What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5453488 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 5453488?

Cleaning: $3,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $5,000.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Installation Of Heat Pump: $2,912.80 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing: $297.85 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $14.43 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,149.90 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $194.07 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,403.60 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $643.66 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,158.80 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,132.86 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $969.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5453488?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Rent arrears, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5453488?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13873982-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5453488 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 5453488?

Cleaning: $3,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $5,000.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Installation Of Heat Pump: $2,912.80 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing: $297.85 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $14.43 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,149.90 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $194.07 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,403.60 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $643.66 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,158.80 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,132.86 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $969.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5453488?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Rent arrears, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5453488?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13873982-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5453488 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5453488 — net $21,865.22 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 10/1/2026	$3,132.86	Rent arrears to 10/1/2026
Cleaning & painting	$3,000.00	Cleaning & painting
Rubbish removal & disposal abandoned goods	$969.25	Rubbish removal & disposal abandoned goods
Lock/key replacement	$14.43	Lock/key replacement
Meth testing	$297.85	Meth testing
Repairs & materials	$1,149.90	Repairs & materials
Window repairs	$194.07	Window repairs
Carpet replacement	$3,403.60	Carpet replacement
Replacement curtains	$643.66	Replacement curtains
Installation of heat pump	$2,912.80	Installation of heat pump
Admitted damages	$3,158.80	Admitted damages
Exemplary damages	$5,000.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$21,865.22
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$21,865.22

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
This Order incorporates the rent arrears Interim Order made on 27/5/2026.
[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $21,598.47 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended both hearings.
On 28/2/2026 the landlord applied for rent arrears, compensation and exemplary damages.
The issue of rent arrears and refund of the bond was dealt with in the previous interim order dated 27/5/2026
The hearing on 1/7/2026 dealt with the issues of compensation and exemplary damages.
All claims have been amalgamated into this Order. Standard of proof
This is a civil jurisdiction which means when looking at the claims the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Put simply this means the landlord must establish, with evidence, that her claim is more likely than not.
The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain. All evidence presented is considered and weighed to decide what is more likely.
Where there are serious allegations, or important issues at stake, as is the case here, the Tribunal needs a level of supporting evidence benefitting the matters to be decided.
Although I have not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearings the parties can be assured that it has been considered. For the purposes of conciseness only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to.
The onus is on the applicant, in this case the landlord, to provide the necessary evidence to support her claim. If she fails to do so then the application will be dismissed, whether it has merit or not.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 10/1/2026.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the $3,132.86 owing at the end of the tenancy.

Are the tenants liable to pay compensation at the end of the tenancy?

The landlord claims compensation of $30,062.40 made up as follows: a. $487.16 for admitted damage to a switch board on 5 & 19/11/2025, b. $2,621.29 for admitted damage for replacement of a front door and lock, c. $604.89 for admitted damage to a bedroom door on 4/11/2025, d. $26.75 for admitted damage for repairs to another bedroom door, e. $60.25 for repairs to a hall door, f. $14.43 for replacement lock and keys for a back door, g. $969.25 for disposal of abandoned goods, h. $194.07 for repair of a broken bedroom window, i. $2,697.01 for methamphetamine testing costs, j. $2,721.99 for end of tenancy cleaning, k. $3,104.80 for whole of house internal painting, l. $1,089.65 for material and replacement of damaged items, m. $3,892.40 for replacement of damaged carpets, n. $643.66 for replacement of curtains and nets, o. $8,022.00 for replacement of damaged wood burner, p. $2,912.80 for installation of heat pump.
In support of the compensation claims the landlord provided the following evidence: a. An initial Chattels and Property inspection report, with photographs dated 6/6/2025, b. Final property inspection photographs dated 12/1/ and 9/2/2026, c. Methamphetamine testing reports dated 6/6/2025, 12/1/2026 and 23/1/2026, d. Invoices from the builder, glass repairer and contractors, receipts for skip hire and purchase of materials, paint and replacement items, e. Letter and quote from a chimney sweep company about the wood burner, f. Email correspondence between the parties.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
I am persuaded by the respective property inspection reports of the landlord that damage was caused during the tenancy to the switchboard, carpets, walls, doors, windows, the wood burner, curtains and locks.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord considered the damage was largely intention and no insurance was available to her.
The correspondence between the parties in late 2025 confirms that the tenant admitted liability for careless damage to the switchboard, three doors and the front door lock.
The evidence, especially the photographs, supports that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, did not remove all rubbish or personal possessions.
For the replacement of the carpet, I have taken into account betterment and depreciation for the cost of the carpet only, which I have set at $1,700.00. The costs of removal and installation have not been depreciated.
The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off.
An award has been made for the testing costs for methamphetamine only for the test after the tenancy ended. The landlord is not entitled to reimbursement for the pre-tenancy test or the decomposite and post cleaning tests because the levels detected were below 15ug/100cm2.
Since the Gluckman Report in 2018 many decisions by the Tribunal have found that applicants were unable to prove that methamphetamine contamination below 15ug/100cm2 posed a health risk and amounted to damage.
Although a landlord is required to comply with the requirements in respect of contamination, the new Methamphetamine Regulations which came into force on 16/4/2026 confirm that the maximum acceptable level of methamphetamine for premises for the purposes of the definition of contamination is 15ug/100cm2.
While I am satisfied that the premises were damaged and required cleaning and painting the claim has been reduced to reflect the fact that some of the work undertaken was due to the presence of methamphetamine and therefore not recoverable from the tenant.
Although the evidence supports that the tenant damaged the wood burner the claim for the replacement fails because the landlord has mitigated loss by installing a heat pump at a lower cost. Exemplary damages claims
In addition to the compensation claim the landlord seeks exemplary damages for various unlawful acts, including the smoking of methamphetamine in the premises, exceeding the number of tenants in the tenancy agreement, parting with possession of the premises, failure to allow the landlord entry and interfering with locks.
Although the landlord initially also wanted exemplary damages for failure to advise of change of address, section 15, I have not included this issue because it related predominantly to the receipt of mail for a third person, which the landlord has dealt with through the postal service. Methamphetamine
[The landlord/s] claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by using methamphetamine as evidenced by the finding of levels during testing.
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Based on the results of the pre and post tenancy methamphetamine tests I am satisfied the tenant or someone in the premises with their consent used methamphetamine.
Methamphetamine is a ‘Class A’ drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. Possession use and cultivation of controlled substances and the use of premises for the commission of an offence are unlawful.
I find they have committed an unlawful act. Number of occupants and parting with possession
[The landlord/s] claims the number of people living at the premises exceeded the maximum amount allowed in the tenancy agreement and has sublet or parted with possession of the premises without their prior written consent.
Where the tenancy agreement specifies the maximum number of persons that may ordinarily reside in the premises during the tenancy, the tenant must ensure that the number is not exceeded. See section 40(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In the absence of a specific provision in the tenancy agreement prohibiting subletting or parting of possession of the tenancy, a tenant may do so but only with the prior written consent of the landlord. The landlord may not withhold consent unreasonably. See section 44(2) and (3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching these obligations are unlawful acts for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,000.00 and $1,500.00 respectively. See sections 40(3A)(e) and 44(2A)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986
Clause 6(2) of the general provisions of the tenancy agreement specifies that the maximum number of people who may live in the premises during the tenancy is two.
During the tenancy the landlord submitted that she discovered the tenants’ children had moved into the premises.
The landlord believed that the tenants had left the premises by December 2025 but that other people continued to reside there.
In particular the landlord suggested she frequently saw a friend of the tenants at the premises when undertaking her weekly mowing of the lawns, a debt collector had turned up on 9/1/2026 looking to repossess a refrigerator from a person who was not on the tenancy agreement and for whom mail continues to be addressed to the property and neighbours advised her of regular Police visits, including the armed defender’s squad.
The evidence supports that the tenant allowed an unknown number of other people to reside in the premises at different times, without the prior written consent of the landlord and that the number of people living at the premises was more than two.
I find the tenants have committed unlawful acts. Interfering with locks
The landlord claims the tenant has altered the locks without consent.
The landlord submitted that the tenant had interfered with the front and back door locks and had pulled out the latch mechanism.
While the landlord initially considered the first incident, which the tenant admitted to as careless, she subsequently changed her mind and felt there was direct interference with the locks due to the three instances when the locks did not work.
A landlord must provide and maintain locks to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure. Neither the landlord nor the tenant may alter or remove any locks without the other party's consent. See section 46(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 46(3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am persuaded by the evidence that the tenant deliberately interfered with the locks on at least three occasions.
I find they have committed an unlawful act. Denying access
[The landlord/s] claims the tenant has not allowed them entry to the premises when they were entitled to enter.
The landlord submitted that the tenant unreasonably denied access when there were maintenance issues to be attended to and viewings for prospective tenants.
In particular, the tenant sent abusive emails whenever the landlord gave notice.
A landlord may enter the premises during the tenancy with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance or to show the premises to prospective tenants. See section 48(1), (2) and (3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find the evidence supports that the tenant attempted to restrict and deny access to the landlord on several occasions. They have committed an unlawful act.

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

As I have found the tenants committed numerous unlawful acts I must consider the issue of exemplary damages.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Exemplary damages under the Act are different from compensation. The provision of such damages is designed to punish and deter; Attorney-General (Commissioner of Crown Lands) v Little Bo Peep Sheep Company Ltd (HC CIV 2010-412-134).
In making an award of exemplary damages I need to consider the four matters set out in section 109(3).
First, I need to consider the intent of the tenant.
For intent there must be actual knowledge of the breach. In a recent case the District Court confirmed that intentional means “in the sense of deliberately and in full knowledge” TMT New Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182.
I consider an inference can be drawn from the evidence that the tenant intentionally failed to comply with their obligations, in particular in regard to the use of methamphetamine.
The landlord was clear that before they signed the tenancy agreement, she made the tenant aware of the issue and was in effect providing them with a “second chance”, which she believed they abused by their behaviour.
The consequences flowing from the various breaches have been extensive.
I have carefully considered the evidence of the landlord, who has clearly been significantly adversely affected by the behaviour of the tenant to such an extent that she asked the Tribunal to award the maximum exemplary damages for each breach.
Having considered the factors set out in section 109(3), particularly the effect on the landlord and the public interest I consider it just to award exemplary damages at the higher end of the scale as follows: a. $1,500.00 for breach of section 40(2)(b) b. $2,000.00 for breach of sections 40(3) and 44(2) and (3), c. $500.00 for breach of section (46) and (2) d. $1,000.00 for breach of section 48(1) and (2)
The renting of premises is a business, and landlords have obligations under the legislation, which I consider in this instance the landlord has complied with.
Tenants have rights but they also have obligations which they should not ignore.
As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have awarded the filing fee.
Suppression is granted to the landlord pursuant to section 95A because she largely succeeded with the proceedings.
Suppression is not available to the tenant.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5453488 — net $21,865.22 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 10/1/2026	$3,132.86	Rent arrears to 10/1/2026
Cleaning & painting	$3,000.00	Cleaning & painting
Rubbish removal & disposal abandoned goods	$969.25	Rubbish removal & disposal abandoned goods
Lock/key replacement	$14.43	Lock/key replacement
Meth testing	$297.85	Meth testing
Repairs & materials	$1,149.90	Repairs & materials
Window repairs	$194.07	Window repairs
Carpet replacement	$3,403.60	Carpet replacement
Replacement curtains	$643.66	Replacement curtains
Installation of heat pump	$2,912.80	Installation of heat pump
Admitted damages	$3,158.80	Admitted damages
Exemplary damages	$5,000.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$21,865.22
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$21,865.22

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
This Order incorporates the rent arrears Interim Order made on 27/5/2026.
[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $21,598.47 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended both hearings.
On 28/2/2026 the landlord applied for rent arrears, compensation and exemplary damages.
The issue of rent arrears and refund of the bond was dealt with in the previous interim order dated 27/5/2026
The hearing on 1/7/2026 dealt with the issues of compensation and exemplary damages.
All claims have been amalgamated into this Order. Standard of proof
This is a civil jurisdiction which means when looking at the claims the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Put simply this means the landlord must establish, with evidence, that her claim is more likely than not.
The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain. All evidence presented is considered and weighed to decide what is more likely.
Where there are serious allegations, or important issues at stake, as is the case here, the Tribunal needs a level of supporting evidence benefitting the matters to be decided.
Although I have not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearings the parties can be assured that it has been considered. For the purposes of conciseness only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to.
The onus is on the applicant, in this case the landlord, to provide the necessary evidence to support her claim. If she fails to do so then the application will be dismissed, whether it has merit or not.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 10/1/2026.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the $3,132.86 owing at the end of the tenancy.

Are the tenants liable to pay compensation at the end of the tenancy?

The landlord claims compensation of $30,062.40 made up as follows: a. $487.16 for admitted damage to a switch board on 5 & 19/11/2025, b. $2,621.29 for admitted damage for replacement of a front door and lock, c. $604.89 for admitted damage to a bedroom door on 4/11/2025, d. $26.75 for admitted damage for repairs to another bedroom door, e. $60.25 for repairs to a hall door, f. $14.43 for replacement lock and keys for a back door, g. $969.25 for disposal of abandoned goods, h. $194.07 for repair of a broken bedroom window, i. $2,697.01 for methamphetamine testing costs, j. $2,721.99 for end of tenancy cleaning, k. $3,104.80 for whole of house internal painting, l. $1,089.65 for material and replacement of damaged items, m. $3,892.40 for replacement of damaged carpets, n. $643.66 for replacement of curtains and nets, o. $8,022.00 for replacement of damaged wood burner, p. $2,912.80 for installation of heat pump.
In support of the compensation claims the landlord provided the following evidence: a. An initial Chattels and Property inspection report, with photographs dated 6/6/2025, b. Final property inspection photographs dated 12/1/ and 9/2/2026, c. Methamphetamine testing reports dated 6/6/2025, 12/1/2026 and 23/1/2026, d. Invoices from the builder, glass repairer and contractors, receipts for skip hire and purchase of materials, paint and replacement items, e. Letter and quote from a chimney sweep company about the wood burner, f. Email correspondence between the parties.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
I am persuaded by the respective property inspection reports of the landlord that damage was caused during the tenancy to the switchboard, carpets, walls, doors, windows, the wood burner, curtains and locks.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord considered the damage was largely intention and no insurance was available to her.
The correspondence between the parties in late 2025 confirms that the tenant admitted liability for careless damage to the switchboard, three doors and the front door lock.
The evidence, especially the photographs, supports that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, did not remove all rubbish or personal possessions.
For the replacement of the carpet, I have taken into account betterment and depreciation for the cost of the carpet only, which I have set at $1,700.00. The costs of removal and installation have not been depreciated.
The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off.
An award has been made for the testing costs for methamphetamine only for the test after the tenancy ended. The landlord is not entitled to reimbursement for the pre-tenancy test or the decomposite and post cleaning tests because the levels detected were below 15ug/100cm2.
Since the Gluckman Report in 2018 many decisions by the Tribunal have found that applicants were unable to prove that methamphetamine contamination below 15ug/100cm2 posed a health risk and amounted to damage.
Although a landlord is required to comply with the requirements in respect of contamination, the new Methamphetamine Regulations which came into force on 16/4/2026 confirm that the maximum acceptable level of methamphetamine for premises for the purposes of the definition of contamination is 15ug/100cm2.
While I am satisfied that the premises were damaged and required cleaning and painting the claim has been reduced to reflect the fact that some of the work undertaken was due to the presence of methamphetamine and therefore not recoverable from the tenant.
Although the evidence supports that the tenant damaged the wood burner the claim for the replacement fails because the landlord has mitigated loss by installing a heat pump at a lower cost. Exemplary damages claims
In addition to the compensation claim the landlord seeks exemplary damages for various unlawful acts, including the smoking of methamphetamine in the premises, exceeding the number of tenants in the tenancy agreement, parting with possession of the premises, failure to allow the landlord entry and interfering with locks.
Although the landlord initially also wanted exemplary damages for failure to advise of change of address, section 15, I have not included this issue because it related predominantly to the receipt of mail for a third person, which the landlord has dealt with through the postal service. Methamphetamine
[The landlord/s] claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by using methamphetamine as evidenced by the finding of levels during testing.
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Based on the results of the pre and post tenancy methamphetamine tests I am satisfied the tenant or someone in the premises with their consent used methamphetamine.
Methamphetamine is a ‘Class A’ drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. Possession use and cultivation of controlled substances and the use of premises for the commission of an offence are unlawful.
I find they have committed an unlawful act. Number of occupants and parting with possession
[The landlord/s] claims the number of people living at the premises exceeded the maximum amount allowed in the tenancy agreement and has sublet or parted with possession of the premises without their prior written consent.
Where the tenancy agreement specifies the maximum number of persons that may ordinarily reside in the premises during the tenancy, the tenant must ensure that the number is not exceeded. See section 40(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In the absence of a specific provision in the tenancy agreement prohibiting subletting or parting of possession of the tenancy, a tenant may do so but only with the prior written consent of the landlord. The landlord may not withhold consent unreasonably. See section 44(2) and (3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching these obligations are unlawful acts for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,000.00 and $1,500.00 respectively. See sections 40(3A)(e) and 44(2A)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986
Clause 6(2) of the general provisions of the tenancy agreement specifies that the maximum number of people who may live in the premises during the tenancy is two.
During the tenancy the landlord submitted that she discovered the tenants’ children had moved into the premises.
The landlord believed that the tenants had left the premises by December 2025 but that other people continued to reside there.
In particular the landlord suggested she frequently saw a friend of the tenants at the premises when undertaking her weekly mowing of the lawns, a debt collector had turned up on 9/1/2026 looking to repossess a refrigerator from a person who was not on the tenancy agreement and for whom mail continues to be addressed to the property and neighbours advised her of regular Police visits, including the armed defender’s squad.
The evidence supports that the tenant allowed an unknown number of other people to reside in the premises at different times, without the prior written consent of the landlord and that the number of people living at the premises was more than two.
I find the tenants have committed unlawful acts. Interfering with locks
The landlord claims the tenant has altered the locks without consent.
The landlord submitted that the tenant had interfered with the front and back door locks and had pulled out the latch mechanism.
While the landlord initially considered the first incident, which the tenant admitted to as careless, she subsequently changed her mind and felt there was direct interference with the locks due to the three instances when the locks did not work.
A landlord must provide and maintain locks to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure. Neither the landlord nor the tenant may alter or remove any locks without the other party's consent. See section 46(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 46(3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am persuaded by the evidence that the tenant deliberately interfered with the locks on at least three occasions.
I find they have committed an unlawful act. Denying access
[The landlord/s] claims the tenant has not allowed them entry to the premises when they were entitled to enter.
The landlord submitted that the tenant unreasonably denied access when there were maintenance issues to be attended to and viewings for prospective tenants.
In particular, the tenant sent abusive emails whenever the landlord gave notice.
A landlord may enter the premises during the tenancy with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance or to show the premises to prospective tenants. See section 48(1), (2) and (3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find the evidence supports that the tenant attempted to restrict and deny access to the landlord on several occasions. They have committed an unlawful act.

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

As I have found the tenants committed numerous unlawful acts I must consider the issue of exemplary damages.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Exemplary damages under the Act are different from compensation. The provision of such damages is designed to punish and deter; Attorney-General (Commissioner of Crown Lands) v Little Bo Peep Sheep Company Ltd (HC CIV 2010-412-134).
In making an award of exemplary damages I need to consider the four matters set out in section 109(3).
First, I need to consider the intent of the tenant.
For intent there must be actual knowledge of the breach. In a recent case the District Court confirmed that intentional means “in the sense of deliberately and in full knowledge” TMT New Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182.
I consider an inference can be drawn from the evidence that the tenant intentionally failed to comply with their obligations, in particular in regard to the use of methamphetamine.
The landlord was clear that before they signed the tenancy agreement, she made the tenant aware of the issue and was in effect providing them with a “second chance”, which she believed they abused by their behaviour.
The consequences flowing from the various breaches have been extensive.
I have carefully considered the evidence of the landlord, who has clearly been significantly adversely affected by the behaviour of the tenant to such an extent that she asked the Tribunal to award the maximum exemplary damages for each breach.
Having considered the factors set out in section 109(3), particularly the effect on the landlord and the public interest I consider it just to award exemplary damages at the higher end of the scale as follows: a. $1,500.00 for breach of section 40(2)(b) b. $2,000.00 for breach of sections 40(3) and 44(2) and (3), c. $500.00 for breach of section (46) and (2) d. $1,000.00 for breach of section 48(1) and (2)
The renting of premises is a business, and landlords have obligations under the legislation, which I consider in this instance the landlord has complied with.
Tenants have rights but they also have obligations which they should not ignore.
As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have awarded the filing fee.
Suppression is granted to the landlord pursuant to section 95A because she largely succeeded with the proceedings.
Suppression is not available to the tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5453488 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5453488 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Are the tenants liable to pay compensation at the end of the tenancy?

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Are the tenants liable to pay compensation at the end of the tenancy?

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions