What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5432669 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 5432669?

Compensation: Using or permitting pr…: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $12,222.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5432669?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5432669?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13583730-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5432669 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 5432669?

Compensation: Using or permitting pr…: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $12,222.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5432669?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5432669?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13583730-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5432669 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5432669 — net $14,950.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 15 April 2026	$12,222.00	Rent arrears to 15 April 2026
Compensation: Using or permitting premises to be used for an unlawful purpose	$1,200.00	d seeks compensation for this breach. Considering the following factors, I find $1,200.00 to be reasonable: a.
Exemplary damages: Using or permitting premises to be used for an unlawful purpose	$1,500.00	23. Taking all of these factors into account, I order the tenant to pay $1,500.00 in exemplary damages.
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$14,950.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$14,950.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5432669 — net $14,950.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 15 April 2026	$12,222.00	Rent arrears to 15 April 2026
Compensation: Using or permitting premises to be used for an unlawful purpose	$1,200.00	d seeks compensation for this breach. Considering the following factors, I find $1,200.00 to be reasonable: a.
Exemplary damages: Using or permitting premises to be used for an unlawful purpose	$1,500.00	23. Taking all of these factors into account, I order the tenant to pay $1,500.00 in exemplary damages.
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$14,950.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$14,950.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Amber Ritia Teiho must pay [The landlord/s] $14,950.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 1 May 2026. The tenant left the hearing partway through.
The tenancy began on 20 September 2025 and ended on 13 April 2026 by order of the Tribunal. The landlord claims the tenant owes rent arrears. They also claim the tenant, or a person at the premises with the tenant’s permission, used methamphetamine inside the premises during the tenancy. The tenant denies these claims and has filed their own application alleging various breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) by the landlord. The issues I must determine are: a. How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears? b. Did the tenant, or a person at the premises with the tenant’s permission, use methamphetamine inside the premises? c. If so, should exemplary damages be ordered? d. Did the landlord fail to comply with the healthy homes standards? e. Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair? f. Is the landlord’s 90-day termination notice retaliatory?
The landlord withdrew their claim for outstanding water rates invoices at the hearing, because they were unable to access copies of original invoices from Watercare on their laptop. The landlord is considering filing a further claim for compensation for repairs in the near future. They may include a claim for outstanding water rates invoices with any future claim.
The landlord has also filed a claim with their insurer to decontaminate the premises. The landlord’s insurer has not yet assessed the claim. The only compensation the landlord seeks in relation to the current application is the costs incurred in having the premises tested for methamphetamine and emotional distress. It remains open to the landlord to file a further claim for compensation for decontamination once their insurance claim has been determined however, I note that the levels of methamphetamine recorded in the most recent report dated 24 April 2026 are under 15mcg/100cm². The Tribunal usually only orders compensation for decontamination when levels are 15mcg/100cm² or higher.
Before determining the relevant issues in this case, I discuss some general legal principles that apply.

GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Standard of proof

Each party must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Katipo 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 of not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. Compensation & Exemplary Damages: The law generally
The Tribunal may award compensation for losses arising from a proven breach by a landlord or tenant of the tenancy agreement or RTA.
Compensation is generally awarded for actual financial loss and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as, a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy, distress, inconvenience and emotional suffering.
The following factors are relevant when deciding to award compensation: 1 • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are different from compensation. They are designed to punish and deter. They are like a fine. Under the RTA, exemplary damages may be ordered for certain defined, unlawful acts. 1 See Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667.
Section 109(3) RTA states that exemplary damages may be ordered if the Tribunal determines an unlawful act was committed intentionally and it is just, having regard to the following factors: a. The intent of the person in 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; and d. The public interest.
In the District Court decision of Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667, the Court needed to consider a case where the landlord had unlawfully entered the tenancy. That was not disputed. The evidence was that because of a misunderstanding around notices being given, the landlord went into the tenancy without the necessary notice having first been served on the tenant.
Judge Neave in the District Court agreed with an earlier summary of the law from the Tribunal 2 that: Before an award for exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it.
Judge Neave went on to accept that the unlawful entry was made in error, and on that basis there was no intention established, therefore there was no basis to order exemplary damages. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?

The tenancy ended on 13 April 2026. The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises until 15 April 2026. The tenant accepts this. Because the tenant 2 Chief Executive, ex party Edmonson v Walls North Shore TT 548/92 continued to occupy the premises until 15 April 2026, they must pay rent up to this date. 3
The landlord submitted a rent summary, which proves rent arrears are $12,222.00 up to 15 April 2026.
I am satisfied the landlord has acted reasonably to mitigate their loss and should be awarded the full amount of rent arrears. This is because rent arrears were $5,491.43 (62 days) on 29 January 2026 when the landlord filed their application for termination. It was reasonable for the landlord to try to deal with the issue of rent arrears personally up to this point. Once it became obvious that the tenant was not going to pay their rent or the arrears, the landlord acted quickly to apply to the Tribunal to terminate the tenancy. The only reason rent arrears have increased to $12,222.00, is because a hearing was not able to be scheduled until 13 April 2026, and the tenant has not paid any rent at all since 26 November 2025.
For all of these reasons, the landlord’s claim for rent arrears is granted for $12,222.00. Did the tenant or a person at the premises with the tenant’s permission, use methamphetamine inside the premises? The law
A tenant must not use, or permit the use of, the premises for any unlawful purpose. 4
The use of methamphetamine is a criminal offence that carries a maximum penalty of 6 months imprisonment. 5 A tenant who consumes methamphetamine inside a premises, will be found to have used the premises for an unlawful purpose. Tenants are responsible for the actions of other people in the premises with their permission. 6 Therefore, if a person in the premises with the tenant’s permission, consumes methamphetamine inside the premises, the tenant will also be found to have permitted the use of the premises for an unlawful purpose. Landlord’s evidence and submissions
The landlord relies on four methamphetamine testing reports to prove their claim. The details of the reports are recorded below: 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 60(1). 4 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(2)(b). 5 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, section 7(1)(a) & (2)(a). 6 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 41(1). Allclear (10/10/2024) Sample LocationsAverage Result mcg per 100cm² Theoretical Maximum mcg per 100cm² Kitchen – door Living room – Wall Bedroom 1 – Door Bedroom 2 – Door Bedroom 3 – Door Below Reporting Threshold of <0.02 <0.18 Toilet – Window frame Bathroom – Window frame Entry – Door frame Hallway – Door frame Health Homes New Zealand (24/10/2025) RoomSample CodeResult Open Plan Kitchen/Dining/Lounge 1 KDL1A-Open Plan Kitchen/Dining/Lounge 1
66mcg Open Plan Kitchen/Dining/Lounge 1 KDL1B-Open Plan Kitchen/Dining/Lounge 1
82mcg Open Plan Kitchen/Dining/Lounge 1 KDL1C-Open Plan Kitchen/Dining/Lounge 1
64mcg Hallway 1 HAL1A-Hallway 12.68mcg Laundry 1LDY1A-Laundry 11.05mcg Bedroom 1BDR1A-Bedroom 10.79mcg Bedroom 2BDR2A-Bedroom 212.40mcg Bedroom 3BDR3A-Bedroom 323.30mcg Toilet 1TOI1A-Toilet 10.77mcg Bathroom 1BTM1A-Bathroom 11.47mcg Health Homes New Zealand (18/12/2025) RoomSample CodeResult Open Plan Kitchen/Dining/Lounge 1 KDL1A-Open Plan Kitchen/Dining/Lounge 1
69mcg Open Plan Kitchen/Dining/Lounge 1 KDL1B-Open Plan Kitchen/Dining/Lounge 1
29mcg Open Plan Kitchen/Dining/Lounge 1 KDL1C-Open Plan Kitchen/Dining/Lounge 1
25mcg Hallway 1 HAL1A-Hallway 11.05mcg Bedroom 2BDR2A-Bedroom 20.58mcg Toilet 1TOI1A-Toilet 10.32mcg Bathroom 1BTM1A-Bathroom 10.24mcg Bedroom 1BDR1A-Bedroom 10.59mcg Bedroom 3BDR3A-Bedroom 30.81mcg Resultz Group NZ Ltd (24/04/2026) Laboratory IDSampleMethamphetamine Units Reporting Limit Mcg/sample
02 26-08209-1 Kitchen; David Seager10.9 26-08209-2 Dining; David Seager13.6 26-08209-3 Lounge – Sample One; David Seager
96 26-08209-4 Lounge – Sample Two; David Seager
88 26-08209-5 Bedroom One; David Seager
06 26-08209-6 Bedroom Two – Sample One; David Seager
4 26-08209-7 Bedroom Two – Sample Two; David Seager
74 26-08209-8 Bedroom Three; David Seager
83 26-08209-9 Bathroom; David Seager0.48 26-08209-10 Toilet; David Seager0.68 26-08209-11 Laundry; David Seager0.92 26-08209-12 Hallway; David Seager6.51 26-08209-13 Ceiling Cavity; David Seager
76
The landlord also called Nathaniel Hamilton, Director of Healthy Homes New Zealand, as an expert witness. Mr Hamilton gave evidence that he holds a NZQA qualification in methamphetamine sampling. He also sits on the board of the New Zealand Association for Contaminant Free Properties. This is an industry body actively involved in methamphetamine contamination issues in New Zealand. Mr Hamilton gave evidence that he has 11 years’ experience in methamphetamine sampling and testing.
Mr Hamilton gave a lot of evidence, the most relevant parts of which are summarised below: a. In the report completed by Healthy Homes New Zealand dated 24 October 2025, bedroom 3 returned a reading of 23.30mcg/100cm² for methamphetamine residue. Mr Hamilton says it is not possible to determine when this contamination occurred or whether it occurred over a short or long period of time. Given the low levels of pre-cursor substances however, Mr Hamilton gave an opinion that the most likely cause was methamphetamine use, rather than manufacture. b. When completing methamphetamine sampling, it is best practice to take samples from the same areas previously sampled. Taking samples from the same location provides the most accurate record of methamphetamine use over time. Taking different samples from different locations can result in a variation in sample levels. c. Different materials have different swab recovery rates. For example, plastic has a higher rate of recovery than other building materials. This is because plastic is smooth and hard. d. Normally, subsequent samples will be taken from a slightly different area of the same location, rather than the exact same spot. This is because if you were to sample the exact same spot that was previously sampled, you might not get an accurate reading, because the previous sampling will have removed some methamphetamine residue. e. Small variances in methamphetamine residue levels are expected where the same location has been sampled over time however, the greater the increase, the more likely it is that the cause is methamphetamine use or manufacture, rather than sample variance. f. It is not possible to determine from the Allclear report dated 10 October 2024, what specific areas were sampled. No photographs have been provided of the sample locations and only generic descriptions have been used such as “door” or “wall”. g. A comparison of the areas sampled in the Allclear report dated 10 October 2024 with the areas sampled in the Healthy Homes New Zealand report dated 24 October 2025, indicates that different areas were sampled on each date. h. The same areas that were sampled by Healthy Homes New Zealand on 24 October 2025 were sampled again by Resultz Group Ltd on 22 April 2026. i. Cleaning can have a significant effect on detectable levels. If a sample is taken from an area that has recently been cleaned, it can be assumed that a lower level of methamphetamine residue will be detected in comparison to a sample that has been taken from an uncleaned area. j. Consumers have an expectation that anything they purchase and install in their property will be free from methamphetamine contamination. Therefore, it can be assumed that newly installed appliances will have no methamphetamine contamination at the time of purchase and installation however, this is only an assumption and not verifiable. Tenant’s evidence and submissions
The tenant strongly denies that they, or anyone at the premises with their permission, used methamphetamine inside the premises. The tenant gave evidence that renting the premises was a blessing and supposed to mark the beginning of a new chapter for them and their child. The tenant claims that bedroom 3 is their child’s bedroom and the suggestion that they used methamphetamine in this room is abhorrent.
The tenant claims that any methamphetamine residue found inside the premises is a result of the landlord or their tradespeople consuming methamphetamine inside the premises. The tenant claims the landlord is trying to link the presence of methamphetamine in the premises to the tenant in an attempt to file a claim with their insurer and have the cost of renovating the premises paid for by the insurance company and the tenant. Analysis
A comparison of the Allclear report dated 10 October 2024 and Healthy Homes New Zealand report dated 24 October 2025, shows an increase in the levels of methamphetamine inside the premises in various areas. I am not however, convinced on the balance of probabilities, that this increase occurred during the tenancy. This is because the report dated 24 October 2024 was completed approximately 11 months before the tenancy began on 20 September 2025. Between 24 October 2024 and 20 September 2025, the landlord lived in the premises, which were being renovated. Tradespeople also visited the premises during this period. The length of time between when the first report was completed and when the tenancy began, together with the fact that various people had access to the premises during this time, means I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the methamphetamine discovered on 24 October 2025, was deposited during the tenancy.
Whilst the report dated 24 October 2025 is not probative in proving that the levels of methamphetamine recorded in that report were deposited during the tenancy, it does provide a baseline for the presence of methamphetamine in the premises at this time.
A comparison of the two reports dated 24 October 2025 and 26 April 2026 show a decrease in methamphetamine levels in some areas such as, bedroom 3, however an increase in other areas, as recorded below: Location24/10/202526/04/2026 Kitchen2.66mcg10.9mcg Dining4.82mcg13.6mcg Hallway2.68mcg6.51mcg
A comparison of the levels of methamphetamine in these areas in the two reports convinces me on the balance of probabilities that the tenant, or a person at the premises with the tenant’s permission, used methamphetamine inside the premises.
The report dated 24 April 2026 was completed shortly after the tenant left the premises on 15 April 2026. The testing was completed on 22 April 2026, which is only 7 days later. The landlord gave evidence that the premises were locked after 15 April 2026 and only the landlord and an insurance assessor visited it. On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced that the methamphetamine levels recorded in the report dated 24 April 2026 were deposited during the tenancy and not after.
The same locations were tested in the kitchen, dining room and hallway on 24 October 2025 and 22 April 2026. A sample was taken from the kitchen extractor fan on 24 October 2025 and from the ceiling area directly next to the extractor fan on 22 April 2026. Similarly, the outside of the ceiling vent was tested in the dining room on 24 October 2025 and the inside of the vent was tested on 22 April 2026. Adjacent areas of the inside of the door of the distribution board in the hallway were tested on 24 October 2025 and 22 April 2026. The fact that the same areas were tested on 24 October 2025 and 22 April 2026, means I am convinced on the balance of probabilities, that the increase in methamphetamine levels during this time is a result of methamphetamine use, rather than sample variance. The level of increase is significant and further proof of this fact.
I have compared the results between the reports dated 24 October 2025 and 24 April 2026, rather than 18 December 2025 and 24 April 2026. This is because different areas of the premises were tested on 18 December 2025, than were tested on 24 April 2026. A comparison of the findings in these two reports is therefore not as reliable as a comparison of the findings in the reports dated 24 October 2025 and 24 April 2026.
To conclude, the report dated 24 October 2025 provides a baseline for the presence of methamphetamine inside the premises on this date. The report dated 24 April 2026 shows an increase in methamphetamine levels in the kitchen, dining and hallway. On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced that the increase is due to the consumption of methamphetamine inside the premises during the tenancy, either by the tenant or a person at the premises with the tenant’s permission. For these reasons, I find the tenant has used or permitted the use of the premises for an unlawful purpose.
The landlord seeks compensation for this breach. Considering the following factors, I find $1,200.00 to be reasonable: a. Nature of the breach. Using or permitting the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose is a serious breach, especially when it involves methamphetamine. This is because methamphetamine is a Class A drug and considered to be more serious than other drugs, such as cannabis. Methamphetamine also has the potential to seriously damage a premises when its levels reach 15mcg/100cm² or more. At these levels, decontamination is usually required, which is very expensive. The highest level of methamphetamine recorded in the report dated 24 April 2026 is
6mcg/100cm². This is very close to the threshold required for decontamination. b. Duration of the breach. I find the breach lasted approximately 6 months from 24 October 2025 until the end of the tenancy on 15 April 2026. c. Effect of the breach on the other party. The breach has caused a significant amount of stress, worry and anxiety to the landlord. The landlord is concerned about the levels of methamphetamine in the property and any damage this may have caused to the premises. The landlord has incurred costs to have the premises tested, although no invoices were submitted.

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Using, or permitting the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose, is an unlawful act, which may attract a maximum of $1,800.00 in exemplary damages. 7
I find the tenant acted intentionally in using, or permitting someone at the premises with their permission, to use methamphetamine. I find it just to order exemplary damages for the following reasons: 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(3A)(b) & Schedule 1A. a. The intent of the person in committing the unlawful act. The tenant acted intentionally. b. The effect of the unlawful act. See paragraphs [19(a) – (c)] above. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. The landlord has an interest in ensuring the premises is not used for an unlawful purpose or damaged as a result of methamphetamine use. d. The public interest. There is a strong public interest in ensuring that tenants are deterred from using or permitting other people at the premises with the tenant’s permission, from using methamphetamine inside the premises. Not only is methamphetamine consumption a criminal offence, but it has the potential to cause serious damage to a premises where its levels reach 15mcg/100cm² or more.
Taking all of these factors into account, I order the tenant to pay $1,500.00 in exemplary damages. TENANT’S CLAIMS

Do the premises comply with the healthy homes standards?

The law

Section 45(1)(bb) RTA requires a landlord to comply with the healthy homes standards.
The healthy homes standards are found in the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 (“HHS”). These provide a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies in respect of insulation, heating, ventilation, draught stopping, moisture and drainage.
The tenancy began on 20 September 2025. The premises needed to comply with the healthy homes standards at the beginning of the tenancy. Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the premises do not comply with the healthy homes standards. They rely on the fact that the assessment report completed by the landlord dates back to 2021 and is not current. Further, they claim that one of the landlord’s tradespeople told them that the foundations under the house have been dug out and are illegal. The tenant also claims that the concrete slab is slipping and there is no drainage on one side of the house. They claim their sister’s partner is a drainlayer and they advised the tenant that the drainage is illegal.
The landlord disputes the tenant’s claim and gave evidence that the premises comply with the healthy homes standards. They rely on an assessment report completed by Greenside Energy Solutions dated 12 May 2021, which states that the premises are compliant. Analysis
The tenant has not provided enough evidence to support this claim. The healthy homes report completed by Greenside Energy Solutions states that the premises comply with the healthy homes standards. Expert evidence from a different healthy homes assessor is required to rebut this. The tenant did not submit any expert evidence of this nature. The tenant also did not call any witnesses such as, the contractor they spoke with or their sister’s partner who is a drainlayer, to give evidence at the hearing.
For these reasons, the tenant has not proven this claim, and it is dismissed.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

The tenant left the hearing before this part of their claim could be determined.
Because no evidence was given by the tenant at the hearing to support this claim, I find it is not proven and therefore dismissed.

Is the 90-day termination notice retaliatory?

The tenant left the hearing before this part of their claim could be determined.
Because no evidence was given by the tenant at the hearing to support this claim, I find it is not proven and therefore dismissed. Filing fee & name suppression
The landlord has been wholly successful with their claim. Therefore, I order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee and grant the landlord’s request for name suppression.
The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful with their claim. Therefore, I do not order suppression of their name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5432669 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5432669 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES

How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Do the premises comply with the healthy homes standards?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

Is the 90-day termination notice retaliatory?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES

How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Do the premises comply with the healthy homes standards?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

Is the 90-day termination notice retaliatory?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions