What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4720036 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4720036?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4720036?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4720036?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9713357-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4720036 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4720036?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4720036?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4720036?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9713357-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4720036 — 14-day notice

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing the tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. The landlord claims that the tenant has used the premises for an unlawful purpose in that it has stored stolen goods and drugs at the property.

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.
The landlord served a 14 day breach notice on the tenant regarding events which are alleged to have occurred in October 2023.
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The landlord claims that the tenant used the premises for an unlawful purpose.
The first issue for me to determine is whether it is more likely than not that that premises were used for an unlawful purpose. In support of that claim, the following evidence was produced. a. A police summary released under the Official Information Act which referred to four incidents at the property between October 2022 and February 2023. b. Evidence in person from [the witness] stating that he was next door to the subject property on the day police attended in October 2023. He reported that there were 3 to 4 police cars, rows of “stolen property” and that police advised that the tenant “won’t be going back for a long time”. c. A police media release relating to the seizure of stolen goods and drugs from an unspecified address. The media release refers to a “person of interest” facing unspecified charges.
The landlord submitted that I should terminate the tenancy because it was “local knowledge” that the police media release related to this tenant and tenancy address. “Local knowledge” is not reliable evidence. As the Tribunal noted in Oaks Property Management Limited v Tenant [2022] NZTT 4345545 in relation to alleged anti-social behaviour: “Unless the Tribunal has evidence directly from the people who saw or heard the antisocial behaviour, or has evidence such as photographs or videos which show the antisocial behaviour or Police reports or noise control reports which describe the behaviour, it cannot act simply on what the landlord has been told by neighbours. When the landlord gives evidence of what they have been told, but not witnessed themselves it is hearsay. Hearsay evidence is evidence that is not directly seen, heard or spoken by the person that is giving the evidence to the Tribunal.... the landlord has the burden of proof of proving that the tenant is engaging in any antisocial behaviour, this may mean that the neighbours will be called upon to give evidence or should provide any documentary evidence such as photographs or video recordings to the landlord. A landlord who is unable to meet the evidential burden will not be able to prove their claim.”
I have considered [the witness]’s direct evidence of what he saw at the property on 20 October 2023. [The witness] saw police present, he saw goods lined up. He did not see the tenant, he did not see drugs, he said that the police did not refer to drugs in his discussion with them. I cannot conclude from [the witness]’s evidence that it is more likely than not that the police media release related to this property or this tenant. There is no evidence, other than alleged, hearsay “local knowledge”, to tie the police media release to this tenancy.
The landlord submitted that the Tribunal should take account of the information provided by the Police regarding incidents at the property between October 2023 and February 2023. Two of those reports refer to allegedly stolen vehicles. However, there is no evidence to identify whether charges were laid, and if so, against whom the charges were laid.
The landlord also advised that the Police have declined to provide any corroborative evidence in support of this application. There is no evidence of the tenant being charged and no evidence of what those charges are (if any).
I have considered the totality of the landlord’s evidence. The overall impression is that illegal activity may have occurred at the property. However, the evidence, as a whole, does not prove that it is more likely than not that the tenant has used the property for an unlawful purpose. The application is dismissed.
Given the serious nature of the allegations against tenant and the lack of reliable corroborative evidence, I have suppressed the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing the tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. The landlord claims that the tenant has used the premises for an unlawful purpose in that it has stored stolen goods and drugs at the property.

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.
The landlord served a 14 day breach notice on the tenant regarding events which are alleged to have occurred in October 2023.
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The landlord claims that the tenant used the premises for an unlawful purpose.
The first issue for me to determine is whether it is more likely than not that that premises were used for an unlawful purpose. In support of that claim, the following evidence was produced. a. A police summary released under the Official Information Act which referred to four incidents at the property between October 2022 and February 2023. b. Evidence in person from [the witness] stating that he was next door to the subject property on the day police attended in October 2023. He reported that there were 3 to 4 police cars, rows of “stolen property” and that police advised that the tenant “won’t be going back for a long time”. c. A police media release relating to the seizure of stolen goods and drugs from an unspecified address. The media release refers to a “person of interest” facing unspecified charges.
The landlord submitted that I should terminate the tenancy because it was “local knowledge” that the police media release related to this tenant and tenancy address. “Local knowledge” is not reliable evidence. As the Tribunal noted in Oaks Property Management Limited v Tenant [2022] NZTT 4345545 in relation to alleged anti-social behaviour: “Unless the Tribunal has evidence directly from the people who saw or heard the antisocial behaviour, or has evidence such as photographs or videos which show the antisocial behaviour or Police reports or noise control reports which describe the behaviour, it cannot act simply on what the landlord has been told by neighbours. When the landlord gives evidence of what they have been told, but not witnessed themselves it is hearsay. Hearsay evidence is evidence that is not directly seen, heard or spoken by the person that is giving the evidence to the Tribunal.... the landlord has the burden of proof of proving that the tenant is engaging in any antisocial behaviour, this may mean that the neighbours will be called upon to give evidence or should provide any documentary evidence such as photographs or video recordings to the landlord. A landlord who is unable to meet the evidential burden will not be able to prove their claim.”
I have considered [the witness]’s direct evidence of what he saw at the property on 20 October 2023. [The witness] saw police present, he saw goods lined up. He did not see the tenant, he did not see drugs, he said that the police did not refer to drugs in his discussion with them. I cannot conclude from [the witness]’s evidence that it is more likely than not that the police media release related to this property or this tenant. There is no evidence, other than alleged, hearsay “local knowledge”, to tie the police media release to this tenancy.
The landlord submitted that the Tribunal should take account of the information provided by the Police regarding incidents at the property between October 2023 and February 2023. Two of those reports refer to allegedly stolen vehicles. However, there is no evidence to identify whether charges were laid, and if so, against whom the charges were laid.
The landlord also advised that the Police have declined to provide any corroborative evidence in support of this application. There is no evidence of the tenant being charged and no evidence of what those charges are (if any).
I have considered the totality of the landlord’s evidence. The overall impression is that illegal activity may have occurred at the property. However, the evidence, as a whole, does not prove that it is more likely than not that the tenant has used the property for an unlawful purpose. The application is dismissed.
Given the serious nature of the allegations against tenant and the lack of reliable corroborative evidence, I have suppressed the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4720036 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4720036 — 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