What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4916713?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of David Warren at 24 Roimata Place, Woolston, Christchurch

How much money was awarded in case 4916713?

Cleaning: $2,002.11 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4916713?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4916713?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10725122-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4916713?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of David Warren at 24 Roimata Place, Woolston, Christchurch

How much money was awarded in case 4916713?

Cleaning: $2,002.11 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4916713?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4916713?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10725122-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

24 Roimata Place, Woolston, Christchurch 8023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4916713 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4916713 — net $2,222.55 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Meth testing/Cleaning	$2,002.11	Meth testing/Cleaning
Exemplary damages - unlawful purpose	$200.00	Exemplary damages - unlawful purpose
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,222.55
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,222.55

Order

The tenancy of David Warren at 24 Roimata Place, Woolston, Christchurch 8023 is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 5.00pm, Sunday 20 October 2024.
David Warren must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $2,222.55 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Wyatt and Mr Woodbury attended on behalf of the landlord.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, compensation, exemplary damages and refund of the filing fee.

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 under section 56(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
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 moved from 23 Roimata Place to 24 Roimata Place in February 2023. There was a methamphetamine test conducted at the first address a few days after the tenant moved out. This testing showed extremely high levels of methamphetamine. The tenant had lived in that property for 17 years.
The tenant was given a tenancy at 24 Roimata Place with this diary note being made by the landlord’s Tenancy Advisor at the time: “[The tenant] is aware that OCHT will now make regular visits to complete a meth test each time. If the test comes back high, he will lose his home with the Trust.”
The landlord provided copies of the methamphetamine test carried out at the previous address and the six tests carried out at the current tenancy address to support its claim.
The tenant was aware that testing was taking place each time and was provided with the results. He was present on at least one occasion while testing was being carried out.
The last methamphetamine test carried out in June 2024 showed a reduced level of methamphetamine at all but one testing site.
The landlord’s representative was in attendance when this testing was completed and gave evidence that he had seen a significant quantity of cleaning products (including sugar soap) at the premises on that date.
The landlord gave evidence that they believed that the testing areas had been cleaned prior to testing taking place. One area in the bathroom showed an elevated methamphetamine level which suggests that methamphetamine was still being used in the property between the two tests and supports the landlord’s view that cleaning had taken place in other areas.
The tenant has breached their obligations by using, or allowing someone else to use, methamphetamine on the premises contrary to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 and section 40(2)(b) of the Act.
The breach is not capable of remedy.
The landlord is a social housing provider and is acutely aware of housing needs amongst the community. Money being spent on methamphetamine testing and decontamination is not available for other purposes. Properties are out of commission while they are being decontaminated and are not available for other deserving clients.
This tenant was aware that testing was taking place and that unsatisfactory results would mean the tenancy will be terminated.
In these circumstances it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
The landlord agreed to give the tenant a reasonable period of time to arrange other housing and I have allowed two months. Compensation
The landlord is claiming compensation for the last three methamphetamine tests and provided copies of invoices to support its claim ($2,002.11).
The tenant accepted responsibility for these cost at the hearing.
The amount ordered is proved. Exemplary damages
Otautahi Community Housing Trust claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by using methamphetamine on the property.
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose under section 40(2)(b) of the Act.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00 under section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish unlawful acts and to deter others.
It is unlawful to procure, possess, consume, smoke or otherwise use, any controlled drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 (Section 7(1)(a)). Methamphetamine is listed as a controlled drug under Schedule 1 of that Act.
The tenant said that it was mostly his visitors who used methamphetamine at his property and that he felt unable to stop them.
The landlord pointed to the evidence which supported a long history of methamphetamine use in this tenants previous and current properties.
I find 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 under section 109(3) of the Act.
The tenant had ample notice that continuing to use or allow others to use methamphetamine in this property would result in the tenancy being terminated. He was aware of the testing and the results on each occasion.
Although I consider that it is appropriate to award exemplary damages in this case, primarily due to the effect that this behaviour has on the landlord and the community that it serves (as detailed in paragraph 15 above), I am also mindful of the tenant’s financial and health circumstances and the fact that he has accepted liability for the substantial costs of the methamphetamine testing and I have awarded exemplary damages at the lower level to allow for these factors.
The tenant will pay $200.00 in exemplary damage. Filing fee
As Otautahi Community Housing Trust has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4916713 — net $2,222.55 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Meth testing/Cleaning	$2,002.11	Meth testing/Cleaning
Exemplary damages - unlawful purpose	$200.00	Exemplary damages - unlawful purpose
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,222.55
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,222.55

Order

The tenancy of David Warren at 24 Roimata Place, Woolston, Christchurch 8023 is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 5.00pm, Sunday 20 October 2024.
David Warren must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $2,222.55 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Wyatt and Mr Woodbury attended on behalf of the landlord.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, compensation, exemplary damages and refund of the filing fee.

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 under section 56(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
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 moved from 23 Roimata Place to 24 Roimata Place in February 2023. There was a methamphetamine test conducted at the first address a few days after the tenant moved out. This testing showed extremely high levels of methamphetamine. The tenant had lived in that property for 17 years.
The tenant was given a tenancy at 24 Roimata Place with this diary note being made by the landlord’s Tenancy Advisor at the time: “[The tenant] is aware that OCHT will now make regular visits to complete a meth test each time. If the test comes back high, he will lose his home with the Trust.”
The landlord provided copies of the methamphetamine test carried out at the previous address and the six tests carried out at the current tenancy address to support its claim.
The tenant was aware that testing was taking place each time and was provided with the results. He was present on at least one occasion while testing was being carried out.
The last methamphetamine test carried out in June 2024 showed a reduced level of methamphetamine at all but one testing site.
The landlord’s representative was in attendance when this testing was completed and gave evidence that he had seen a significant quantity of cleaning products (including sugar soap) at the premises on that date.
The landlord gave evidence that they believed that the testing areas had been cleaned prior to testing taking place. One area in the bathroom showed an elevated methamphetamine level which suggests that methamphetamine was still being used in the property between the two tests and supports the landlord’s view that cleaning had taken place in other areas.
The tenant has breached their obligations by using, or allowing someone else to use, methamphetamine on the premises contrary to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 and section 40(2)(b) of the Act.
The breach is not capable of remedy.
The landlord is a social housing provider and is acutely aware of housing needs amongst the community. Money being spent on methamphetamine testing and decontamination is not available for other purposes. Properties are out of commission while they are being decontaminated and are not available for other deserving clients.
This tenant was aware that testing was taking place and that unsatisfactory results would mean the tenancy will be terminated.
In these circumstances it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
The landlord agreed to give the tenant a reasonable period of time to arrange other housing and I have allowed two months. Compensation
The landlord is claiming compensation for the last three methamphetamine tests and provided copies of invoices to support its claim ($2,002.11).
The tenant accepted responsibility for these cost at the hearing.
The amount ordered is proved. Exemplary damages
Otautahi Community Housing Trust claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by using methamphetamine on the property.
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose under section 40(2)(b) of the Act.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00 under section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish unlawful acts and to deter others.
It is unlawful to procure, possess, consume, smoke or otherwise use, any controlled drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 (Section 7(1)(a)). Methamphetamine is listed as a controlled drug under Schedule 1 of that Act.
The tenant said that it was mostly his visitors who used methamphetamine at his property and that he felt unable to stop them.
The landlord pointed to the evidence which supported a long history of methamphetamine use in this tenants previous and current properties.
I find 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 under section 109(3) of the Act.
The tenant had ample notice that continuing to use or allow others to use methamphetamine in this property would result in the tenancy being terminated. He was aware of the testing and the results on each occasion.
Although I consider that it is appropriate to award exemplary damages in this case, primarily due to the effect that this behaviour has on the landlord and the community that it serves (as detailed in paragraph 15 above), I am also mindful of the tenant’s financial and health circumstances and the fact that he has accepted liability for the substantial costs of the methamphetamine testing and I have awarded exemplary damages at the lower level to allow for these factors.
The tenant will pay $200.00 in exemplary damage. Filing fee
As Otautahi Community Housing Trust has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4916713 — Cleanliness at 24 Roimata Place, Woolston, Christchurch 8023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4916713 — Cleanliness at 24 Roimata Place, Woolston, Christchurch 8023

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions