What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5501183?

The tribunal order states: Michael Lafferty must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $428.00

How much money was awarded in case 5501183?

Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5501183?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5501183?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13671481-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5501183?

The tribunal order states: Michael Lafferty must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $428.00

How much money was awarded in case 5501183?

Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5501183?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5501183?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13671481-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

38 Concord Place, Burwood, Christchurch 8083 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5501183 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5501183 — net $428.00 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
Exemplary Damages	$400.00	Exemplary Damages
Net award	$428.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$428.00

Order

Michael Lafferty must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $428.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
Otautahi Community Housing Trust is granted possession of the premises at 38 Concord Place, Burwood, Christchurch 8083 immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the remote hearing.
The tenant did not attend the hearing by Teams video link or by telephone. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given. I am satisfied that notice of the hearing was given to the tenant.
The landlord has applied for possession of the premises following the termination of the tenancy.
Testing for methamphetamine contamination was carried out by the landlord.
Section 59B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides; 59B Termination where regulations prescribe testing methods and maximum inhabitable level of contamination (1) This section applies if testing in accordance with a relevant prescribed method establishes contamination by a contaminant, in any part of the premises, at a level that is above a relevant maximum inhabitable level prescribed for that contaminant. (2) If the contamination has occurred as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement (whether for a fixed-term tenancy or a periodic tenancy),— (a) the whole of the premises is treated as uninhabitable; and (b) if the tenant is not in breach, the rent abates; and (c) the party who is not in breach may give notice to the other party terminating the tenancy. (3) If the contamination has occurred otherwise than as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement (whether for a fixed-term tenancy or a periodic tenancy), then, unless subsection (4) applies,— (a) the whole of the premises is treated as uninhabitable; and (b) the rent abates; and (c) either party may give notice to the other terminating the tenancy. (4) However, for the purposes of subsection (3), if the only part of the premises that is established to be contaminated above the maximum inhabitable level is a remote and inconsequential part of the premises (see subsection (8)),— (a) the rent abates accordingly; and (b) either party may apply to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy. (5) On an application under subsection (4)(b), the Tribunal may make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied that it would be unreasonable to require the landlord to decontaminate the premises or (as the case may require) to require the tenant to continue with the tenancy albeit at a reduced rent. (6) Where a landlord gives notice of termination under this section, the period of notice is not less than 7 days. (7) Where a tenant gives notice of termination under this section, the period of notice is not less than 2 days. (8) In this section, a part of the premises is remote and inconsequential if— (a) it is physically located away from, or physically closed off to, the rest of the premises in a way that is likely to prevent the spread of the contaminant to the rest of the premises (or is capable of being, and, after contamination is established, is, physically removed from or physically closed off to the rest of the premises in a way that is likely to prevent that spread); and (b) the rest of the premises can reasonably be used, without that part, as residential premises under the tenancy agreement.
Samples were obtained from the premises on 23 April 2026.
Testing of the samples was conducted by Hills Laboratories in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Managing Methamphetamine Contamination) Regulations 2026 (“the Regulations”), which came into force on 16 April 2026.
The test results show some levels of methamphetamine above the prescribed maximum inhabitable level of 30 micrograms per 100cm2 (all results referred to in this order are per 100cm2). That level being prescribed in the Regulations.
The results showed levels of 34 micrograms in the bedroom, 57 in the living area and 82 in the kitchen. All test results were positive for methamphetamine residue, but some were below the prescribed maximum of 30.
The landlord claims that the contamination has occurred other than as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement. (s.59B (3) RTA).There is no allegation by the landlord that this tenant has used methamphetamine at the premises.
Section 59B RTA provides that in those circumstances, a landlord may give a notice to terminate the tenancy, except where the contaminated area of the premises is an “remote and inconsequential” part of the premises, as that term is defined above.
The premises are a small one-bedroom unit. There is also a kitchen, living room, laundry and a bathroom. The total area is slightly over 30m2. The three areas showing contamination above the maximum inhabitable level of 30 micrograms are the three larger rooms. I am not persuaded on the evidence that the contaminated areas are “remote and inconsequential.”
Section 59B(3) RTA provides that where the contaminated areas are not remote and inconsequential, either party may give notice to terminate the tenancy.
Where the party giving the notice is the landlord, the period of notice must be no less than 7 days (s.59B(6) RTA).
The landlord gave the tenant a notice to terminate the tenancy. The notice is dated 29 April 2026 and required the tenant to leave the premises by no later than 11.30 pm on 11 May 2026.
The landlord went to the premises on 12 May 2026 to take photos. The tenant was still residing at the premises.
The landlord went to the premises again on 26 May 2026. The tenant’s car was parked at the unit and the tenant’s belongings remained.
I find on the evidence that the tenant has not vacated the premises.
Possession is granted to the landlord as it is less than 90 days after the date when the tenancy terminated (s.64 RTA)
Otautahi Community Housing Trust claims the tenant did not vacate the premises on 11 May 2026, the date the tenancy ended.
A tenant must vacate the premises on the termination of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(e)(i) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 40(3A)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant remains at the premises. I find they have 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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant received the notice to terminate the tenancy from the landlord. The tenant was aware that the notice required him to vacate. His ongoing failure to vacate can only be considered an intentional act. It is in the best interest of the landlord, the tenant (for health reasons, the premises being contaminated) and tenants generally to comply with notices to terminate a tenancy.
Having reviewed the evidence, I consider that an award at the lower end of the scale remains appropriate. I am not aware of any previous orders against this tenant for similar breaches. The tenant is ordered to pay exemplary damages of $400.00.
As Otautahi Community Housing Trust has wholly succeeded with the claim I must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5501183 — net $428.00 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
Exemplary Damages	$400.00	Exemplary Damages
Net award	$428.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$428.00

Order

Michael Lafferty must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $428.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
Otautahi Community Housing Trust is granted possession of the premises at 38 Concord Place, Burwood, Christchurch 8083 immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the remote hearing.
The tenant did not attend the hearing by Teams video link or by telephone. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given. I am satisfied that notice of the hearing was given to the tenant.
The landlord has applied for possession of the premises following the termination of the tenancy.
Testing for methamphetamine contamination was carried out by the landlord.
Section 59B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides; 59B Termination where regulations prescribe testing methods and maximum inhabitable level of contamination (1) This section applies if testing in accordance with a relevant prescribed method establishes contamination by a contaminant, in any part of the premises, at a level that is above a relevant maximum inhabitable level prescribed for that contaminant. (2) If the contamination has occurred as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement (whether for a fixed-term tenancy or a periodic tenancy),— (a) the whole of the premises is treated as uninhabitable; and (b) if the tenant is not in breach, the rent abates; and (c) the party who is not in breach may give notice to the other party terminating the tenancy. (3) If the contamination has occurred otherwise than as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement (whether for a fixed-term tenancy or a periodic tenancy), then, unless subsection (4) applies,— (a) the whole of the premises is treated as uninhabitable; and (b) the rent abates; and (c) either party may give notice to the other terminating the tenancy. (4) However, for the purposes of subsection (3), if the only part of the premises that is established to be contaminated above the maximum inhabitable level is a remote and inconsequential part of the premises (see subsection (8)),— (a) the rent abates accordingly; and (b) either party may apply to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy. (5) On an application under subsection (4)(b), the Tribunal may make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied that it would be unreasonable to require the landlord to decontaminate the premises or (as the case may require) to require the tenant to continue with the tenancy albeit at a reduced rent. (6) Where a landlord gives notice of termination under this section, the period of notice is not less than 7 days. (7) Where a tenant gives notice of termination under this section, the period of notice is not less than 2 days. (8) In this section, a part of the premises is remote and inconsequential if— (a) it is physically located away from, or physically closed off to, the rest of the premises in a way that is likely to prevent the spread of the contaminant to the rest of the premises (or is capable of being, and, after contamination is established, is, physically removed from or physically closed off to the rest of the premises in a way that is likely to prevent that spread); and (b) the rest of the premises can reasonably be used, without that part, as residential premises under the tenancy agreement.
Samples were obtained from the premises on 23 April 2026.
Testing of the samples was conducted by Hills Laboratories in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Managing Methamphetamine Contamination) Regulations 2026 (“the Regulations”), which came into force on 16 April 2026.
The test results show some levels of methamphetamine above the prescribed maximum inhabitable level of 30 micrograms per 100cm2 (all results referred to in this order are per 100cm2). That level being prescribed in the Regulations.
The results showed levels of 34 micrograms in the bedroom, 57 in the living area and 82 in the kitchen. All test results were positive for methamphetamine residue, but some were below the prescribed maximum of 30.
The landlord claims that the contamination has occurred other than as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement. (s.59B (3) RTA).There is no allegation by the landlord that this tenant has used methamphetamine at the premises.
Section 59B RTA provides that in those circumstances, a landlord may give a notice to terminate the tenancy, except where the contaminated area of the premises is an “remote and inconsequential” part of the premises, as that term is defined above.
The premises are a small one-bedroom unit. There is also a kitchen, living room, laundry and a bathroom. The total area is slightly over 30m2. The three areas showing contamination above the maximum inhabitable level of 30 micrograms are the three larger rooms. I am not persuaded on the evidence that the contaminated areas are “remote and inconsequential.”
Section 59B(3) RTA provides that where the contaminated areas are not remote and inconsequential, either party may give notice to terminate the tenancy.
Where the party giving the notice is the landlord, the period of notice must be no less than 7 days (s.59B(6) RTA).
The landlord gave the tenant a notice to terminate the tenancy. The notice is dated 29 April 2026 and required the tenant to leave the premises by no later than 11.30 pm on 11 May 2026.
The landlord went to the premises on 12 May 2026 to take photos. The tenant was still residing at the premises.
The landlord went to the premises again on 26 May 2026. The tenant’s car was parked at the unit and the tenant’s belongings remained.
I find on the evidence that the tenant has not vacated the premises.
Possession is granted to the landlord as it is less than 90 days after the date when the tenancy terminated (s.64 RTA)
Otautahi Community Housing Trust claims the tenant did not vacate the premises on 11 May 2026, the date the tenancy ended.
A tenant must vacate the premises on the termination of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(e)(i) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 40(3A)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant remains at the premises. I find they have 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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant received the notice to terminate the tenancy from the landlord. The tenant was aware that the notice required him to vacate. His ongoing failure to vacate can only be considered an intentional act. It is in the best interest of the landlord, the tenant (for health reasons, the premises being contaminated) and tenants generally to comply with notices to terminate a tenancy.
Having reviewed the evidence, I consider that an award at the lower end of the scale remains appropriate. I am not aware of any previous orders against this tenant for similar breaches. The tenant is ordered to pay exemplary damages of $400.00.
As Otautahi Community Housing Trust has wholly succeeded with the claim I must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5501183 — Exemplary damages at 38 Concord Place, Burwood, Christchurch 8083

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5501183 — Exemplary damages at 38 Concord Place, Burwood, Christchurch 8083

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