What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4689530 about?

The tribunal order states: Suppression of the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4689530?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4689530?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Healthy homes, Property damage, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4689530?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9514281-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4689530 about?

The tribunal order states: Suppression of the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4689530?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4689530?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Healthy homes, Property damage, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4689530?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9514281-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4689530 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

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. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.

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.

The landlord served two 14-day notices on the tenant on 25 August 2023 and a further breach notice on 19 September 2023. Of the notices dated 25 August, one notice stated that the underfloor insulation under the property had been torn down by the tenant’s dogs. The other notice stated that the tenant had an additional dog at the property other than the agreed dog in the tenancy agreement. A previous notice had been sent to the tenant for the same issue back on 23 May. The notice dated 19 September refers to a recent test for methamphetamine at the premises and an increase of 12.37ug.

Firstly, I do not find sufficient evidence that the tenant’s dogs caused damage to the underfloor insulation. The landlord was unable to provide any photographs of the underneath of the premises at the start of the tenancy so there is no reliable way of knowing what state the insulation was in. The fact that there may be dog prints underneath does not prove that the dogs caused the damage. The landlord’s application is dismissed in this regard.

On balance, I am not satisfied that that the increase in levels of methamphetamine found at the premises after testing is of itself sufficient to prove the tenant has used the premises, or permitted the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose. There is no dispute that the tenant told the landlord he had found some drug paraphernalia underneath the premises about which he had concerns. The ingoing composite test records a level of 0.10ug/100cm2 for the 9 areas tested and the recent test carried out on 8 September records a level of 1.48ug/100/cm2. The difference is therefore 1.38ug/100cm2 and not the theoretical maximum of 12.37ug/100cm2 as noted on the breach notice.

The landlord provided a recent Tribunal case number [2023] NZTT 4534954 where the tenancy was terminated for methamphetamine contamination. In that case, no methamphetamine was detected on the ingoing test, composite tests found levels of 37ug/100cm2 on one five-sample and 11.6ug/100cm2 on another, and when individual room sampling was done this showed methamphetamine contamination on 12 out of the 13 samples at levels ranging from 0.7ug to 10ug. In this case, no individual room testing has been done and some pre-existing methamphetamine was noted at the start of the tenancy. The Adjudicator in the cited case was satisfied that the breach was of such a nature that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate as the levels of contamination indicated frequent or prolonged methamphetamine use at the premises. There is no such evidence of frequent or prolonged use of methamphetamine in this case.

I also note that the ingoing test was done 15 days before the start of this tenancy. The landlord was unable to provide any evidence as to who may have had access to the premises in this interim period.

As the burden is on the landlord to prove their case, I find that this part of the claim is not proven to the requisite standard and must be dismissed.

I find that the tenant is in breach of the tenancy agreement was only one dog is permitted and he has two dogs which have been living at the premises since at least 23 May when the first breach notice was sent. The tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.

However, on balance I do not find it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy at this time. While I share the landlord’s concerns around the increased risk of damage to the premises, I also note that the tenant has complained from the outset about strong urine smells from the carpet. On the landlord’s own evidence, although there are two recent occurrences, there are also signs of a large number of historical urine contaminations and pre-existing water ingress from a wall.

As the tenant is still technically in breach of the tenancy agreement, I find it fair and reasonable to give him a final opportunity to remove one of the dogs from the premises otherwise he runs the risk of the landlord taking further action to terminate this tenancy.

I have exercised my discretion and ordered name suppression for both parties in view of the previous Tribunal order with name suppression involving these parties.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

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. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

As the burden is on the landlord to prove their case, I find that this part of the claim is not proven to the requisite standard and must be dismissed.

I have exercised my discretion and ordered name suppression for both parties in view of the previous Tribunal order with name suppression involving these parties.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4689530 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4689530 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions