What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5476546 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat Flat 4, 263 Ferry Road, Waltham,

How much money was awarded in case 5476546?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5476546?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5476546?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13479742-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5476546 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat Flat 4, 263 Ferry Road, Waltham,

How much money was awarded in case 5476546?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5476546?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5476546?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13479742-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 4, 263 Ferry Road, Waltham, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 5476546 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5476546 — net $28.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$28.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$28.00

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat Flat 4, 263 Ferry Road, Waltham, Christchurch 8011, Phillipstown Courts is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 11.59 pm, Sunday 4 May 2026.
[The tenant/s] must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $28.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing. The landlord attended by video and the tenant attended by telephone because she was unable to access the link to the video hearing.
The tenant was represented by Ms McGuigan a practice lead from Housing First Otautahi. Also in support was second practice lead JJ Manning, a court appointed property manager Peter lepper and key worker Alana Poi. Ms McGuigan, spoke on behalf of the support team and tenant, with her consent, explaining that the tenant had cognitive and health needs and required support. Although a formal application for representation had not been made, it was granted on this basis.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
The landlord withdrew all other claims.

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 landlord established that methamphetamine was used at the premises after providing a test conducted on 24 October 2025 prior to the tenancy starting on 28 October 2026.This was a test of 7 individual areas with accompanying photographs. The results showed very low readings for the presence of methamphetamine, within the margin of error.
A second test was completed on 23 March 2026 by the same testing agency, using the same laboratory for testing and conducted in the same locations. Photographs of the sample areas provided confirm this.
The results established the presence of Methamphetamine with results ranging from 14.2 μg to 0.68μg.
The tenant did not dispute that methamphetamine was used at the premises but said this was by other people at the premises.
The premises is located in a group of units that is managed by social housing providers. A discussion was held by the parties about the use of drugs ,drug selling and antisocial behaviour in this group of units. The tenant claimed that they did not feel safe involving the Police to stop people coming into her unit and trespassing everyone from the property.
The landlord said that they are in the process of testing each unit and seeking termination of the tenancies which return a positive methamphetamine result. While they were sympathetic to the tenants’ concerns, they raised that as a landlord they cannot trespass people from the tenants premises and there is some degree of responsibility on them to take action to prevent methamphetamine being used at the premises.
In the 5 months of the tenancy the methamphetamine test results showed a dramatic increase. The landlord was concerned if the tenancy continued then the methamphetamine level would increase resulting in damage and decontamination costs for the landlord.
The landlord sought termination on the basis that the tenant has contaminated the premises which is a breach of the RTA and tenancy agreement and the breach is not capable of remedy because it has already occurred.
While drug use constitutes a breach of a negative covenant, which is a contractual promise to refrain from certain conduct, see section 40(2)(b) RTA, the Tribunal must assess whether, having regard to the nature and extent of that breach, it would be inequitable under section 56(1)(c) RTA to refuse termination.
Housing First Otautahi are a community organisation which helps people into accommodation and agreed that the tenant need to find new accommodation. The confirmed that she has given a 21 days’ notice ending the tenancy on 4 May 2026. They need this time to find new suitable accommodation for the tenant.
The parties agreed that the tenancy will terminate on this date and wanted it to be recorded as an order of the Tribunal.
As the parties have agreed to the termination of the tenancy there is no need to consider if it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy and termination of the tenancy is ordered.
Because Otautahi Community Housing Trust has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5476546 — net $28.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$28.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$28.00

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat Flat 4, 263 Ferry Road, Waltham, Christchurch 8011, Phillipstown Courts is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 11.59 pm, Sunday 4 May 2026.
[The tenant/s] must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $28.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing. The landlord attended by video and the tenant attended by telephone because she was unable to access the link to the video hearing.
The tenant was represented by Ms McGuigan a practice lead from Housing First Otautahi. Also in support was second practice lead JJ Manning, a court appointed property manager Peter lepper and key worker Alana Poi. Ms McGuigan, spoke on behalf of the support team and tenant, with her consent, explaining that the tenant had cognitive and health needs and required support. Although a formal application for representation had not been made, it was granted on this basis.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
The landlord withdrew all other claims.

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 landlord established that methamphetamine was used at the premises after providing a test conducted on 24 October 2025 prior to the tenancy starting on 28 October 2026.This was a test of 7 individual areas with accompanying photographs. The results showed very low readings for the presence of methamphetamine, within the margin of error.
A second test was completed on 23 March 2026 by the same testing agency, using the same laboratory for testing and conducted in the same locations. Photographs of the sample areas provided confirm this.
The results established the presence of Methamphetamine with results ranging from 14.2 μg to 0.68μg.
The tenant did not dispute that methamphetamine was used at the premises but said this was by other people at the premises.
The premises is located in a group of units that is managed by social housing providers. A discussion was held by the parties about the use of drugs ,drug selling and antisocial behaviour in this group of units. The tenant claimed that they did not feel safe involving the Police to stop people coming into her unit and trespassing everyone from the property.
The landlord said that they are in the process of testing each unit and seeking termination of the tenancies which return a positive methamphetamine result. While they were sympathetic to the tenants’ concerns, they raised that as a landlord they cannot trespass people from the tenants premises and there is some degree of responsibility on them to take action to prevent methamphetamine being used at the premises.
In the 5 months of the tenancy the methamphetamine test results showed a dramatic increase. The landlord was concerned if the tenancy continued then the methamphetamine level would increase resulting in damage and decontamination costs for the landlord.
The landlord sought termination on the basis that the tenant has contaminated the premises which is a breach of the RTA and tenancy agreement and the breach is not capable of remedy because it has already occurred.
While drug use constitutes a breach of a negative covenant, which is a contractual promise to refrain from certain conduct, see section 40(2)(b) RTA, the Tribunal must assess whether, having regard to the nature and extent of that breach, it would be inequitable under section 56(1)(c) RTA to refuse termination.
Housing First Otautahi are a community organisation which helps people into accommodation and agreed that the tenant need to find new accommodation. The confirmed that she has given a 21 days’ notice ending the tenancy on 4 May 2026. They need this time to find new suitable accommodation for the tenant.
The parties agreed that the tenancy will terminate on this date and wanted it to be recorded as an order of the Tribunal.
As the parties have agreed to the termination of the tenancy there is no need to consider if it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy and termination of the tenancy is ordered.
Because Otautahi Community Housing Trust has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5476546 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Flat 4, 263 Ferry Road, Waltham, Christchurch

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5476546 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Flat 4, 263 Ferry Road, Waltham, Christchurch

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions