What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4916213?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Paul Murphy at 20 Roimata Place, Woolston, Christchurch 8023

How much money was awarded in case 4916213?

Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Methamphetamine Test Reports: $2,002.11 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4916213?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4916213?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10698987-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4916213?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Paul Murphy at 20 Roimata Place, Woolston, Christchurch 8023

How much money was awarded in case 4916213?

Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Methamphetamine Test Reports: $2,002.11 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4916213?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4916213?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10698987-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

20 Roimata Place, Woolston, Christchurch 8023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4916213 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4916213 — net $2,822.55 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Methamphetamine test reports	$2,002.11	Methamphetamine test reports
Exemplary damages	$800.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,822.55
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,822.55

Order

The tenancy of Paul Murphy at 20 Roimata Place, Woolston, Christchurch 8023 is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 11.59pm on Tuesday 24 September 2024.
Paul Murphy must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $2,822.55 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Mr Olds and Mr Woodbury represented the landlord. The tenant did not attend the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations and compensation for methamphetamine testing costs, and the filing fee.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable of remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.
However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate. The landlord has served 14-day notices on the tenant relevant to the breach.
The tenant has breached his obligations by using or permitting others to use, or having in his possession a Class A controlled drug at the premises which is an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
The breach is not capable of remedy because the act has been committed probably repeatedly.
The landlord’s representative gave evidence that the tenant admitted that his mates smoke methamphetamine at the premises; that he had researched whether methamphetamine contamination was harmful; that there was no national standard; and that he knew he could use sugar soap to clean the premises.
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) RTA.
The evidence establishes on the balance of probabilities that the tenant has used or permitted the use of a Class A controlled drug at the premises and has therefore breaches his responsibilities as a tenant. The landlord is required to act to ensure that the premises are decontaminated.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. The landlord is a social housing provider and must provide housing to people on the housing register. There is a demand for social housing. The damage caused to these premises will take time to remediate and the unit will be taken out of supply for several months while the landlord does that. Compensation
The landlord had an initial baseline test done. I make no order reimbursing the cost of that since any prudent landlord will have that test done at the start of a tenancy for evidential purposes.
The landlord then had composite tests done. The reports showed increased levels in some areas, and decreased levels in other areas.
The test reports establish on the balance of probabilities that the tenant used or permitted the use of methamphetamine at the premises.
While the landlord bears the cost of the initial report to establish a baseline it is entitled to reimbursement of the costs of the later reports which were necessary to determine the level of contamination which in turn determines the response required of the landlord. The reports were necessary as a direct consequence of the tenant’s actions. Exemplary damages
Breaching the obligation not to use the premises or permit the use of the premises for an unlawful purpose 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 RTA.
It is unlawful to possess or use controlled drugs under section 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
The evidence the landlord produced establishes on the balance of probabilities that the tenant used or permitted the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. I find that the tenant 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) RTA.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. I accept the landlord’s submission that deterrence is important in this case. The damage is expensive to repair, and the unit (in demand for social housing) will be unavailable for a long time while it is decontaminated. It is against the public interest for tenants to use premises for an unlawful purpose. It is just to award exemplary damages. Result
The tenancy is terminated. The landlord sought possession after 6 weeks to allow the tenant to find alternative accommodation.
The tenant will pay the landlord compensation ($2,002.11) and exemplary damages ($800.00) together with the filing fee of $20.44, a total of $2,822.55.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4916213 — net $2,822.55 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Methamphetamine test reports	$2,002.11	Methamphetamine test reports
Exemplary damages	$800.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,822.55
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,822.55

Order

The tenancy of Paul Murphy at 20 Roimata Place, Woolston, Christchurch 8023 is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 11.59pm on Tuesday 24 September 2024.
Paul Murphy must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $2,822.55 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Mr Olds and Mr Woodbury represented the landlord. The tenant did not attend the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations and compensation for methamphetamine testing costs, and the filing fee.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable of remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.
However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate. The landlord has served 14-day notices on the tenant relevant to the breach.
The tenant has breached his obligations by using or permitting others to use, or having in his possession a Class A controlled drug at the premises which is an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
The breach is not capable of remedy because the act has been committed probably repeatedly.
The landlord’s representative gave evidence that the tenant admitted that his mates smoke methamphetamine at the premises; that he had researched whether methamphetamine contamination was harmful; that there was no national standard; and that he knew he could use sugar soap to clean the premises.
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) RTA.
The evidence establishes on the balance of probabilities that the tenant has used or permitted the use of a Class A controlled drug at the premises and has therefore breaches his responsibilities as a tenant. The landlord is required to act to ensure that the premises are decontaminated.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. The landlord is a social housing provider and must provide housing to people on the housing register. There is a demand for social housing. The damage caused to these premises will take time to remediate and the unit will be taken out of supply for several months while the landlord does that. Compensation
The landlord had an initial baseline test done. I make no order reimbursing the cost of that since any prudent landlord will have that test done at the start of a tenancy for evidential purposes.
The landlord then had composite tests done. The reports showed increased levels in some areas, and decreased levels in other areas.
The test reports establish on the balance of probabilities that the tenant used or permitted the use of methamphetamine at the premises.
While the landlord bears the cost of the initial report to establish a baseline it is entitled to reimbursement of the costs of the later reports which were necessary to determine the level of contamination which in turn determines the response required of the landlord. The reports were necessary as a direct consequence of the tenant’s actions. Exemplary damages
Breaching the obligation not to use the premises or permit the use of the premises for an unlawful purpose 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 RTA.
It is unlawful to possess or use controlled drugs under section 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
The evidence the landlord produced establishes on the balance of probabilities that the tenant used or permitted the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. I find that the tenant 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) RTA.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. I accept the landlord’s submission that deterrence is important in this case. The damage is expensive to repair, and the unit (in demand for social housing) will be unavailable for a long time while it is decontaminated. It is against the public interest for tenants to use premises for an unlawful purpose. It is just to award exemplary damages. Result
The tenancy is terminated. The landlord sought possession after 6 weeks to allow the tenant to find alternative accommodation.
The tenant will pay the landlord compensation ($2,002.11) and exemplary damages ($800.00) together with the filing fee of $20.44, a total of $2,822.55.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4916213 — Exemplary damages at 20 Roimata Place, Woolston, Christchurch 8023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4916213 — Exemplary damages at 20 Roimata Place, Woolston, Christchurch 8023

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions