that new number it was said to be out of service. He says he called the aunty because she was the emergency contact as shown on the tenancy agreement.
The tenant says she had put her telephone number on the footer of emails she had sent to the landlord in the past and that her telephone had not changed on a prior occasion as well.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises (see s 38(2) RTA). Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00 (see s 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA).
It is important to note that for exemplary damages to be awarded for a breach of s 38 RTA the actions complained of the landlord must amount to harassment.
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).
Black’s Law Dictionary defines harassment 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.
These definitions suggest 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 [1987] NZTT Palmerston North TT 12/87, 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. Analysis
I am not satisfied that either (or both) action(s) referred to by the tenant amount to harassment.
I am not satisfied that a single occasion of reminding a tenant not to park on the grass amounts to harassment. This is sufficient to dismiss this claim.
I also note that this claim is also out of time. Claims such as this for exemplary damages must be bought within 12 months of the commission of the unlawful act (see s 109(2)(b) RTA). The tenant’s application was bought on 25 July 2025. That is more than 12 months from 2 July 2024 when the alleged unlawful act occurred.
Turning to the contact of the tenant’s aunty, I am not satisfied that this single instance in the circumstances in which it occurred amounts to harassment either.
Further, I accept the landlord’s position that he cannot cross reference every telephone number put at the bottom of every email he is sent to see if it is the number already given by the tenant for contact or if it has changed.
Section 16 RTA provides an express duty on a party to update their telephone number where it changes. While the tenant did provide her new number there was no evidence of her highlighting to the landlord that it had changed. The tenant also had provided the contact number of her aunty on the tenancy agreement.
Given the above circumstances, I would not award exemplary damages for this act even if harassment was established. It was not intentional and would not be fair in all the circumstances.
These claims are dismissed. Exemplary damages - Unreasonable conduct by increasing rent
The tenant claims exemplary damages because she says her landlord raised the rent which made it unaffordable for her and so she had to give notice.
She says that she considered it unreasonable that the landlord then advertised the property at an amount that was lower than the new rental sum she was going to have to pay. She says the landlord used dirty tactics to make the property unaffordable for her. The tenant says while this may not be a breach of the RTA it was unreasonable conduct. Analysis
I am not satisfied that the tenant has proven a breach of the RTA in relation to this part of the application or a ground upon which she can establish that this gives rise to an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded.
This part of the claim is therefore dismissed. Exemplary damages - Failure to return the bond by claiming compensation and intimidating conduct
The tenant says that the landlord did not refund her bond as quickly as she wanted. The bond remains at the Bond Centre.
After the tenancy the tenant says that the landlord messaged on 3 July pointing out that a) the carpet was stained and needed cleaning b) a mat was missing c) 2 mats were dirty and were damaged and would need replacing d) a rubber mat was missing e) a curtain was dirty and needed cleaning. I was provided with an exchange of emails following that discussing the issues.
The tenant says she wanted to go back and clean the carpet, but the landlord did not meet her. Her son had taken the mat referred to at b) above by mistake. The two mats at c) had frayed around the edge but this was fair wear and tear. Turning to the mat at d), in the email provided sent by the tenant and at the hearing she said there was only one rubber mat, but photographs she has filed show two mats annotated with a remark that they both were there at the tenancy– one was under another. She explained how she had taken the curtain to clean, and it has since been returned.
The tenant expressed that nothing then happened then in relation to these issues but that the landlord then contacted her about the above methamphetamine.
On 15 July 2025, the tenant says, the landlord then tried to claim her bond for the methamphetamine setting out in an email that:
The landlord’s application now relates not directly to decontamination but to compensation (and exemplary damages) for breach arising out of unlawful use of the premises relating to methamphetamine use.
In relation to the carpet cleaning, the landlord has shown that he had told the tenant in an email not to return to the property the following day as he could not accommodate that. The landlord says that the more minor issues raised in the email dated 3 July became not so significant once the methamphetamine contamination was discovered. The landlord says they decided not to pursue some of these issues and some of them had been resolved (e.g. the return of the curtain) so there was no claim being made in relation to these. Analysis
Where a landlord does not return a bond and there is a disagreement between the parties about liability then the tenant may apply to the Tribunal for the return of their bond. In response to that application the landlord who wishes to make a claim on the bond needs to file an application (see s 22B RTA).
There is no provision in the RTA that makes it an unlawful act (for which exemplary damages can be awarded) for a landlord not to return a tenant’s bond within a particular time scale.
However, the tenant here also raised the fact that she thought the landlord was doing anything to delay the return of the bond by finding any excuse to make her pay the bond to the landlord and expressed that she thought the landlord was making her address issues which she did not have to fix or pay for.
Section 49D RTA provides in part that it is unlawful to demand, from the tenant payment of an amount related to destruction of, or damage to, the premises that exceeds the tenant’s liability in accordance with s 49B RTA. Breaching s 49D RTA is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 49D and Schedule 1A RTA. I have set out above the test for exemplary damages, so I do not repeat it here.
I find the issues raised in the email of 3 July 2025 to be genuine issues appropriate for the parties to raise and discuss at the end of the tenancy which do not breach section 49D. I accept that the carpet was stained, a mat was missing (the tenant’s son had packed it by mistake), a rubber mat did seem to be missing (it appears it was in fact potentially hidden from view) and the tenant did take a curtain for cleaning.
There was a difference of opinion on liability in relation to the interior mats but this issue (whether it was fair wear and tear or not) would be a factual issue the Tribunal would determine where there was disagreement. The landlord turned their mind to this issue (it is recorded in an email that the landlord considered it not to be fair wear and tear) and I consider the belief to be genuine. Even if this was a breach of s 49D I would not award exemplary damages as I do not consider this to be an intentionally misplaced demand rather a genuine difference of opinion on what amounts to fair wear and tear.
I dismiss the claim in relation to the above.
However, the landlord did seek methamphetamine related costs in its email dated 15 July 2025. The application before me was not to decontaminate the property but focused instead on unlawful use. Compensation claimed related to testing costs only. However, that claim was also combined with a claim for exemplary damages relating to the same set of facts (methamphetamine contamination) which I have considered above and for which the Tribunal could award a maximum of $1,800 (in addition to compensation).
As set out above the methamphetamine found at the property at the end of the tenancy was less than 15μg/100cm and the Gluckman report suggests that exposure to methamphetamine levels below 15μg/100cm2 would be unlikely to give rise to any adverse health effects. The Gluckman report said that it was only if levels higher than this that there was a risk to human health and extensive decontamination was required. That report has since been accepted as the applicable standard that the Tribunal should apply in the absence of evidence of manufacture.
The tenant therefore had no liability under 49B RTA and therefore the landlord was not allowed to demand payment for decontamination costs from the tenant.
While I find this is an unlawful act, I decline to make an award of exemplary damages because I consider that would be unjust when taking into account the fact that: a. While landlord has professional property managers who would have known, or should have known, that without a methamphetamine contamination test to show that the contamination levels were above 15μg/100cm (with no evidence of manufacturing) they would not be successful in making a claim for decontamination costs in the Tribunal, this does not take into account a claim for exemplary damages for unlawful use which was open for the landlord to claim for methamphetamine use (and which was then claimed). b. The overall sum actually awarded to the landlord in respect of compensation for unlawful use/methamphetamine is $1,697.40 (compensation) AND a further $600 in exemplary damages. The landlord’s exemplary damages claim, depending on the amount ordered by the Tribunal, for the unlawful use had the ability to take the tenant’s liability beyond that sum claimed in the landlord’s email. c. The overall sum awarded in this order to the landlord exceeds the bond sum (compensation + exemplary damages + rent) that the landlord was seeking to recover from the tenant in the email, which refers to finalising the matter.
This part of the tenant’s application is therefore dismissed. Suppression and filing fee
The landlord has been substantially successful, and so I have awarded the landlord reimbursement of the filing fee. The tenant has not been successful so I decline to reimburse her the filing fee.
Under s 95A(1) RTA a suppression order must be granted on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings.
The tenant seeks suppression, but she has not been substantially successful. I therefore decline to award suppression of her identifying details. The disputes before me are not unusual or other than the ordinary business of the Tribunal and the open justice principle requires the outcome of adjudication to be available to the public. I find there is no other reason to grant the tenant name suppression (s 95A, RTA).
The landlord does not seek suppression, so this is not awarded.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5310223 — Exemplary damages at 18A Raniera Street, Glen Avon, New Plymouth 4312

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5310223 — Exemplary damages at 18A Raniera Street, Glen Avon, New Plymouth 4312

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions