What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5476512?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Simon Court at Unit/Flat 10, 263 Ferry Road, Waltham,

How much money was awarded in case 5476512?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5476512?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5476512?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13469335-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5476512?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Simon Court at Unit/Flat 10, 263 Ferry Road, Waltham,

How much money was awarded in case 5476512?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5476512?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5476512?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13469335-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 10, 263 Ferry Road, Waltham, Christchurch 8011, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5476512 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The tenancy of Simon Court at Unit/Flat 10, 263 Ferry Road, Waltham, Christchurch 8011, Phillipstown Courts is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 10am on Monday, 20 April 2026.

Simon Court must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $28.00 immediately, being the filing fee on this application.

Reasons

A representative of the landlord attended the hearing by video.

The tenant did not join the hearing by the video link or dial-in instructions in the Notice of Hearing.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy and reimbursement of the Tribunal filing fee.

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.

The Landlord claims that the tenant has breached its obligations under the Tenancy Agreement and the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) by allowing the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose being the use of the Methamphetamine. The Landlord says that this a breach not capable of remedy. See s40 and 56 RTA.

The landlord provided the following evidence which I accept establishes that the tenants, or someone at the premises with their permission, has used methamphetamine at the premises during the tenancy: a. A pre-tenancy methamphetamine test establishes that there was no presence of methamphetamine (recorded as less than 0.04μg/100cm² of methamphetamine present) at the premises before the tenancy started on 12 January 2023; b. Following reports from contractors at this complex, the landlord had reason to suspect drug use at the premises and arranged for methamphetamine testing to be completed in March 2026; c. Discrete testing showed the following levels of methamphetamine at the premises (a studio unit), expressed in micrograms per 100 cubic centimetres (μg/100cm²): Kitchen/Living/Bed A--40; Kitchen/Living/Bed B—5.4; Kitchen/Living/Bed C--55; Entrance A--46; Entrance B --22; Bathroom A—16.1; Bathroom B—

I find that the pre-tenancy testing report establishes that the premises were not contaminated by methamphetamine when this tenancy started. The tenant did not attend the hearing to give any evidence about how the presence of methamphetamine residue at the premises might have been caused. 1 However, based on all the available evidence, I find on the balance of probabilities that methamphetamine was used by the tenant, or someone living at the property with the tenant’s permission, during the tenancy.

Using or permitting the use of methamphetamine at the premises is a criminal act and a breach of section 40(2)(b) RTA. It is a breach incapable of remedy. 2 1 The Landlord said that the tenant has advised that he is not residing at the property and has allowed someone else to live there while he is away. He claims that he does not know the name of that person. 2 See Clarke v Housing New Zealand [2008] NZDC

The readings are well above the 15 μg/100cm² level applied by the Tribunal to establish that damage has been caused by methamphetamine use at the premises. 3 Having regard to the nature and extent of the breach and the level of contamination at these premises, the tenancy is terminated. See s56 RTA.

As the Landlord was the successful party, I also award reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee.

Order

The tenancy of Simon Court at Unit/Flat 10, 263 Ferry Road, Waltham, Christchurch 8011, Phillipstown Courts is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 10am on Monday, 20 April 2026.
Simon Court must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $28.00 immediately, being the filing fee on this application.

Reasons

A representative of the landlord attended the hearing by video.
The tenant did not join the hearing by the video link or dial-in instructions in the Notice of Hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy and reimbursement of the Tribunal filing fee.
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.
The Landlord claims that the tenant has breached its obligations under the Tenancy Agreement and the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) by allowing the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose being the use of the Methamphetamine. The Landlord says that this a breach not capable of remedy. See s40 and 56 RTA.
The landlord provided the following evidence which I accept establishes that the tenants, or someone at the premises with their permission, has used methamphetamine at the premises during the tenancy: a. A pre-tenancy methamphetamine test establishes that there was no presence of methamphetamine (recorded as less than 0.04μg/100cm² of methamphetamine present) at the premises before the tenancy started on 12 January 2023; b. Following reports from contractors at this complex, the landlord had reason to suspect drug use at the premises and arranged for methamphetamine testing to be completed in March 2026; c. Discrete testing showed the following levels of methamphetamine at the premises (a studio unit), expressed in micrograms per 100 cubic centimetres (μg/100cm²): Kitchen/Living/Bed A--40; Kitchen/Living/Bed B—5.4; Kitchen/Living/Bed C--55; Entrance A--46; Entrance B --22; Bathroom A—16.1; Bathroom B—
9.
I find that the pre-tenancy testing report establishes that the premises were not contaminated by methamphetamine when this tenancy started. The tenant did not attend the hearing to give any evidence about how the presence of methamphetamine residue at the premises might have been caused. 1 However, based on all the available evidence, I find on the balance of probabilities that methamphetamine was used by the tenant, or someone living at the property with the tenant’s permission, during the tenancy.
Using or permitting the use of methamphetamine at the premises is a criminal act and a breach of section 40(2)(b) RTA. It is a breach incapable of remedy. 2 1 The Landlord said that the tenant has advised that he is not residing at the property and has allowed someone else to live there while he is away. He claims that he does not know the name of that person. 2 See Clarke v Housing New Zealand [2008] NZDC
The readings are well above the 15 μg/100cm² level applied by the Tribunal to establish that damage has been caused by methamphetamine use at the premises. 3 Having regard to the nature and extent of the breach and the level of contamination at these premises, the tenancy is terminated. See s56 RTA.
As the Landlord was the successful party, I also award reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5476512 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 10, 263 Ferry Road, Waltham, Christchurch 8011,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5476512 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 10, 263 Ferry Road, Waltham, Christchurch 8011,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions