What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5340962 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $7,245.78

How much money was awarded in case 5340962?

Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Methamphetamine Decontamination: $6,474.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit: $192.72 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5340962?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5340962?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12682266-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5340962 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $7,245.78

How much money was awarded in case 5340962?

Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Methamphetamine Decontamination: $6,474.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit: $192.72 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5340962?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5340962?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12682266-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

36 Jecks Place, Avonside, Christchurch 8061 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5340962 — Exemplary damages

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5340962 — net $7,245.78 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Methamphetamine decontamination	$6,474.50		Methamphetamine decontamination
Exemplary damages	$1,200.00		Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Rent credit		$192.72	Rent credit
Total award	$7,702.50	$192.72
Net award	$7,245.78
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,245.78

Only the landlord’s representative attended the hearing.

The landlord claims the cost of methamphetamine (meth) decontamination, exemplary damages for unlawful use of the premises and the filing fee.

A claim for the cost of lock changing was withdrawn.

The bond has been paid to the landlord and rent was in credit at the end of the tenancy. Previous Application and Order

Under application number 5266039 the landlord sought termination of the tenancy and exemplary damages on the ground that the tenant had used or permitted the use of meth in the premises during the tenancy.

On 21 July 2025 the Tribunal ordered termination of the tenancy.

There was no ingoing methamphetamine testing and the landlord relied on the test result from a sample taken from windowsill in the premises that was installed at the beginning of the tenancy. The sample from the windowsill tested at a level of 59μg per 100cm². That is well above the level of 15μg that the Tribunal regards as the level above which there is a significant risk of harm to human health from the premises.

There were other samples from the premises that were well above the 15μg level. Only one other sample tested above 58μg. That sample tested at 121μg.

The Tribunal’s previous order states, “the evidence shows that 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”. Discussion and Decision

I put it to the landlord’s representative that without a negative ingoing test result, it is possible that the premises were already contaminated with meth at the start of the tenancy and that they needed remediation in any case. He accepted that it was a possibility, but he argued that it was unlikely.

He said that there was only one other sample that tested at a level above the sample from the windowsill and that it was unlikely that there would be two tenants, one following the other, who used or permitted to be used a significant quantity of meth in the premises.

He also said that the previous tenant was a retired gentleman who left the premises to go into a retirement home. It is unlikely that he was involved with the use of meth.

I agree that it is unlikely that there was meth contamination or significant contamination when this tenancy began. I am satisfied that it is the contamination during this tenancy that has caused the need for the premises to be decontaminated. The results of the meth testing are consistent with that.

It follows that the tenant is liable for the reasonable cost of decontaminating the premises. The landlord produced an invoice for the decontamination in the sum of $6,474.50. I find that to be reasonable and so I have awarded it. Exemplary Damages

A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00.

Using or possessing meth is a serious criminal offence. It follows that using or permitting the use of meth in the premises in using or permitting the use of the premises for an unlawful purpose

It follows from my findings 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.

At the previous hearing, the tenant denied using meth or having knowledge that it was used in the premises. He said that it was possible that family members used meth in the premises while he was sleeping.

Given the levels of meth found in the premises (which are consistent with the manufacture of meth), it is not credible that if the tenant was not using it himself, that he would be unaware that others were using it in the premises. It is also relevant that the premises are a small studio unit.

The consequences of the contamination are very serious. There is the substantial cost of decontamination. There is also the effect that has had on the availability of the premises for others in need of social housing. The premises are still not ready for occupation although it appears that is partly due to the need to repair damage to the premises during the time between the Tribunal’s previous order and the tenant vacating the premises.

I find that a substantial award of exemplary damages towards the upper end of the range is required in this case. I have therefore awarded $1,200.

The landlord has succeeded and so I have awarded the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5340962 — net $7,245.78 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Methamphetamine decontamination	$6,474.50		Methamphetamine decontamination
Exemplary damages	$1,200.00		Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Rent credit		$192.72	Rent credit
Total award	$7,702.50	$192.72
Net award	$7,245.78
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,245.78

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $7,245.78 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Only the landlord’s representative attended the hearing.
The landlord claims the cost of methamphetamine (meth) decontamination, exemplary damages for unlawful use of the premises and the filing fee.
A claim for the cost of lock changing was withdrawn.
The bond has been paid to the landlord and rent was in credit at the end of the tenancy. Previous Application and Order
Under application number 5266039 the landlord sought termination of the tenancy and exemplary damages on the ground that the tenant had used or permitted the use of meth in the premises during the tenancy.
On 21 July 2025 the Tribunal ordered termination of the tenancy.
There was no ingoing methamphetamine testing and the landlord relied on the test result from a sample taken from windowsill in the premises that was installed at the beginning of the tenancy. The sample from the windowsill tested at a level of 59μg per 100cm². That is well above the level of 15μg that the Tribunal regards as the level above which there is a significant risk of harm to human health from the premises.
There were other samples from the premises that were well above the 15μg level. Only one other sample tested above 58μg. That sample tested at 121μg.
The Tribunal’s previous order states, “the evidence shows that 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”. Discussion and Decision
I put it to the landlord’s representative that without a negative ingoing test result, it is possible that the premises were already contaminated with meth at the start of the tenancy and that they needed remediation in any case. He accepted that it was a possibility, but he argued that it was unlikely.
He said that there was only one other sample that tested at a level above the sample from the windowsill and that it was unlikely that there would be two tenants, one following the other, who used or permitted to be used a significant quantity of meth in the premises.
He also said that the previous tenant was a retired gentleman who left the premises to go into a retirement home. It is unlikely that he was involved with the use of meth.
I agree that it is unlikely that there was meth contamination or significant contamination when this tenancy began. I am satisfied that it is the contamination during this tenancy that has caused the need for the premises to be decontaminated. The results of the meth testing are consistent with that.
It follows that the tenant is liable for the reasonable cost of decontaminating the premises. The landlord produced an invoice for the decontamination in the sum of $6,474.50. I find that to be reasonable and so I have awarded it. Exemplary Damages
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00.
Using or possessing meth is a serious criminal offence. It follows that using or permitting the use of meth in the premises in using or permitting the use of the premises for an unlawful purpose
It follows from my findings 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.
At the previous hearing, the tenant denied using meth or having knowledge that it was used in the premises. He said that it was possible that family members used meth in the premises while he was sleeping.
Given the levels of meth found in the premises (which are consistent with the manufacture of meth), it is not credible that if the tenant was not using it himself, that he would be unaware that others were using it in the premises. It is also relevant that the premises are a small studio unit.
The consequences of the contamination are very serious. There is the substantial cost of decontamination. There is also the effect that has had on the availability of the premises for others in need of social housing. The premises are still not ready for occupation although it appears that is partly due to the need to repair damage to the premises during the time between the Tribunal’s previous order and the tenant vacating the premises.
I find that a substantial award of exemplary damages towards the upper end of the range is required in this case. I have therefore awarded $1,200.
The landlord has succeeded and so I have awarded the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5340962 — Exemplary damages at 36 Jecks Place, Avonside, Christchurch 8061

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5340962 — Exemplary damages at 36 Jecks Place, Avonside, Christchurch 8061

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