What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4625209 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details,

How much money was awarded in case 4625209?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4625209?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4625209?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9322554-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4625209 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details,

How much money was awarded in case 4625209?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4625209?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4625209?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9322554-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4625209 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details, including the address of the tenancy.
The application for termination is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was conduct remotely.
The landlord has applied to terminate the periodic tenancy because of evidence of the use of the premises for illegal activity, which the tenant denies any knowledge of.
Both the owner of the property and the tenant received a letter dated 6 July 2023 from the New Zealand Police which read: RE: Notification of Hazardous Contamination Address: 5 Matau Close, Te Kauwhata 3710, New Zealand This notification is to formally advise you that on the 1st of March 2023 members of the Police National Clandestine Laboratory Response Team and ESR (Institute of Environmental Science and Research) attended the property of 5 Matau Close, Te Kauwhata, New Zealand. Within the address Police located chemicals and items of equipment used in the manufacture of methamphetamine. Scientific analysis of swabs taken from the address also detected excessive levels of methamphetamine in the garage. This notification is forwarded in the interest of public health and safety. An assessment of these premises may be required prior to future habitation.
The landlord said that she contacted the Police who told her that they had attended the premises on an unrelated matter, noticed some evidence of possible methamphetamine production and arranged for the Police National Clandestine Laboratory Response Team and ESR to attend.
The landlord said that because the evidence of contamination was in the garage only, they did not have grounds to terminate the tenancy on the basis that the premises were uninhabitable because of contamination. The landlord would like to test the house for methamphetamine, but the testers were reluctant to attend the property while the tenant is present.
The owners are concerned that if the premises are contaminated, they need to attend to decontamination as soon as possible and that their insurers may not cover this if the owners do not take steps to minimise the damage.
The tenant said that he has not used or manufactured methamphetamine at the house. He has no more information than the landlord. He received the same letter as the owner. He lives at the premises with his teenage son. He said that they have not been interviewed or charged with any offence.
The tenant is worried to hear that there is a possibility that the premises are contaminated. He would welcome the testing of the premises and is happy to leave the property for that to happen, even if it means he has to stay somewhere else overnight.
The landlord confirmed that the tenant has always been open. She said that even when he had forgotten that she was coming for an inspection, he was happy for her to come inside the property. There had been no issues.
The landlord did not specify which section of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 she was relying on. I have considered the application under sections 56 and 55B.
Under section 56 the Tribunal may terminate a tenancy where the tenant has breached their obligations and, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate.
Section 40(2)(b) says that the tenant shall not use the premises, or permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose. Although the letter from the Police is evidence of illegal activity at the premises, the tenant denies that he has used or manufactured methamphetamine at the premises. In the absence of any further evidence, I am not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities that the tenant has used or permitted the premises to be used for any unlawful purpose. That does not mean that it has not occurred there, but simply that there is insufficient evidence that it was the tenant who engaged in the activity or that he allowed it to happen. Therefore, I have not found that he is in breach of his responsibilities under section 40(2)(b).
Under section 55B, the Tribunal may terminate a periodic tenancy on the grounds of hardship where: a. without the order the landlord would suffer greater hardship than the tenant and b. because of the hardship it would be unreasonable to require the landlord to continue with the tenancy. See section 55B Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In making such an order the Tribunal must take into account the impact termination would have on the tenant.
It is understandable that the landlord was alarmed by the letter from the Police and wants to take appropriate steps to protect their property. However, testing of the property for methamphetamine contamination may take place without the tenancy being terminated. The tenant was clear that he does not want to lose his home, where he has lived for 18 months. Before that, his son’s mother lived there with their son. When she sadly died, he took over the tenancy and is committed to being a good father to his son.
Based on the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that the landlord’s hardship without the termination would be greater than the tenant’s hardship if the tenancy is terminated.
The application for termination is therefore dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was conduct remotely.

The landlord has applied to terminate the periodic tenancy because of evidence of the use of the premises for illegal activity, which the tenant denies any knowledge of.

Both the owner of the property and the tenant received a letter dated 6 July 2023 from the New Zealand Police which read: RE: Notification of Hazardous Contamination Address: 5 Matau Close, Te Kauwhata 3710, New Zealand This notification is to formally advise you that on the 1st of March 2023 members of the Police National Clandestine Laboratory Response Team and ESR (Institute of Environmental Science and Research) attended the property of 5 Matau Close, Te Kauwhata, New Zealand. Within the address Police located chemicals and items of equipment used in the manufacture of methamphetamine. Scientific analysis of swabs taken from the address also detected excessive levels of methamphetamine in the garage. This notification is forwarded in the interest of public health and safety. An assessment of these premises may be required prior to future habitation.

The landlord said that she contacted the Police who told her that they had attended the premises on an unrelated matter, noticed some evidence of possible methamphetamine production and arranged for the Police National Clandestine Laboratory Response Team and ESR to attend.

The landlord said that because the evidence of contamination was in the garage only, they did not have grounds to terminate the tenancy on the basis that the premises were uninhabitable because of contamination. The landlord would like to test the house for methamphetamine, but the testers were reluctant to attend the property while the tenant is present.

The owners are concerned that if the premises are contaminated, they need to attend to decontamination as soon as possible and that their insurers may not cover this if the owners do not take steps to minimise the damage.

The tenant said that he has not used or manufactured methamphetamine at the house. He has no more information than the landlord. He received the same letter as the owner. He lives at the premises with his teenage son. He said that they have not been interviewed or charged with any offence.

The tenant is worried to hear that there is a possibility that the premises are contaminated. He would welcome the testing of the premises and is happy to leave the property for that to happen, even if it means he has to stay somewhere else overnight.

The landlord confirmed that the tenant has always been open. She said that even when he had forgotten that she was coming for an inspection, he was happy for her to come inside the property. There had been no issues.

The landlord did not specify which section of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 she was relying on. I have considered the application under sections 56 and 55B.

Under section 56 the Tribunal may terminate a tenancy where the tenant has breached their obligations and, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate.

Section 40(2)(b) says that the tenant shall not use the premises, or permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose. Although the letter from the Police is evidence of illegal activity at the premises, the tenant denies that he has used or manufactured methamphetamine at the premises. In the absence of any further evidence, I am not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities that the tenant has used or permitted the premises to be used for any unlawful purpose. That does not mean that it has not occurred there, but simply that there is insufficient evidence that it was the tenant who engaged in the activity or that he allowed it to happen. Therefore, I have not found that he is in breach of his responsibilities under section 40(2)(b).

Under section 55B, the Tribunal may terminate a periodic tenancy on the grounds of hardship where: a. without the order the landlord would suffer greater hardship than the tenant and b. because of the hardship it would be unreasonable to require the landlord to continue with the tenancy. See section 55B Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

In making such an order the Tribunal must take into account the impact termination would have on the tenant.

It is understandable that the landlord was alarmed by the letter from the Police and wants to take appropriate steps to protect their property. However, testing of the property for methamphetamine contamination may take place without the tenancy being terminated. The tenant was clear that he does not want to lose his home, where he has lived for 18 months. Before that, his son’s mother lived there with their son. When she sadly died, he took over the tenancy and is committed to being a good father to his son.

Based on the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that the landlord’s hardship without the termination would be greater than the tenant’s hardship if the tenancy is terminated.

The application for termination is therefore dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4625209 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4625209 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions