What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5181816?

The tribunal order states: Courtney Alice Takai must pay Karina Charmaine Knedler $2,537.86

How much money was awarded in case 5181816?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $112.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5181816?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5181816?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13721870-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5181816?

The tribunal order states: Courtney Alice Takai must pay Karina Charmaine Knedler $2,537.86

How much money was awarded in case 5181816?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $112.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5181816?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5181816?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13721870-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

5 Beggs Lane, Pyes Pa, Tauranga 3112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5181816 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5181816 — net $2,537.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears as at 22 February 2025	$112.14		Rent arrears as at 22 February 2025
Cleaning	$200.00		Cleaning
Exemplary damages: Unlawful purpose	$1,000.00		Unlawful purpose
Exemplary damages: Bond receipt		$100.00	Bond receipt
Exemplary damages: Breach s48(3B		$250.00	Breach s48(3B
Exemplary damages: Breach of s60AA		$500.00	Breach of s60AA
Refund of bond		$3,000.00	Refund of bond
Total award	$1,312.14	$3,850.00
Net award		$2,537.86
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$2,537.86

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5181816 — net $2,537.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears as at 22 February 2025	$112.14		Rent arrears as at 22 February 2025
Cleaning	$200.00		Cleaning
Exemplary damages: Unlawful purpose	$1,000.00		Unlawful purpose
Exemplary damages: Bond receipt		$100.00	Bond receipt
Exemplary damages: Breach s48(3B		$250.00	Breach s48(3B
Exemplary damages: Breach of s60AA		$500.00	Breach of s60AA
Refund of bond		$3,000.00	Refund of bond
Total award	$1,312.14	$3,850.00
Net award		$2,537.86
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$2,537.86

