What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4773318?

The tribunal order states: Graeme Wade Collie must pay Santi Siharath $2,044.51 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4773318?

Compensation: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Water Rates: $425.93 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4773318?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4773318?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10021053-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4773318?

The tribunal order states: Graeme Wade Collie must pay Santi Siharath $2,044.51 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4773318?

Compensation: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Water Rates: $425.93 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4773318?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4773318?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10021053-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 20B Arabi Street, Sandringham, Auckland 1041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4773318 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4773318 — net $2,044.51 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates: (to 01/02/2024	$425.93		6. The landlord has made a cross application on 21 December 2023 for water rate arrears, termination of the tenancy because the premises are being used for unl…
Exemplary damages: (breach of quiet enjoyment		$750.00	(breach of quiet enjoyment
Exemplary damages: (unlawful notice of termination		$1,500.00	(unlawful notice of termination
Exemplary damages: (Failure to provide HH info in		$50.00	(Failure to provide HH info in
Exemplary damages: (unlawful entry		$150.00	62. I make an order for the landlord to pay $150.00 in exemplary damages for its breach of s48(2) (d) of the RTA.
Compensation		$20.44	Compensation
Total award	$425.93	$2,470.44
Net award		$2,044.51
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$2,044.51

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4773318 — net $2,044.51 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates: (to 01/02/2024	$425.93		6. The landlord has made a cross application on 21 December 2023 for water rate arrears, termination of the tenancy because the premises are being used for unl…
Exemplary damages: (breach of quiet enjoyment		$750.00	(breach of quiet enjoyment
Exemplary damages: (unlawful notice of termination		$1,500.00	(unlawful notice of termination
Exemplary damages: (Failure to provide HH info in		$50.00	(Failure to provide HH info in
Exemplary damages: (unlawful entry		$150.00	62. I make an order for the landlord to pay $150.00 in exemplary damages for its breach of s48(2) (d) of the RTA.
Compensation		$20.44	Compensation
Total award	$425.93	$2,470.44
Net award		$2,044.51
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$2,044.51

Order

Graeme Wade Collie must pay Santi Siharath $2,044.51 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 1 April 2024: a. The gaps in the windows and ranch slider must be investigated and any gaps that are causing drafts in the house are to be remedied.
If the landlord fails to comply with Order 2 above, then the tenant may get a contractor to undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of this work up to $ 2,000.00. These costs may be set off against rent payable.
The landlord must return the tenant’s hose fittings to the tenant immediately. If he does not return the fittings in good working order within 1 day from the date of this Order, the tenant may charge the landlord $100.00 for these fitings. This amount may be offset against the tenant’s rent.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has made a cross application on 21 December 2023 for water rate arrears, termination of the tenancy because the premises are being used for unlawful purposes and/or the premises are contaminated by methamphetamine to such a level that the premises are uninhabitable, possession, compensation for methamphetamine related damage, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenant made an application on 30 November 2023 for work orders for the gaps in his windows and ranch slider, the return of his hose fittings and compensation and/or exemplary damages for: a. The landlord’s breaches of the healthy home standards, including having no fans in the bathroom or kitchen and having gaps around the windows and ranch slider that lets draught into the premises; b. The landlord’s failure to provide healthy homes standards information in the tenancy agreement; c. The landlord’s failure to provide insurance information in the tenancy agreement; d. Failure to provide the tenant of the results of the contamination report; e. The landlord’s unlawful entry; f. The landlord’s breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises; g. The landlord issuing a retaliatory notice terminating the tenancy; h. The landlord acting to terminate the tenancy without reasonable grounds; i. The landlord seizing and disposing of the tenant’s property/goods and/or refusing to return it; and j. The landlord failing to provide locks to secure the premises. A.Landlords claims Methamphetamine contamination-based claims. Who is responsible for the traces of methamphetamine contamination found in the premise and any damage caused by this contamination?
The landlord has applied for compensation for the cost of a methamphetamine composite test and remediation costs as well as termination of the tenancy because the landlord claims the composite test result proves the tenant is using the premises for unlawful purposes and had rendered the premises uninhabitable due to the high levels of methamphetamine the composite test showed.
The landlord must prove that the tenant caused or permitted the contamination, or that it was caused by someone at the premises with the tenant’s consent. The landlord must also prove that, because of the contamination, the premises have been damaged or are not reasonably clean.
The landlord confirmed to the tenant prior to the hearing, and to me during the hearing, that he had not carried out any methamphetamine testing on the premises prior to the commencement of the tenant’s tenancy. Therefore, the landlord could not prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the tenant caused or permitted any methamphetamine contamination of the premises nor that the tenant had used the premises for drug related unlawful purposes.
As such, the landlord cannot make claims against the tenant for any damages to the premises that have resulted from methamphetamine contamination, nor can the landlord claim reimbursement for cost of the composite test he had carried out on the premises.
The damages the landlord made a claim for were all estimates or quotes and were not costs he had incurred carrying out any remedial work. A landlord may only make claims in the Tribunal for reimbursement of costs incurred because of acts or omissions by the tenant or by someone at the premises with the tenant’s consent that led to the damage that required remedial work to remedy.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for damages and reimbursement of the test cost is dismissed for lack of evidence that proves his claims.
It also follows that the landlord’s claim that the tenant is using the premise for unlawful purposes also fails for lack of evidence that proves his claim. Is the premise contaminated to an uninhabitable level that required the tenancy to be terminated?
Section 138C Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides for regulations to be made prescribing the maximum acceptable level for contaminants, but as yet no regulations have been made in relation to methamphetamine.
There are currently two sources of guidance on the issue of a safe level of methamphetamine contamination in residential premises. In June 2017 Standards New Zealand published NZS 8510:2017. The standard recommended a maximum contamination level of 1.5μg/100cm2 for high use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture. It recommended a higher level of 3.8μg/100cm2 for limited use areas.
In May 2018 Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the then Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor, released a report "Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards”. The report noted that there is a lack of scientific evidence to prove that low-level third-hand methamphetamine exposure poses a health risk to humans. It stated that guidelines should be proportionate to risk and that exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect. It recommended retaining the level of 1.5μg/100cm2 where contamination resulted from manufacture, due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the process.
The District Court has held that remediation should be carried out in accordance with the prevailing guidelines at the time (Diamond Real Estate Limited v Allan [2017] NZDC 833, Judge Kellar).
The Tribunal has generally applied the Gluckman recommendation. This approach was approved by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947, where the Court stated (at para [36]): “The Tenancy Tribunal was in a difficult position. The best state of knowledge of risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination available to the adjudicator was the Gluckman Report. It would have been bold for the adjudicator to have ignored that report in favour of the New Zealand Standard given that the Gluckman report represents the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination in dwellings.”
The District Court took a similar approach in Acme Realty Limited v Hogg and others [2021] NZDC 3231, where the Court referred to the Full Circle case and held that, because NZS 8510:2017 has not been adopted into law, the Tribunal was not bound to apply the 1.5μg standard.
More recently, in Barfoot and Thompson Limited v Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited [2021] NZTT Auckland 4276319, both parties presented scientific evidence at a hearing before the Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that there was no new scientific research to change the conclusions reached in the Gluckman Report.
The landlord’s evidence disclosed: a. the landlord owns all 6 of the units in the block the tenant resides in; b. The other tenants have reported to the landlord that they have witnessed the tenant and his guests smoking what they believe is marijuana, methamphetamine and tobacco in the premises and they have seen suspicious activity at the premises which they believe is the tenant’s deliveries of methamphetamine at differing times of the day and night. c. The landlord had a composite test of 6 samples from the premises undertaken by Healthy Homes NZ on 17 November 2023. The composite test result showed that the samples taken from the open plan kitchen/dining/lounge, bedroom, bathroom and toilet had a composite reading of 60.5μg.
The NZS 8510:2017 standard states, at A2.2.4, that a field composite sample result represents : a. A sum or accumulation of each of the individual discrete wipe samples; and b. A maximum level in any one of the samples, if all the contamination present was contained in one sample; and c. A guideline result for the person commissioning the test and: i. If it is below the decontamination levels in the standard then it is possible that none of the tested areas are above the limits in the standard; and ii. f it is higher than the decontamination levels in the standard then it is possible that one of the areas tested are above the level of the standard; and d. A composite test gives the person commissioning the test information on which to base a decision whether or not there is a need to have discrete separate samples taken to ascertain whether any of the rooms in the premise are above the level in the standard that would require the premise to undergo decontamination before any person could lawfully reside there.
The 60.5μg composite test result the landlord provided to the Tribunal is not a per 100 cm2 surface area result. As such this result cannot be directly compared to the NZS8510 values. It showed nothing more than more discrete sampling is required of each room before the landlord can determine whether the premise is currently uninhabitable or not.
The landlord’s application for termination of the tenancy and possession, based on its belief that the composite methamphetamine test of premise show high levels of methamphetamine that render the premise contaminated above the levels deemed acceptable by the Gluckman Report and/or NZS 8510:2017, fails because the composite test result does not conclusively prove or disprove its belief. The composite test result suggests it is possible that one of the areas tested are above the level of the standard and more discrete single sampling needs to be done throughout the premise to ascertain whether any of the premise is uninhabitable and requires decontamination.
Therefore, the landlord’s application for termination of the tenancy and possession fails as he has not proven on the balance of probabilities that the premise in contaminated to such a level is it legally uninhabitable.
level that is considered uninhabitable. What the result indicates is that at least one room in the premises is above the

How much is owed for water rates?

The landlord provided water rates records in a small handwritten and carbonised invoice book which proves the amount owing as at 1 February 2024, being $425.93.
The landlord does not keep a water rate summary sheet that contains all of the water invoice information, so it was hard to discern what was owing.
The landlord provided 3 invoices from the carbonised book that showed the tenant was billed: a. 112.23 on 10 July 2023; b. $90.04 on 6 October 2023, and had $112.33 overdue; c. $111.87 on 1 February 2024, and had $232.15 overdue.
The tenant confirmed that these water rates bills were correct as was the amount of arrears outstanding and an award of $425.93 has been made to the landlord. Reimbursement of filing fee
Because Graeme Wade Collie has not substantially succeeded with his claims, I dismiss his application for reimbursement of the filing fee. B.Tenants claims Work Orders
The tenant claims that the landlord did not fix the gaps around the windows and the ranch slider and that the gaps let draught in. The tenant wants the problem fixed. The tenant provided photographs that show gaps around a ranch slider and some windows of around half a centimetre to one centimetre.
The landlord claims the gaps in the pictures don’t go through to outside and that there are no gaps causing drafts but he agreed during the hearing to investigate and fix any such gaps that may be causing a draught.
Under section 45(1)(a) - (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain certain standards and to comply with applicable requirements.
Where the Tribunal finds, the landlord has failed to comply with any of these obligations, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
If the work order is not being made by consent of both parties, the Tribunal must also make a monetary order as an alternative to compliance with the work order. This provision does not apply to any work order, or part of a work order, in relation to smoke alarms, insulation, a failure to comply with a standard of fitness under section 120C Health Act 1956, or a failure to comply with any health or safety legislative requirement. See sections 78(2) and 78(2AA) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
A work order may also authorise the tenant to undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of doing the work, if the landlord should fail to comply with the work order and alternative monetary order. A monetary limit must be imposed by the Tribunal on the amount of costs that can be charged. These costs can be set off by the tenant against rent payable. See sections 78(2AAB) and 78(2AAC)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The parties consented to the making of a work order requiring the landlord to investigate and remediate any gaps around the windows and ranch slider that are causing draughts in the premises, and I have made those orders accordingly. Failure to provide healthy homes standards statement and information in the tenancy agreement.
Santi Siharath claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 13A(1CA) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 13A(1CA), a landlord must include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord, that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required by section 45(1)(bb) or 66I(1)(bb) (as the case may be); and including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations under section 138B(5). The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 require that the landlord provides a statement in each tenancy agreement that confirms that the premises complies with each of the healthy homes standards or why the premises are subject to any lawful exemptions.
The requirement that the landlord’s statements under 13A(1CA) be signed by the landlord is in addition to the requirement under section 13(1) that the landlord sign the tenancy agreement.
Breaching the landlord’s s13A(1CA) obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13A(11F)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord included an incomplete insulation statement in the tenancy agreement but has not indicated whether the premise complies with the insulation standard or not nor if any exemption applies.
Further, the landlord has not included in the tenancy agreement any signed statements for the remaining healthy homes standards at all. I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
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.
The landlord has access to the Tenancy Services template tenancy agreement that contains individual statements for all of the healthy homes standards. He is using an old template provided by Tenancy Services prior to the 2019 change in legislative requirements.
The landlord gave evidence during the hearing that he had downloaded the Tenancy Tribunal template for a healthy homes assessment, that he has completed this assessment himself and uses the one assessment repeatedly for each of the six units he owns and provides a copy of this generic assessment report to each new tenant. He claims he provided a copy of this generic healthy homes assessment to the tenant with his unit number on it. He was unable to produce a copy of this assessment at the hearing and did not submit a copy of it with the tenancy agreement. The tenant denies having ever been given a copy of this generic healthy homes assessment report.
The tenant also claimed the premise did not have a bathroom fan or a range hood over the stove top. The landlord claimed the premise was exempt from these requirements as it has concrete block walls and windows that can be opened in these rooms. The tenant claims that the house is damp because of the lack of these fans and that he has to use a dehumidifier all the time to remove the condensation that builds up in the house. The tenant also claimed that he didn’t use the stove top much as only one element worked, so he cooks on a BBQ outside.
I am satisfied the landlord intentionally failed to provide the tenant with the required healthy homes statements, prescribed by sections 13A(1CA) and 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, and it would be it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in the nature of exemplary damages, the Tribunal may make an order accordingly because: a. The landlord knew he had to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 and considered that providing tenants with generic assessment reports undertaken by him when they commence their tenancies is enough to meet his legal obligations pursuant to ss13A and 45 when it is not. He has not undertaken a comprehensive assessment of each unit or engaged a third-party provider to do so to save himself time and expense. Therefore, even if he had proven that he provided this generic assessment to the tenant the assessment may not meet the landlord’s ss13A and 45 obligations to the tenant; b. The impact on the tenant on the landlord not providing this information is that he took on the tenancy for a premise that may not meet the draught stopping standards and/or ventilation standards, the tenant may not have taken the tenancy if he had known the premise did not comply with all of the healthy homes standards but was denied that opportunity and the tenant has no signed draught stopping or ventilation statements that confirms by an independent third party that the premises are compliant ; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to be compensated for the landlord’s failure to provide signed proof to the tenant that the rental premises meet the healthy homes standards; d. It is in the public interest to penalise landlord’s that intentionally breach the law and fail to provide signed healthy homes standards statements that mee the requirements set out in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. Unlawful entry
Section 48 of the RTA contains provisions in relation to the landlord’s right of entry.
Santi Siharath claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice on 19 November 2023 to drop off a handwritten receipt for $100.00 cash that the tenant had given him as part payment for the water rates arrears. The receipt is written on a Ray White pad printed in the name of a licensee salesperson called Tony Chan.
The tenant claims he was sleeping with the door open and the landlord left the receipt on his coffee table, secured by a metal coaster. He provided a photograph of the receipt he claimed he found on his coffee table that day after he awoke from his nap. The photograph on his phone was date and time stamped and supported the claim.
The landlord refuted the claim and stated he through the receipt into the house from the door without entering and the tenant had staged the photograph to try to use against him at some later stage.
The tenant’s 30 November 2023 application did not include this claim. It was a claim added much later. In addition, the tenant says the landlord could not have thrown the receipt o to the table without entering the premises.
I find that on the balance of probabilities the landlord found the house opened and the tenant asleep and left the receipt on the coffee table instead of coming back when the tenant was awake to give it to him or scanning and emailing it to the tenant.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(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 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find the landlord intentionally committed an unlawful act when he entered the tenant’s home without his consent.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00 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.
I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages because: a. the landlord knew the tenant had not given his consent to enter the premise but did so as it was convenient for him to drop off the receipt while he was at the units undertaking maintenance work; b. the tenant suffered the stress of knowing the landlord had been in his home while he was asleep and he had also experienced a breach of his privacy; c. it is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the stress and breach of privacy caused ; and d. it is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their right of entry obligations.
I make an order for the landlord to pay $150.00 in exemplary damages for its breach of s48(2) (d) of the RTA. accordingly. Breach of privacy/quiet enjoyment
Santi Siharath claims the landlord breached his privacy and quiet enjoyment when the landlord entered the premises without the tenant’s consent on 19 November 2023 to drop off a handwritten receipt for $100.00 cash that the tenant had given him as part payment for the water rates arrears. The receipt is written on a Ray White pad printed in the name of a licensee salesperson called Tony Chan. He also claimed that the landlord was around the property a lot doing maintenance work and that he tried to push back curtains on open windows to look into the premise when the tenant did not answer his knocks at the door or on the windows when the landlord wanted to give him a receipt or discuss any issues with him.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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 section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
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.
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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages because: a. the landlord knew the tenant had not given his consent to enter the premise but did so as it was convenient for him to drop off the receipt while he was at the units undertaking maintenance work and the landlord must have reasonably been aware that this was a breach of the tenant’s privacy. The landlord also confirmed banging on the tenant’s door and then windows for periods of time to try and get the tenant to come and speak with him and the tenant was not answering the door; b. the tenant suffered the stress of knowing the landlord had been in his home while he was asleep and had to ensure periods of the landlord banging on his door and windows and having his privacy had been breached; c. it is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the breach of privacy caused; and d. it is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations to allow tenants to have quiet enjoyment of their home and privacy. Failure to provide the tenant of the results of the contamination report.
The tenant’s original application contained a claim that the landlord failed to provide him with a copy of the methamphetamine test results from 17 November 2023 composite test.
At the hearing, the tenant acknowledged that he received a copy of the composite test result on 3 December 2023, when the landlord had only received it from Healthy Homes NZ on 22 November 2023.
The tenant withdrew this claim during the hearing. Retaliatory notice
On 29 November 2023, the landlord gave the tenant 48 hours verbal notice ending the tenancy on 1 December 2023 because the landlord claimed the composite methamphetamine test result conclusively proved the tenant was using the premise for unlawful purposes and the premise was uninhabitable. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory because the landlord has claimed other tenants are complaining about him and ending their tenancies because they don’t want to live in the same place as him. In addition, the tenant claims the landlord was annoyed because he had raised repair and maintenance issues the landlord was failing to fix and wanted to end his tenancy because he was trying to uphold his rights to live in a home that was in a reasonable state of repair.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I do not find that the tenant has provided sufficient evidence to support his claim for exemplary damages for a retaliatory notice. Therefore, I dismiss this claim. Unlawful termination notice
Santi Siharath claims that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 60AA.
Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord stated during the hearing that after receiving the composite methamphetamine report and seeing the premises had methamphetamine contamination, he had called Tenancy Services and claims he was told he could terminate the tenancy based on those results with 48 hours written notice. Further, he accepted he had given the tenant 48 hours verbal notice relying on section 59B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Section 59B(6) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 allows the landlord to give the tenant no less than 7 days’ notice if testing in accordance with a relevant prescribed method establishes contamination by a contaminant, in any part of the premises, at a level that is above a relevant maximum inhabitable level prescribed for that contaminant.
The landlord had not established contamination by a contaminant, in any part of the premise, at a level that is above a relevant maximum inhabitable level prescribed for that contaminant and he did not give 7 days or more notice to the tenant terminating the tenancy. I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
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.
I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages because: a. The tenant was given an unlawful notice and had to seek legal advice whether he had to move out of the premise within the next 48 hours. This caused him considerable stress. He was also blamed for the methamphetamine contamination, when there was no evidence, he was responsible for this; b. it is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the unlawful notice; and c. it is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations to give tenants lawful notice. Removal of tenant’s goods and refusal to return
Santi Siharath claims the landlord has taken his hose fittings and will not return these.
A landlord must not seize or dispose of any of the tenant’s goods, except where they are disposed of under sections 62 to 62C of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. See section 33(1) and (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 33(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord removed the garden hose fittings the tenant had replaced the fire hose fittings with on the fire hose as the garden hose fittings were easier to use for day-to-day use. The tenant had replaced the fire hose fittings with the garden hose fittings without the landlord’s consent.
I find the landlord was within his rights to remove the garden hose fittings but not to retain these when the tenant asked for them to be returned to him. It is an unlawful act for the landlord to retain the tenant’s property.
The landlord confirmed he had deliberately kept possession of the hose fittings as he did not want the tenant to put them back on the fire hose. The landlord could have given the tenant a 14-day notice to change the fittings back to the original fire hose fittings and not to change them again to garden hose fittings. He did not. He chose instead to take and not return the tenant’s property.
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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I do not consider it to be just to award exemplary damages to the tenant in all the circumstances as he removed the fire hose fittings without consent. I have ordered the garden hose fittings be returned to the tenant and the tenant must not tamper with the fire hose fittings against except with the written permission of the landlord. Failure to provide locks on the bedroom window
Santi Siharath claims the landlord has failed to provide a working lock on the bedroom window which has encroached on his security.
The tenant raised his concerns about bedroom window lock not being secure and him having to place a piece of wood in the track to prevent anyone from opening the window from outside.
Section 46(1) of the RTA confirms “the landlord shall provide and maintain such locks and other similar devices as are necessary to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure”.
I am satisfied, based on the evidence provided, the landlord has provided locks or other similar devices the window that meets his s 46(1) requirement to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure.
This claim is dismissed for lack of evidence of the statutory breach claimed. Breach of healthy homes standards- ventilation
Santi Siharath claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). Santi Siharath considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard as he did not provide a range hood in the kitchen or extractor fan in the bathroom.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. All private rentals must comply within 90 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021, with all private rentals complying by 1 July 2024. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2023.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances. The landlord gave evidence that the premise had concrete block walls and met the exemption requirements for the ventilation standard as it is not reasonably practicable for the landlord to install an extractor fan or a rangehood and both the kitchen and bathroom openable windows and/or external doors.
In this case I have determined that the landlord was not required to provide a range hood or a bathroom fan as it met the exemption criteria and dismiss this claim accordingly. Reimbursement of filing fee
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with his claims I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4773318 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 1, 20B Arabi Street, Sandringham, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4773318 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 1, 20B Arabi Street, Sandringham, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions