What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5266039?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Troy Fletcher-Mathews at 36 Jecks Place, Avonside,

How much money was awarded in case 5266039?

Possession Is Granted To Otautahi Co…: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5266039?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5266039?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12150038-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5266039?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Troy Fletcher-Mathews at 36 Jecks Place, Avonside,

How much money was awarded in case 5266039?

Possession Is Granted To Otautahi Co…: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5266039?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5266039?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12150038-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

36 Jecks Place, Avonside, Christchurch 8061 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5266039 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5266039. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 6pm on Monday 11 August 2025. 2. The tenant is to pay the	$27.00		possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 6pm on Monday 11 August 2025. 2. The tenant is to pay the

Order

The tenancy of Troy Fletcher-Mathews at 36 Jecks Place, Avonside, Christchurch 8061 is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 6pm on Monday 11 August 2025.
The tenant is to pay the landlord $27 to reimburse the landlord for the filing fee immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

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.
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 to 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 tenant has breached their obligations by causing or permitting a methamphetamine contamination to occur at the property.
Section 40 (2) (a) states that a tenant must not intentionally or carelessly damage or permit any other person to damage the premises they are renting.
Section 40 (2) (b) states that a tenant must not use or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose.
The use or possession of methamphetamine is an imprisonable offence; see the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
The evidence must therefore show that the tenant has caused or permitted a meth contamination to occur during the tenancy, that renders the premises uninhabitable.
The first requirement is that the meth contamination occurred during the tenancy.
The Courts have consistently held that pre tenancy testing showing that there was no meth contamination at the beginning of the tenancy is the starting point to a landlord establishing a claim for termination/compensation on the basis of meth contamination. Pre tenancy testing confirms no meth on bedroom window sill at start of tenancy.
No methamphetamine testing was conducted at the premises immediately before the tenancy began. The applicant said that testing was not routinely done because of the prohibitive costs of testing the 1500 units it manages.
In the absence of that testing the Tribunal requires strong evidence to support a finding that the meth contamination occurred during and does not predate the tenancy.
The evidence clearly shows that the windowsill in the bedroom of the studio unit, that later showed very high meth levels, was replaced with a new one only one month before the tenancy began.
While I agree with the tenant that this evidence is “not 100% proof”, the required standard is not certainty but what is the more likely explanation.
The tradespeople who work for the applicant are required to sign an agreement stating they agree to undergo drug testing and are unlikely culprits. In addition, the unit was secured for the month prior to the tenancy beginning and the evidence establishes that the significant levels detected would be most unlikely to have occurred in only one month.
It is implausible that the significant meth contamination, recently detected, occurred in the time the property was vacant after the windowsill was replaced or that the tradesperson who did that work caused the contamination.
His alternative submission that the meth tester or property manager might have caused the contamination when testing, is unsupported by any evidence and equally implausible.
I accept that it is likely the bedroom windowsill was not contaminated with meth at the beginning of the tenancy. Testing shows significant contamination has occurred during the tenancy.
Composite meth testing was carried out in 28 April 2025.
The testing confirmed the presence of methamphetamine contamination.
Due to the methamphetamine contamination at the property a detailed assessment was conducted.
The detailed testing occurred in May 2025. It confirmed that the meth levels were significantly higher in 8 out of 9 tested sites, than the 15ug recommended by Professor Gluckman (see details below) as the maximum level at which it is safe to live in a property unless it is decontaminated.
Of particular note Hills Laboratories confirmed that the 2 living/bedroom swaps were 48μg and 121ug. The testing of the actual replaced bedroom window sill was then confirmed to show a level of 58μg
The Recommendation was that decontamination work occur and the property should not be occupied while the decontamination work is underway.

Why Tenancy must be terminated?

The issue then becomes whether the detected meth contamination means the premises are “uninhabitable” as required by section 59.
“Uninhabitable” is not defined in the RTA but was considered by the Courts in claims arising out of the aftermath of the Christchurch earthquakes.
In Watkin v Brazier Property Investments Ltd [2012] DCR 186, Judge Kellar concluded that the meaning of habitable is very much dependent on context.
Therefore, “the term should be assessed in the light of prevailing conditions and expectations of the particular community at the particular time.”
There is ongoing uncertainty about the level of methamphetamine residue that renders them uninhabitable.
There is no standard set-in law as yet and the two most accepted sources of (non-legal) guidance are quite different in their recommendations.
A New Zealand Standards committee (approved and appointed under then Standards and Accreditation Act 2015) adopted a “maximum acceptable level” of methamphetamine of 1.5mcg/100cm2 for ‘high use areas’ (easily accessed and regularly used). NZS 8510:2017 applies from 29 June 2017.
Then, 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 Gluckman report makes a distinction between the risks of exposure to chemical residues in premises where methamphetamine has been previously manufactured as opposed to where it has been smoked/used. It concludes that, where there is no evidence of the manufacture of methamphetamine, exposure to residue levels on household surfaces of below 15mcg/100 cm2 “would be highly unlikely to give rise to any adverse effects”.
Where there is evidence suggesting possible manufacture of methamphetamine, both NZS 8510:2017 and the Gluckman report recommend remediation to the 1.5mcg level. The Gluckman report notes that methamphetamine levels over 30mcg/100cm2 are considered by forensic experts to signify that manufacture is likely to have taken place.
The Tribunal has generally applied the Gluckman recommendations, and the District Court has consistently confirmed that it is open to the Tribunal to take this approach because of the lack of legislative regulation at present. See Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 and Acme Realty Ltd v Alexander James Hogg, Tuitui Grace Polotu, Leigh Sharyn Coughlin [2021] NZDC 3231.
Methamphetamine contamination of homes is an issue that society takes seriously, particularly when the levels of contamination are high. That view is reflected in the amendments to the RTA relating to methamphetamine contamination, and the intention of Parliament to set regulations in relation to contamination.
The Tribunal continues to be guided by the level set out in the Gluckman report.
The levels of contamination in these premises far exceed the Gluckman levels.
I consider that the levels are such that the premises are uninhabitable.
In addition, the evidence shows the contamination at least of the bedroom windowsill has probably occurred during the tenancy and therefore that the tenant has caused or permitted the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose causing extensive damage that now requires remediation.
The tenant’s evidence that he has a serious medical condition that has required “at least a dozen hospital admissions” to treat and stabilise, over the course of the tenancy was considered, as was his statement that when he is discharged a family member will come and look after him as he is wiped out and sleeps for a couple of days. He said that in light of the meth test results he now has “doubts” about whether one of these family members may have caused the contamination. That evidence is recorded as it may be relevant to the tenant’s “intention” if the landlord makes a further claim for exemplary damages.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy as the tenant has breached his obligations under the RTA as outlined. The breach is the unlawful action of causing or permitting others there with his permission to cause, the meth contamination and cannot be remedied. The consequence of the breach is the contamination which now requires extensive remediation work before the premises are safe to live in again. That finding that it is simply no longer safe to live there must apply particularly to a tenant with a serious medical condition.
The premises are uninhabitable until decontaminated. The tenancy must be ended for this decontamination to occur.
The tenant has until 6pm Monday 11 August 2025 to vacate. That was the maximum timeframe the applicant would permit. The tenant has nowhere else to move at present and pleaded for as long as possible. If he is able to find somewhere else, he can give very minimal notice and leave which is also considered reasonable, in the circumstances.
It is likely further landlord claims for compensation and potentially exemplary damages will follow, but they are to be filed and considered separately. The tenant updated his address for service so this can occur, and he can receive notification of the claims and evidence and date of that hearing.
The tenant is to pay the filing fee as the landlord’s application is partly successful.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5266039. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 6pm on Monday 11 August 2025. 2. The tenant is to pay the	$27.00		possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 6pm on Monday 11 August 2025. 2. The tenant is to pay the

Order

The tenancy of Troy Fletcher-Mathews at 36 Jecks Place, Avonside, Christchurch 8061 is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 6pm on Monday 11 August 2025.
The tenant is to pay the landlord $27 to reimburse the landlord for the filing fee immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

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.
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 to 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 tenant has breached their obligations by causing or permitting a methamphetamine contamination to occur at the property.
Section 40 (2) (a) states that a tenant must not intentionally or carelessly damage or permit any other person to damage the premises they are renting.
Section 40 (2) (b) states that a tenant must not use or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose.
The use or possession of methamphetamine is an imprisonable offence; see the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
The evidence must therefore show that the tenant has caused or permitted a meth contamination to occur during the tenancy, that renders the premises uninhabitable.
The first requirement is that the meth contamination occurred during the tenancy.
The Courts have consistently held that pre tenancy testing showing that there was no meth contamination at the beginning of the tenancy is the starting point to a landlord establishing a claim for termination/compensation on the basis of meth contamination. Pre tenancy testing confirms no meth on bedroom window sill at start of tenancy.
No methamphetamine testing was conducted at the premises immediately before the tenancy began. The applicant said that testing was not routinely done because of the prohibitive costs of testing the 1500 units it manages.
In the absence of that testing the Tribunal requires strong evidence to support a finding that the meth contamination occurred during and does not predate the tenancy.
The evidence clearly shows that the windowsill in the bedroom of the studio unit, that later showed very high meth levels, was replaced with a new one only one month before the tenancy began.
While I agree with the tenant that this evidence is “not 100% proof”, the required standard is not certainty but what is the more likely explanation.
The tradespeople who work for the applicant are required to sign an agreement stating they agree to undergo drug testing and are unlikely culprits. In addition, the unit was secured for the month prior to the tenancy beginning and the evidence establishes that the significant levels detected would be most unlikely to have occurred in only one month.
It is implausible that the significant meth contamination, recently detected, occurred in the time the property was vacant after the windowsill was replaced or that the tradesperson who did that work caused the contamination.
His alternative submission that the meth tester or property manager might have caused the contamination when testing, is unsupported by any evidence and equally implausible.
I accept that it is likely the bedroom windowsill was not contaminated with meth at the beginning of the tenancy. Testing shows significant contamination has occurred during the tenancy.
Composite meth testing was carried out in 28 April 2025.
The testing confirmed the presence of methamphetamine contamination.
Due to the methamphetamine contamination at the property a detailed assessment was conducted.
The detailed testing occurred in May 2025. It confirmed that the meth levels were significantly higher in 8 out of 9 tested sites, than the 15ug recommended by Professor Gluckman (see details below) as the maximum level at which it is safe to live in a property unless it is decontaminated.
Of particular note Hills Laboratories confirmed that the 2 living/bedroom swaps were 48μg and 121ug. The testing of the actual replaced bedroom window sill was then confirmed to show a level of 58μg
The Recommendation was that decontamination work occur and the property should not be occupied while the decontamination work is underway.

Why Tenancy must be terminated?

The issue then becomes whether the detected meth contamination means the premises are “uninhabitable” as required by section 59.
“Uninhabitable” is not defined in the RTA but was considered by the Courts in claims arising out of the aftermath of the Christchurch earthquakes.
In Watkin v Brazier Property Investments Ltd [2012] DCR 186, Judge Kellar concluded that the meaning of habitable is very much dependent on context.
Therefore, “the term should be assessed in the light of prevailing conditions and expectations of the particular community at the particular time.”
There is ongoing uncertainty about the level of methamphetamine residue that renders them uninhabitable.
There is no standard set-in law as yet and the two most accepted sources of (non-legal) guidance are quite different in their recommendations.
A New Zealand Standards committee (approved and appointed under then Standards and Accreditation Act 2015) adopted a “maximum acceptable level” of methamphetamine of 1.5mcg/100cm2 for ‘high use areas’ (easily accessed and regularly used). NZS 8510:2017 applies from 29 June 2017.
Then, 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 Gluckman report makes a distinction between the risks of exposure to chemical residues in premises where methamphetamine has been previously manufactured as opposed to where it has been smoked/used. It concludes that, where there is no evidence of the manufacture of methamphetamine, exposure to residue levels on household surfaces of below 15mcg/100 cm2 “would be highly unlikely to give rise to any adverse effects”.
Where there is evidence suggesting possible manufacture of methamphetamine, both NZS 8510:2017 and the Gluckman report recommend remediation to the 1.5mcg level. The Gluckman report notes that methamphetamine levels over 30mcg/100cm2 are considered by forensic experts to signify that manufacture is likely to have taken place.
The Tribunal has generally applied the Gluckman recommendations, and the District Court has consistently confirmed that it is open to the Tribunal to take this approach because of the lack of legislative regulation at present. See Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 and Acme Realty Ltd v Alexander James Hogg, Tuitui Grace Polotu, Leigh Sharyn Coughlin [2021] NZDC 3231.
Methamphetamine contamination of homes is an issue that society takes seriously, particularly when the levels of contamination are high. That view is reflected in the amendments to the RTA relating to methamphetamine contamination, and the intention of Parliament to set regulations in relation to contamination.
The Tribunal continues to be guided by the level set out in the Gluckman report.
The levels of contamination in these premises far exceed the Gluckman levels.
I consider that the levels are such that the premises are uninhabitable.
In addition, the evidence shows the contamination at least of the bedroom windowsill has probably occurred during the tenancy and therefore that the tenant has caused or permitted the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose causing extensive damage that now requires remediation.
The tenant’s evidence that he has a serious medical condition that has required “at least a dozen hospital admissions” to treat and stabilise, over the course of the tenancy was considered, as was his statement that when he is discharged a family member will come and look after him as he is wiped out and sleeps for a couple of days. He said that in light of the meth test results he now has “doubts” about whether one of these family members may have caused the contamination. That evidence is recorded as it may be relevant to the tenant’s “intention” if the landlord makes a further claim for exemplary damages.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy as the tenant has breached his obligations under the RTA as outlined. The breach is the unlawful action of causing or permitting others there with his permission to cause, the meth contamination and cannot be remedied. The consequence of the breach is the contamination which now requires extensive remediation work before the premises are safe to live in again. That finding that it is simply no longer safe to live there must apply particularly to a tenant with a serious medical condition.
The premises are uninhabitable until decontaminated. The tenancy must be ended for this decontamination to occur.
The tenant has until 6pm Monday 11 August 2025 to vacate. That was the maximum timeframe the applicant would permit. The tenant has nowhere else to move at present and pleaded for as long as possible. If he is able to find somewhere else, he can give very minimal notice and leave which is also considered reasonable, in the circumstances.
It is likely further landlord claims for compensation and potentially exemplary damages will follow, but they are to be filed and considered separately. The tenant updated his address for service so this can occur, and he can receive notification of the claims and evidence and date of that hearing.
The tenant is to pay the filing fee as the landlord’s application is partly successful.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5266039 — Exemplary damages at 36 Jecks Place, Avonside, Christchurch 8061

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5266039 — Exemplary damages at 36 Jecks Place, Avonside, Christchurch 8061

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Why Tenancy must be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Why Tenancy must be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions