What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4679993 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,280.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to

How much money was awarded in case 4679993?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,987.85 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4679993?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4679993?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9653425-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4679993 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,280.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to

How much money was awarded in case 4679993?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,987.85 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4679993?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4679993?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9653425-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4679993 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4679993 — net $728.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to [date	$1,987.85	Rent arrears to [date
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$728.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$728.29

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4679993 — net $728.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to [date	$1,987.85	Rent arrears to [date
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$728.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$728.29

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,280.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $ 728.29 immediately, as set out in the table below.

Reasons

[Property manager 1] and [Property manager 2] appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant.
The tenancy commenced on 21 April 2021 and was periodic. On 08 September 2023, the landlord filed a claim seeking termination for abandonment, rent arrears, and alleging that the tenant or someone at the property with the tenant’s permission had consumed methamphetamine at the property, committing an unlawful act. On 06 October 2023, the landlord filed a second claim, this time seeking expedited abandonment, an application that can be dealt with urgently. On [date], the Tribunal accepted that the property had been abandoned, and on [date], granted the landlord immediate possession. This left the claims for rent arrears and using the property for an unlawful purpose. In the material produced today, the landlord has included evidence relating to matters not included in either of the applications, nor have there been any amendments to include these claims. It is agreed that these should be included in any subsequent application.
The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”). Rent arrears
The landlord has produced an up-to-date rent summary. I note that the rent payments ceased on 25 August 2023. The landlord states, that prior to that, rent had been paid on behalf of the tenant by Work and Income. I am satisfied that the rent arrears at the end of the tenancy on [date] were $1,987.85. Unlawful use of property
The landlord claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by using or allowing the persons at the property with their permission to consume methamphetamine.
Section 40(2)(b) of the Act states that the tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose.
Tenants are responsible for the acts or omissions of others at the property with their permission that may result in breach of the terms of the agreement or provisions the Act
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 possessing methamphetamine is a criminal offence.
The landlord states that during a routine inspection on 17 August 2023, they noted a distinct change in the tenant’s behaviour. Physically, the tenant had noticeably deteriorated, and the property was in a disarray, whereas it had previously been clean and tidy. [Property manager 1], an experienced property manager, stated that these factors led the landlord to form the view that a test for illicit substances would be appropriate.
No pre tenancy testing had been conducted for the presence of illicit substances.
On 31 August 2023 testing was carried out by an accredited tester. Discrete samples were taken returning readings of 14.8 μg/100cm2 (“ug”) and 0.4ug in the lounge ,0.39ug and 0.43ug in each of the bedrooms, 0.39ug in the bathroom, and
73ug in the kitchen. On 17 June 2023 an independent contractor engaged by the landlord installed two new smoke alarms in the hallway and lounge. The smoke alarm in the hallway was missing, and a sample taken from the smoke alarm in the lounge returned a reading of 1.36ug. The landlord produced the contractor’s invoice. [Property manager 1] states that the smoke alarms installed were brand new out of the packet and that it was unlikely that any contamination had inadvertently occurred during installation.
[Property manager 1], who accompanied the tester, stated that they noticed an open drawer. Inside the drawer was a basket containing a glass pipe. The tester took a photograph of the basket containing the pipe and included it in their report, which has been produced. [Property manager 1] states that the items are as they appeared and were not moved or staged for the photograph. In their report, the tester states that the glass pipe is of a type typically used for the consuming of illicit substances. The bulb end of the pipe is blackened.
[Property manager 1] and [Property manager 2] also stated that during the inspection, an unknown male arrived at the property and said that were there to see the tenant. [Property manager 1] stated although the landlord did not impede the male from entering that the tenant appeared keen for them to leave before the male did so. [Property manager 2] states that she witnessed “100’s” of condoms spread around the property, and incense burning in one of the bedrooms. [Property manager 2] states she later discovered an online advertisement in which the tenant was offering personal services. The photographs taken during the inspection show unopened packets of condoms strewn around the property. There is no evidence of the online advertisement.
There is no dispute that the levels detected do not constitute damage caused by contamination 1 . However, levels above 0.4ug but below 15ug may result in liability for failing to leave the property reasonably clean.
There is no direct evidence that the tenant has either used methamphetamine or allowed others with their permission at the property to use methamphetamine. The evidence is circumstantial. The landlord states that together the evidence is 1 In May 2018 Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the then Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor, released a report "Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards”. The report noted that there is a lack of scientific evidence to prove that low- level third-hand methamphetamine exposure poses a health risk to humans. It stated that guidelines should be proportionate to risk and that exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect. It recommended retaining the level of 1.5μg/100cm2 where contamination resulted from manufacture, due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the process. sufficient to establish more likely that not that tenant is either directly or indirectly responsible for the breach.
On 11 September 23 the landlord emailed the tenant sharing the results of the testing and that they had located a pipe used for methamphetamine. The tenant replied “... I don’t smoke meth thanks”. Decision on unlawful use of property
After hearing from the landlord and considering the other evidence produced, I cannot be satisfied to the required standard that, more likely than not, the tenant has used or allowed others to use the property for an unlawful purpose.
There was no pre tenancy testing for the presence of methamphetamine. There is insufficient evidence to be satisfied that any contamination discovered on 31 August 2023 occurred during the tenancy.
The level of contamination detected on the smoke alarm installed on 17 June 2023, was less than 1.5ug, and the Tribunal cannot discount the possibility there may have been an inadvertent transfer of contaminant occurring during the installation of the alarm.
Although the bulb of the pipe appears blackened, suggesting that it has been used, it cannot be determined from the photograph where it has been used, by whom, or when.
The tenant has denied using methamphetamine.
The tenants change in demeanour and physical appearance may have been due to matters unrelated to the use of illicit substances.
I need to set aside the evidence that the tenant might be involved in providing personal services. The only reasonable inference I could draw from this is that individuals offering personal services and those utilising such services may have a higher likelihood of using illicit substances. However, based on the evidence, that is not a conclusion that the Tribunal can reach.
The claim is dismissed. Costs
As [The landlord/s] has partly succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
Section 95A (4) of the Act allows the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, to order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.
In the case of Erceg v Erceg [2016] NZSC 135 at [2]-[3],[13], and [18], the Supreme Court stated the principle of open justice was fundamental to the common law system of civil and criminal justice. The Court stated that it was well established that there were circumstances in which the interests of justice required departure from the general principle, but only to the extent required to serve the administration of justice. The Court referred to the administration of justice standard as capable of accommodating the particular circumstances of individual cases with consideration given to the broader public interest. The Court went onto endorse the principle in ASB Bank Ltd v AB [2010] 3 NZLR 427 (HC), stating, that there must be specific adverse consequences sufficient to justify an exception to the rule, adding that the threshold was a high one.
The more serious breach allegation made against the tenant has not been proven. While the facts and reasoning of the decision may be in the public interest, in these circumstances, I do not consider that interest necessarily extends to the tenant’s name or address of the property. Accordingly, I order suppression of the tenant’s name and the property address. The expeditated abandonment order dated [date] was not suppressed. In this case, naming the landlord may therefore also disclose the name of the tenant. On that basis, consider it prudent to exercise the discretion in section 95(4) and order suppression of the landlord’s name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4679993 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4679993 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions