What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5162120?

The tribunal order states: Kj And La Family Trust, C/O Gold Real Estate Group Limited Candace

How much money was awarded in case 5162120?

Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5162120?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5162120?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11996190-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5162120?

The tribunal order states: Kj And La Family Trust, C/O Gold Real Estate Group Limited Candace

How much money was awarded in case 5162120?

Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5162120?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5162120?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11996190-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

40 Woodgrove Avenue, North New Brighton, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 5162120 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5162120 — net $1,500.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: General damages	$1,500.00	General damages
Net award	$1,500.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,500.00

Order

Kj And La Family Trust, C/O Gold Real Estate Group Limited Candace McAnelly must pay Michael (Cameron) Cameron Clarke $1,500.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing on 17 June 2025.
The tenant seeks compensation for the landlord’s failure to comply with the terms of the tenancy agreement.
The relevant law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
The term “balance of probabilities” means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is more likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
The obligation to show that something is more likely than not, is referred to as the “burden of proof.” The burden of proof in this matter falls upon the tenant. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “ like 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 or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” (the emphasis is mine).
The Tribunal, in Palmer v Housing New Zealand (no2), Auckland, TT2378/92, 25 August 1993, held that when assessing the quantum of general damages, the Tribunal must take into account the following factors; ▪ The nature of the breach; ▪ The duration of the breach; and ▪ The effect of the breach on the party.
Of more recent times, the Tribunal has reviewed the levels and bands that might usefully inform the Tribunal's decision in applications for general damages. Those bands are; (A)At the lower end of the scale, where a breach causes inconvenience, frustration, annoyance, or disappointment; an award of $200.00 to $2,000.00. (B)Where due to the breach, the party has endured more inconvenience and a higher level of mental distress such as worry, stress, tension or anxiety; And award of $2,000.00 to $3,000.00. (C)At the upper end of the scale, where the party has experienced hardship, insecurity, humiliation, intimidation, aggravation or fear; An award of over $3,000.00.
A brief timeline of the relevant events (much of which is not disputed) is as follows; 10 December 2024 - a tenancy agreement is signed by the parties. The tenancy agreement records that the tenancy was to be for a fixed term commencing 10 January 2025 through until 11 January 2026. 6 January 2025 - Methamphetamine testing of the premises is carried out at the request of the owner. 8 January 2025 – the test results are provided to the owner. The testing revealed the presence of methamphetamine. 9 January 2025 – the owner provided the test results to the landlord. 10 January 2025 - the landlord informs the tenant of the test results by telephone. 13 January 2025 - the landlord presented two options to the tenant; the first option was that the commencement date of the tenancy would be amended and would commence once cleaning and retesting of the premises had been completed. The second option was that the tenancy would be terminated. It was noted that the landlord’s preference was to extend the commencement date. 13 January 2025 - the tenant informed the landlord that he was required to be out of his existing tenancy by Friday 17 January. The landlord proceeded to try and arrange for cleaning and retesting, so that the tenant would be able to move into the premises on Friday 17 January. 14 January 2025 - the tenant is advised by the landlord that they expected to receive the meth testing results and that cleaning had been booked in for Tuesday 14 or Wednesday 15 January 2025. The tenant replied that things appeared to be progressing well and asked for a copy of the methamphetamine test report. A copy of the report was forwarded to the tenant. The landlord informed the tenant that a cleaner had been “pencilled booked” for Thursday morning and that the property would be ready for the tenant on Friday afternoon. 15 January 2025 - the tenant informed the landlord that he did not wish to proceed with the tenancy “... I'm having an issue with my kids mum who's not too happy about the kids living and in an ex meth house etc (me too really). That's putting it politely. So I will have to choose the option to terminate the tenancy agreement, as I would like to have my kids living with me.”
The first issue is whether the landlord has breached the terms of the tenancy agreement. The agreement records that the tenancy was to commence on 10 January 2025.
The landlord relies on the content of the methamphetamine report. The landlord says that the levels of methamphetamine recorded in the report were such as to classify the property as “contaminated” and therefore uninhabitable in accordance with NZS 8510:2017, ss. 2, 45(1AA)(a) and 45(1AAB)(b) RTA.
Sections 45(1)(AA) and (1AAB) RTA in part provide; “Subsection (1AAB) applies to a landlord of premises if- (a) the landlord knows that tests carried out in accordance with prescribed methods have established that the premises are contaminated, and (b) the premises have not been decontaminated in accordance with the relevant prescribed decontamination process. (1AAB) if this subsection applies- (a) and the premises have not yet been provided to the tenant, the landlord must not provide the premises to the tenant until the premises have been decontaminated in accordance with a relevant prescribed decontamination process:
No regulations which prescribe the acceptable level of methamphetamine contamination, process for testing or decontamination have, as yet come into force. No testing or decontamination in accordance with the “prescribed methods” can as a result have been carried out.
The landlord has acted in what they considered to be the best interests of the tenant and in what they considered to be reliance on the RTA. The landlord was mistaken.
The nature of the breach is a failure to allow the tenant to enter the premises and commence the tenancy. This is a fundamental breach of the terms of the tenancy agreement entered into by the parties.
The breach, in my view, has lasted from 10 January 2025 when the tenancy was to have commenced until 12.33 pm on Wednesday 13 January 2025, when the tenant cancelled the tenancy.
The effect of the breach on the tenant was more than minor. The tenancy was to commence on Friday 10 January 2025. The tenant said that he had completed all arrangements to shift when he received the call from the landlord. The tenant had to take two days off work (at a total cost of $1,000.00) and hire a trailer for half a day at $149.00.
When considering the ”bands” of compensation referred to above, I consider that the breach falls within the lower band where the breach has caused inconvenience, frustration, annoyance and disappointment to the tenant. To some extent, the compensation claim has been brought about by the delay by the owner in having the premises tested. The tenancy agreement was signed on 20 December 2024. The tenant was informed of the outcome on 10 January 2025.
In setting the level of compensation I consider the following to be relevant; o The delay by the owner in having the premises tested. o The limited period between the tenant being advised that the tenancy would not proceed and the tenant cancelling the tenancy. o The misunderstanding by the landlord of the requirements as to methamphetamine contamination under the RTA. o The frustration experienced by the tenant as a result of the last minute advice as to the tenancy.
Taking all of those factors into account, I consider that an award of general damages of $1,500.00 is appropriate.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5162120 — net $1,500.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: General damages	$1,500.00	General damages
Net award	$1,500.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,500.00

Order

Kj And La Family Trust, C/O Gold Real Estate Group Limited Candace McAnelly must pay Michael (Cameron) Cameron Clarke $1,500.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing on 17 June 2025.
The tenant seeks compensation for the landlord’s failure to comply with the terms of the tenancy agreement.
The relevant law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
The term “balance of probabilities” means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is more likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
The obligation to show that something is more likely than not, is referred to as the “burden of proof.” The burden of proof in this matter falls upon the tenant. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “ like 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 or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” (the emphasis is mine).
The Tribunal, in Palmer v Housing New Zealand (no2), Auckland, TT2378/92, 25 August 1993, held that when assessing the quantum of general damages, the Tribunal must take into account the following factors; ▪ The nature of the breach; ▪ The duration of the breach; and ▪ The effect of the breach on the party.
Of more recent times, the Tribunal has reviewed the levels and bands that might usefully inform the Tribunal's decision in applications for general damages. Those bands are; (A)At the lower end of the scale, where a breach causes inconvenience, frustration, annoyance, or disappointment; an award of $200.00 to $2,000.00. (B)Where due to the breach, the party has endured more inconvenience and a higher level of mental distress such as worry, stress, tension or anxiety; And award of $2,000.00 to $3,000.00. (C)At the upper end of the scale, where the party has experienced hardship, insecurity, humiliation, intimidation, aggravation or fear; An award of over $3,000.00.
A brief timeline of the relevant events (much of which is not disputed) is as follows; 10 December 2024 - a tenancy agreement is signed by the parties. The tenancy agreement records that the tenancy was to be for a fixed term commencing 10 January 2025 through until 11 January 2026. 6 January 2025 - Methamphetamine testing of the premises is carried out at the request of the owner. 8 January 2025 – the test results are provided to the owner. The testing revealed the presence of methamphetamine. 9 January 2025 – the owner provided the test results to the landlord. 10 January 2025 - the landlord informs the tenant of the test results by telephone. 13 January 2025 - the landlord presented two options to the tenant; the first option was that the commencement date of the tenancy would be amended and would commence once cleaning and retesting of the premises had been completed. The second option was that the tenancy would be terminated. It was noted that the landlord’s preference was to extend the commencement date. 13 January 2025 - the tenant informed the landlord that he was required to be out of his existing tenancy by Friday 17 January. The landlord proceeded to try and arrange for cleaning and retesting, so that the tenant would be able to move into the premises on Friday 17 January. 14 January 2025 - the tenant is advised by the landlord that they expected to receive the meth testing results and that cleaning had been booked in for Tuesday 14 or Wednesday 15 January 2025. The tenant replied that things appeared to be progressing well and asked for a copy of the methamphetamine test report. A copy of the report was forwarded to the tenant. The landlord informed the tenant that a cleaner had been “pencilled booked” for Thursday morning and that the property would be ready for the tenant on Friday afternoon. 15 January 2025 - the tenant informed the landlord that he did not wish to proceed with the tenancy “... I'm having an issue with my kids mum who's not too happy about the kids living and in an ex meth house etc (me too really). That's putting it politely. So I will have to choose the option to terminate the tenancy agreement, as I would like to have my kids living with me.”
The first issue is whether the landlord has breached the terms of the tenancy agreement. The agreement records that the tenancy was to commence on 10 January 2025.
The landlord relies on the content of the methamphetamine report. The landlord says that the levels of methamphetamine recorded in the report were such as to classify the property as “contaminated” and therefore uninhabitable in accordance with NZS 8510:2017, ss. 2, 45(1AA)(a) and 45(1AAB)(b) RTA.
Sections 45(1)(AA) and (1AAB) RTA in part provide; “Subsection (1AAB) applies to a landlord of premises if- (a) the landlord knows that tests carried out in accordance with prescribed methods have established that the premises are contaminated, and (b) the premises have not been decontaminated in accordance with the relevant prescribed decontamination process. (1AAB) if this subsection applies- (a) and the premises have not yet been provided to the tenant, the landlord must not provide the premises to the tenant until the premises have been decontaminated in accordance with a relevant prescribed decontamination process:
No regulations which prescribe the acceptable level of methamphetamine contamination, process for testing or decontamination have, as yet come into force. No testing or decontamination in accordance with the “prescribed methods” can as a result have been carried out.
The landlord has acted in what they considered to be the best interests of the tenant and in what they considered to be reliance on the RTA. The landlord was mistaken.
The nature of the breach is a failure to allow the tenant to enter the premises and commence the tenancy. This is a fundamental breach of the terms of the tenancy agreement entered into by the parties.
The breach, in my view, has lasted from 10 January 2025 when the tenancy was to have commenced until 12.33 pm on Wednesday 13 January 2025, when the tenant cancelled the tenancy.
The effect of the breach on the tenant was more than minor. The tenancy was to commence on Friday 10 January 2025. The tenant said that he had completed all arrangements to shift when he received the call from the landlord. The tenant had to take two days off work (at a total cost of $1,000.00) and hire a trailer for half a day at $149.00.
When considering the ”bands” of compensation referred to above, I consider that the breach falls within the lower band where the breach has caused inconvenience, frustration, annoyance and disappointment to the tenant. To some extent, the compensation claim has been brought about by the delay by the owner in having the premises tested. The tenancy agreement was signed on 20 December 2024. The tenant was informed of the outcome on 10 January 2025.
In setting the level of compensation I consider the following to be relevant; o The delay by the owner in having the premises tested. o The limited period between the tenant being advised that the tenancy would not proceed and the tenant cancelling the tenancy. o The misunderstanding by the landlord of the requirements as to methamphetamine contamination under the RTA. o The frustration experienced by the tenant as a result of the last minute advice as to the tenancy.
Taking all of those factors into account, I consider that an award of general damages of $1,500.00 is appropriate.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5162120 — Property damage at 40 Woodgrove Avenue, North New Brighton, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5162120 — Property damage at 40 Woodgrove Avenue, North New Brighton, Christchurch

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions