What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5516138 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $12,341.72

How much money was awarded in case 5516138?

Property Damage: $1,800.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Meth Decontamination: $5,393.50 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing: $977.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit: $156.57 awarded to tenant; Sealing, Painting And Redecoration: $4,551.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5516138?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5516138?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14040350-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5516138 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $12,341.72

How much money was awarded in case 5516138?

Property Damage: $1,800.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Meth Decontamination: $5,393.50 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing: $977.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit: $156.57 awarded to tenant; Sealing, Painting And Redecoration: $4,551.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5516138?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5516138?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14040350-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

14 Hoiho Lane, Sydenham, Christchurch 8023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5516138 — Exemplary damages

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5516138 — net $12,341.72 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Meth testing	$977.50		Meth testing
Meth decontamination	$5,393.50		Meth decontamination
Sealing, painting and redecoration	$4,551.29		Sealing, painting and redecoration
Exemplary damages	$1,800.00		Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Rent credit		$156.57	Rent credit
Total award	$12,750.29	$156.57
Net award	$12,341.72
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$12,341.72

Only the landlord’s representatives attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation for the cost of methamphetamine (meth) testing and remediation of the premises and exemplary damages for unlawful use of the premises. The Law

The landlord must prove that the tenant caused or permitted the contamination, or that it was caused by someone at the premises with the tenant’s consent. The landlord must also prove that due to the contamination, the premises have been damaged or are not reasonably clean.

Regulations made under s138C of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) provide a maximum acceptable meth contamination level of 15μg/100cm 2 for premises and a maximum inhabitable level of 30μg/100cm 2 . The regulations came into force on 16 April 2026. The Tribunal applied the 15μg/100cm² threshold before the regulations came into effect.

The regulations prescribe how testing for meth and decontamination of premises contaminated by meth must be carried out. Background

This tenancy began in May 2021 when the premises were newly built. They are a one-bedroom unit consisting of an open plan kitchen, dining and living area, a bedroom and bathroom.

The tenant has informed the landlord that he vacated the premises in mid- January 2026. The landlord was not informed of that until mid-March. The tenant gave no notice to terminate the tenancy.

The tenant claims to have mailed the keys for the premises to the landlord but the landlord denies ever receiving them.

The landlord had the premises tested for meth in March 2026 and the test report records results of 15.5μg/100² and 63μg/100cm² in the kitchen/living area. Results from other areas in the premises were below 15μg/100cm².

The landlord then had the premises decontaminated and redecorated. The redecoration was needed for the open plan area due to the harsh cleaning required for the decontamination.

The landlord had the entire premises redecorated but it has claimed only the proportion of the cost relating to the open plan area. Discussion and Decision

I find that the premises were not contaminated by meth at the start of the tenancy. There was no meth testing at that time, but the premises were newly built and therefore it is unlikely that were contaminated by meth before the tenancy began. The landlords produced other evidence such as a negative meth test of another unit in the same development at the time they were completed and of meth testing of the contractor’s employees. In my view that is helpful but not required.

The tenant has offered an exculpatory explanation for the meth contamination to the landlord. He has suggested that someone entered the premises after he vacated them and contaminated them with meth before the landlord took possession.

The landlord rejects that explanation. There is no evidence that anyone broke into the premises and neighbours have told the landlord that they did not see anyone coming from or going to them after the tenant vacated. It is also instructive that the tenant vacated the premises without informing the landlord which has allowed him to proffer this convenient explanation for the contamination.

I find that the premises were not contaminated with meth after the tenant vacated. It follows that they must have been contaminated during the tenancy. The tenant has not explained how that could have happened other than by him or with his permission or knowledge. I find, therefore, that the tenant is responsible for the contamination.

The awards I have made for compensation were proved by the production of the decontamination scope of work and by invoices for the work.

The landlord also claims exemplary damages because the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by using or manufacturing meth in them.

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.

It is unlawful under the Misuse of Drugs Act to possess or use meth.

The tenant has used or permitted the use of meth in the premises and therefore I find he 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.

I find that the tenant committed the unlawful act intentionally and that in all the circumstances there should be an award of exemplary damages. The use of meth in rented premises has serious consequences for the landlord including substantial cost. The landlord has incurred substantial costs in this case and not all of them have been claimed in this application. It has put the landlord to time and trouble, and it has prevented the premises being offered to someone else in need of them when the tenancy ended.

The contamination was substantial. It is consistent with the manufacture of meth. The tenant has denied knowledge of it but the evidence to the contrary is compelling. He has not offered anything by way of mitigation. I have therefore awarded the maximum allowable exemplary damages in the sum of $1,800.

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

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5516138 — net $12,341.72 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Meth testing	$977.50		Meth testing
Meth decontamination	$5,393.50		Meth decontamination
Sealing, painting and redecoration	$4,551.29		Sealing, painting and redecoration
Exemplary damages	$1,800.00		Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Rent credit		$156.57	Rent credit
Total award	$12,750.29	$156.57
Net award	$12,341.72
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$12,341.72

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $12,341.72 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre must pay the $253 bond (6415025-001) to the landlord immediately.

Reasons

Only the landlord’s representatives attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation for the cost of methamphetamine (meth) testing and remediation of the premises and exemplary damages for unlawful use of the premises. The Law
The landlord must prove that the tenant caused or permitted the contamination, or that it was caused by someone at the premises with the tenant’s consent. The landlord must also prove that due to the contamination, the premises have been damaged or are not reasonably clean.
Regulations made under s138C of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) provide a maximum acceptable meth contamination level of 15μg/100cm 2 for premises and a maximum inhabitable level of 30μg/100cm 2 . The regulations came into force on 16 April 2026. The Tribunal applied the 15μg/100cm² threshold before the regulations came into effect.
The regulations prescribe how testing for meth and decontamination of premises contaminated by meth must be carried out. Background
This tenancy began in May 2021 when the premises were newly built. They are a one-bedroom unit consisting of an open plan kitchen, dining and living area, a bedroom and bathroom.
The tenant has informed the landlord that he vacated the premises in mid- January 2026. The landlord was not informed of that until mid-March. The tenant gave no notice to terminate the tenancy.
The tenant claims to have mailed the keys for the premises to the landlord but the landlord denies ever receiving them.
The landlord had the premises tested for meth in March 2026 and the test report records results of 15.5μg/100² and 63μg/100cm² in the kitchen/living area. Results from other areas in the premises were below 15μg/100cm².
The landlord then had the premises decontaminated and redecorated. The redecoration was needed for the open plan area due to the harsh cleaning required for the decontamination.
The landlord had the entire premises redecorated but it has claimed only the proportion of the cost relating to the open plan area. Discussion and Decision
I find that the premises were not contaminated by meth at the start of the tenancy. There was no meth testing at that time, but the premises were newly built and therefore it is unlikely that were contaminated by meth before the tenancy began. The landlords produced other evidence such as a negative meth test of another unit in the same development at the time they were completed and of meth testing of the contractor’s employees. In my view that is helpful but not required.
The tenant has offered an exculpatory explanation for the meth contamination to the landlord. He has suggested that someone entered the premises after he vacated them and contaminated them with meth before the landlord took possession.
The landlord rejects that explanation. There is no evidence that anyone broke into the premises and neighbours have told the landlord that they did not see anyone coming from or going to them after the tenant vacated. It is also instructive that the tenant vacated the premises without informing the landlord which has allowed him to proffer this convenient explanation for the contamination.
I find that the premises were not contaminated with meth after the tenant vacated. It follows that they must have been contaminated during the tenancy. The tenant has not explained how that could have happened other than by him or with his permission or knowledge. I find, therefore, that the tenant is responsible for the contamination.
The awards I have made for compensation were proved by the production of the decontamination scope of work and by invoices for the work.
The landlord also claims exemplary damages because the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by using or manufacturing meth in them.
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.
It is unlawful under the Misuse of Drugs Act to possess or use meth.
The tenant has used or permitted the use of meth in the premises and therefore I find he 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.
I find that the tenant committed the unlawful act intentionally and that in all the circumstances there should be an award of exemplary damages. The use of meth in rented premises has serious consequences for the landlord including substantial cost. The landlord has incurred substantial costs in this case and not all of them have been claimed in this application. It has put the landlord to time and trouble, and it has prevented the premises being offered to someone else in need of them when the tenancy ended.
The contamination was substantial. It is consistent with the manufacture of meth. The tenant has denied knowledge of it but the evidence to the contrary is compelling. He has not offered anything by way of mitigation. I have therefore awarded the maximum allowable exemplary damages in the sum of $1,800.
The landlord has succeeded and so I have awarded the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5516138 — Exemplary damages at 14 Hoiho Lane, Sydenham, Christchurch 8023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5516138 — Exemplary damages at 14 Hoiho Lane, Sydenham, Christchurch 8023

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.