Order

Courtney Alice Takai must pay Karina Charmaine Knedler $2,537.86 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 9 June 2026 – the landlord in person and the tenant via AVL. Background
The background to these applications is that the landlord made a claim against the tenant which was heard and determined on 17 June 2025. The hearing was conducted in the tenant’s absence.
The tenant subsequently applied for a rehearing of that hearing which was granted. The tenant also made a cross claim against the landlord.
A case conference was held on 31 March 2026, the aim of which was to understand what each party was claiming against the other. An order was made on that date setting out each party’s claim.
I note that at the case conference hearing the tenant was represented by James McAllister.
The hearing was set down for an in-person hearing, and after allowing an adjournment at the request of the tenant, the matter was finally heard on 9 June 2026 in full.
I shall address each party’s claim in turn. Burden of proof
When a party is an applicant, they are required to prove their claim “on the balance of probabilities”. That is, it is more likely than not that their version of events is the correct one.
In disputed situations, where each party’s version of events contradicts the other’s, then the only way of proving a claim to the required standard is for the applicant to provide some kind of objective evidence that supports their claim, such as evidence from an independent witness or photographs. The Landlord’s claim Rent arrears
The landlord claims rent arrears to 15 March 2025 which she said amounts to $2,467.14.
The background to this part of the claim is that on 31 January 2025, 6 days after the tenancy started, the landlord gave the tenant a 90 day notice of termination, terminating the tenancy on 24 April 2025.
On 14 February 2025 the landlord was advised by the police that the tenant was unable to remain at the premises because to do so was in breach of her bail conditions.
On 21 February 2025 the tenant advised the landlord that the keys to the premises would be left in the letter box and stated that she would be vacating on 22 February 2025.
The landlord claims that the tenant ought to have given them 3 weeks’ notice of termination of her tenancy and so claims rent to 15 March 2025.
I am ordering the tenant to pay rent to the date on which she vacated the tenancy. I do so because: (a) The tenant was required by law not to reside at the premises; and (b) The landlord immediately took possession of the premises once the tenant had vacated. Methamphetamine contamination
On 31 January 2025 the premises were tested for the presence of methamphetamine. The composite test revealed no contamination, although it was noted that the methamphetamine potential maximum in a single sample was 2.1μg/100cm 2
A further composite test was done on 26 February 2025, 4 days after the tenancy ended. The subsequent laboratory report notes that the methamphetamine potential maximum in a single sample was 22 μg/100cm 2 .
A discrete test of the rangehood on this day returned a negative result for methamphetamine contamination.
On the instruction of her insurance company, the landlord subsequently arranged for discrete testing of the premises. A report was provided to the landlord on 10 April 2025.
A sample taken at the entrance way revealed a score of 9.7 μg/100cm 2 , a level of 4.40μg/100cm 2 from a sample taken in the ensuite, and a level of
79μg/100cm 2 from a sample taken in the lounge. The remaining discrete tests showed levels below these figures.
The landlord claims the insurance excess they paid for decontaminating the premises, the loss of one week’s rent due to the premises being contaminated and reimbursement of the costs of all three methamphetamine tests.
In order to be successful with these claims the landlord needs to show that the level of methamphetamine detected constitutes a health hazard – that is, that the premises are contaminated.
Since 2019, after the District Court decision in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947, the Tenancy Tribunal has applied what has been colloquially termed “The Gluckman Level” of contamination – that is, premises are deemed to be contaminated by methamphetamine when discrete testing reveals levels of 15μg/100cm 2 or above.
The Court of Appeal endorsed this view in Smith v Accessible Properties Ltd [2019] NZCA 38.
None of the discrete samples taken reveal a level of 15μg/100cm 2 or more and so the claims for the insurance excess, the loss of rent due to contamination and the costs of the methamphetamine tests are dismissed.
Referring to the composite test taken on 26 February 2026, I note that a potential maximum at any single test site of 22μg/100cm 2 cannot be taken as showing that the premises were contaminated. It merely indicates a possibility which would then require discrete tests to be undertaken to determine accurate levels.
As stated earlier, none of the discrete tests reveal levels of 15μg/100cm 2 or more. Using the premises for an unlawful purpose
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.
The landlord claims that the tenant has either used the premises for an unlawful purpose (using methamphetamine) or permitted the premises to be used for that unlawful purpose. This is an offence against the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
The evidence to support this claim is the increased levels noted in the composite test done at the beginning of the tenancy and the composite test done on 26 February 2025. Further, the discrete tests evidenced in the report of 10 April 2025 show methamphetamine use in some areas.
The tenant disputes this claim. She states that she had a hair follicle test conducted on 13 May 2025 which shows that she had no drugs in her system for 9 months prior to that date.
She also states that the discrete tests were done 6 weeks after her tenancy ended and so cannot be an accurate record of when she was living there.
As the applicant, a landlord is required to prove their case on the balance of probabilities – that is, it is more likely than not the tenant used methamphetamine, or allowed methamphetamine to be used at the premises during her tenancy.
I find that the landlord has proven their claim to the required standard.
I say this for reasons that include: (a) The composite tests done at the beginning and end of the tenancy are irrefutable evidence that the levels of methamphetamine found at the premises had increased during the tenancy; and (b) Discrete test results are produced from composite tests and so the discrete test results were taken from the composite test done at the end of the tenancy – that is, on 26 February 2025; and (c) Given that the highest levels of methamphetamine were found in the entrance way and in the en suite (a common area and her own private area), I am satisfied that more likely than not the tenant was aware of the methamphetamine use, and therefore can be said to have permitted it.
The tenant has therefore 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.
As referred to earlier in paragraph 36(c) I am satisfied that the tenant must have been aware of methamphetamine use at the premises. This shows the requisite intention.
I understand from the landlord that the effect of methamphetamine use at the premises has put her under considerable stress and expense. Her insurer required her to have the premises decontaminated which has not only come at a cost, but has also delayed re-tenanting the premises.
There is also considerable public interest in tenants not using premises for any unlawful purpose.
I have made an award of $1,000.00 in exemplary damages. In coming to this amount I have taken into consideration all of the above factors as well as the deterrent effect required of an award of exemplary damages. Cleaning
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean – see s40 (1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Photographs taken on 24 February 2025 show that the premises were not left reasonably clean.
The landlords claim the invoiced cost of $944.15 for cleaning.
However, the invoice evidences a deep clean. Tenants are not required to pay the cost of a deep clean – merely the cost of getting the premises to a reasonable standard.
Further to this, the photographs do not evidence the extent of the cleaning claimed. For example, there are no photographs of kitchen cupboards, the wardrobe or the laundry area which have been specifically mentioned in the invoice.
Taking these concerns into account I have ordered the tenant to pay a reduced sum for cleaning which I consider reflects the amount of cleaning required as evidenced by the photographs. The Tenant’s claim Unlawful entry
The tenant claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.
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.
It was undisputed evidence that the landlord accompanied a police officer to the premises and when no one answered the door, the landlord unlocked the door and the police officer entered the premises. The landlord briefly entered the premises when asked to by the police officer in order to determine the ownership of an item on the table.
The tenant states that this is a breach of s48 because there was no reason for the police officer to be there, given that she was not in breach of her bail conditions as the police officer stated, and because she was not rung by either the police officer or the landlord prior to their going to the premises.
On the evidence available to me I am satisfied that the landlord has breached s40 because she did not give the required notice to enter the premises.
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.
Although there has been a breach, I am not satisfied that it would be just to make an award of exemplary damages. This is because I accept that the landlord was required to attend the premises with a police officer and to step inside to establish ownership of an item of interest to the police.
This part of the tenant’s claim is therefore dismissed. Receipt for bond payment
Section 19(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that as soon as practicable after receiving a bond payment, the landlord must provide the tenant with a written receipt.
Failure to do so is an unlawful act which may attract an award of exemplary damages of up to $1,500.00.
The tenant claims that the landlord failed to provide her with a receipt and therefore that she committed an unlawful act.
The landlord states that she emailed a receipt to the tenant on 25 January 2025.
However, the landlord was unable to show evidence of this email and so I am satisfied that she more than likely did not provide the receipt as she was required to do.
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.
In coming to an award of $100.00 for this unlawful act, I have taken into account the fact that landlords are obliged to be aware of their obligations as landlords. Not to be aware can be taken as some form of intention.
Further to this there is public interest in landlords abiding by their obligations under the RTA.
I have also taken into account that the tenant states that this failure prevented her from keeping accurate records. In this regard I note that she was provided with confirmation from the Bond Centre that the bond had been received. There was therefore a minimal effect on the tenant’s record keeping. Premises not provided in a reasonably clean condition
Section 45(1) RTA provides that a landlord shall provide premises in a reasonably clean condition. Failure to do so is an unlawful act which may attract an award of exemplary damages of up to $7,200.00.
The tenant claims that the landlord did not provide the premises in a reasonably clean condition because 4 rubbish bags were left there.
The landlord disputes this part of the claim.
Given that the tenant was unable to provide any kind of objective evidence to support her claim, I find that she has been unable to prove this part of her claim to the required standard.
This claim is dismissed. Failure to provide healthy homes statement in tenancy agreement
Section 13 (1CA) RTA provides that the landlord must include a healthy homes statement in the tenancy agreement, signed by the landlord.
Failure to do so is an unlawful act which may attract an award of exemplary damages of up to $750.00.
The tenant states that the landlord did not provide a healthy homes statement with the tenancy agreement.
I find that the landlord committed an unlawful act by failing to do so. The tenancy agreement clearly shows the absence of the healthy homes statement and the landlord accepts that she did not include the statement in with the tenancy agreement.
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.
In spite of finding that the landlord breached s13(1CA) I am not making an award of exemplary damages because I am satisfied that the landlord did not intentionally fail to provide the healthy homes statement with the tenancy agreement.
I say this because in an email dated 4 February 2025, just 10 days after the tenancy started, the landlord advised the tenant that she had overlooked this and attached the statement to that email. Failure to provide an insurance statement with the tenancy agreement
Section 13(2) RTA provides that the landlord must include information regarding insurance for the premises in the tenancy agreement.
Failure to do so is an unlawful act which may attract an award of exemplary damages of up to $750.00.
At today’s hearing the tenant claimed that the landlord breached this section of the RTA.
However, I am making no determination on this matter. This is because no such claim was made when the case conference was held and the landlord has therefore had insufficient notice of this claim being made against her. Failure to notify meth test results
Section 48(3B) RTA provides that if premises are entered for the purposes of testing for contaminants or taking samples, then the landlord must, within 7 days of receiving the results, notify the tenant in writing, of the results and provide the tenant with a copy.
Failure to do so is an unlawful act and an award of exemplary damages may be made of up to $1,000.00.
The tenant states that the landlord failed to provide her with the results of the meth test done on 31 January 2025, 26 February 2025 and 10 April 2025.
I am dismissing that part of the claim that relates to the first two tests. The evidence shows that the results of the composite tests were provided to the tenant in the required time frame.
However, the landlord has committed an unlawful act by failing to provide the results of the discrete testing.
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 that the landlord intentionally failed to provide the results of this third test. She says she did not do so because the tenant was no longer living at the property and had not done so since 21 February 2025.
However, the definition of a tenant in the RTA includes a former tenant – see s2 RTA. This means that the landlord was obliged to send the tenant a copy of these results.
I have awarded $250.00 in exemplary damages. In doing so I have also taken into account the stress felt by any person who is not being provided with important information that relates directly to them, and the public interest in landlord’s knowing and abiding by their obligations. Breach of s60AA
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 states that she gave the tenant a 90 day notice of termination, believing that she could do so because it was a periodic tenancy.
However, I do not consider this to be a reasonable excuse for terminating the tenancy, given that the landlord expressly put her mind to the fact that this was a tenancy due to last for 12 months – in other words this was a fixed term tenancy. There was a handwritten amendment to the tenancy agreement evidencing this and signed by both landlord and tenant.
The landlord therefore breached s60AA RTA because under a fixed term tenancy, a landlord is not permitted to issue a 90 day notice of termination.
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 advised that she terminated the tenancy because she had heard things about the tenant and no longer wished her to be in the house.
I accept the tenant’s evidence that the termination of the tenancy caused her a lot of stress, largely because she was very conscious that she needed a permanent address to satisfy her bail conditions.
In coming to an award of exemplary damages of $500.00 I have also balanced the need for landlords to abide by their obligations, the deterrent effect of such an award, and the fact that in any case the tenant was required to return to another address to satisfy her bail conditions. Filing fee reimbursements
Each party made an application against the other which was partially successful. I therefore consider it appropriate that each party bears their own cost of filing in the Tribunal. The Bond
The landlord states that there is an issue with the bond in that the bond money was provided by MSD and MSD were investigating that payment.
However, that is an issue between MSD and the tenant.
What is certain is that the landlord has the $3,000.00 bond paid and for that reason that amount will be applied to the claims made. C ter Haar 15 June 2026

Tenancy Tribunal case 5181816 — Exemplary damages at 5 Beggs Lane, Pyes Pa, Tauranga 3112

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5181816 — Exemplary damages at 5 Beggs Lane, Pyes Pa, Tauranga 3112

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions